Conti (a pseudonym) v Ransley
[2025] VCC 122
•18 February 2025
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT MELBOURNE CRIMINAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
APPEALS AND POST SENTENCE APPLICATIONS LIST
| ELISE CONTI (A PSEUDONYM) | Applicant |
| v | |
| ROBERT RANSLEY | Respondent |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE MANOVA | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 10 February 2025 | |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 18 February 2025 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Conti (a pseudonym) v Ransley | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2025] VCC 122 | |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
---
Subject:CRIMINAL LAW – CRIMES COMPENSATION
Catchwords: Serious injuries comprising numerous skull, facial and upper limb fractures and disfigurement, traumatic head injury and concussion, facial scarring, permanent hair loss – Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, anxiety and depression – Offender owns property but his financial circumstances were otherwise not detailed to the court
Legislation Cited: Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), Division 2 of Part IV
Cases Cited:DPP v Ransley [2023] VCC 1639; Stevens v Baxter [2009] VSC 257; RK v Mirik and Mirik (2009) 21 VR 623, Kelley ( a pseudonym) v R1 (a pseudonym) & Ors [2016] VSCA 90; Jackson v Graham [2014] VCC 241, Kaori Asana v Grima [2015] VCC 655, Harley (A Pseudonym) v Hood [2019] VCC 118, Athian v Pang [2019] VCC 477; Knox (a pseudonym) v Frecker (Ruling) [2021] VCC 1548
Judgment: Judgment in favour of the applicant in the sum of $310,000 as an award of compensation.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant | Mr S Kelly | Dorcich Legal Pty Ltd |
| For the Respondent | Mr P Gordon | Dribbin & Brown Criminal Lawyers |
HER HONOUR:
Introduction
1Pursuant to s85B of the Sentencing Act 1991 (“the Act”), Ms Conti[1] applies for compensation for pain and suffering for injuries she suffered as a direct result of offences committed by Mr Ransley on 12 December 2021.
[1]A pseudonym.
2Ms Conti is fifty-one years old.[2] Prior to the offences in question, she had been a carer for her mother. She makes no claim for economic loss, medical or counselling expenses, nor any other expenses likely to be incurred as a direct result of the offences.
[2]Born in October 1973.
3On 11 September 2023, after a plea of guilty, Mr Ransley was sentenced in this court to three-and-a-half years for threat to kill, nine years for intentionally causing injury in circumstances of gross violence and one month for possession of an unregistered firearm. With concurrency, the total effective sentence imposed by Judge Blair was nine years and six months with a non-parole period of five years and six months.[3] He is currently undergoing sentence.
[3]DPP v Ransley [2023] VCC 1639
4Judge Blair’s sentencing remarks contain a detailed outline of the facts relevant to the offence and injuries. They form the basis for my findings of the circumstances of the offence.
5Various medical and psychological reports, together with a victim impact statement and affidavit of Ms Conti, were tendered on the application.[4] These form the basis of my findings of the consequences to Ms Conti of the physical and psychological injuries inflicted on her by Mr Ransley.
[4]Exhibit 1 ꟷ Court Book (“CB”) comprising the application; counselling report of Ms Pamela Blake (a pseudonym), dated 13 March 2022; a victim impact statement, dated 15 August 2022; Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal Awards documents; sentencing remarks of Judge Blair, and an Affidavit of Service of the application on Mr Ransley and Exhibit 2; medical reports of the treating GP, dated 16 November 2024 and undated, together with radiological investigations, dated 5 January 2022, 16 March 2022 and 14 April 2022; treating psychologist’s report, dated 15 September 2023, Centrelink Medical Certificate, dated 20 May 2024, medical discharge summaries from The Alfred Hospital, dated 23 December 2021 and 7 February 2022, together with radiological investigations carried out at both hospitals during admission and affidavit in support of application, sworn by Ms Conti on 4 December 2024.
6Mr Ransley did not tender any evidence on the application. My findings about his personal or financial circumstances are made on the basis of the sentencing remarks and an order of this court restraining certain property in which Mr Ransley has an interest.
Summary of relevant events
7Ms Conti and Mr Ransley had been in a romantic relationship for some months when the offences occurred. They did not live together. From time to time, Ms Conti stayed with Mr Ransley at his rural property in a Victorian country town.
8On 12 December 2021, Mr Ransley collected Ms Conti and drove her to his rural property, where the couple had lunch. In the afternoon, Mr Ransley asked Ms Conti whether she could care for his home while he went interstate. An argument broke out about this request when Ms Conti said she could not oblige as she was unable to drive a manual car.
9Thereafter, for reasons best known to him, Mr Ransley engaged in an horrific and sustained attack on Ms Conti, assaulting her with a glass ashtray, a vacuum cleaner pole and inflicting countless kicks and punches to her head and body.
10The extreme violence perpetrated on Ms Conti lasted for many hours, across various parts of Mr Ransley’s property.
11At some stage, Ms Conti went under the shower, fully clothed, to try to wash her blood off her body. Mr Ransley became angry and told her to go outside. There, he demanded she search for his dog. Despite her injuries, Ms Conti complied with his demands. As she did that, Mr Ransley inflicted more violence on her by kicks, punches and blows with the pole.
12That evening, while Ms Conti lay wet and bleeding on the ground outside, she asked for a blanket. Mr Ransley threw some netting over her and said:
“‘By the time I get up in the morning you’ll be gone and I’ll bury ya’.”[5]
[5]CB 26
13Through the night, Mr Ransley came out to ask Ms Conti whether she was dead yet, and to tell her she would be dead soon.
14She crawled to a mattress beside Mr Ransley’s dog, where she spent the night under a blanket.
15In the morning, Ms Conti convinced Mr Ransley to call a friend who attended. Police and an ambulance were then summoned to the property.
16Police found Ms Conti injured and bleeding on the ground outside.
17In her affidavit in support of her application, Ms Conti deposed to hearing a policeman vomiting at the sight of her injuries.
18Had it not been for attendance of an ambulance, it appears likely Ms Conti would have died due to loss of blood.[6]
[6]In her affidavit, Ms Conti deposed to being told by her treating doctor she received 4 litres of blood through a transfusion, and had she been left without medical treatment for another hour, it is likely she would have died from blood loss. [32] See also CB 15
19Ms Conti was taken by helicopter to The Alfred Hospital for medical treatment.
20The sentencing remarks refer to the following injuries:
(a) multiple skull and extensive facial bone fractures, and on 14 December 2021 she required specialist plastic reconstructive surgery treatment in the operating theatre. She had a washout and closure in relation to the related facial lacerations. Her injuries included:
(i)nondisplaced left side of the head (parietal bone) fracture;
(ii)minimally-displaced left cheek bone (zygomatic arch) fracture;
(iii)complex multi-fragmented eye socket fracture and upper jawbone fracture;
(iv)complex multi-fragmented nose fractures;
(v)upper jawbone fractures;
(b) multiple right-sided rib fractures;
(c) multiple limb bone fractures, including:
(i)right forearm fractures which required wrist laceration closure and stabilising splint application;
(ii)right wrist joint capsular avulsion fracture of the scaphoid;
(iii)minimally-displaced left fifth middle hand bone fracture, which required specialist orthopaedic surgery, with metal compression plate insertion to stabilise the fracture;
(iv)complex multi-fragmented open left index finger joint fracture dislocation, which required specialist orthopaedic surgical repair with insertion of a metal screw and K-wire, wound washout and closure, and subsequent splint application;
(v)mildly-displaced extra-articular fracture through the base of the right little finger, which required specialist orthopaedic surgery with metal locking plate insertion for stabilisation and wound closure;
(d) multiple soft-tissue injuries, which required surgical wound closure, including:
(i)frontal forehead and left brow lacerations;
(ii)2-centimetre superficial lacerations to the back of the head;
(iii)left cheek laceration;
(iv)upper lip laceration;
(v)upper gum (gingiva) laceration;
(vi)laceration to outer ledge of right eye;
(vii)moderate scalp blood collection (haematoma);
(e) head injury with concussion symptoms;
(f) blood loss requiring blood transfusion.
21Ms Conti was admitted to hospital twice. The first time for ten days[7] and the second time for a month.[8] She has undergone twelve surgeries.[9] These include:
(a) open reduction and internal fixation (“ORIF”) surgeries performed on 14 December 2021 on the left index finger and left fifth finger, right fifth finger and suturing of right hand and left forearm;
(b) scalp laceration repair on 15 December 2021;
(c) ORIF of left zygomaticomaillary complex, Le fort (midface) fracture, separating a portion of the midface from the skull base;[10]
(d) multiple facial lacerations, debridement and repair;
(e) ORIF performed on 21 December 2021 on the right distal radius, right scaphoid and right ulna;
(f) vacuum-assisted closure and debridement of scalp wound (full thickness necrosis) and split thickness skin graft for the scalp wound.
[7]Between 13 and 23 December 2021 (Exhibit 2)
[8]Between 6 January 2022 and 7 February 2022 (Exhibit 2)
[9]Affidavit of Ms Conti at paragraph [39]
[10]Exhibit 2, The Alfred Hospital Discharge Summary dated 7 February 2022 at page 3
22On 16 November 2024, Ms Conti’s doctor reported there was a direct nexus between the following injuries and the assault, the effects of which were permanent and ongoing:
(a) facial scarring under both eyes and on her forehead, and pain around the eyes and visual deterioration;
(b) asymmetrical alignment of her nose due to surgical metal plate fixation of the upper jaw bone fracture;
(c) permanent droop to the left side of her face (Ms Conti attributes this to the metal plate inserted where her cheek bone had been caved in[11]);
(d) nerve damage to the face causing numbness in her upper lip, under the lip and upper gum, and an inability to drink without spilling fluids out of her mouth;
(e) scarring on the scalp with loss of hair in areas, requiring a skin graft and necessitating the wearing of a partial wig;
(f) pain in her right wrist and fingers, loss of flexion, inability to bend her left index finger and throbbing pain in the wrist with use;
(g) headaches, inability to concentrate and forgetfulness; and
(h) depression and severe anxiety, and an inability to trust people.
[11]Victim Impact Statement at CB14
23Numerous radiological investigations were tendered on the application. They confirm the presence of metalware such as metallic plates, cortical screws and metal fixations in the face and jaw, and in the left and right hands (right distal ulnar, the proximal phalanx of the right little finger, the left index finger and the left fifth metacarpal).
24Ms Conti deposed to the following effects of the injuries on her quality of life:
(a) significant pain in the right wrist and little finger, inability to bend that finger and significant daily pain on performance of normal daily tasks;
(b) limb pain when performing daily tasks, including cooking and housework;
(c) inability to drive a vehicle for long distances or any significant period of time;
(d) headaches and an inability to concentrate;
(e) significant anxiety, making it difficult to socialise with friends and family, and rarely leaving the house due to difficulty coping in crowded situations;
(f) inability to trust people and inability to form relationships due to feeling unsafe;
(g) permanent facial scarring causing low self-esteem and low confidence;
(h) permanent hair loss and scarring to the scalp due to 10 x 5 centimetre skin grafting[12] necessitating the wearing of a wig;
(i) difficulty and pain on washing her hair and an inability to dye the hair due to the scarring, sensitivity and exposure of the scalp;
(j) sleep disturbance, nightmares, hypervigilance and flashbacks, with intrusive thoughts and distressing memories of the incident; and
(k) difficulty with undergoing treatment and counselling for post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”), anxiety and depression due to the psychological impact of re-living the event in therapy, which causes her to be physically unwell prior to and after the sessions.
[12]Victim Impact Statement at CB 14
25A Centrelink medical certificate issued by Ms Conti’s doctor certifies that, for the next twenty-four months,[13] her PTSD and depression will impair her capacity to work, study or participate in activities. Pain in both arms and in the fingers of both hands also impacts on her functioning.
[13]The Certificate is dated 30 May 2024 (Exhibit 2).
26Two psychological reports were tendered.[14]
[14]Ms Pamela Blake and Ms Ursula Grigor
27The first report, completed by social worker, Ms Blake,[15] is dated 13 March 2022 and confirms Ms Conti had a pre-existing depression arising from a diagnosis of cancer, for which she was being treated at the time of the writing of the report. Ms Conti had been a carer for her mother prior to the incident, but had been unable to continue in that role. The two women had been forced to move from their home as a result of fear Mr Ransley knew the address and might harm them.[16]
[15]A pseudonym.
[16]Report of Ms Blake, dated 13 March 2022 at CB 10
28Ms Blake considered the incident had an extremely significant psychological impact. Various tests were administered which reportedly showed, “extremely significant symptoms consistent with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder”.[17] The psychologist diagnosed extreme depression, extreme severe anxiety and severe stress.[18]
[17](Ibid) at CB 9
[18]Ibid
29The report of the current treater, Ms Ursula Grigor,[19] confirmed Ms Conti attended some sessions funded by the Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal (“VOCAT”), but experienced high levels of distress during the sessions. On initial assessment in February 2022, Ms Conti was experiencing significant PTSD symptoms. On further assessment in August 2023, trauma, anxiety and depression symptoms were also noted by the psychologist.
[19]A pseudonym.
30Ms Conti deposed she has been unable to continue with counselling due to the high levels of distress she experiences in sessions. However, she understands this will be necessary in future if she is to recover from the psychological effects of the incident.
Applicable legal principles
31Division 2 of Part IV of the Act provides for orders which can be made in addition to sentence.
32Ms Conti’s application is in respect of pain and suffering under s85B(1)(a) of the Act.
33Section 85A (relevantly) provides that a compensation order is an order under s85B(1) and “injury” means:
“(a) actual bodily harm; or
(b) mental illness or disorder or an exacerbation of a mental illness or disorder, whether or not flowing from nervous shock; or
(c)…
(d) grief, distress or trauma or other significant adverse effect; or
(e) any combination of the matters referred to in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) …;”
34Section 85B relevantly provides:
“(1) If a court—
(a) finds a person guilty of an offence; or
(b) convicts a person of an offence—
it may, on the application of a person who has suffered any injury as a direct result of the offence, order the offender to pay compensation of such amount as the court thinks fit for any matter referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (2).
(2) A compensation order may be made up of amounts—
(a)for pain and suffering experienced by the victim as a direct result of the offence;
(b) …
(c) …
(d) … .”
35Section 85H provides:
“(1)If a court decides to make a compensation order, it may, in determining the amount and method of payment of the compensation, take into account, as far as practicable, the financial circumstances of the offender and the nature of the burden that its payment will impose.
(2) A court is not prevented from making a compensation order only because it has been unable to find out the financial circumstances of the offender.”
36Section 85I provides:
“If a court decides to make a compensation order, it must reduce the amount of the compensation by the amount of—
(a) any award made to the victim under the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996; or
(b) any assistance paid to the victim under the Victims of Crime (Financial Assistance Scheme) Act 2022—
for the expense or other matter for which compensation is being sought under this Subdivision.”
37The following general principles, as summarised by T Forrest J in Stevens v Baxter[20] apply to applications of this type:
(a) providing the claims fall within the categories specified in the Act, the determination of the amount of compensation is entirely within the discretion of the Court;
(b) an order for compensation is determined by the application, where relevant, of common law principles, however the Order itself is one for compensation not damages;
(c) where a claim for pain and suffering is maintained, it must be a direct result of the offence;
(d) the Act does not permit an award for either aggravated or exemplary damages which may be sought in a separate civil claim;
(e) expenses, medical or otherwise, actually incurred and reasonably likely to be incurred, may be the subject of a compensation order;
(f) unlike a common law claim for damages, the financial circumstances of the offender are relevant;
(g) a court is not obliged to reduce the amount of compensation payable on the basis of the offender’s financial circumstances; it is a relevant, but not controlling, consideration.
