DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Tanielu v Te’o [2006] QDC 409
PARTIES:
SIUAIALII MOSES TANIELU (Applicant)
V
TOIMOANA TE’O (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:
D104/06
DIVISION:
Civil Jurisdiction
PROCEEDING:
Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court, Beenleigh
DELIVERED ON:
8 December 2006
DELIVERED AT:
Beenleigh
HEARING DATE:
8 November 2006
JUDGE:
Tutt DCJ
ORDER:
The respondent pay to the applicant the sum of
$12,750.00 by way of compensation for injuries caused by
the respondent to the applicant for which the respondent
was convicted by the District Court at Beenleigh on 19 May 2005.CATCHWORDS:
Criminal compensation – assault occasioning bodily harm – “biting ear” – post-traumatic stress disorder – mental or nervous shock.
Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 ss.24,25(6) and (7) and 31.
COUNSEL:
Mr L Menolotto for the applicant.
SOLICITORS:
Mr S Seth of Keith Scott & Associates Solicitors for the applicant.
No appearance by or on behalf of the respondent.
Introduction
In this application Siuaialii Moses Tanielu (“the applicant”) claims compensation under Part 3 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (“the Act”) for bodily injury he sustained arising out of the criminal conduct of Tomimoana Teo (“the respondent”) who was convicted by the District Court at Beenleigh on 19 May 2005 for the offence of assault occasioning bodily harm to the Applicant committed on the 6 February 2004 at Kuraby in the state of Queensland.
The respondent although being served with the application and supporting affidavits on the 12 September 2006 made no appearance at the hearing.
The application for compensation is made pursuant to section 24 of the Act and is supported by the following material:-
(a)the affidavit with exhibits of the applicant sworn 17 August 2006 and filed in this court 5 September 2006;
(b)the affidavit with exhibits of Samit Seth, solicitor, sworn 1 September 2006 and filed in this court on 5 September 2006;
(c)the affidavit with exhibits of Geoffrey Leonard Grantham, clinical and forensic psychologist, sworn 11 July 2006 and filed in this court 5 September 2006;
(d)the affidavit with exhibits of Dr Derek Neoh, plastic surgical registrar, sworn 14 July 2006 and filed in this court on 5 September 2006; and
(e)the affidavit with exhibits of Allan Fredrick Addicot, licensed agent, sworn 18 September 2006 and filed in this court on 10 September 2006.
Facts
The applicant was assaulted by the respondent in the course of an argument on 6 February 2004 during which the respondent bit off the top of the applicant’s right ear and the applicant sustained other bodily lacerations and bruising as well as psychological consequences. In respect of the ear injury the applicant had emergency surgery that evening and subsequent plastic surgery.
Applicant’s Injuries (Physical)
The applicant’s injuries are described by Dr Charles Baillieu, plastic surgical registrar of the Princess Alexandra Hospital, in his report of 2 June 2004 [being exhibit “B” to the affidavit of Dr Derek Neoh[1]]as “…a laceration to his right ear…
Continue reading Tanielu v Te'o
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Tanielu v Te'o [2006] QDC 409
- Case
- [2006] QDC 409
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to compensation for the psychiatric injury of post-traumatic stress disorder, in addition to the physical injuries for which compensation was already granted. The court had to consider the scope of the term "bodily harm" under the relevant legislation and whether it encompassed psychiatric injuries. Furthermore, the court needed to determine if the compensation for bodily harm included the psychiatric injury sustained by the applicant.
The court found that the term "bodily harm" included both physical and psychiatric injuries, and since the respondent had been convicted for the assault that caused both types of harm, compensation for the psychiatric injury was warranted. The court also noted that the award of compensation for the psychiatric injury was not precluded by the applicant’s prior award of compensation for the physical injury. The Supreme Court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant the sum of $12,750.00 for the injuries caused by the assault.
Orders
Orders of the court
The respondent pay to the applicant the sum of
$12,750.00 by way of compensation for injuries caused by
the respondent to the applicant for which the respondent
was convicted by the District Court at Beenleigh on 19 May 2005.
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.