ANDREW JOHN WREN (applicant/appellant) v WILSON CONWELL GAULAI (respondent/respondent)
FILE NO/S:
Appeal No 10022 of 2007 DC No 7 of 2007
DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Beenleigh
DELIVERED ON:
6 June 2008
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
14 April 2008
JUDGES:
Keane and Fraser JJA and White J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:
1. Appeal allowed.
2. Set aside the order made in the District Court on 10 October 2007, and in lieu thereof order that the respondent Wilson Conwell Gaulai pay the applicant Andrew John Wren the sum of $61,500 by way of compensation pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1984 (Qld).
3. The respondent pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the appeal.
4. Grant the respondent an indemnity certificate under s 15 of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld).
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – ORDERS FOR COMPENSATION, REPARATION, RESTITUTION, FORFEITURE AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY – COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND – where the respondent was convicted of doing grievous bodily harm to the appellant – where the appellant was awarded $54,750 in compensation – where the appellant appealed on the basis that the award was manifestly inadequate because of the omission from the award of amounts for various injuries described in the relevant compensation table – where the trial judge had grouped some injuries with other injuries notwithstanding that some of the injuries fell within other descriptions in the compensation table – where the respondent argued that the trial judge was merely exercising his discretion – whether the trial judge erred in grouping together the injuries – whether the trial judge had correctly performed the task required by the Act – examination of the methodology to be applied in making assessments of applicable items in the compensation table when the assessment might be duplicitous
S A Lynch for the appellant No appearance for the respondent K A Mellifont with leave as amicus curiae for the Attorney-General
SOLICITORS:
Clewett Lawyers for the appellant No appearance for the respondent
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Wren v Gaulai
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Wren v Gaulai [2008] QCA 148
Case
[2008] QCA 148
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Andrew John Wren, appealed against an order made by the District Court that he be paid $54,750 in compensation for grievous bodily harm inflicted by the respondent, Wilson Conwell Gaulai. The appeal was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal, where the appellant argued that the award was manifestly inadequate due to the omission of amounts for various injuries described in the relevant compensation table. The respondent contended that the trial judge was merely exercising his discretion in grouping some injuries with other injuries, notwithstanding that some of the injuries fell within other descriptions in the compensation table.
The court examined the methodology to be applied in making assessments of applicable items in the compensation table when the assessment might be duplicitous. It was held that the trial judge had erred in grouping together the injuries, which resulted in the omission of certain amounts for specific injuries. The court found that the trial judge had not correctly performed the task required by the Act. As such, the appeal was allowed, and the compensation award was increased to $61,500.
In addition to the increased compensation award, the court ordered that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the appeal. The respondent was also granted an indemnity certificate under s 15 of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld).
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed.
2. Set aside the order made in the District Court on 10 October 2007, and in lieu thereof order that the respondent Wilson Conwell Gaulai pay the applicant Andrew John Wren the sum of $61,500 by way of compensation pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1984 (Qld).
3. The respondent pay the appellant's costs of and incidental to the appeal.
4. Grant the respondent an indemnity certificate under