V v H - [2008] QDC 333

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: V v H [2008] QDC 333
PARTIES: V
(Applicant)
v H
(Respondent)
FILE NO/S: 1923 of 2008
DIVISION: Civil
PROCEEDING: Application
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court
DELIVERED ON: 16 October 2008
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 19 August 2008 with further written submissions
subsequently received on 3 September 2008
JUDGE: Rackemann DCJ
ORDER: The respondent pay the applicant compensation in the
sum of $67,000. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs
of the proceeding.
CATCHWORDS: Compensation – s 663B(1) of the Criminal Code –
identification of courses of conduct – causation – mental or
nervous shock
COUNSEL: Janette Fadden, solicitor for the applicant
No appearance for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
No appearance for the respondent

On 31 March 2005 the respondent (who is the applicant’s older cousin) was convicted, on his own pleas of guilty, of 14 offences. The applicant was the complainant in relation to Counts 7 to 14 inclusive. The relevant offences were for unlawfully and indecently assaulting the complainant (including when he was a child) and attempting to procure the complainant to commit acts of gross indecency. The offences span a lengthy period dating back to the mid 1980’s. The applicant now seeks compensation.
Compensation is claimed under the now repealed provisions of s 663B(1) of the Criminal Code, which remain of relevance by reason of s 46 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995. Section 663B provided for compensation in respect of offences “relating to the person of any person”. Each of the relevant offences related to the person of the applicant. That includes the offences of attempted
procurement.[1]
[1] RZ (by his litigation guardian RAA) v PAE [2003] QCA 166. While that case was concerned with the corresponding provision of the Criminal Offence Victims Act, the majority applied the distinction between offences relating to the person and offences relating to property, which had been drawn by Mackenzie J in French v Green (unreported appeal no 4481 of 1997, 19 December 1997).
Section 663B provides for compensation for “injury” suffered by the applicant by reason of the offence or offences for which the offender is convicted. In this case, compensation is sought for mental or nervous shock and for a physical injury constituted by the complainant’s bottom becoming torn and bleeding as a result of one of the offences. Each of those are injuries for the purposes of s 663B.
Section 663B does not permit compensation to be ordered which exceeds the “prescribed amount”. That expression is defined in s 663A to mean:
(a) Where injury in connection with which an application is made was suffered before the commencement of the Criminal Code Amendment Act 1984 - $5,000;
(b) In all other cases save those that are the subject of a particular reference to s 663AA – the amount for the time being specified in s 14(1)(c)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1916 as varied from time-to-time pursuant to s 14E of that Act.
One…

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 V v H

Details

AGLC: v v H [2008] QDC 333
Case: [2008] QDC 333
Decision Date: 12 May 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of V v H, the applicant sought compensation under section 663B(1) of the Criminal Code for harm suffered as a result of the respondent's courses of conduct. The case was heard in the Supreme Court, where the applicant alleged that the respondent's actions had caused her significant mental distress. The legal issues centred around whether the respondent's conduct could be identified as courses of conduct under the statute, and whether these actions had directly caused the applicant's harm.

The court examined the elements of section 663B(1) of the Criminal Code, focusing on the requirement that the courses of conduct must be identified and that they must cause mental or emotional harm to the applicant. The court considered the evidence presented regarding the nature and frequency of the respondent's actions and assessed whether these constituted courses of conduct as defined by the statute. Additionally, the court looked into the causation aspect, determining if there was a direct link between the respondent's conduct and the applicant's mental harm.

After reviewing the evidence, the court found that the respondent's actions did indeed constitute courses of conduct under the Criminal Code, and that these had caused the applicant significant mental distress. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the respondent to pay compensation in the amount of $67,000, along with the applicant's costs of the proceeding.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent pay the applicant compensation in the

sum of $67,000. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs

of the proceeding.

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:	V v H [2008] QDC 333
PARTIES:	V
(Applicant)
v H
(Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	1923 of 2008
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING
COURT:	District Court
DELIVERED ON:	16 October 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 August 2008 with further written submissions subsequently received on 3 September 2008
JUDGE:	Rackemann DCJ
ORDER:	The respondent pay the applicant compensation in the sum of $67,000. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the proceeding.
CATCHWORDS:	Compensation – s 663B(1) of the Criminal Code – identification of courses of conduct – causation – mental or nervous shock
COUNSEL:	Janette Fadden, solicitor for the applicant No appearance for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant No appearance for the respondent