Whyte v Robinson

99.369

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P DAVIES JA CULLINANE J

Appeal No 7292 of 1999

CORINA LEE WHYTE	Applicant
and
NIGEL PATRICK ROBINSON	Respondent
BRISBANE ..DATE 06/09/99
060999 T1/BP17 M/T COA218/99

THE PRESIDENT: This is an application for leave
to appeal under Section 118 of the District Court
Act 1967 from the decision of a District Court
Judge ordering the respondent to pay the applicant
$12,000 by way of criminal compensation for
injuries received through the commission of
offences of rape and deprivation of liberty
committed upon the applicant by the respondent on

10 May 1997.

The respondent pleaded guilty in the District
Court at Gympie on 24 November 1997. The
allocutus was administered on 26 November 1997

when the pre-sentence report was ordered.

On 17 February 1998 the respondent was sentenced.

On 16 July 1999 the compensation order the

subject of this application was made under the

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995.

The issue for determination is a short one;
whether the Criminal Offence Victims Regulation
1995 1A operational on 19 December 1997 applies in
a case such as this where the respondent offender
was convicted on indictment of a personal offence

prior to 19 December 1997.

The learned primary Judge concluded that
Regulation 1A applied only where the respondent
was convicted of offences after 19 December 1997.

060999 T1/BP17 M/T COA218/99

Different approaches have been taken by different
Judges in the District Court, see for example R v.
Fletcher; Ex Parte Raymond and Fletcher 3816
and 3815 of 1998 delivered April 1999 where the
relevant time was found to be a time when the
offence was committed and R v. Gilchrist; Ex Parte
Hall 1434 of 1999, 25 May 1999, where Regulation
1A was held to be procedural, not substantive in

nature.

Although the applicant is ready to argue the
matter today, the case is one where the State
should be given the opportunity to be represented
and to assist the Court as to matters of law. The
issue is of some importance and as there are
conflicting decisions on the matter, it is
appropriate that leave to appeal be given but that
the hearing of the appeal be listed at a future
time after service has been effected upon the

Attorney-General.

DAVIES JA: I agree.

CULLINANE J: I also agree.

THE PRESIDENT: The order is the application for leave to appeal is granted. The Attorney-General is to be served with a notice of appeal in respect of this matter promptly.

060999 T1/BP17 M/T COA218/99

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Whyte v Robinson is an appeal seeking leave to appeal a decision made by the District Court. The applicant, Corina Lee Whyte, is appealing the decision of the District Court which ordered the respondent, Nigel Patrick Robinson, to pay $12,000 by way of criminal compensation for injuries she received as a result of offences committed by the respondent. The offences in question were rape and deprivation of liberty, committed on 10 May 1997. The respondent pleaded guilty in the District Court at Gympie on 24 November 1997 and was sentenced on 17 February 1998. The compensation order was made under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 on 16 July 1999.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995, specifically Regulation 1A, which came into operation on 19 December 1997, applies to cases where the offender was convicted of personal offences prior to that date. The primary judge had ruled that Regulation 1A applied only to cases where the respondent was convicted after 19 December 1997. This decision was contested, with differing interpretations of the regulation's applicability observed in other District Court cases. The Court of Appeal considered the importance of the issue, given the conflicting precedents, and the need for the State to be represented to provide clarity on the legal matter.

The Court of Appeal granted the application for leave to appeal, allowing the applicant to proceed with her appeal. The judges acknowledged the importance of the issue and the necessity for the Attorney-General to be served with a notice of appeal promptly. The hearing of the appeal was to be listed at a future date after service had been effected upon the Attorney-General. The decision underscores the Court's recognition of the significance of the legal issue and the need for a definitive resolution through the appeal process.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established