Rankin v Rankin - [2004] QDC 516

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Rankin v Rankin [2004] QDC 516

PARTIES:

BEVERLEY JEAN RANKIN
(Applicant)

v

THOMAS THEODORE RANKIN
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

2093 of 2003

DIVISION:

Civil Jurisdiction

PROCEEDING:

Application for Criminal Compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court

DELIVERED ON:

15 December 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 October 2004

JUDGE:

Tutt DCJ

ORDER:

That the respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $7,500.00 as compensation for injuries caused by him to the applicant for which the respondent was convicted by this Court on 9 October 1992 at Rockhampton.

That the respondent pay the applicant her costs of and incidental to this application to be agreed or assessed on the standard basis under the District Court scale of costs where the amount recovered is less than $50,000.

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal compensation – assault occasioning bodily harm – bruising – mental or nervous shock – test for causation.

Criminal Code of Queensland ss. 663AA and 663B(1).

Chong v Chong [2001] 1 Qd R 301.

Donald v Bernard (unreported District Court judgment, Trafford-Walker SJDC, 13 August 2004).

Ferguson v Kazakoff [2000] QSC 156.

Fourmile v O’Burns [2004] QSC 207.

LMW v Nicholls [2004] QDC 118.

McClintock v Jones [1995] 79A Crim R 238.

MD v BRD (unreported District Court judgment, Tutt DCJ, 15 October 2004).

R v N, ex parte N [2002] QSC 290.

R v Tiltman; ex parte Dawe (SC 324/95, 22 June 1995, unreported).

Reno v Cudmore (unreported District Court judgment, O’Brien DCJ, 24 June 2004).

Speechley v Baynes [2004] QDC 408 (unreported judgment of Tutt DCJ, 17 September 2004).

Steinback v Steinback [2001] QCA 12.

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant.

No appearance by or on behalf of the respondent.

Introduction

The applicant, Beverley Jean Rankin, claims compensation under s 663B(1) of the Criminal Code of Queensland (“the Code”) for bodily injuries she sustained on 19 March 1992 arising out of the criminal conduct of the respondent, Thomas Theodore Rankin, who was convicted and sentenced by this court on 9 October 1992 at Rockhampton for assault occasioning bodily harm to her. The respondent, although being served with the application, made no appearance at the hearing.

The application for compensation is supported by the following material:-

(a) two affidavits of the applicant, the first sworn 7 June 2004 and filed 20 July 2004; the second sworn 8 October 2004, filed by leave on 11 October 2004.

(b) the affidavit with exhibits of Janette Fadden, Legal Officer, sworn 19 July 2004 and filed 20 July 2004;

(c) the affidavit with exhibit of Dr John Edward Flanagan, psychiatrist, sworn 1 July 2004 and filed 20 July 2004;

(d) the affidavit of service of John Eliott Campbell, sworn 11 August 2004 and filed on 20 August 2004.

Relevant Legislation

As the offences occurred prior to 18 December 1995, Chapter 65A of the Code applies, as if not repealed.[1] As mentioned above, this application is made pursuant to s 663B(1) of the Code which relevantly provides:

“Where…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Rankin v Rankin

Details

AGLC: Rankin v Rankin [2004] QDC 516
Case: [2004] QDC 516
Decision Date: 15 December 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Rankin v Rankin, the applicant sought compensation for injuries she sustained in an incident that occurred on 9 October 1992, which led to the respondent being convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm. The dispute involved the determination of the appropriate compensation amount, including consideration of the physical injuries and any mental or nervous shock experienced by the applicant. The case was heard in the District Court of Queensland.

The court was required to decide whether the injuries suffered by the applicant, which included bruising, warranted a specific compensation amount and whether there was sufficient evidence of mental or nervous shock that would further justify an increased compensation sum. Additionally, the court had to determine the test for causation in the context of the injuries claimed, ensuring that the compensation was appropriately aligned with the harm suffered.

The court found that the applicant's injuries, including the bruising, were sufficiently severe to warrant compensation. However, the court determined that the evidence provided did not establish the presence of significant mental or nervous shock beyond the immediate aftermath of the assault. Accordingly, the court awarded the applicant the sum of $7,500.00 as compensation for the physical injuries sustained. The court also ordered that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That the respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $7,500.00 as compensation for injuries caused by him to the applicant for which the respondent was convicted by this Court on 9 October 1992 at Rockhampton.

1. That the respondent pay the applicant her costs of and incidental to this application to be agreed or assessed on the standard basis under the District Court scale of costs where the amount recovered is less than $50,000.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Rankin v Rankin [2004] QDC 516
PARTIES:	BEVERLEY JEAN RANKIN (Applicant) v THOMAS THEODORE RANKIN (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	2093 of 2003
DIVISION:	Civil Jurisdiction
PROCEEDING:	Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court
DELIVERED ON:	15 December 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 October 2004
JUDGE:	Tutt DCJ
ORDER:	That the respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $7,500.00 as compensation for injuries caused by him to the applicant for which the respondent was convicted by this Court on 9 October 1992 at Rockhampton. That the respondent pay the applicant her costs of and incidental to this application to be agreed or assessed on the standard basis under the District Court scale of costs where the amount recovered is less than $50,000.
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal compensation – assault occasioning bodily harm – bruising – mental or nervous shock – test for causation. Criminal Code of Queensland ss. 663AA and 663B(1). Chong v Chong [2001] 1 Qd R 301. Donald v Bernard (unreported District Court judgment, Trafford-Walker SJDC, 13 August 2004). Ferguson v Kazakoff [2000] QSC 156. Fourmile v O’Burns [2004] QSC 207. LMW v Nicholls [2004] QDC 118. McClintock v Jones [1995] 79A Crim R 238. MD v BRD (unreported District Court judgment, Tutt DCJ, 15 October 2004). R v N, ex parte N [2002] QSC 290. R v Tiltman; ex parte Dawe (SC 324/95, 22 June 1995, unreported). Reno v Cudmore (unreported District Court judgment, O’Brien DCJ, 24 June 2004). Speechley v Baynes [2004] QDC 408 (unreported judgment of Tutt DCJ, 17 September 2004). Steinback v Steinback [2001] QCA 12.
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant. No appearance by or on behalf of the respondent.