Anderson v Brenton

[2003] QDC 574

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Anderson v Brenton [2003] QDC 574
PARTIES:	ANDREW JAMES ANDERSON

Applicant

DARRYL FRANCIS BRENTON

Respondent

FILE NO/S:	209/2003
PROCEEDING:	Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING  COURT:	District Court Southport
DELIVERED ON:	19 June 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Southport
HEARING DATE:	17 June 2003
JUDGE:	Newton DCJ
ORDER:	Application granted – respondent to pay applicant $25,500 by way of compensation
CATCHWORDS:	Application for criminal compensation – s 24 Criminal Offence Victims Act (1995) – mental or nervous shock (severe) assessment at 34% of scheme maximum in respect of post-traumatic stress disorder
COUNSEL:	Mr C Bagley - applicant No appearance by or on behalf of respondent
SOLICITORS:	McLaughlins – applicant

[1] This is an application for compensation under s 24 of the Criminal Offence

Victims Act (1995).

[2]  The respondent, Darryl Francis Brenton, was convicted in the District Court at Southport on 23 October 2002 of a number of offences including assaulting the applicant, a police officer, whilst the applicant was acting in the execution of his duty. The respondent was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment in respect of that count.

[3]  The circumstances of the offence included the respondent approaching the applicant who had called upon him to stop and throwing a backpack at the applicant, striking him in the chest. The applicant and another police officer gave chase and the respondent turned to face them and removed a black-coloured hand gun from his trousers and pointed it at both the applicant and the other police officer. At this stage the applicant was some five or six metres from the respondent. The respondent, before running away through a shopping arcade, threatened to shoot the applicant. Subsequently the respondent was apprehended by police at another location.

[4]  As a result of the offence committed against him the applicant claims to have suffered mental and nervous shock.

[5]  Mr Elliott, a registered psychologist, consulted with the applicant on 11 April 2003. In a report dated 16 April 2003 he notes that the applicant prior to the incident had been a “happy-go-lucky man” who played and coached football, enjoyed surfing and the gym, and had an active and carefree social life with a good and sound relationship. After the incident, however, the applicant had become very angry, socially isolated and withdrawn and hyper-vigilant. He has begun to smoke in the belief that this might reduce his stress and over-uses alcohol on a regular basis, usually drinking to the point of intoxication five times per week. Alcohol has become the applicant’s only real coping mechanism, to numb his emotions and to forget his fears. The applicant has admitted to neglecting his relationship with his partner because of his need for alcohol. He over-uses caffeine to compensate for the effects of the alcohol and has gained 10kgs through over-using alcohol and junk food, combined with having abandoned his sporting and coaching activities.

[6]  The applicant remains hyper-vigilant, is generally agitated and sweats profusely without physical exertion. His sleep remains disordered and he suffers early and middle insomnia. He achieves an average of four hours’ sleep per night, rendering him sleep-deprived, and exacerbating his depressive and dissociative episodes. He has experienced suicidal ideation and experiences repeated dreams with a theme of violence at least twice each week. The applicant admits that his work has suffered in quality and quantity.

[7]  The applicant has had two sessions of counselling with the Victims of Crime Association of Queensland but did not continue. He is hopeful that a transfer to a rural environment will alleviate his distress, however, Mr Elliott considers that he will take it with him until it is treated.

[8]  Mr Elliott writes that the applicant’s observed, reported and self-reported behaviour is consistent with a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder – chronic and severe. He also satisfies the diagnostic criteria for comorbid alcohol dependence (moderate without physiological dependence). Mr Elliott rates the applicant’s current level of impairment as 55 – indicating that he is functioning at approximately 55% of his premorbid level.

[9]  In Mr Elliott’s view the applicant has undergone a chance of personality as a consequence of the traumatic incident and there has been an overall deterioration in his personal and professional functioning. He continues to suffer the spectrum of symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, of re-experiencing, arousal and withdrawal. He has lost, temporarily at least, much of his sense of purpose professionally. In Mr Elliott’s view the applicant requires urgently a specific post- traumatic stress disorder treatment program, along with a significant reduction in his reliance on alcohol. Given the severity and chronicity of his symptomatology, and the nature of his ongoing work, Mr Elliott considers that the applicant requires a minimum of 15 sessions of cognitive-behaviour therapy and exposure therapy over the next 12-18 months. He should also have periodic follow-up sessions annually. The current Australian Psychological Society recommended fee for such therapy is $166 per hour.

[10]I accept the contents of Mr Elliott’s report and assess the mental or nervous shock resulting from the incident under item number 33 in schedule 1 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act (1995) at the top of the range permitted for such injury which is 34% of the scheme maximum which is $75,000. The assessment thus yields an amount of $25,500.

[11]I am satisfied that the applicant has in no way contributed to the assault upon him by the respondent.

[12]I order that the respondent, Darryl Francis Brenton, pay criminal compensation of $25,500 to the applicant, Andrew James Anderson.

- - - - -