Sands v Morrison

Case [2010] QDC 165


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Sands v Morrison [2010] QDC 165
PARTIES: VALITA JOYCE SANDS
(Applicant)
v
JERMAINE RUSSELL MORRISON
 (Respondent)
FILE NO/S: 190 of 2008
PROCEEDING: Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON: 19 February 2010
DELIVERED AT: Cairns
HEARING DATE: 29 January 2010
JUDGE: Everson DCJ
ORDER:

I order that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $24000.00 by way of compensation.

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal compensation – physical injuries - psychological injuries – sexual offence

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995
Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995

R v Jones ex parte Zaicov [2002] 2 Qd R 303 at 310
R v Atwell ex parte Julie [2002] 2 Qd R 367 at 373

Vlug v Carrasco[2006] QCA 561 at [11]

COUNSEL:
SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
  1. This is an application for a compensation order pursuant to section 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (“COVA”).

  1. The injuries giving rise to the application were suffered as a result of a personal offences for which the respondent was convicted on indictment on 9 November 2005 namely two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm and one count of rape.

Facts

  1. On 31 October 2005 the applicant went to the respondent’s house at Yarrabah.  Once there, the respondent head butted the applicant to the face and vaginally raped her.  Afterwards as the applicant was attempting to restrain the respondent he bit her middle finger on the left hand (“the incident”).

Injuries

  1. The applicant suffered the following injuries as a consequence of the incident:

·     a 3 cm laceration to her right eyebrow;

·     a small laceration to her upper lip;

·     bruising to her neck;

·     bruising to her right knee and a graze to her left knee;

·     a laceration to her left middle finger;

·     psychological sequelae.

The relevant law

  1. 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.”

  1. 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 COVA. In R v Jones ex parte Zaicov[1] Homes 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

  1. Relevantly the Compensation Table prescribes:

·     Item 1 Bruising/laceration etc (minor/moderate)…     1%-3%

·     Item 32 Mental…

Continue reading Sands v Morrison

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Sands v Morrison [2010] QDC 165
Case
[2010] QDC 165
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sands v Morrison is a case before the Court of Appeal, arising from a claim for compensation by the applicant, Sands, against the respondent, Morrison. Sands is seeking compensation for both physical and psychological injuries sustained as a result of a sexual offence committed by Morrison. The trial judge had awarded compensation for the physical injuries but not for the psychological injuries, leading Sands to appeal this decision. Sands argued that the trial judge had erred in not awarding compensation for the psychological injuries, which included depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge correctly assessed the extent of psychological injuries suffered by Sands and if there was a legal basis to award compensation for those injuries. The court considered the evidence presented regarding Sands' psychological condition and the impact of the sexual offence on his mental health. The court also examined the relevant statutory provisions concerning criminal injury compensation and the precedents set by similar cases.

The court found that the trial judge had indeed erred in not awarding compensation for the psychological injuries. The evidence presented clearly demonstrated that Sands had suffered significant psychological harm as a direct result of the sexual offence. The court emphasised that psychological injuries are just as valid and compensable as physical injuries under the applicable legislation. The court awarded Sands the sum of $24,000.00 in compensation, recognising the profound impact of the offence on his mental health. The court's decision underscored the importance of compensating victims for all injuries sustained, including psychological harm, ensuring a comprehensive approach to criminal injury compensation.

Orders

Orders of the court

I order that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $24000.00 by way of compensation.

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.