Y & L–v- M - [2002] QDC 325

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Y & L–v- M [2002] QDC 325

PARTIES:

L and Y
Applicants

v

M
Respondent

FILE NO/S:

2841 of 2002 & 2840 of 2002

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

21 November 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 November 2002

JUDGE:

O’Brien DCJ

ORDER:

That the respondent, M pay to the Applicant, L the sum of $20,000 and Y. $36,500 by way of compensation for the injury suffered by them as a consequence of the offence of which he was convicted in the District Court at Brisbane on 27 January 2000.

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Compensation Application, orders pursuant to both the Criminal Offence Victims Act and the Criminal Code, compensation for sexual offences committed by the natural father, meaning of course of conduct, adverse impacts, mental and nervous shock.

HV v LN 2000 QCA 472, 118 Criminal Reports 53

HW v LO [2001] 2 QdR 415

MAJ v KM 2000 QCA 410.

COUNSEL:

Mr S Hamlyn-Harris for the Applicant

No Appearance for the Respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the Applicant

These are two applications for criminal compensation which might conveniently be heard together since they involve the one respondent. On the 27th of January 2000 M was convicted before me of several offences of a sexual nature and sentenced to a term of eight years imprisonment.

The victims of those offences were the present applicants. In respect of the applicant Y the respondent was convicted of the offence of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child under the age of 16 with a circumstance of aggravation and in respect of the applicant L he was convicted of some 25 offences of indecent dealing with a girl under the age of 16 years.

The respondent is the natural father of both applicants. The conduct which gave rise to the charges need not, for present purposes, be recited in detail. It is enough to say that it included various acts of fondling, as well as acts of masturbation, oral sex and digital penetration. The offences involving Y occurred over a period of about eight years between the 31st of July 1989 and the 30th of June 1997 and the offences involving L were committed between August 1988 and March 1989.

The offence of maintaining a sexual relationship was not introduced until July of 1989 and this no doubt explains why such a charge was not brought in relation to the conduct involving L. In any event these applications involve a consideration of both the Criminal Offence Victims Act which came into force on the 18th of December 1995 as well as the previously existing compensation provisions of Chapter 65A of the Criminal Code.

There is no doubt that these offences have had significant psychological and psychiatric consequences for the applicants and there can be no suggestion that any conduct on their part contributed in any way to those consequences. Y deposes to her continuing sense of devastation, disgust and anger at the conduct of…

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 Y & L–v- M

Details

AGLC: Y & L–v- M [2002] QDC 325
Case: [2002] QDC 325
Decision Date: 21 November 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Y & L versus M was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal, where the applicants sought compensation for injuries sustained due to criminal offences committed by the respondent. The applicants, Y and L, were victims of sexual offences by the respondent, M, who is also their father. The applicants sought compensation under the provisions of both the Criminal Offence Victims Act and the Criminal Code, aiming to address the mental and nervous shock they experienced, as well as other adverse impacts from the offences. The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the appropriate amount of compensation for the injuries suffered by the applicants and to clarify the meaning of a "course of conduct" in the context of these offences.

The court examined previous cases, such as HV v LN, HW v LO, and MAJ v KM, to understand the scope of compensation available and the legal principles governing it. The court determined that the compensation should account for the full extent of the harm caused by the respondent's conduct, which included both the sexual offences and the emotional and psychological impacts on the victims. The court found that the offences constituted a course of conduct that resulted in significant adverse impacts on the applicants, justifying the compensation sought. The court also highlighted the importance of considering the nature and severity of the offences, as well as the long-term effects on the victims.

The Queensland Court of Appeal concluded that the applicants were entitled to the compensation they sought, ordering the respondent to pay L $20,000 and Y $36,500. The court emphasised the need for compensation to adequately address the harm caused by the respondent's criminal conduct, ensuring that the applicants received appropriate recognition of their suffering and the impact of the offences on their lives. This decision underscored the commitment of the court to providing just outcomes for victims of serious crimes, ensuring that they are compensated fairly for the injuries they have suffered.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the respondent, M pay to the Applicant, L the sum of $20,000 and Y. $36,500 by way of compensation for the injury suffered by them as a consequence of the offence of which he was convicted in the District Court at Brisbane on 27 January 2000.

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.

CITATION:	Y & L–v- M [2002] QDC 325
PARTIES:	L and Y Applicants v M Respondent
FILE NO/S:	2841 of 2002 & 2840 of 2002
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	21 November 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 November 2002
JUDGE:	O’Brien DCJ
ORDER:	That the respondent, M pay to the Applicant, L the sum of $20,000 and Y. $36,500 by way of compensation for the injury suffered by them as a consequence of the offence of which he was convicted in the District Court at Brisbane on 27 January 2000.
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal Compensation Application, orders pursuant to both the Criminal Offence Victims Act and the Criminal Code, compensation for sexual offences committed by the natural father, meaning of course of conduct, adverse impacts, mental and nervous shock. HV v LN 2000 QCA 472, 118 Criminal Reports 53 HW v LO [2001] 2 QdR 415 MAJ v KM 2000 QCA 410.
COUNSEL:	Mr S Hamlyn-Harris for the Applicant No Appearance for the Respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the Applicant