Williams v Kane

[2004] QDC 472

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Williams v Kane [2004] QDC 472
PARTIES:	TANIA SYLVIA WILLIAMS

Applicant

v

HEATHER SADIE KANE

Respondent

FILE NO/S:	BD3563/04
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Application for criminal compensation
ORIGINATING  COURT:	District Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	1 December 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	10 November 2004
JUDGE:	McGill DCJ
ORDER:	Order for stay foreshadowed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – Compensation – whether application to be stayed unless and until applicant submits to independent medical examination.
Edmeades v Thames Board Mills Ltd [1969] 2 QB 67 – applied.
Gray v Hopcroft [2000] QCA 144 – considered. Starr v National Coal Board [1977] 1 WLR 63 – applied. Timmins v Yandilla Park Ltd [2000] QSC 281 – applied.
COUNSEL:	M A Thomas (solicitor) for the applicant The respondent appeared in person
SOLICITORS:	Woods Prince Lawyers for the applicant. The respondent was not represented.

1. This is an application for compensation under s 663B of the Criminal Code. The respondent was on 9 April 2002 convicted by a jury after a trial of various offences including one count of indecent dealing with a child under the age of 14, and one count of assault occasioning bodily harm, both committed on the applicant on dates not later than 19 January 1981. On 23 April 2002 she was sentenced to a term of imprisonment.

2. The application was served on the respondent, who has appeared in response but who is not legally represented; an application for legal aid by her was refused. The application is supported by an affidavit by a psychiatrist who examined the applicant on 31 March 2004 for the purpose of preparing a report in support of this application. A copy of that report is exhibited to the affidavit. The affidavit of the applicant in support of the application also refers to a physical injury to the back, but it is apparent that the principal basis of the applicant’s claim is that she has suffered a psychiatric injury as a result of the offences of which the respondent has been convicted.

3. The respondent has sought to have the applicant examined by a different psychiatrist, and indeed has on two occasions arranged an appointment with a particular psychiatrist for the purpose of such an examination. The respondent told me that the second psychiatrist was one recommended to her by another psychiatrist as one suitable to conduct such an examination. The psychiatrist from whom she is now seeking a report is female, and that may reduce the risk of some harm being suffered by the applicant as a result of her having to discuss the matter again with someone. In any case, presumably a psychiatrist would be well qualified to arrange such examination as may be necessary in such a way as to minimise the risk of adverse psychiatric consequences to the person being examined.

4. The applicant’s position is that she does not wish to be examined by another psychiatrist, and will not submit to such an examination voluntarily. There is no provision in…