Rigley v Paipa

[2009] QDC 312

[2009] QDC 312

DISTRICT COURT
CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE SAMIOS

No BD1597 of 2009

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 24 OF THE CRIMINAL OFFENCE VICTIMS

ACT

and
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY GRAHAM RIGLEY THAT LANU

PAIPA PAY HIM CRIMINAL COMPENSATION

BRISBANE

..DATE 15/09/2009

ORDER

1-1

HIS HONOUR: This is an application by which the applicant seeks compensation to be assessed pursuant to the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 for personal injury suffered by the

applicant as a result of a personal offence committed by the
respondent upon the applicant.

The personal offence committed by the respondent upon the applicant was the offence of grievous bodily harm. The respondent committed this offence on the 15th July 2006 and was sentenced on indictment for this offence on the 27th July 2007. The applicant was 17 years of age at the time he suffered his personal injuries, having been born on the 20th June 1989.

On the night in question he was with a group of young men and they walked past a dance that had just finished on a road and he saw somebody he recognised. This person came up to him and was accompanied by another young man. The person he recognised asked him why was he stepping up to him and the applicant said he was not trying to step up to him and he tried to explain things to this young man.

Out of nowhere, and without saying a word, the other young man, being the respondent, punched the applicant with a single blow to the right side of his jaw. The blow caused instant and intense pain and the applicant stumbled backwards.

The medical evidence satisfies me that the applicant suffered a broken left jawbone, which was also dislocated. His face was extremely swollen and he could not close his mouth properly. He had to be taken to hospital. He underwent surgery in hospital to repair the jaw which involved inserting plates and screws into the jaw. 1-2 JUDGMENT

Because of circumstances the surgery could not occur until 3 days after the applicant was injured. He was in extreme discomfort due to the injury. He was unable to eat during this period due to the injury. After the operation he could only consume liquids and then soft foods. He was prescribed medication to manage the pain. His family was also inconvenienced. They were anxious about his circumstances. They lost money having to take time off work.

Up until recently the position for the applicant has been that he would require further surgery to prevent a wisdom tooth from pushing against the plate inserted into this jaw. That surgery was not required. However, he has recently had the screws removed.

At the time he incurred the injury he was in his final year at school. He had to take time off school in order to recover from the injury. He was also unable to play soccer for the Brisbane Strikers Premier Youth Squad for the remainder of the 2006 season. He was very angry and depressed about this as soccer was an important part of his life.

Following the injury the applicant had a mild malocclusion with no parathesia or stiffness. Dr Taylor, a specialist, would describe the injury as in the moderate degree.

1-3 JUDGMENT

On the evidence before me I am satisfied the respondent has been given notice of this application and that I can proceed to assess the compensation for the applicant. Also, I am satisfied on the evidence the applicant did nothing to directly or indirectly contribute to his personal injuries.

I bear in mind that the compensation provided to an applicant is intended to help the applicant and is not intended to reflect the compensation to which the applicant may be entitled under common law or otherwise. Further, the maximum amount of compensation provided is reserved for the most serious cases and the amounts provided in other cases are intended to be scaled according to their seriousness. See section 22 subsections 3 and 4 of the Act.

I have been referred to two decisions of this Court. One of consider the circumstances of the present applicant to be more akin to those circumstances suffered by the applicant in Boulter v. Bradford than in Allen v. Stewart.

Allen v. Stewart [2007] Queensland District Court 119 and

I also consider that Boulter v. Bradford can be distinguished from the present circumstances because in that case there was a contribution order made against the applicant. Bearing all circumstances in mind, I've come to the view that the applicant's compensation is to be assessed at 25 per cent in item 8, facial fracture severe, which allows for a range of between 20 per cent and 30 per cent. Therefore, that is a sum of $18,750. I order the respondent to pay the applicant the sum of $18,750. 1-4 JUDGMENT

Yes, anything further, Mr Earle?

MR EARLE: No, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: I can't make any orders as to costs so-----

MR EARLE: That was going to be my request.

HIS HONOUR: Well, I'd have to deny your request, I'm sorry, under the Act.

MR EARLE: That's okay.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you.

-----

1-5 JUDGMENT