JOHN ALAN RIDDLE (applicant/respondent) v JOHN LAWRENCE COFFEY (respondent/appellant)
FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 265 of 2002 DC No 38 of 2001
DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Cairns
DELIVERED ON:
6 September 2002
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
20 August 2002
JUDGES:
McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Holmes J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.
ORDERS:
1. Appeal allowed with costs to be assessed 2. Set aside the order of 14 December 2001 and instead order that the appellant/respondent pay to the respondent/applicant the amount of $51,975 3. Grant the respondent to this appeal a certificate in respect of the appeal under s 15 Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld)
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – ORDERS FOR COMPENSATION, REPARATION, RESTITUTION, FORFEITURE AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY – COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND – where award of criminal compensation – where primary judge reduced award by 10 per cent to reflect respondent's conduct contributing to his injuries – whether primary judge should have further reduced award of damages
CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – ORDERS FOR COMPENSATION, REPARATION, RESTITUTION, FORFEITURE AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY – COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND – where respondent sustained multiple injuries in attack subject of criminal compensation claim – whether primary judge compensated respondent twice for the same injuries – whether primary judge assessed compensation to be awarded in manner required by R v Ward; ex parte Dooley.
Facer v Bennett & Anor [2001] QCA 395; Appeal No 2916 of 2001, 25 September 2001, cited R v Chong; ex parte Chong [2001] 2 Qd R 301, cited R v Kazkoff; ex parte Ferguson [2001] 2 Qd R 320, considered R v Pangilinan; ex parte Owens [2001] QSC 391; SC No 8199 of 2001, 19 October 2001, cited R v Ward; ex parte Dooley [2001] 2 Qd R 436, applied
COUNSEL:
A J Rafter for the appellant M Sumner-Potts for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
Dearden Lawyers for the appellant Myles Thompson for the respondent
McMURDO P: The appellant, Coffey, pleaded guilty in the District Court at Cairns to one count of doing grievous bodily harm to the respondent, Riddle, on 4 December 2000 and was sentenced two days later. Riddle made an application for criminal compensation under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) (“the Act”) and on 14 December 2001 the primary judge awarded Riddle criminal compensation in the sum of $70,200.
Coffey appeals against the quantum of that award principally on two bases, first that the primary judge should have reduced the amount of damages by more than 10 per cent to adequately reflect Riddle’s behaviour…
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 Riddle v Coffey
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Riddle v Coffey [2002] QCA 337
Case
[2002] QCA 337
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Riddle v Coffey is an appeal concerning the award of criminal compensation under Queensland law, where the respondent sustained injuries in an attack and sought compensation from the appellant. The primary judge had awarded compensation but reduced it by 10 per cent due to the respondent's conduct contributing to his injuries. The appeal focused on whether the primary judge should have further reduced the award and whether the primary judge compensated the respondent twice for the same injuries, as well as whether the compensation was assessed in the manner required by the precedent set in R v Ward; ex parte Dooley.
The court had to determine if the primary judge was correct in reducing the compensation award by 10 per cent based on the respondent's contributory conduct, and if there was any double compensation for the same injuries. Additionally, the court examined whether the compensation was assessed according to the criteria established in the Dooley case. The appeal hinged on the interpretation and application of Queensland's criminal compensation laws and the precedent set by Dooley, particularly in terms of the apportionment of damages for contributory negligence and the correct assessment of compensation.
The court found that the primary judge should not have further reduced the compensation award beyond the 10 per cent reduction for contributory conduct. The court also determined that the primary judge had not compensated the respondent twice for the same injuries and that the compensation was assessed in accordance with the Dooley criteria. The appeal was allowed, and the order of December 14, 2001, was set aside. Instead, the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent $51,975, and the respondent was granted a certificate in respect of the appeal under section 15 of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld).
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed with costs to be assessed
2. Set aside the order of 14 December 2001 and instead order that the appellant/respondent pay to the respondent/applicant the amount of $51,975
3. Grant the respondent to this appeal a certificate in respect of the appeal under s 15 Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld)