Callus v Fietchner

[2005] QDC 292

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Callus v Fietchner [2005] QDC 292
PARTIES:	ALANA ANN CALLUS (Applicant) v IRWIN GLEN FIETCHNER (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	1966/05
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING
COURT:	District Court
DELIVERED ON:	6th of October 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	28th of September 2005
JUDGE:	FORDE DCJ
ORDER:	It is ordered that the respondent do pay to the applicant the sum of $9,000.00 by way of criminal compensation pursuant to the Criminal Offence Victims Act for offences to which the respondent pleaded guilty on the 4 May 2004.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – PSYCHIATRIC EFFECT – AGGRAVATION OF CONDITION – Expert witnesses – Post traumatic stress disorder – method of assessment
Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) s24 Dooley v Ward [2000] QCA 493 Ferguson v Kazakoff [2001] 2 QD R 320 at 324 KLW v ACH [2001] QDC 306 SAM v SAM [2001] QCA 12 LMW v Nicholls (2004) QDC PLAINT 1660/03
COUNSEL:	Mr A J Kimmins for the Applicant Mr C Callaghan Solicitor for the Respondent
SOLICITORS:	Ryan & Bosscher Lawyers Callaghan Lawyers

Introduction

1. This is an application for criminal compensation pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995. The applicant, Alana Ann Callus, was subjected to common assault and deprivation of liberty. The respondent, Irwin Glen Fiechtner, pleaded guilty to both charges on 4 May 2004. The offences occurred on 28 September 2003. The applicant was born on 2 September 1953 and is now 51 years of age.

2. The respondent was known to the applicant. A schedule of facts was tendered at trial and on this hearing. The applicant has been invited by a Mrs. McNamara to have lunch with her and two other persons one of whom was the respondent’s nephew and his wife. The respondent has abused the applicant on the phone the night before and Mrs. McNamara was going to get a protection order against him. It seems that the respondent and Mrs. McNamara were involved in a property settlement dispute and that the applicant had refused to give evidence in favour of the respondent.

3. The respondent got annoyed about this suggestion of a protection order. He got a gun. Mrs. McNamara heard the gun click twice. The respondent chased Mrs. McNamara and threatened to kill her. Mrs. McNamara ran into the study and locked the door. The respondent then turned his attention to the applicant, pointed the gun at her and threatened to kill her. She observed him trying to put a small bronze bullet into the breach. She ran to the study as well. Whilst both ladies were in the study, the respondent continued his harassment for what felt like “a couple of hours”.[1] The harassment included kicking the door. Police were contacted from inside the study by telephone. The ladies believed that the gun was loaded. The bullet was in fact the firing mechanism for a nail gun. The applicant would not have appreciated the technical aspect at the time and the fact that the gun…