Spinosa v Victims Assist Queensland - [2016] QCAT 173

CITATION:

Spinosa v Victims Assist Queensland [2016] QCAT 173

PARTIES:	Donato Spinosa (Applicant)
v
Victims Assist Queensland (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

GAR 214-15

MATTER TYPE:

General administrative review matters

HEARING DATE:

27 January 2016

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Rogers

DELIVERED ON:

2 March 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The decision of Victims Assist Queensland dated 13 August 2015 is confirmed.

2. The Queensland Police Service Report No QP1500032100, found at pages 30, 31 and 32 of the material filed by the Scheme Manager of Victims Assist Queensland on 12 October 2015, be provided to Mr Spinosa.

CATCHWORDS:

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – EXTERNAL REVIEW OF DECISION – Where allegation of harassment– Where person claimed psychological injuries – Where no charges laid – Where claim made under Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld) – Whether offence occurred - Whether ‘act of violence’ committed – Whether claim can be sustained

Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld) ss 21, 25, 125
Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) s 359B

Commonwealth Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) s 474.17

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT:

Donato Spinosa appeared in person

RESPONDENT:

Vicitms Assist Queensland represented by Ms A Freeman of Counsel

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr Spinosa enrolled at Griffith University in July 2012. He was studying part-time to complete the degree of Bachelor of Multimedia Arts and attended the Nathan campus of the University about three days a week. He was achieving at a high level and had a Grade Point Average of 5 at the end of his first semester of study.
In the first semester of 2014, he was undertaking a subject involving group work. Issues arose between Mr Spinosa, a tutor and other persons within the group. Mr Spinosa made a complaint to the University about these issues. In June he was advised in writing that the complaint had been investigated and no further action would be taken. Professor Finger, Dean of the Faculty, investigated the complaint.
He lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman and the University[1] about the complaints procedure on 5 August 2014. He then lodged a complaint with the Queensland Police Service (‘the police’) against a student and Professor Finger in August 2014 alleging, against Professor Finger, unlawful stalking and unlawful use of a carriage service to menace and harass. A decision was made by the police that the complaints were unfounded and no further action was taken.[2]
[1]Queensland Police Service Statement of Witness of Donato Spinosa dated 23 February 2015 at [16], [25].
[2]Queensland Police Service Report No QP1500032100 printed 10 May 2015.
The University determined on 5 November 2014 to permanently exclude Mr Spinosa from the University for breaches of the Student Charter. It was found he had made offensive statements about senior staff at the University, including Professor Finger.[3]
[3]Submission of Respondent dated 25 January 2016.
Mr Spinosa sought the assistance of his doctor, a counselling service and a psychologist to treat the psychological trauma, which he said resulted from the unlawful conduct of Professor…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Spinosa v Victims Assist Queensland and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] QCAT 173
Decision Date: 2 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Spinosa v Victims Assist Queensland, the applicant, Mr Spinosa, sought review of a decision by Victims Assist Queensland, which declined to provide financial assistance under the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld). Mr Spinosa alleged that he had suffered psychological injury as a result of an incident of harassment. No charges were laid against the alleged perpetrator. The court was required to determine whether the incident qualified as an 'act of violence' under the Act, and if the claim could be sustained.

The legal issues central to the case involved the interpretation of the term 'act of violence' as defined in the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld) and whether the incident in question met the criteria for such an act. The court had to assess whether the incident could be classified as an act of violence, even in the absence of a formal charge or conviction, and if the alleged harassment could be considered an act of violence that resulted in psychological injury. Additionally, the court examined the procedural fairness of the decision-making process undertaken by Victims Assist Queensland.

In its reasoning, the court found that the incident did not constitute an 'act of violence' as defined by the Act. The court held that the definition of 'act of violence' required a physical act, which was not present in the case. Furthermore, the court concluded that the decision-making process was fair and that the decision was correctly made. The court confirmed the decision of Victims Assist Queensland and rejected Mr Spinosa's application for review. The court ordered that a specific police report be provided to Mr Spinosa.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decision of Victims Assist Queensland dated 13 August 2015 is confirmed.

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.