SJ v Thompson - [2004] QDC 210

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

SJ v Thompson [2004] QDC 210

PARTIES:

SJ

Applicant

v

IAN RAYMOND THOMPSON

Respondent

FILE NO/S:

692/2004

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Originating application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

1 July 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 May 2004

JUDGE:

Shanahan DCJ

ORDER:

The respondent pay the applicant the sum of $15,000 by way of criminal compensation pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act1995 (Qld).

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – CRIMINAL OFFENCE VICTIM ACT 1995 QLD – ASSESSMENT OF INJURY – MENTAL OR NERVOUS SHOCK – Where respondent, a dentist, had been convicted of one count of administering to the applicant a noxious drug with the intent to disable him – Where the criminal conduct had occurred in the context of dental treatment – Where the applicant had been kept in the respondent’s house whilst he was in an unconscious state – Where the applicant learnt that other people had been sexually assaulted by the respondent in similar circumstances – Where no charges of a sexual nature were laid against the respondent in relation to the complainant, but in circumstances where the respondent was convicted of charges of a sexual nature in relation to other complainants, including the applicant’s brother – Where the applicant suffered post-traumatic stress disorder and depression – Whether the applicant’s injury could be compensated under the statutory scheme

Statutes cited:

Criminal Code (Qld), Chapter 65A (repealed)

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld), ss 19, 21, 24

Cases cited:

HV v LN [2002] 1 Qd R 279

R v Tiltman; ex parte Dawe (SC324/95, 22 June 1994, unreported)

SAM v SAM [2001] QCA 12

W v Nicholls (DC1660/2003, 11 May 2004, unreported)

COUNSEL: Mr C O’Meara for the applicant
Mr A J Kimmins for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Carne Reidy Herd for the applicant
Price & Roobottom for the respondent

This is an application for criminal compensation pursuant to the Criminal Offence Victims Act1995 (Qld).

On 24 January 2003 the respondent pleaded guilty before me to a number of offences. He was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment. The offence against this applicant was one of causing the applicant to take a noxious thing with intent to disable him. That offence occurred between 29 November 1999 and 4 December 1999. The respondent was also sentenced in relation to a number of other offences involving two other complainants. The offences involving each of those other complainants also involved offences of unlawful and indecent assault. One of those other complainants was this applicant’s older brother and the other was a friend of that brother.

The facts placed before me in relation to the offence involving this applicant were that the applicant had met the respondent, a dentist, through his older brother. The respondent undertook dental procedures with respect to the applicant. The applicant was placed under anaesthesia. He awoke in the respondent’s home some three or four days later. He had no recollection of any events while under the…

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 SJ v Thompson

Details

AGLC: SJ v Thompson [2004] QDC 210
Case: [2004] QDC 210
Decision Date: 1 July 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, SJ, sought compensation for injuries sustained from the respondent, a dentist named Thompson, who had been convicted of administering a noxious substance to SJ with the intent to disable him during a dental procedure. SJ was kept unconscious in Thompson's house, and later discovered that Thompson had sexually assaulted other individuals under similar circumstances. Although no sexual assault charges were laid against Thompson in relation to SJ, he was convicted of similar charges involving other complainants, including SJ’s brother. As a result of these incidents, SJ developed post-traumatic stress disorder and depression.

The court had to determine whether SJ's mental injuries qualified for compensation under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld). The key issue was whether SJ's injury, which included mental or nervous shock, was a direct result of Thompson's criminal conduct. The court examined the statutory criteria for injury under the Act and the nature of the injuries sustained by SJ, considering both the physical and psychological impacts.

The court concluded that SJ's injury, encompassing both physical and mental harm, was a direct result of Thompson's criminal actions. Given the severity of the injuries and their impact on SJ's life, the court found that SJ was entitled to compensation. The court assessed the appropriate amount of compensation under the Act and ordered Thompson to pay SJ $15,000.

The final order was that Thompson must pay SJ the sum of $15,000 by way of criminal compensation under section 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld).

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent pay the applicant the sum of $15,000 by way of criminal compensation pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld).

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:	SJ v Thompson [2004] QDC 210
PARTIES:	SJ Applicant v IAN RAYMOND THOMPSON Respondent
FILE NO/S:	692/2004
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Originating application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	1 July 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 May 2004
JUDGE:	Shanahan DCJ
ORDER:	*The respondent pay the applicant the sum of $15,000 by way of criminal compensation pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act1995* (Qld).**
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – CRIMINAL OFFENCE VICTIM ACT 1995 QLD – ASSESSMENT OF INJURY – MENTAL OR NERVOUS SHOCK – Where respondent, a dentist, had been convicted of one count of administering to the applicant a noxious drug with the intent to disable him – Where the criminal conduct had occurred in the context of dental treatment – Where the applicant had been kept in the respondent’s house whilst he was in an unconscious state – Where the applicant learnt that other people had been sexually assaulted by the respondent in similar circumstances – Where no charges of a sexual nature were laid against the respondent in relation to the complainant, but in circumstances where the respondent was convicted of charges of a sexual nature in relation to other complainants, including the applicant’s brother – Where the applicant suffered post-traumatic stress disorder and depression – Whether the applicant’s injury could be compensated under the statutory scheme *Statutes cited: Criminal Code* (Qld), Chapter 65A (repealed) Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld), ss 19, 21, 24 *Cases cited:* HV v LN [2002] 1 Qd R 279 R v Tiltman; ex parte Dawe (SC324/95, 22 June 1994, unreported) SAM v SAM [2001] QCA 12 W v Nicholls (DC1660/2003, 11 May 2004, unreported)
COUNSEL:	Mr C O’Meara for the applicant Mr A J Kimmins for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Carne Reidy Herd for the applicant Price & Roobottom for the respondent