DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: SM obo M-H v NK [2005] QDC 408 PARTIES: SM as litigation guardian for
M-HApplicant
v
NK
Respondent
FILE NO: 291/2005 PROCEEDING: Application for Criminal Compensation ORIGINATING COURT: Southport
DELIVERED ON: 2005 DELIVERED AT: Southport HEARING DATE: 26 September 2005 JUDGE: Dearden DCJ ORDER: The respondent, NK, pay the applicant, SM as litigation guardian for M-H, the sum of $3,750.00. CATCHWORDS: APPLICATION – CRIMINAL COMPENSATION - ATTEMPTING TO UNLAWFULLY PROCURE A CHILD – PERSONAL OFFENCE - MENTAL OR NERVOUS SHOCK
Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 s 19, 21, 24, 25, 33
Criminal Offence Victims Regulation
Cases cited:
Pettingill v Minister for Justice and Attorney-General [2003] QSC 385
JI v. AV [2002] 2 Qd R 367
R v Ward ex parte Dooley [2001] 2 Qd R 436
Riddle v Coffey [2002] 133 A Crim R 220
Summers v Dougherty & Anor [2000] QSC 365COUNSEL: Mr S J Taylor (Solicitor) for the applicant
No appearance for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Price & Roobottom for the applicant
The applicant, SM (litigation guardian for the complainant, M-H [“the complainant”]), seeks compensation in respect of injuries suffered by the complainant arising out of an incident which occurred on 6 July 2002, resulting in the respondent, NK, pleading guilty before Judge O’Sullivan in the District Court, Southport on 17 June 2003 to one count of attempting to unlawfully procure a child under 12 years to commit an indecent act. The respondent was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment and ordered to report his correct name and address to police within 24 hours of his release from prison for a period of three years.
Facts
The complainant is a child who was, at the time of the offence, 8 years old and then a resident at the Miami Caravan Park. On 6 July 2002 the complainant, together with two siblings and his mother, SM, were playing at a beachside park just north of the Miami Surf Club on Marine Parade, Miami, Gold Coast. The complainant and his brother were riding their scooters on a bike track south towards Burleigh while his mother and sister were playing on the swings in the park. About five minutes after the two brothers had set off, they returned separately. The complainant, who had a look of fright on his face, reported that a male person (subsequently identified as the respondent) had approached him and said, “I’m looking for a dick to suck on.” The complainant identified the respondent to his mother, Ms Martinez, who then pursued the respondent and found him seated in the company of another young male child on the beach. With the assistance of bystanders and subsequently police, the respondent was taken into custody and in due course charged by police with the relevant offence to which he pleaded guilty on 17 June 2003[1].
[1] This summary of the facts is drawn from T 7 of the submissions on sentence
The Law
This is an application under s 24 of the Criminal Offence…
Continue reading SM obo M-H v NK
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- SM obo M-H v NK [2005] QDC 408
- Case
- [2005] QDC 408
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue that the court had to determine was whether the personal injury and mental or nervous shock experienced by M-H as a result of NK's actions were compensable under the relevant legislation. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the type of personal injury and mental or nervous shock suffered by M-H qualified as a "personal injury" under the Criminal Law (Forensic Procedures) Act 2009 (NSW). The court also needed to ascertain whether the injury was caused by the commission of a relevant offence, and whether the injury was not caused by any action of the victim.
The court found that the personal injury and mental or nervous shock experienced by M-H were indeed compensable under the Act. The court held that the type of injury suffered by M-H qualified as a "personal injury" as it was a physical injury, and also constituted a mental or nervous shock as defined in the Act. The court further found that the injury was caused by the commission of the relevant offence by NK and that the injury was not caused by any action of M-H. Accordingly, the court ordered NK to pay SM, as litigation guardian for M-H, the sum of $3,750.00 in compensation.
Orders
Orders of the court
The respondent, NK, pay the applicant, SM as litigation guardian for M-H, the sum of $3,750.00.
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.