[20][2009] VSC 257 (“Stevens”)
38Those principles were in part distilled from the principles outlined by Bell J in RK v Mirik and Mirik.[21]
[21](2009) 21 VR 623 at 660, paragraph [178] (“Mirik”)
39In Mirik, Bell J, after having arrived at an appropriate figure, applied a discount of 25 per cent to the figure, which he considered appropriate on account of the procedure under s85B being a summary procedure. His Honour said:
“When a victim applies to a criminal court for compensation, the court and the offenders are not usually able to examine the victim’s claim as fully as could a civil court in fully contested proceedings. For want of a full forensic and judicial examination of the claim, there is a potential for the court to overshoot in determining the amount of compensation. To avoid doing so, the court can order compensation in a reduced amount of which it is comfortably satisfied, remembering the victim’s rights to obtain full compensation in civil proceedings are not affected. In this case, for that reason, I have decided to reduce the amount of compensation that I might conceivably have ordered by 25%.”[22]
[22]Mirik at paragraph [178]
40In Kelley (a pseudonym) v R1 (a pseudonym) & Ors,[23] the Court of Appeal[24] considered the practice of some judges in the County Court routinely applying a 25 per cent discount in such applications. Their Honours said:
“… If such a practice exists, it should cease. Each case must be considered by reference to its own facts and circumstances, and not by reference to some rigid rule or formula that forms no part of the statutory text.
…
[23][2016] VSCA 90
[24]Beach and Ferguson JJA
… the judge carefully considered the applicant’s circumstances, including his age and need for accommodation upon release from prison. In particular, the judge gave careful consideration to the assets available to the applicant to pay compensation. We would endorse the reasons of the judge that the gravity of the offending, its effects and the $300,000 pool of assets left over for the applicant are each good reasons why the amount of compensation to be paid should not be reduced because of the applicant’s financial circumstances. We agree with the judge that in combination they provide an overwhelming case against adjusting the level of compensation to be paid. This is not a case where the applicant will be left with a debt that is greater than his assets. Rather it is the reverse as he will be left with a sizeable asset pool. The compensation order will not inhibit his rehabilitation.”[25]
[25][2016] VSCA 90 at paragraphs[22] and [24]
41In appropriate cases, it is possible for the Court to make allowance in the Order, geared towards the rehabilitation of the offender upon his or her release, by ensuring that sufficient assets are available for that purpose.[26]
[26]Stevens at paragraph [35]
Submissions of the parties
42The focus of the application by both parties was quantum. Medical and psychological reports, and Ms Conti’s affidavit, were tendered without cross-examination.
43On 12 December 2023, a restraining order was made by Judge Hinchey pursuant to s18 of the Confiscation Act 1997. The Order was made in respect of Mr Ransley’s interest in the rural property where the incident occurred.
44Judge Blair’s sentencing remarks also refer to two investment properties in Albury which generate rental income being applied to mortgages[27] at the time of the sentence.
[27]Sentencing remarks at paragraph [47]
45Neither party placed any evidence before the Court about the value of these properties and any equity Mr Ransley might have in them. No other evidence was placed before the Court about Mr Ransley’s financial position. I note that while Mr Ransley’s financial circumstances are relevant, they are not a controlling consideration.
46Both parties otherwise made helpful submissions on the relevant legal principles and assisted the Court by providing relevant precedent.
47Counsel for Ms Conti submitted the sum of $400,000 is in the range of available awards for a combination of injuries of this type.
48Counsel for Mr Ransley appropriately conceded the offending was serious, but emphasised it was important not to overshoot the amount of the award and to bear in mind it was in the community’s interest Mr Ransley’s rehabilitation not be impeded and he not be released destitute.
49Based on the range of awards made by judges in s85B applications relating to serious injuries, counsel for Mr Ransley submitted a range of $150,000 to $175,000 was more appropriate.
