Bonner v Jaramillo

[2007] QDC 331

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Bonner v Jaramillo [2007] QDC 331

PARTIES:

CLINT ANTHONY BONNER

Applicant

V

ALEJANDRO JARAMILLO

Respondent

FILE NO/S:

520 of 2007

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for Criminal Compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Southport

DELIVERED ON:

10 December 2007, ex tempe

DELIVERED AT:

District Court, Southport

HEARING DATE:

10 December 2007

JUDGE:

Kingham DCJ

ORDER:

Alejandro Jaramillo must pay criminal compensation of $69,000 to the applicant, Clint Anthony Bonner.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – Application pursuant to s24 of Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 – Personal offence – Grievous bodily harm – “Glassing” offence – where no contribution to injuries by applicant – significant injuries sustained – Chronic and severe post traumatic stress disorder.

REPRESENTATIVES:

Mr C.F. Bagley for the applicant

HER HONOUR: This is an application pursuant to section 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 for an order for compensation to be made for Alejandro Jaramillo to pay compensation to Clint Anthony Bonner.  The application relates to a personal offence under section 21 of that Act. 

The respondent pleaded guilty on the 19th of July this year to one count of unlawfully causing grievous bodily harm, the offence that is referred to often as a glassing.  The sentencing Judge referred to it as a persistent and sustained attack using a bottle, broken for that purpose.  It was a brutal attack which occurred in the context of an altercation between two groups. 

There was some prior history that night between some in the applicant's group and the respondent's group, but the applicant was not a part of that.  The applicant became involved when another member of his group asked him to pursue some of the other group. 

When he became aware that he, himself, was being pursued, he sought refuge in an apartment building where he was assaulted.  The respondent broke a bottle and he used it as a weapon. 

I am satisfied that the applicant did not behave in such a way that he contributed, either directly or indirectly, to his injuries and, accordingly, there is nothing that would justify a reduction in his award.

The injuries that he sustained were significant.  He received numerous lacerations to his face and chest.  He also sustained an undisplaced nasal fracture which was ultimately repaired by way of open reduction surgery and he sustained a fractured anterior wall of the frontal sinus.

I am satisfied, after reviewing the material, that the fractured anterial wall of the frontal sinus and the undisplaced nasal fracture are two separate compensable injuries.  He also suffers mental or nervous shock which his consulting psychologist has assessed as chronic and severe post traumatic stress disorder. 

I have decided that the appropriate award is as submitted for by Mr Bagley, the applicant's counsel, and that is as follows: 

In relation to the stab wounds, a sum of $15,000, which is 20 per cent of the maximum award.  That falls to the lower end of the range for stab words severe.  The applicant received a number of lacerations and, in total, he received some 70 stitches - 30 external and 40 internal.  Whilst the wounds were severe they were not life threatening.  I think that the circumstances of those wounds are adequately reflected in award of 20 per cent.

In terms of the fractured nose, the award will be for the sum of $10,500 which is 14 per cent, in the mid of the range available for that item. 

For the facial fracture, the award will be $6,000, and that is at the very bottom end of that scale, or eight per cent.

In relation to the facial disfigurement or bodily scarring, the award will be 20 per cent, which is in the middle of the range provided.  That is an amount of $15,000.  That takes into account the cosmetic appearance of the scars.  I have photographs before me showing the current scarring, which is very noticeable still.  It also takes into account the other problems that the applicant suffers as a result of this scarring.  He is not able to wear any form of glasses because of the scarring on his nose.  Further, other problems associated with the scarring are exacerbated by exposure to the sun.  The scarring is not just facial scarring, it is also scarring to the chest and shoulder area.

In terms of the mental or nervous shock, Mr Elliott has diagnosed the applicant as suffering from post traumatic stress disorder, chronic and severe.  He assessed the applicant almost three years after the events and has indicated that the applicant would require significant further treatment to deal with his problems.  He described him as continuing to display various emotional behavioural and physical symptoms. 

He has a serious impairment in his social and occupational functioning, is unable to hold down a job and has limited friends.  There has been a significant impact on his family and social relationships and he is socially reclusive, with underlying anger issues.  The applicant's outlook on life in general has been affected by his feelings of injustice. 

Mr Elliott recommends 15 to 20 sessions over the next 12 to 18 months in order to acquire adequate levels of skills and strategies.  That recommendation for treatment demonstrates the severity of the disorder the applicant still suffers from.

The applicant has no history of any psychological or psychiatric issues, and no predisposition to a mental disorder.  I am satisfied that his current condition is directly the result of the severity of the assault upon him.  It is appropriate he is awarded compensation towards the top end of the range for mental or nervous shock severe which is a figure of 30 per cent or $22,500.

In total, the award is $69,000.

I order the respondent to pay the sum of $69,000 to the applicant.