RKL v Laycock

[2007] QDC 348

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

RKL v Laycock [2007] QDC 348

PARTIES:

RKL

(Applicant)

v

RAYMOND JOHN LAYCOCK

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

D104 / 2005

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for criminal compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

20 December 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Beenleigh

HEARING DATE:

22 October 2007

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

The respondent Raymond John Laycock pay the applicant RKL the sum of $37,500.

CATCHWORDS:

Application – criminal compensation – administering a stupefying drug to commit an indictable offence – indecent treatment – mental or nervous shock – adverse impacts

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) ss 20, 22(4), 24, 25(7), 26

Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 (Qld) s 1A

CASES:

Vlug v Carrasco [2006] QDC 306; [2006] QCA 561

R v Ward; ex parte Dooley [2001] 2 Qd R 436

Riddle v Coffey [2002] 133 A Crim R 220; [2002] QCA 337

JI v AV [2002] 2 Qd R 367

SAY v AZ; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2006] QCA 462

R v Tiltman; ex parte Dawe, unreported, Supreme Court Queensland, Lee J, 22 June 1995

LMW v Nicholls [2004] QDC 118

COUNSEL:

Ms J Fadden (solicitor) for the applicant

No appearance for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant

No appearance for the respondent

Introduction

1. The respondent was convicted by trial in the District Court, Beenleigh before Judge Pack on 16 January 2002 of one count of stupefying to commit an indictable offence, and one count of indecent treatment of a child under 16 with a circumstance of aggravation. Both offences occurred on 24 October 1998 at Slacks Creek. The respondent was sentenced to four years imprisonment in respect of count one (stupefying to commit an indictable offence), and two and a half years imprisonment, concurrent, in respect of count two (indecent treatment of a child under 16 with a circumstance of aggravation). An appeal was filed on 7 February 2002 but was abandoned on 3 October 2002.

Facts

1. The applicant was 14 years old and the respondent was 54 years old at the time of the offences. The respondent was in a relationship with the applicant’s mother, although not residing with her. The applicant’s mother and the respondent had suggested that the applicant stay at the respondent’s unit in order to get to know him better.

1. On the third visit, the respondent provided the applicant with a quantity of alcohol and administered a drug in her drinks (temazepam, a benzodiazepine derivative) which in therapeutic doses causes sedation and drowsiness, and is used for the treatment of insomnia.[1] This had the effect of putting the applicant to sleep. The applicant woke up in the night to find the respondent lying on the lounge beside her. The respondent placed his hand under the applicant’s t-shirt, touching the applicant’s breasts, then grabbing them and pinching her nipples. The respondent then patted and stroked from side to side, with his hand, the applicant’s genital area on the outside of her boxer shorts.  The respondent asked the applicant if…