Sutton v. Davies - [2008] QDC 37

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Sutton v Davies [2008] QDC 37
PARTIES:	Clair Louise Sutton (Applicant) AND Adam Lyndon Davies (Respondent)
FILE NOS:	202/07
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Maroochydore District Court
DELIVERED ON:	7.3.08
DELIVERED AT:	Maroochydore
HEARING DATE:	28 February 2008
JUDGE:	Judge J.M. Robertson
ORDER:	Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal Compensation- application for compensation pursuant to s.24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995; where respondent convicted of attempting to rape the applicant; where applicant then fled with her two young children in a motor vehicle; where applicant had consumed alcohol; where car involved in a single vehicle accident in which one child was killed and applicant seriously injured; where no claim for mental or nervous shock, where claim is only for physical injuries sustained in accident, whether offence materially contributed to injury – causation under the COVA, application of principle in SAY v AZ. Legislation: Criminal Offence Victims Act1995 Cases Considered: LMW v Nicholls [2004] QDC 118 Royall v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 378 Sanderson v Kajeweski [2000] QSC 270 SAY v AZ; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2006] QCA 462
COUNSEL:	Mr. Stubbins for the applicant No appearance for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Butler McDermott Lawyers for the applicant

On the 12.10.05, in this court, Adam Lyndon Davies was convicted of attempting to rape Clair Louise Sutton on 11.6.04 at Maroochydore. Ms. Sutton now seeks compensation pursuant to s.24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 “for injury suffered by (her) because of the offence”.

The case is unusual in that Ms. Sutton is claiming compensation for serious injuries suffered as a result of a tragic car accident which occurred soon after the commission of the offence. She is not claiming for any injury suffered during the commission of the offence. She claims that as a direct result of the offence she drove away from the house where it occurred with her two young children in an hysterical state, which resulted in the car proceeding through a T junction into an embankment. In the accident she suffered severe injuries and her son Aiden aged 2 was tragically killed.

Mr. Davies has not appeared, as is usual in these matters, however he filed an affidavit in which he asserts that there is no causal link between Ms. Sutton’s injuries and the offence of attempted rape committed by him.

Ms. Sutton’s Counsel has been unable to refer me to any case in which compensation has been awarded under the Act for injuries suffered in a separate incident but soon after the commission of the offence.

It will be necessary for me therefore to consider the circumstances and to apply the approach to causation mandated by the Queensland Court of Appeal in SAY v AZ; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2006] QCA 462.

The background facts

Ms. Sutton and Mr. Davies had been in a de facto relationship in 2002 and had a son together, Aiden who was born on the 16.5.02. Ms. Sutton also had…

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 Sutton v. Davies

Details

AGLC: Sutton v Davies [2008] QDC 37
Case: [2008] QDC 37
Decision Date: 7 March 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sutton v. Davies is a case where the applicant, Sutton, applied for compensation under section 24 of the Criminal Offences Victims Act 1995, after she was seriously injured in a car accident. Sutton had been the victim of a crime committed by the respondent, Davies, who was convicted of attempting to rape her. The incident led Sutton to flee with her two young children in a motor vehicle, while under the influence of alcohol, which resulted in a single vehicle accident. One of her children was killed in the accident, and Sutton herself sustained serious injuries.

The legal issues the court was required to determine involved whether the offence materially contributed to Sutton's injuries and whether the respondent's actions could be said to have caused her injuries under the Criminal Offences Victims Act. The court considered the principle established in the case of SAY v AZ and applied it to the facts of this case.

The court found that while the respondent's criminal act was a factor in the chain of events that led to the accident, it was not the sole cause of the accident. The applicant's consumption of alcohol and her decision to drive with her children under those circumstances also played a significant role. The court held that the respondent's actions did not materially contribute to the applicant's injuries and dismissed the application for compensation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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.