Stritch v Farrugia

[2008] QDC 228

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: 

Stritch v Farrugia [2008] QDC 228

PARTIES: 

LEAH KAREN STRITCH
(Applicant)
v
KAREN CLAIRE FARRUGIA
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S: 

2349 of 2007

DIVISION: 

District Court

PROCEEDING: 

Application

ORIGINATING 

COURT: 

District Court

DELIVERED ON: 

5 September 2008

DELIVERED AT: 

Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 

26 August and 4 September 2008

JUDGE: 

Forde DCJ

ORDER: 

1.	The limitation period is extended to 21 August 2008
2.	It is ordered that the respondent do pay to the applicant the sum of $13,500.00 compensation

CATCHWORDS: 

CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – whether cause of action
arises after allocutus administered or after sentence
completed – extension of the limitation of actions period

Criminal Code1899 (Qld) s 648
Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) ss 24, 40, 41
Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Qld) s 31(2)

Chong v Chong ([2001] 2 Qd R 301, referred to
De Kruiff v Smith [1971] VR 761 referred to
Dick v University of Queensland [1999] QCA 474; [2000]2
Qd.R. 476 followed
DPP v McCoid [1988] VR 982 referred to
Director of Public Prosecutions v Hai Minh Nguyen; DPP v
Duncan [2008] VSC 292 distinguished
Griffiths v The Queen [1976-1977] 137 CLR 293 referred to
Jacob v Roberts (2002) QCA 87 applied
Maxwell v The Queen (1996) 184 CLR 501 distinguished
R v Jerome and Anor [1964] Qd R 595 referred to
R v Lowrie and Ross [2000] 2 Qd R 529 referred to
R v Shillingsworth [1985] 1 QD R 537 applied
R v Stone [2005] NSWCCA 344 distinguished

COUNSEL: 

Peter Saggars, solicitor, for applicant
No appearance for respondent

SOLICITORS: 

Howard Saggars Lawyers

Introduction

1. At an earlier hearing of this application for criminal compensation, the quantum was assessed at $13,500.00. The matter was adjourned as a question arose as to what date the respondent was convicted for the purposes of determining when the limitation period expired. Pursuant to s 40 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) (the “Act”), an application is required to be brought within three years of a conviction after trial. The term “trial” is defined under the Act as “includes a proceeding in which a person is sentenced.”[1]

   [1]            Schedule 3 Dictionary

2. According to the endorsement on the indictment, the respondent pleaded guilty before his honour Judge Boulton on 14 May 2004 to a five count indictment. The allocutus was administered on that date pursuant to s 648 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) as to whether the respondent had anything to say why sentence should not be passed. Two of the offences were assaults on the applicant. The endorsement does not accord with the transcript in relation to the pleas and the allocutus, but the endorsement is the relevant document for present purposes. There was a dispute about the facts of a robbery of the applicant by the respondent. All matters were adjourned to another date. On 10 August 2004, the sentence proceeded before me and a nolle prosequi was presented in relation to the robbery. The remaining two offences are not relevant for…