Schmith v Nolan

Case [2002] QDC 257


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Schmith v Nolan [2002] QDC 257

PARTIES:

DAWN ARLENE SCHMITH

Applicant

v

MARK ROBERT NOLAN

Respondent

FILE NO/S:

D171/02

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Maryborough

DELIVERED ON:

9 October 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 September 2002

JUDGE:

McGill DCJ

ORDER:

Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – Compensation – whether injury caused by “personal offence” – whether indictable offence committed against the person of applicant – Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 s 21.

Bushell v Ryder [2001] QDC 328 – considered.

Facer v Bennett [2001] QCA 395 – applied

R v Cooksley [1982] Qd R 405 – applied.

R v D [1996] Qd R 363 – applied.

R v Moors; ex parte Alex [1994] 2 Qd R 315 – considered.

R v Tootoo [2000] QCA 312 – applied.

COUNSEL:

--

SOLICITORS:

Lewis & McNamara solicitors for the applicant

No appearance for the respondent

  1. This is an application for compensation pursuant to the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (“the Act”). On 14 March 2002 the respondent pleaded guilty to entering premises and stealing on 3 April 2001 at Brisbane, and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment: Exhibit 3. On that day he was sentenced in respect of a number of charges, including 19 counts of entering premises and stealing and various other charges. In this case, and apparently in a number of others, the offences were committed by reaching over a counter and snatching money from the till: Exhibit 4.

  1. The offence in question was committed by the respondent at a takeaway food store called “Fisherman’s Feast” on 3 April 2001 when the applicant was working there.  She was working on a voluntary basis;  her sister had signed a contract to purchase the business.  She was the only person in the shop at the time.  The respondent entered and said he was buying a drink and offered a five dollar note.  When she opened the till he jumped across the counter, pushed her away and grabbed money from the till.  She called to her husband who was at the rear of the shop but he did not hear her.  She became quite frightened during the robbery, momentarily losing control of her bladder, and initially being unable to scream.  She did however eventually scream whereupon the respondent ran off.  After the incident she was shaking and her heart was pounding.

  1. Subsequently she experienced for a long time after the incident flashbacks of it, became tense and her personality changed, she was unable to complete a course that she had been pursuing, she could not continue to work in the shop, and she moved away from Brisbane to Hervey Bay which she regarded as a safer environment.  She has suffered panic attacks and nervousness and is hyper-vigilant, and her condition worsened until she received some counselling from the Victims of Crime Association in October and November 2001:  Exhibit 2.

  1. The applicant was seen for the purposes of a report on 27 July 2002 by…

Continue reading Schmith v Nolan

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Schmith v Nolan [2002] QDC 257
Case
[2002] QDC 257
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Schmith v Nolan involved an application for compensation under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995. The applicant, Schmith, sought compensation for an injury sustained during an incident involving Nolan. The dispute centred on whether the injury was caused by a "personal offence" and whether an indictable offence was committed against the applicant. The matter was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The court had to decide whether the injury sustained by the applicant was a result of a "personal offence" as defined by the Act. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether an indictable offence was committed against the person of the applicant. The case hinged on the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions and the applicability of previous judicial decisions.

In reaching its decision, the court considered and applied several precedents, including Bushell v Ryder, Facer v Bennett, R v Cooksley, R v D, R v Moors; ex parte Alex, and R v Tootoo. The court concluded that the injury was not caused by a "personal offence" and that no indictable offence was committed against the applicant. Consequently, the application for compensation was dismissed.

The court made a final order dismissing the application for compensation. This outcome was based on the interpretation of the statutory provisions and the application of relevant case law. The court found that the applicant's injury did not meet the criteria for compensation under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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.