Vlug v Carrasco

Case [2006] QCA 561

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

VH v CBE [2006] QCA 561

PARTIES:

VH
(applicant/applicant)
v
CBE
(respondent/respondent)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(intervenor)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 8030 of 2006
DC No 65 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Civil)
Miscellaneous Application – Civil

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

22 December 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 November 2006

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Holmes JA and Chesterman J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. Application for leave to appeal allowed
2. Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – ORDERS FOR COMPENSATION, REPARATION, RESTITUTION, FORFEITURE AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO THE DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY – QUEENSLAND – where appellant awarded $19,500 in criminal compensation after respondent convicted of two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm and one count of rape – application of s 20 Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) and s 1A Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 (Qld) – relevance of pre-existing traits or vulnerabilities – nature of injury relevant to assessment of compensation for sexual offences – whether learned judge made inadequate assessment

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld), s 20, s 22, s 24,
s 25
Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 (Qld), s 1A

Re JI v IV [2002] 2 Qd R 367; [2001] QCA 510, considered
R v Kazakoff; ex parte Ferguson [2001] 2 Qd R 320; [2000] QSC 156, considered
SAY v AZ; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2006] QCA 462; Appeal No 5783 of 2006, 10 November 2006, cited

COUNSEL:

L R Smith for the applicant
No appearance for the respondent
S A McLeod, for the Attorney-General, as amicus curiae

SOLICITORS:

Collas Moro Ross for the applicant
No appearance for the respondent
Crown Law for the Attorney-General

  1. McMURDO P:  I agree with Holmes JA.

  1. HOLMES JA: The applicant seeks leave, pursuant to s 118 of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), to appeal from the judgment of a District Court judge in a criminal compensation application. The respondent, against whom the compensation order was made, was the applicant’s former de facto husband and had been convicted of two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm and one count of rape of the applicant at the end of their relationship. He did not appear to resist the application for leave to appeal, but counsel briefed by the Attorney‑General did appear, as amicus curiae, to assist the Court on this application.

The criminal compensation application

  1. At first instance the applicant sought compensation under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) for “bodily injury, mental or nervous shock” (as s 20 defines “injury”) and “the totality of the adverse impacts of [the] sexual offence” (the prescribed injury under s 1A of the Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 (Qld)). The learned judge at first instance awarded a total…

Continue reading Vlug v Carrasco

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Vlug v Carrasco [2006] QCA 561
Case
[2006] QCA 561
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Vlug, sought to appeal a decision awarding $19,500 in criminal compensation to the respondent, Carrasco, following Carrasco's convictions for two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm and one count of rape. The appellant argued that the trial judge had inadequately assessed the compensation award, particularly in relation to the relevance of pre-existing traits or vulnerabilities and the nature of injury in assessing compensation for sexual offences. The appeal raised questions about the proper application of sections 20 and 1A of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) and the Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 (Qld) respectively.

The court considered whether the trial judge's assessment of the compensation award was adequate, focusing on the relevance of pre-existing traits or vulnerabilities and the nature of injury in assessing compensation for sexual offences. The court examined whether the trial judge properly applied the relevant statutory provisions in determining the award. The court concluded that the trial judge had adequately considered the relevant factors and applied the statutory provisions correctly. The court found that the appellant's arguments did not demonstrate that the trial judge's assessment was inadequate or that the award was excessive or inadequate.

Accordingly, the court allowed the application for leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs. The court found that the trial judge's assessment of the compensation award was adequate and that the statutory provisions were properly applied. The court did not find merit in the appellant's arguments and therefore dismissed the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal allowed

2. Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs

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.