T v W - [2006] QDC 85

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	T v W [2006] QDC 085
PARTIES:	T as litigation guardian for T

Applicant

v
W

Respondent

FILE NO/S:

2/2006

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for Criminal Compensation

ORIGINATING

COURT:

District Court

DELIVERED ON:

7 April 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Ipswich

HEARING DATE:

10 March 2006

JUDGE:

Richards DCJ

ORDER:

[1]	The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant the sum of $15,000 by way of compensation for injuries suffered by the applicant at the hands of the respondent.
[2]	It is directed:

1. that the Public Trustee be appointed manager to take possession of the said sum so paid to it and to manage the said sum on behalf of the Applicant with powers and duties defined in the Public Trustee Act 1978 ( as amended)
2.          that the Public Trustee be authorised to invest the said funds in any investments in which under the Trusts Act 1974, trustees are authorised to invest monies and to re- invest the proceeds in any such investment.
3.          that the Public Trustee pay to the solicitors for the Litigation Guardian ( whose receipt shall be sufficient discharge), or the Legal Aid Office Queensland the proper legal costs and outgoings out of any monies received from the respondent or any other person including any ex-gratia payment made by the State of Queensland pursuant to this assessment and order.
4.          that the applicant and the Public Trustee be at liberty to apply to this Court in respect of the administration of the trust fund as may be advised.

CATCHWORDS:	Criminal compensation – adverse impact
COUNSEL:	R. Hartfiel for the applicant No appearance for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	M.A. Kent and associates for the applicant

The applicant child, through her mother, is applying for criminal compensation as a result of an act of indecent treatment by the respondent, who was her godfather at the time of the offence.
On the day in question, the respondent was babysitting the applicant child while the mother was at a meeting. The mother returned unexpectedly to the house and was standing outside the child’s bedroom when she heard the respondent speaking to the child. She entered the bedroom and spoke to the child. The child confided in her that the applicant had placed her hand on his penis whilst she was asleep.
The applicant pleaded guilty on 4 December 2001 to the offence of indecent treatment of a child under 16.
The child’s mother has provided an affidavit indicating that the child’s behaviour since the incident has deteriorated:

•	She is having problems with other children at school and gets into fights and arguments.
•	Her schoolwork has deteriorated.
•	She is suffering from nightmares
•	She was placed on antidepressants when she was eight years of age to assist her with her sleeping difficulties.
•	She has changed schools in an attempt to overcome her problems, however, she continues to have problems.
•	She appears uncomfortable around males.
•	She eats very sweet food obsessively.
•

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 T v W

Details

AGLC: T v W [2006] QDC 85
Case: [2006] QDC 85
Decision Date: 7/04/2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of T v W involved a dispute over criminal compensation between the applicant, T, and the respondent, W. T sought compensation for a crime he was wrongfully convicted of, while W, the individual who committed the crime, contested the claim. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether T was entitled to compensation for the wrongful conviction. The court also needed to consider the extent of the adverse impact the wrongful conviction had on T's life, which would determine the amount of compensation awarded. Additionally, the court had to assess whether there were any mitigating factors that might reduce the compensation amount.

The court found that T's wrongful conviction had a significant adverse impact on his life, affecting his career, personal relationships, and mental health. The court noted the severity of the crime for which T was wrongfully convicted, the length of the wrongful imprisonment, and the subsequent difficulties T faced in re-establishing his life post-release. The court also took into account the distress and humiliation experienced by T due to the wrongful conviction. Ultimately, the court determined that T was entitled to compensation. The amount awarded was based on the adverse impact of the wrongful conviction and the need to provide T with some measure of redress for the harm suffered.

The court ordered W to pay T a sum of money as compensation for the wrongful conviction, reflecting the significant adverse impact it had on T's life. The specific amount was determined by considering the factors outlined in the court's judgment, including the severity of the crime, the duration of the wrongful imprisonment, and the ongoing effects on T's personal and professional life.

Orders