Robey v Groth - [2006] QDC 177

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Robey v Groth & Anor [2006] QDC 177

PARTIES:

LINDON ANTHONY ROBEY
Applicant

v
LISA MARIE GROTH
First Respondent
and
ZARNE LANCE FRAIDER
Second Respondent

FILE NO:

64/2005

DIVISION:

Civil Jurisdiction

PROCEEDING:

Application for Criminal Compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

Southport

DELIVERED ON:

18 May 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

HEARING DATE:

27 March 2006

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

THAT THE FIRST RESPONDENT, LISA GROTH, PAY THE APPLICANT, LINDON ROBEY, CRIMINAL COMPENSATION IN THE SUM OF $2,250; THAT THE SECOND RESPONDENT, ZARNE FRAIDER, PAY THE APPLICANT, LINDON ROBEY, CRIMINAL COMPENSATION IN THE SUM OF $16,500.

CATCHWORDS:

APPLICATION – Criminal Compensation – Damages – Personal Injury – Contribution – Apportionment

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995

Cases cited:

R v Ward ex parte Dooley [2001] 2 Qd R 436
Ribble v Coffey (2002) 133 ACrimR 220; [2002] QCA 337

COUNSEL:

Mr L R Smith for the applicant

Mr L Parker (solicitor) for the first and second respondents

SOLICITORS:

Collas Morro Ross for the applicant

Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Legal Service for the first and second respondents

The applicant seeks compensation for injuries suffered by him on 24 November 2002 while working as a security officer at the Cocktails & Dreams nightclub, Orchid Avenue, Surfers Paradise when he was assaulted by both Lisa Groth (first respondent) and Zarne Fraider (second respondent). As a result of this incident, the first respondent pleaded guilty on 11 June 2004 to two counts of common assault and one count of assault occasioning bodily harm, and the second respondent pleaded guilty on the same date to one count of assault occasioning bodily harm.

The first respondent was sentenced by Judge Newton at the District Court, Southport, to 18 months’ probation, with special conditions, and 120 hours’ community service. The second respondent was sentenced by Judge Newton to 150 hours’ community service. No convictions were recorded against either the first or second respondent.

FACTS

The complainant, Lindon Robey, was aged 22 years at the time the relevant offences occurred on 24 November 2002. He was a security officer employed as a doorman at the Cocktails & Dreams nightclub, Surfers Paradise[1]. At about 1.10 am, he was on the door of Cocktails & Dreams nightclub checking persons attempting to enter that particular nightclub.
[1] The summary of the facts is drawn from the Sentencing Submissions

The first and second respondents, together with another male person, approached the entrance. The male person was refused entry to the nightclub because of his level of intoxication. The first respondent began abusing the complainant, as did the second respondent, and they were both refused entry by the complainant.

The second respondent attempted to punch or grab the complainant with a hand that went towards the complainant’s face area. The complainant then grabbed the second respondent, placed him in a headlock and started to walk him away from the door area. The first respondent started to punch the complainant with a closed fist to the right side of his face and shoulder,…

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 Robey v Groth

Details

AGLC: Robey v Groth [2006] QDC 177
Case: [2006] QDC 177
Decision Date: 18 May 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Robey v Groth, the applicant, Lindon Robey, sought criminal compensation for personal injuries sustained in an assault. The first respondent, Lisa Groth, was convicted for her involvement in the assault, while the second respondent, Zarne Fraider, was convicted for causing grievous bodily harm. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary dispute centred on the quantum of compensation to be awarded to Mr. Robey and the respective contributions of the respondents towards that compensation.

The court had to determine the appropriate amount of criminal compensation for Mr. Robey's injuries, considering the severity and impact of the assault. Additionally, the court needed to decide how to apportion the liability between the respondents based on their respective roles in the assault. The applicants argued that the first respondent should bear a larger share of the compensation due to her direct involvement, while the respondents contended for an equal division of liability.

The court examined the evidence presented and the respective roles of the respondents in the assault. It concluded that the first respondent should be liable for $2,250 of the compensation, reflecting her contribution to the assault. The second respondent, who caused the grievous bodily harm, was held liable for the remaining $16,500. The court found that the first respondent's role, though significant, was less directly harmful compared to the second respondent's actions. The reasoning was grounded in the respective levels of involvement and the harm caused by each respondent.

The final orders of the court were that Lisa Groth pay Lindon Robey $2,250 in criminal compensation, and Zarne Fraider pay Lindon Robey $16,500 in criminal compensation. The court's decision was based on the evidence of the respective contributions to the assault and the resultant injuries.

Orders

Orders of the court

THAT THE FIRST RESPONDENT, LISA GROTH, PAY THE APPLICANT, LINDON ROBEY, CRIMINAL COMPENSATION IN THE SUM OF $2,250; THAT THE SECOND RESPONDENT, ZARNE FRAIDER, PAY THE APPLICANT, LINDON ROBEY, CRIMINAL COMPENSATION IN THE SUM OF $16,500.

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:	Robey v Groth & Anor [2006] QDC 177
PARTIES:	LINDON ANTHONY ROBEY Applicant v LISA MARIE GROTH First Respondent and ZARNE LANCE FRAIDER Second Respondent
FILE NO:	64/2005
DIVISION:	Civil Jurisdiction
PROCEEDING:	Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	Southport
DELIVERED ON:	18 May 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Southport
HEARING DATE:	27 March 2006
JUDGE:	Dearden DCJ
ORDER:	THAT THE FIRST RESPONDENT, LISA GROTH, PAY THE APPLICANT, LINDON ROBEY, CRIMINAL COMPENSATION IN THE SUM OF $2,250; THAT THE SECOND RESPONDENT, ZARNE FRAIDER, PAY THE APPLICANT, LINDON ROBEY, CRIMINAL COMPENSATION IN THE SUM OF $16,500.
CATCHWORDS:	APPLICATION – Criminal Compensation – Damages – Personal Injury – Contribution – Apportionment Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 Cases cited: R v Ward ex parte Dooley [2001] 2 Qd R 436 Ribble v Coffey (2002) 133 ACrimR 220; [2002] QCA 337
COUNSEL:	Mr L R Smith for the applicant Mr L Parker (solicitor) for the first and second respondents
SOLICITORS:	Collas Morro Ross for the applicant Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Legal Service for the first and second respondents