Sagigi v Woosup - [2010] QDC 406

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Sagigi v Woosup [2010] QDC 406
PARTIES: STEVEN JOHN SAGIGI
(Applicant)
v
SANTINO SILAS WOOSUP
(Respondent)
FILE NO/S: 289 of 2009
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING: Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court, Cairns
DELIVERED ON: 29 October 2010
DELIVERED AT: Cairns
HEARING DATE: 7 October 2010
JUDGE: Everson DCJ
ORDER: That the respondent pay the applicant the sum of
$4,500.00.
CATCHWORDS: Criminal compensation – physical injuries – psychological
injuries
Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995
Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995
R v Jones ex parte Zaicov [2002] QdR 303 at 310
COUNSEL:
SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
No appearance for the respondent

This is an application for a compensation order pursuant to section 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (“COVA”).
The injuries giving rise to the application were suffered as a result of a personal offence for which the respondent was convicted on indictment on 15 May 2008, namely assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed.
Facts
In the early hours of 10 April 2007, in the course of a physical altercation the respondent produced a baseball bat, chased the applicant and struck him with it as he attempted to defend himself (“the incident”).
Injuries
The applicant suffered the following injuries as a consequence of the incident:

• A fracture of the left ulna.
The relevant law

COVA establishes a scheme for the payment of compensation to the victims of certain indictable offences including those who suffer “injury” as defined in section 20, being “bodily injury, mental or nervous shock, pregnancy or any injury specified in the compensation table as prescribed under a regulation”.
Pursuant to section 25 of COVA, a compensation order may only be made up to the scheme maximum of $75,000 specified in section 2 of the Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 (“COVR”) using the percentages listed for an injury specified in the Compensation Table in SCHEDULE 1 of the COVA. In R v Jones ex parte Zaicov[1] Holmes J described the process in the following terms:
“Thus, my examination of the section convinces me that a two or three stage process is entailed. Where there is more than one injury, the first step is to arrive at the amounts in respect of each injury, the second is to add those amounts together, and the third, to arrive at the compensation order.”
[1] [2002] 2 QdR 303 at 310
Relevantly, the Compensation Table prescribes:

• Item 15 Fracture/loss of use of arm/wrist (minor) … 4% - 10%

Section 25 of COVA also states that the court, in determining the amount that should be paid for an injury, “should have regard to everything relevant, including, for example, any behaviour of the applicant that directly or indirectly contributed to the injury”. Furthermore, the process of assessing compensation pursuant to COVA does not involve applying principles used to decide common law damages for personal injuries and the maximum amount of compensation provided for is reserved for the most serious cases,…

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 Sagigi v Woosup

Details

AGLC: Sagigi v Woosup [2010] QDC 406
Case: [2010] QDC 406
Decision Date: 29/10/2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Sagigi v Woosup, the applicant sought compensation for physical injuries sustained during a personal offence for which the respondent was convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm while armed. The incident, which occurred in the early hours of 10 April 2007, involved the respondent chasing the applicant with a baseball bat, resulting in physical injuries. The dispute centred on the quantum of compensation to be awarded to the applicant under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (COVA).

The court was required to determine the appropriate amount of compensation to be awarded to the applicant, taking into account the physical injuries sustained and the statutory framework provided by COVA. The court needed to assess the injuries according to the Compensation Table in the Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995, which prescribes the maximum amounts for different types of injuries. The court also had to consider any relevant behaviour of the applicant that might have contributed to the injury and ensure that the compensation was commensurate with the severity of the injuries.

The court evaluated the medical evidence and determined that the applicant had suffered physical injuries that warranted compensation. The court noted that while the applicant recovered uneventfully, there was no evidence to support a claim for mental or nervous shock. The court assessed the compensation based on the prescribed amounts in the Compensation Table, considering the severity and nature of the injuries. The court concluded that the applicant was not at fault and awarded a total compensation of $4,500.00.

ORDERS:
That the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $4,500.00.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the respondent pay the applicant the sum of

$4,500.00.

Background

Background to the litigation

The injuries giving rise to the application were suffered as a result of a personal offence for which the respondent was convicted on indictment on 15 May 2008, namely assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed. Facts In the early hours of 10 April 2007, in the course of a physical altercation the respondent produced a baseball bat, chased the applicant and struck him with it as he attempted to defend himself (“the incident”). Injuries The applicant suffered the following injuries as a consequence of the incident: COVA establishes a scheme for the payment of compensation to the victims of certain indictable offences including those who suffer “injury” as defined in section 20, being “bodily injury, mental or nervous shock, pregnancy or any injury specified in the compensation table as prescribed under a regulation”. Pursuant to section 25 of COVA, a compensation order may only be made up to the scheme maximum of $75,000 specified in section 2 of the Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 (“COVR”) using the percentages listed for an injury specified in the Compensation Table in SCHEDULE 1 of the COVA. In R v Jones ex parte Zaicov[1] Holmes J described the process in the following terms: “Thus, my examination of the section convinces me that a two or three stage process is entailed. Where there is more than one injury, the first step is to arrive at the amounts in respect of each injury, the second is to add those amounts together, and the third, to arrive at the compensation order.” [1] [2002] 2 QdR 303 at 310 Relevantly, the Compensation Table prescribes: Section 25 of COVA also states that the court, in determining the amount that should be paid for an injury, “should have regard to everything relevant, including, for example, any behaviour of the applicant that directly or indirectly contributed to the injury”. Furthermore, the process of assessing compensation pursuant to COVA does not involve applying principles used to decide common law damages for personal injuries and the maximum amount of compensation provided for is reserved for the most serious cases, with the amounts provided in other cases intended to be scaled accordingly.[2] If an injury is not specifically listed in the Compensation Table the court must decide the amount of compensation by comparing the injury or injuries to injuries listed in the Compensation Table and having regard to the amounts that may be ordered to be paid for these injuries.[3] [2] s 25(8) referring to s 22(4) [3] s 25(6) The assessment The medical evidence before me discloses that the applicant was treated with a back slab and a fibre glass cast and apparently made an uneventful recovery. A claim is also made for mental or nervous shock, however there is no evidence before me which justifies such a claim.[4] [4] See RNC v NAC [2009] QSC 149 at [38] I am satisfied that the applicant did not contribute to the injury. Having regard to the evidence before me and in particular to the matters set out above, I assess compensation pursuant to COVA and the Compensation Table as follows:-

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:	Sagigi v Woosup [2010] QDC 406
PARTIES:	STEVEN JOHN SAGIGI (Applicant) v SANTINO SILAS WOOSUP (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	289 of 2009
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING
COURT:	District Court, Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	29 October 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	7 October 2010
JUDGE:	Everson DCJ
ORDER:	That the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $4,500.00.
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal compensation – physical injuries – psychological injuries
Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995
R v Jones ex parte Zaicov [2002] QdR 303 at 310
COUNSEL:
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant No appearance for the respondent