Andrew v Charlie

[2001] QDC 225

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Andrew v Charlie [2001] QDC 225
PARTIES:	CONNIE ANDREW (Applicant) ANTHONY PETERSEN CHARLIE (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	15 of 2001
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING	Cairns
COURT:
DELIVERED ON:	1/6/01
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	21/02/2001
JUDGE:	White DCJ
ORDER:	That the respondent Anthony Petersen Charlie pay the applicant Connie Andrew the sum of $7,500 by way of compensation.
CATCHWORDS:
COUNSEL:	Mr A.J. Kimmins for the Applicant
SOLICITORS:	Mr T. Bailey for the Applicant

[1]	The Respondent, Anthony Petersen Charlie, was convicted in the District Court at Cairns on 31 April 2000 of the following offence:-
1. That on the fourteenth day of January 1998 at Pormpuraaw in the State of Queensland he unlawfully assaulted Connie Andrew and thereby did her bodily harm.

And he was armed with an offensive weapon, namely a tomahawk.

This is an Application by the said Connie Andrew for compensation pursuant to s.24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995.

1. The Applicant was born on an unknown date in 1955. However, it is stated that she was 43 at the time of the commission of the offence. She is now approximately 46 years of age.

2. The Respondent is the husband of the Applicant’s cousin and was thereby known to her. Further as it relates to this application, the Respondent is the brother of one Tracey Charlie and at the time of the commission of the offence, the Applicant was living in a house in Pormpuraaw with her de facto Philip Coleman.

3. On the evening of 15 January 1998 Coleman was standing on the road outside the couple’s house. He was in a drunken state and abusing passers-by one of whom was Tracey Charlie. Coleman struck Tracey Charlie on the arm with a woomera. She started swearing at him and walked off.

4. A short time later the Respondent approached and confronted Coleman, who ran into the house and emerged armed with a tomahawk. Coleman struck the Respondent in the back with the tomahawk before the Respondent took it from him. Coleman fled and hid behind the Applicant. The Respondent swung the tomahawk and struck the Applicant in the left leg, after which he dropped the tomahawk and it struck the Applicant on the right foot. Those are the facts which constitute the offence. The Applicant attended the Pormpuraaw Community Clinic.

[6]	The Applicant was treated at Pormpuraaw Community Clinic by Sr Patricia Michael, a Registered Nurse, who noted the following:-
“I saw that she had a 5.5 centimetre laceration to the anterior aspect of her left lower leg. This injury was sutured with seven stiches.

I observed that she had a laceration to her forehead on the left frontal region about 3 centimetres long. This laceration was sutured with 4 sutures.”

1. I note however that there is no evidence that the injury to the Applicant’s forehead was caused by the Respondent in the commission of the offence for which the compensation is sought. Sr Michael continued as follows:-

   “I observed a deep laceration over second/third metatarsals dorsal aspect on the right foot (top of foot base of toes) which was subsequently sutured with 5 sutures.

   I took x-rays of the injury to her right foot and left lower leg.

   I found that there was a compound fracture to the second metatarsal (toe next to the big toe). No further fractures were found.

   A support bandage was applied to the fractured toe.”

2. The Applicant required no further treatment for her injuries.

[9] On 1 March 1999, the Applicant consulted Dr Ian Curtis, Consultant
Psychiatrist. Dr Curtis noted as follows:-

“8.0 Physical Status

9.1 There was residual scarring about her foot.

…
12 Summary Conclusions

12.1 There was no psychological trauma of nervous shock intrinsic to her
reaction to this crime”

I am satisfied that there was no conduct on the part of the applicant which contributed to her injuries.

[10]

I am satisfied that the evidence supports a claim for compensation under the
following items contained in the Schedule to the Act –

18.	Fracture/loss of use of toe/foot (minor/moderate)
24.	Gun shot/stab wounds (minor)

In my view an amount of $7,500 is appropriate compensation in this case.