Williams v Kane

[2005] QDC 47

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Williams v Kane [2005] QDC 047

PARTIES:

TANIA SYLVIA WILLIAMS

Applicant

v

HEATHER SADIE KANE

Respondent

FILE NO/S:

BD3563/2004

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Application for compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 March 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 February 2005

JUDGE:

McGill DCJ

ORDER:

1.  Order that the respondent pay to the applicant $10,000
     compensation.
2.  Order the respondent to pay the applicant’s costs.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – Compensation – mental or nervous shock – application of limit.

Criminal Code Chapter 65A

COUNSEL:

M A Thomas (solicitor) for the applicant
The respondent did not appear and was not represented

SOLICITORS:

Woods Prince Lawyers for the applicant
The respondent was not represented.

1. This is an application for compensation under Chapter 65A of the Criminal Code.  Although that chapter was repealed on 18 December 1995, it continues to apply to injuries suffered by anyone because of an act done before the commencement of the Act.[1]  On 9 April 2002 the respondent was convicted by a jury after a trial of one count of indecent dealing and one count of assault occasioning bodily harm.  Both offences were committed on the applicant, the former on a date unknown between 7 September 1975 and 19 January 1981, and the latter on a date unknown between 1 January 1978 and 31 December 1979.  The respondent was sentenced on 23 April 2002.

   [1]Criminal Offence (Victims) Act 1995  s 46.

1. The application for compensation was filed on 5 October 2004.  Initially the respondent appeared to answer the application, seeking an adjournment while she sought to obtain legal assistance in the conduct of her defence to the application.  At one point the respondent was seeking to dispute for the purpose of this proceeding whether the offences had occurred;  that course is not open to a respondent, because of the nature of the proceeding.  For the purposes of this proceeding, I must accept the offences occurred in the way in which the jury in the criminal trial found them to have occurred, and that the nature and circumstances of the offences were as determined in the criminal proceeding, for the purpose of sentence, consistently with the jury verdict.[2]    

   [2]Chong v Chong [2001] 2 Qd R 301; Facer v Bennett [2002] 2 Qd R 295 at 300.

1. After adjournments to give the respondent the opportunity to attempt to arrange for legal assistance, which ultimately she was not able to do, she sought to require an independent psychiatric examination of the applicant.  In principle I was prepared to allow that[3] but ultimately the respondent was unable to arrange for a suitable medical expert to examine the applicant.  Finally on 18 January 2005 the solicitor for the applicant received a note from the respondent to the effect that she was not going to continue with the case against the applicant.[4]  I think it is reasonable to take this as an indication that the respondent was not proposing to take any further part in…