Sopinski v Pike - [2010] QDC 72

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Sopinski v Pike [2010] QDC 72

PARTIES:

MARGUERITE MARY SOPINSKI
(Applicant)

v

MAURICE JAMES PIKE
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BD 74 of 2010

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Criminal Compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 March 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 February 2010

JUDGE:

Dorney QC DCJ

ORDER:

The Respondent pay criminal compensation to the Applicant for injuries suffered by the Applicant as a result of offences of which the Respondent was convicted before the District Court on Brisbane 2 July 2007 in the amount of $12,750.1.

CATCHWORDS:

Application for Criminal Compensation

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 ss 20, 21, 24(2), 24(3), 30(3)

Victims of Crimes Assistance Act 2009 ss 154 and 155

SAY v AZ [2007] 2 Qd R 363

RMC v NAC [2009] QSC 149

COUNSEL:

A. Cappellano for the Applicant

D. McIver for the Respondent

SOLICITORS:

Campbell and White Lawyers for the Applicant

Lang Hemming and Hall for the Respondent

Introduction

The Originating Application was filed in this court on 11 January 2010. It seeks that the Respondent, Maurice James Pike, pay criminal compensation for injuries suffered by the Applicant as a result of an offence of which the Respondent was convicted on 2 July 2007. The Applicant was then 43; she is now 47.

The application came on before me on 26 February 2010 when I reserved the decision.

Both the Applicant and the Respondent made written submissions, and both addressed me orally.

Legislation

The application is brought pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (“the Act”). It continues in force for applications such as this by reason of ss 154 and 155 of the Victims of Crimes Assistance Act 2009.

Section 24 applies if the convicted person – here the Respondent – is convicted on indictment of a personal offence. By s 24(2) the person against whom the personal offence is committed – here the Applicant – may apply to the court before which the court is convicted for an order that the convicted person pay compensation to the applicant for the injuries suffered by the Applicant because of the offence. There is no doubt here that an indictment was presented to which the Respondent pleaded guilty on 2 July 2007 to one count of assault occasioning bodily harm on 14 May 2006 at Brisbane in the State of Queensland and one count of common assault on 14 May 2006 at Brisbane in the State of Queensland.

By reason of definition of s 21 of the Act of “personal offence” there is no doubt that a personal offence has been committed. As to “injury”, since s 20 defines “injury” to include both “bodily injury” and “mental or nervous shock”, for the reasons next advanced, both of those have been satisfied.

Finally, s 24(3) of the Act states that a court may make an order for an amount to be paid by the convicted person to the Applicant because of the injuries.

Judge’s remarks

Since it…

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 Sopinski v Pike

Details

AGLC: Sopinski v Pike [2010] QDC 72
Case: [2010] QDC 72
Decision Date: 10 March 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Applicant, Sopinski, sought compensation from the Respondent, Pike, under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) for injuries suffered due to offences for which Pike was convicted on 2 July 2007 by the District Court in Brisbane. Sopinski applied to the Supreme Court for an order that Pike pay compensation, and the application was heard by Justice Byrne. The court was required to determine whether the injuries suffered by Sopinski were attributable to the offences for which Pike was convicted, and if so, the amount of compensation to be paid.

The legal issues the court had to address included whether Sopinski's injuries were caused by Pike's actions and whether Pike was a person of limited means, which could affect the amount of compensation. The court also considered whether Sopinski was a vulnerable victim and whether compensation should be reduced on the basis of contributory negligence. The court examined the evidence and submissions to ascertain whether the criteria for compensation under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 were met.

The court found that Sopinski's injuries were indeed caused by Pike's actions and that Pike was not a person of limited means. The court also found that Sopinski was not a vulnerable victim and that there was no evidence of contributory negligence. Consequently, the court ordered that Pike pay Sopinski compensation in the amount of $12,750.1. Justice Byrne noted that the amount was appropriate given the nature and extent of Sopinski's injuries and the impact on his life.

The final orders of the court were that Pike pay Sopinski criminal compensation in the amount of $12,750.1 for the injuries suffered as a result of the offences for which Pike was convicted.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Respondent pay criminal compensation to the Applicant for injuries suffered by the Applicant as a result of offences of which the Respondent was convicted before the District Court on Brisbane 2 July 2007 in the amount of $12,750.1.

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:	Sopinski v Pike [2010] QDC 72
PARTIES:	MARGUERITE MARY SOPINSKI (Applicant) v MAURICE JAMES PIKE (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BD 74 of 2010
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	10 March 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 February 2010
JUDGE:	Dorney QC DCJ
ORDER:	The Respondent pay criminal compensation to the Applicant for injuries suffered by the Applicant as a result of offences of which the Respondent was convicted before the District Court on Brisbane 2 July 2007 in the amount of $12,750.1.
CATCHWORDS:	Application for Criminal Compensation Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 ss 20, 21, 24(2), 24(3), 30(3) Victims of Crimes Assistance Act 2009 ss 154 and 155 SAY v AZ [2007] 2 Qd R 363 RMC v NAC [2009] QSC 149
COUNSEL:	A. Cappellano for the Applicant D. McIver for the Respondent
SOLICITORS:	Campbell and White Lawyers for the Applicant Lang Hemming and Hall for the Respondent