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 1995R v Jones ex parte Zaicov [2002] 2 Qd R 303 at 310
R v Atwell ex parte Julie [2002] 2 Qd R 367 at 373Vlug v Carrasco[2006] QCA 561 at [11]
COUNSEL: SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
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 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
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
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
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 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
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
- AGLC
- Sands v Morrison [2010] QDC 165
- Case
- [2010] QDC 165
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.