Speechley v Baynes - [2004] QDC 408

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Speechley v Baynes [2004] QDC 408
PARTIES: JANELLE RAE SPEECHLEY (Applicant)
v
MARK JOHN BAYNES (Respondent)
FILE NO/S: D10 or 2004
DIVISION: Civil Jurisdiction
PROCEEDING: Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court, Mount Isa
DELIVERED ON: 17 September 2004
DELIVERED AT: Mount Isa
HEARING DATE: 10 September 2004
JUDGE: Tutt DCJ
ORDER: That the respondent, Mark John Baynes, pay to the
applicant, Janelle Rae Speechley, the sum of $12,750.00
for injuries caused by him to the applicant for which the
respondent was convicted by this Court on 7 May 2002 at
Charters Towers.
CATCHWORDS: Criminal compensation – assault occasioning bodily harm –
bruising – mental or nervous shock – test for causation.
Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 ss. 24 and 25(7)
Ferguson v Kazakoff [2000] QSC 156.
LMW v Nicholls [2004] QDC 118.

R v Tiltman; ex parte Dawe (SC 324/95, 22 June 1995, unreported).
Steinback v Steinback [2001] QCA 12.
COUNSEL: Ms J Brasch for the applicant.
SOLICITORS: Anderson Telford Lawyers for the applicant.
No appearance for the respondent.

Introduction

The applicant, Janelle Rae Speechley, claims compensation under Part 3 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (“the Act”) for personal injuries she sustained on or about 3 April 2001 arising out of the criminal conduct of the respondent, Mark John Baynes, who was convicted by this court on 7 May 2002 at Charters Towers for assault occasioning bodily harm to her. The respondent, although being served with the application, made no appearance at the hearing.
The application for compensation is made pursuant to s 24 of the Act and is supported by the following material:-
(a)         the affidavit with exhibits of the applicant sworn 20 April 2004 and filed 7 May 2004.
(b)        the affidavit with exhibits of John Andrew Bolton, solicitor sworn 20 April 2004 and filed 7 May 2004; and
(c)         the affidavit of service of Scott Darren Hughey, sworn 2 September 2004 and filed by leave on 10 September 2004.

Facts

The material shows that the applicant was assaulted by the respondent in that he punched her once in the left eye with some force causing the injuries the subject of this claim.
The applicant and the respondent were staying in a room at the Northern Hotel at Hughenden on 3 April 2001. The applicant had been drinking at the bar of the hotel before retiring to the room. The door was locked upon her return so she knocked and asked the respondent, who was inside, to open the door. Once inside an argument ensued during which the respondent punched the applicant once to the face.
It appears that there was a history of violence between the parties. The applicant and the respondent were in a de facto relationship during the period when this offence occurred. The violence in the relationship, it seems, was a “two-way street”, the applicant herself having assaulted the respondent on other occasions and on one occasion actually stabbed the respondent twice.…

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 Speechley v Baynes

Details

AGLC: Speechley v Baynes [2004] QDC 408
Case: [2004] QDC 408
Decision Date: 17/09/2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Speechley v Baynes, the applicant, Janelle Rae Speechley, sought compensation for injuries sustained from an assault by the respondent, Mark John Baynes, who was convicted of the offence on 7 May 2002. The dispute centred on the appropriate amount of compensation for the physical and psychological harm caused by the assault. The matter was heard in the District Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issue before the court was the extent to which the respondent was liable for the physical and psychological injuries claimed by the applicant. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the injuries, including bruising and mental or nervous shock, were directly caused by the assault and assess the appropriate quantum of compensation. The test for causation in such cases was central to the court's consideration.

The court examined the evidence and determined that the bruising and mental or nervous shock experienced by the applicant were indeed caused by the assault. The court applied the relevant test for causation and found that the injuries were a direct result of the assault. After considering the totality of the evidence, including medical reports and expert testimony, the court awarded the applicant $12,750.00 in compensation. This sum was deemed appropriate to cover the physical and psychological harm suffered by the applicant.

The court's decision was based on a careful analysis of the evidence and the principles of causation in criminal compensation claims. The respondent was ordered to pay the awarded sum to the applicant within the stipulated timeframe.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the respondent, Mark John Baynes, pay to the

applicant, Janelle Rae Speechley, the sum of $12,750.00

for injuries caused by him to the applicant for which the

respondent was convicted by this Court on 7 May 2002 at

Charters Towers.

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:	Speechley v Baynes [2004] QDC 408
PARTIES:	JANELLE RAE SPEECHLEY (Applicant) v MARK JOHN BAYNES (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	D10 or 2004
DIVISION:	Civil Jurisdiction
PROCEEDING:	Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Mount Isa
DELIVERED ON:	17 September 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Mount Isa
HEARING DATE:	10 September 2004
JUDGE:	Tutt DCJ
ORDER:	That the respondent, Mark John Baynes, pay to the applicant, Janelle Rae Speechley, the sum of $12,750.00 for injuries caused by him to the applicant for which the respondent was convicted by this Court on 7 May 2002 at Charters Towers.
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal compensation – assault occasioning bodily harm – bruising – mental or nervous shock – test for causation.
Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 ss. 24 and 25(7)
Ferguson v Kazakoff [2000] QSC 156.
LMW v Nicholls [2004] QDC 118.
R v Tiltman; ex parte Dawe (SC 324/95, 22 June 1995, unreported).
Steinback v Steinback [2001] QCA 12.
COUNSEL:	Ms J Brasch for the applicant.
SOLICITORS:	Anderson Telford Lawyers for the applicant. No appearance for the respondent.