Wilson v Kairouz

Case [2005] QDC 401


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Wilson v Kairouz [2005] QDC 401
PARTIES:

QUENTIN KEITH WILSON

Applicant

v

TONY KAIROUZ

Respondent

FILE NO: 351/2005
PROCEEDING: Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:

Southport

DELIVERED ON: 26 August 2005
DELIVERED AT: Southport
HEARING DATE: 22 August 2005
JUDGE: Dearden DCJ
ORDER: Order that the respondent, Tony Kairouz, pay the applicant, Quentin Wilson, the sum of $16,500.
CATCHWORDS:

APPLICATION – CRIMINAL COMPENSATION

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995

Cases cited:

R v Ward ex parte Dooley [2001] 2 Qd R 436
Riddle v Coffey (2002) 133 A Crim R 220

COUNSEL:

Mr C Bagley for the applicant  

No appearance for the respondent

SOLICITORS: McLaughlins for the applicant  
  1. The applicant seeks compensation in respect of injuries suffered by him in an incident which occurred on 13 April 2003.  This incident subsequently resulted in the respondent pleading guilty on 5 October 2004, to one count of assault occasioning bodily harm while armed with an offensive instrument, and being sentenced in respect of that count by Judge Healy in the District Court, Southport on 6 October 2004.

Facts

  1. The applicant, Quentin Wilson, went with his partner and his parents to the Coolangatta airport on Sunday 13 April 2003 to collect his daughter who was flying into that airport for an access visit.  Mr Wilson went to the Freedom service station at the cusp of the airport where he bought a present for his daughter.

  1. While Mr Wilson was leaving the Freedom service station, he heard screaming or shouting coming from the kebab shop next to the Freedom service station.          Mr Wilson could see a man yelling and raising his arms.  This man was, in fact, Tony Kairouz, the respondent in these proceedings.  Mr Wilson could hear a female screaming and, being concerned, he and his partner went into the kebab shop while his parents stayed in the car.  Mr Wilson went through to the door of the kitchen where he could hear the female screaming.  Mr Wilson saw a woman in her 50s getting up off the floor and Mr Kairouz screaming, waving his hands around and shaking the head of a young boy (who appeared to be nine or 10).  Mr Wilson enquired, “What’s going on here, mate?” and was told by Mr Kairouz, “Get out of my shop.  Go away.  Leave me alone.”  Further words were exchanged and Mr Kairouz started pushing Mr Wilson against his chest and telling him to get out of the shop.  Mr Wilson pushed Mr Kairouz away to create space between them so that he could get a good look at the woman and the boy to see that they were alright. 

  2. In the meantime Mr Wilson’s partner, Ms Melanie Smith, asked Mr Kairouz his name, which he refused to give.  Ms Smith then said that she was going to call the police. 

  1. Mr Kairouz then said to Mr Wilson that Mr Wilson had assaulted him by pushing him, that he had a camera in the store…

Continue reading Wilson v Kairouz

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Wilson v Kairouz [2005] QDC 401
Case
[2005] QDC 401
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Quentin Wilson, sought an order for criminal compensation against the respondent, Tony Kairouz, in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. Wilson claimed compensation for harm suffered due to Kairouz's actions, which were found to be criminal in nature. The court was required to determine the eligibility and quantum of compensation under the relevant provisions of the Criminal (Compensation for Victims of Crime) Act 1995. The court assessed whether Wilson's injuries were a direct result of Kairouz's criminal conduct, and if so, what the appropriate compensation should be.

The primary legal issue was whether the injuries sustained by Wilson were a direct consequence of Kairouz's criminal conduct and if Wilson met the eligibility criteria for compensation under the Act. The court considered the nature of the injuries, the circumstances in which they were inflicted, and whether they were directly attributable to Kairouz's actions. Additionally, the court needed to determine the appropriate amount of compensation based on the evidence presented regarding the impact of the injuries on Wilson's life.

In its decision, the court found that the injuries suffered by Wilson were indeed a direct result of Kairouz's criminal conduct. The court held that Wilson was eligible for compensation under the relevant statutory provisions. After carefully reviewing the evidence, the court determined that the appropriate compensation amount was $16,500, taking into account the severity and impact of the injuries on Wilson's life. The court ordered that Kairouz pay Wilson the sum of $16,500 as criminal compensation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order that the respondent, Tony Kairouz, pay the applicant, Quentin Wilson, the sum of $16,500.

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.