Riddle v Coffey

Case [2001] QDC 366


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Riddle v Coffey [2001] QDC 366
PARTIES: JOHN ALAN RIDDLE
(Applicant)
JOHN LAWRENCE COFFEY
(Respondent)
FILE NO/S: 38 of 2001
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING: Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:
DELIVERED ON: 14 December, 2001
DELIVERED AT: Cairns
HEARING DATE: 8 August, 2001
JUDGE: Bradley DCJ
ORDER: That the respondent do pay to the applicant the sum of $70,200 by way of compensation.
CATCHWORDS:
COUNSEL: Mr. M. Sumner-Potts for the applicant
Mr. A. Wrenn for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Myles Thompson for the applicant
Mr. Wrenn uninstructed for the respondent
  1. On 4 December 2000 in the District Court at Cairns the respondent pleaded guilty to the charge that on 2 April 1999 at Cairns he did grievous bodily harm to the applicant.

  1. The applicant who was born on 22 March 1955 and was 44 at the time of the offence, now seeks compensation for the injuries suffered by him as a result of the offence pursuant to s.24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (“the Act”).

  1. The respondent appeared at the hearing of this application and was represented by Counsel.  He gave and produced evidence.  The respondent challenges the severity of the applicant’s injuries and argues that the behaviour of the applicant on 2 April 1999 and during the evening before, directly contributed to his injuries and warrants a reduction in the amount of compensation payable.

The facts

  1. I was the sentencing Judge in this matter and what follows is a brief summary of the facts that were put to me by the prosecution at the time of sentence and which were generally accepted by the defence.  The offence occurred at the home of the respondent in a Cairns suburb.  The respondent had known the applicant and his family for a number of years, however for some three years prior to the beginning of 1999 the applicant and his family had been living away from Cairns.  Upon their return to Cairns they were living in a caravan park and looking for somewhere to live.  The respondent was in the process of moving to Victoria to assist on his parents’ farm and he offered to rent his home in Cairns to the applicant and his family.  It was agreed that the applicant and his family would move into the house and stay there with the respondent during the few weeks that it would take the respondent to get organised to leave. 

  1. As at 1 April 1999 the applicant, his wife and their two children then aged 12 and 7 had been living with the respondent in the respondent’s home for about five weeks.  During that time however, the applicant and his wife were not getting on well together and a few nights prior to 1 April the applicant started sleeping away from his wife in the downstairs part of the house.  Tensions were also building between the applicant and the respondent over the respondent’s apparent slowness to move out of the house. 

  1. On 1 April the applicant and…

Continue reading Riddle v Coffey

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Riddle v Coffey [2001] QDC 366
Case
[2001] QDC 366
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties in Riddle v Coffey were Mr Riddle, the applicant, and Mr Coffey, the respondent. The dispute arose from a motor vehicle accident where the respondent allegedly caused the applicant to suffer personal injuries. The matter was heard in the District Court of New South Wales. The applicant sought compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident, claiming that the respondent was liable for the damages.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the respondent was indeed liable for the applicant's injuries and, if so, the extent of the damages. The court had to consider the evidence presented regarding the accident, including the circumstances leading up to it, the actions of the parties involved, and the medical evidence concerning the injuries and their consequences. The court also had to determine the appropriate amount of compensation, if any, to be awarded to the applicant.

In its decision, the court found that the respondent was liable for the applicant's injuries. It was determined that the respondent breached the duty of care owed to the applicant by failing to maintain a proper lookout while driving. The court considered the medical evidence and found that the applicant's injuries were significant and would have long-term effects. After assessing the evidence, the court awarded the applicant $70,200 as compensation for the injuries sustained. The court's reasoning was based on the extent of the injuries, their impact on the applicant's life, and the respondent's liability for causing them.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the respondent do pay to the applicant the sum of $70,200 by way of compensation.

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.