Taylor v Taylor

Case [2010] QSC 109


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Taylor v Taylor [2010] QSC 109

PARTIES:

RODNEY CHARLES TAYLOR
(applicant)

v

SCOTT MATTHEW TAYLOR
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

14615 of 2009

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application for criminal compensation

ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court

DELIVERED ON:

8 April 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 April  2010

JUDGE:

A Lyons J

ORDER:

Order that the respondent pay the applicant by way of compensation pursuant to the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld), the sum of $42,750

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND - where the respondent was convicted of one count of a malicious act with some intent to do grievous bodily harm to the applicant - where the applicant suffered physical and psychological injuries - whether compensation should be awarded.

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 *Qld)

Dooley v Ward [2001] 2 Qd R 436
Say v AZ; Ex Parte AG [2006]QCA 462
Wren v Gaulai [2008] QCA 148

COUNSEL:

Cappellano, A for the applicant

No appearance for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Campbell & White Lawyers for the applicant

A LYONS J:

Introduction

  1. This is an application for criminal compensation pursuant to the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) (the Act).

  1. The respondent did not appear at the hearing.

  1. The respondent pleaded guilty on 6 June 2008 to one count of a malicious act with intent to do some grievous bodily harm to the applicant on 30 June 2006.  On 14 August 2008 the respondent was sentenced to six years imprisonment with a parole eligibility date fixed at 1 December 2008. It was also ordered that the 775 days spent in pre-sentence custody between 1 July 2006 and 14 August 2008 be deemed time already served under the sentence.


Background

  1. The applicant and the respondent are brothers and at the time of the offence their relationship had been strained. Following the separation of the respondent and his partner, the respondent lived at the applicant’s home which he shared with his partner and their two children.  On 30 June 2006 the respondent began abusing the applicant in the downstairs area of the home. The applicant walked away and went upstairs with his partner and two children. The respondent followed him with a shifting spanner in one hand and two kitchen knives in the other.  The respondent began attacking the applicant with the knives and during a struggle he was hit with a knife several times before both men fell down an internal staircase. The applicant suffered fractures to his eye socket and jaw as a result of this fall.  The applicant sustained injuries to his head, chest and thumb as a result of the stabbing.

Injuries – physical

  1. The injuries to the applicant included:

(a)        A fracture to the orbit of his left eye;

(b)        a fracture to the wall of his maxilla (jaw bone);

(c)        a five centimetre laceration to his temple;

(d)        a five centimetre laceration to the back of his head which required staples;

(e)        a ten centimetre laceration…

Continue reading Taylor v Taylor

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Taylor v Taylor [2010] QSC 109
Case
[2010] QSC 109
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Taylor v Taylor involved the applicant, who suffered both physical and psychological injuries as a result of a malicious act carried out by the respondent. The respondent had been convicted of a crime involving a malicious act with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. The dispute centred on whether the applicant was entitled to compensation for these injuries under the provisions of the Criminal Offences Victims Act 1995 (Qld). The matter was heard in the Queensland Supreme Court.

The court was required to determine the eligibility of the applicant for compensation under the Act, considering the nature and extent of the injuries sustained, as well as the statutory framework governing criminal injuries compensation. The central legal issue was whether the injuries suffered by the applicant qualified as "injuries" under the Act and if the compensation sought was reasonable and proportionate to the harm caused.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the statutory provisions and case law to interpret the meaning of "injuries" under the Act. The court found that the applicant's physical and psychological injuries were indeed compensable under the statute. The court also considered the appropriate amount of compensation, taking into account the severity of the injuries, the impact on the applicant's life, and the need for deterrence. Ultimately, the court determined that the sum of $42,750 was a fair and reasonable compensation for the injuries suffered by the applicant.

Consequently, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant the sum of $42,750 as compensation for the injuries sustained, in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Offences Victims Act 1995 (Qld).

Orders

Orders of the court

Order that the respondent pay the applicant by way of compensation pursuant to the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld), the sum of $42,750

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.