TJM –v– EJA - [2006] QDC 390

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	TJM –v– EJA [2006] QDC 390
PARTIES:	TJM Applicant Against EJA Respondent
FILE NO:	457/05
PROCEEDINGS:	Application for criminal compensation.
DELIVERED ON:	20 October 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Townsville
HEARING DATE:	11 October 2006
JUDGE:	C.F Wall Q.C
ORDER:	Respondent pay compensation to the applicant of $55,500.00 and half of the costs of the application to be assessed on the standard basis.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – COMPENSATION– SEXUAL OFFENCES – Pregnancy – Assessment and Amount – applcn for criminal compensation – appct repeatedly sexually interfered by resp over approximately 9 years – as a consequence of the interference appct fell pregnant and gave birth to resp’s child – appct also suffering from psychiatric conditions – appct separately compensated for pregnancy – compensation for pregnancy limited to only the pregnancy and does not extend to the economic consequences of the pregnancy such as costs associated with the birth of the child, costs of raising the child and the effect on the appct’s schooling, education, employment and future earning capacity. Cases referred to: HW v LO [2000] QCA 377(FAA) Gough v Bushnell, unreported, District Court of Townsville , 5 March 1998 (CON) HV v LN [2000] QCA 472(CON) Legislation Referred to: Criminal Code Act, Schedule 1 Criminal Offence Victims Act, ss 25(6), 31 Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995
COUNSEL:	Mr D. Honchin for the Applicant No appearance by the Respondent
SOLICITORS:	Purcell Taylor Lawyers for the Applicant No appearance by the Respondent

HIS HONOUR: This is an application for compensation under the repealed provisions of the Criminal Code and under the Criminal Offence Victims Act.

The applicant (TJM) was born on the 13th of July 1982. She was sexually abused by her foster father from about the age of three and a-half years commencing in about 1985 until she was 16.

In the District Court at Townsville on the 19th of August 2002 the respondent (EJA) was convicted of the following offences involving the applicant:

1.Maintaining a sexual relationship with a child with a circumstance of aggravation between the 26th of July 1985 and the 12th of July 1998.

2.Indecent dealing with a child under 16 years between the 1st of January 1992 and the 23rd of March 1993.
3.Attempted rape between the 27th of July 1993 and the 31st of December 1994.
4.Rape on about the 13th of May 1997.

The Court of Appeal subsequently amended the first date in the first charge to read the 3rd of July 1989 and not the 26th of July 1985 because there was no offence of maintaining until 1989. The period of the maintaining for compensation purposes is therefore about nine years. The Criminal Offence Victims Act commenced on the 18th of December 1995, therefore about six and a-half years of the maintaining occurred before then commencing (for compensation purposes) when the applicant was aged about seven years and about two and a-half years occurred after then.

The second and third offences were committed before the 18th…

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 TJM –v– EJA

Details

AGLC: TJM –v– EJA [2006] QDC 390
Case: [2006] QDC 390
Decision Date: 20 October 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of TJM against EJA, the applicant sought compensation for injuries sustained as a result of a prolonged period of sexual abuse. The dispute centred on the amount and scope of compensation for the consequences of the abuse, particularly the pregnancy and its resultant effects. The matter was heard in the relevant Australian court. The applicant alleged that the respondent repeatedly sexually interfered with her over a period of approximately nine years, resulting in her falling pregnant and subsequently giving birth to the respondent's child. Additionally, the applicant claimed to be suffering from psychiatric conditions stemming from the abuse.

The legal issues before the court included the assessment of compensation for the pregnancy itself, the economic consequences of the pregnancy such as the costs associated with the birth of the child, the costs of raising the child, and the impact on the applicant's schooling, education, employment, and future earning capacity. It was noted that compensation for the pregnancy was limited to the pregnancy itself and did not extend to these broader economic and consequential impacts. The court had to determine whether these broader consequences of the pregnancy could be considered in the overall compensation package.

The court concluded that the compensation for the pregnancy did not extend to the economic consequences of the pregnancy. However, in assessing the overall compensation, the court considered the full impact of the abuse on the applicant's life, including the pregnancy and its aftermath. The court determined that the respondent should pay compensation to the applicant in the amount of $55,500.00. The respondent was also ordered to pay half of the costs of the application, to be assessed on the standard basis.

Orders

Orders of the court

Respondent pay compensation to the applicant of $55,500.00 and half of the costs of the application to be assessed on the standard basis.

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.