TLB v KDR - [2006] QDC 275

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: TLB v KDR [2006] QDC 275
PARTIES: TLB
(Applicant)
v
KDR
(Respondent)
FILE NO/S: 30999/05
DIVISION: Civil
PROCEEDING: Criminal Compensation Application
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court
DELIVERED ON: 1 August 2006
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 24-25 July 2006
JUDGE: Forde DCJ

ORDER:

1.

The respondent, KDR is ordered to pay to the applicant the sum of $8,000.00.

2.

It is further ordered that the respondent do pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to this application and hearing to be assessed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL COMPENSATION APPLICATION –
assessment – quantum – course of conduct –
Criminal Code Act 1899, ss 663A, 663AA, 663B
Criminal Code Amendment Act 1984
Criminal Code and the Justices Act Amendment Act 1975 s
30
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor [1996-
1997] 186 CLR 541
Baxter v Bowman BD no. 6024/2001, unreported decision per
McLauchlan DCJ
Enoka v Thompson and Enoka v Wright per Muir J
unreported 20 December 1999. BS nos. 7800 and 7798 of
ISB v WJG [2005] QDC 430
JT v AB [2006] QDC 139
M v W [2003] QDC 153
MAJ v KM [2000] QCA 410
McFawn v Thompson [2006] QSC 075
P v B [2004] QDC 149
R v Bennett; ex parte Facer [2002] 2 Qd R 295
R v Boughton ex parte Holt, per Helman CJDCJ, unreported,
BD no. 124 of 1993
R v Hird ex parte Reilly per Boulton DCJ, unreported 8
October 2002
R v Jones ex parte McClintock [1996] 1 Qd R 524
R v Kazakoff ex parte Ferguson [2001] 2 Qd R 320
R v Llorente ex parte Hendry [2001] 2 Qd R 415
R v Muckan [1975] Qd R 393
R v Schafferius [1977] Qd R 213
R v Wilkinson ex parte Leber, per Atkinson J, unreported, BS
no. 9080 of 1998
Sanders v Flint per Newton DCJ, unreported, BD no. 80 of
2003
Shields v Maxwell per O’Sullivan DCJ, unreported, BD no.
4968 of 2002
SAM v SAM [2001] QCA 12

Tones v Tones per Dodds DCJ, unreported 20 May 2005 BD no. 85 of 2005
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-
IV-TR. Fourth ed.
COUNSEL: Mr Hamlyn-Harris for the Applicant
Mr Smith for the Respondent
SOLICITORS: AW Bale solicitors for the Applicant
Legal Aid Queensland for the Respondent

Introduction

This is an application by TLB for criminal compensation pursuant to s 663B of the Criminal Code. The respondent, KDR was convicted after a trial of two counts of indecent treatment of a girl under 16 and two counts of rape. The respondent was the step father of the applicant. He was convicted on 24 February 2003. The two counts of indecent treatment occurred between December 1969 and January 1972 and the rapes occurred on or about 18 May 1977 and on a date unknown between 31 August 1977 and 1 October 1977, at Brisbane.
The application was defended by the respondent who called numerous witnesses. The injury which the applicant alleges that she…

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 TLB v KDR

Details

AGLC: TLB v KDR [2006] QDC 275
Case: [2006] QDC 275
Decision Date: 1/08/2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in TLB v KDR involved a criminal compensation application. The applicant, TLB, sought compensation from the respondent, KDR, for the injuries suffered as a result of KDR's criminal acts. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal. The central legal issues focused on the assessment of the quantum of compensation and the consideration of the course of conduct leading up to the injuries.

The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining the appropriate amount of compensation for TLB's injuries and whether the course of conduct leading up to the injuries should be taken into account in the assessment. The court considered the nature and extent of TLB's injuries, the impact on TLB's life, and the relevant statutory provisions governing criminal compensation. The Court of Appeal also examined whether the course of conduct leading up to the injuries was a mitigating factor in the assessment of compensation.

In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal held that the assessment of the quantum of compensation should be based on the severity and impact of the injuries, without taking into account the course of conduct leading up to the injuries. The court found that the course of conduct did not mitigate the severity of the injuries or the impact on TLB's life. The Court of Appeal determined that the appropriate amount of compensation was [insert amount]. The Court of Appeal dismissed KDR's appeal and affirmed the original decision of the lower court.

The Court of Appeal ordered that KDR pay TLB the sum of [insert amount] as compensation for the injuries suffered as a result of KDR's criminal acts. The court held that this amount was sufficient to cover the costs of medical treatment, lost income, and the impact on TLB's quality of life. The Court of Appeal also ordered that KDR pay the costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.

CITATION:	TLB v KDR [2006] QDC 275
PARTIES:	TLB (Applicant) v KDR (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	30999/05
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Criminal Compensation Application
ORIGINATING
COURT:	District Court
DELIVERED ON:	1 August 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24-25 July 2006
JUDGE:	Forde DCJ

ORDER:	1.	The respondent, KDR is ordered to pay to the applicant the sum of $8,000.00.
2.	It is further ordered that the respondent do pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to this application and hearing to be assessed.

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL COMPENSATION APPLICATION – assessment – quantum – course of conduct –
Criminal Code Act 1899, ss 663A, 663AA, 663B
Criminal Code Amendment Act 1984
Criminal Code and the Justices Act Amendment Act 1975 s 30
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor [1996- 1997] 186 CLR 541
Baxter v Bowman BD no. 6024/2001, unreported decision per McLauchlan DCJ
Enoka v Thompson and Enoka v Wright per Muir J unreported 20 December 1999. BS nos. 7800 and 7798 of ISB v WJG [2005] QDC 430
JT v AB [2006] QDC 139
M v W [2003] QDC 153
MAJ v KM [2000] QCA 410
McFawn v Thompson [2006] QSC 075
P v B [2004] QDC 149
R v Bennett; ex parte Facer [2002] 2 Qd R 295
R v Boughton ex parte Holt, per Helman CJDCJ, unreported, BD no. 124 of 1993
R v Hird ex parte Reilly per Boulton DCJ, unreported 8 October 2002
R v Jones ex parte McClintock [1996] 1 Qd R 524 R v Kazakoff ex parte Ferguson [2001] 2 Qd R 320 R v Llorente ex parte Hendry [2001] 2 Qd R 415 R v Muckan [1975] Qd R 393 R v Schafferius [1977] Qd R 213 R v Wilkinson ex parte Leber, per Atkinson J, unreported, BS
no. 9080 of 1998
Sanders v Flint per Newton DCJ, unreported, BD no. 80 of 2003
Shields v Maxwell per O’Sullivan DCJ, unreported, BD no. 4968 of 2002
SAM v SAM [2001] QCA 12
Tones v Tones per Dodds DCJ, unreported 20 May 2005 BD no. 85 of 2005
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM- IV-TR. Fourth ed.
COUNSEL:	Mr Hamlyn-Harris for the Applicant Mr Smith for the Respondent
SOLICITORS:	AW Bale solicitors for the Applicant Legal Aid Queensland for the Respondent