DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
VFT v RVG [2011] QDC 315
PARTIES:
VFT
(Applicant)
V
RVG
(Respondent)
FILE NO/S:
BD 174 of 2010
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Application for criminal compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
14 December 2011 (ex tempore)
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
4 November 2011 (with further written submissions received on that date)
JUDGE:
Irwin DCJ
ORDER:
The respondent pay compensation to the applicant in the sum of $42,750 pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld).
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – ORDERS FOR COMPENSATION, REPARATION, RESTITUTION, FORFEITURE AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY – COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND – application for criminal compensation – where the applicant was convicted of one count each of knowingly procuring prostitution of a young person and knowingly participating in the provision of prostitution with a circumstance of aggravation, in relation to the applicant - where the applicant suffered lacerations at the vaginal introitus and to the anal skin, a post-traumatic stress disorder and adverse impacts under reg 1A(2) of the Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 (Qld) as a result of the offences - assessment of compensation.
CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – ORDERS FOR COMPENSATION, REPARATION, RESTITUTION, FORFEITURE AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY – COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND – application for criminal compensation – where the applicant was convicted of one count each of knowingly procuring prostitution of a young person and knowingly participating in the provision of prostitution with a circumstance of aggravation, in relation to the applicant - where the respondent was sentenced on the basis that he was an equal participant or partner in the sexual exploitation of the applicant - where it was submitted that the offences involved a breach of the applicant’s physical integrity - whether the applicant was a person against whom a personal offence had been committed - whether the application was for compensation for an indictable offence committed against the person of the applicant.
CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – ORDERS FOR COMPENSATION, REPARATION, RESTITUTION, FORFEITURE AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY – COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND – application for criminal compensation – where the applicant was convicted of one count each of knowingly procuring prostitution of a young person and knowingly participating in the provision of prostitution with a circumstance of aggravation, in relation to the applicant - where the applicant’s claim for adverse impacts extended to problems with accommodation, loss of possessions and loss of faith - whether these were adverse impacts for the purpose of reg 1A (2) (k) of the Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 (Qld).
CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – ORDERS FOR COMPENSATION, REPARATION, RESTITUTION, FORFEITURE AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY – COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND – application for criminal compensation – where the applicant was convicted of…
Continue reading VFT v RVG
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- VFT v RVG [2011] QDC 315
- Case
- [2011] QDC 315
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary issue was whether the applicant, having been convicted of the offences, was a person against whom a personal offence had been committed for the purpose of seeking compensation. The court considered whether the applicant's claim for adverse impacts, which included problems with accommodation, loss of possessions, and loss of faith, were compensable under the regulation. Furthermore, the court examined whether the applicant's pre-existing conditions, such as a borderline personality disorder, influenced the level of post-traumatic stress disorder caused by the offences. The court also considered the role of the co-offender in the crimes and whether the respondent should bear the entire compensation liability.
The court found that the applicant was a victim against whom a personal offence had been committed and was entitled to compensation. The court assessed the adverse impacts, including the physical injuries, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other issues, and determined that the applicant was eligible for compensation. The court considered the impact of the pre-existing conditions but concluded that the respondent's offences were the primary cause of the post-traumatic stress disorder. The court also found that the respondent, as an equal participant in the sexual exploitation, was liable for the full amount of compensation.
The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant compensation in the sum of $42,750 pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld).
Orders
Orders of the court
The respondent pay compensation to the applicant in the sum of $42,750 pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld).
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.