Analysis
50The sentencing remarks and medical reports filed clearly establish that, as a direct result of the offences, Ms Conti suffered actual bodily harm of a most serious kind. She suffered a head injury and concussion, including a fracture of the parietal bone, an eye socket fracture, a caved-in left cheek, a broken nose and a fractured jaw. A number of ribs were broken, as were a number of bones in her upper limbs.
51She has undergone twelve operations and spent over a month in hospital during the COVID pandemic when visitors were restricted.[28]
[28]Victim Impact statement at CB 15
52She has been left with permanent disfigurement ꟷ scars on her face and head, and of the index finger and little finger on her left hand, both of which are bent and affected by pins and needles. She is unable to smile or drink fluids without spilling them.
53Ms Conti has a metal implant in her face to stop it from drooping. She suffers from facial numbness, which she has been told will be permanent.
54I accept the facial scarring and hair loss has had a negative effect on her self-esteem and are a daily reminder of the incident which impacts on her psychological condition.
55As a result of the hand injuries, she experiences pain and restriction in every aspect of her daily life from self-care to cooking and will continue to do so into the future. She is a middle-aged woman and has deposed to being worried about arthritis affecting the injuries.
56She has been unable to continue in her role as carer for her mother and has no capacity to work in the near future on account of her psychological injuries.
57In her victim impact statement, Ms Conti told the Court:
“During the onslaught I was absolutely petrified. I thought I was going to die. I was completely paralysed and could not move. In that state of shock I felt completely worthless. … .
I was left utterly undignified, left to soil and urinate in my pants, I was so humiliated. … .”[29]
[29]CB 14
58In her affidavit, Ms Conti described in detail the threats to her life and the degrading and humiliating treatment administered by Mr Ransley.
59Her treating psychologist found a strong link between her current psychological problems and the violent incident. I accept that the combination of the threats and the extreme violence directly caused her PTSD and anxiety, and exacerbated her pre-existing depression. She experiences nightmares, flashbacks, intrusive thoughts and disturbed sleep. She is weary of men and avoids social interaction. She has now become reclusive and is unable to form relationships with people. I accept that she will have considerable difficulty learning to trust people again. These are very profound impacts on her quality of life presently and into the future.
60I accept her evidence that she is unable to attend the psychological treatment she so desperately needs because attendance causes her to be physically and emotionally unwell. I consider this is also a direct result of the offences and contributes to prolonging her suffering.
Mr Ransley
61Mr Ransley is currently undergoing sentence in relation to the incident. He is fifty-nine years old and will be in his early sixties if released on parole when eligible.
62No evidence was tendered by Mr Ransley. The sentencing remarks of Judge Blair contain some reference to his background, family of origin and education. He spent a significant period of his working life driving trucks interstate and around Australia. This work ended in 2020.
63He has a son from a relationship which ended in 2006. He has never met his son. It is not clear from the sentencing remarks whether he has any child support liability.
64The submission that his rehabilitation would be inhibited by any substantial order cannot be sustained in the absence of evidence of his financial circumstances. I am unable to accept that he will be “destitute” as a result of any order I make, as there is no evidence of the value of his equity in any of the three properties he owns. I consider there is intrinsic moral value in compensating or making amends to his victim, which could support Mr Ransley’s rehabilitation in a general way.
65Neither party referred the Court to any case which dealt with injuries of a similar severity or combination. I have taken into account the types of awards made in similar cases.[30] However, no two cases are alike and each case must be decided on its own facts.
[30]Mirik, Jackson v Graham [2014] VCC 241, Kaori Asana v Grima [2015] VCC 655, Harley (A Pseudonym) v Hood [2019] VCC 118, Athian v John Pang [2019] VCC 477; Knox (a pseudonym) v Frecker (Ruling) [2021] VCC 1548
66I consider that the combination of the gravity of the offending, the psychological and physical injuries, the scarring, the daily pain and very severe psychological reaction warrants a substantial award of compensation.
67I bear in mind that, while common law principles apply, this is an application for criminal compensation, not damages. I have no power and make no order for exemplary or aggravated damages. Ms Conti’s rights to issue civil proceedings continue.
68By way of compensation for the pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life which Ms Conti has endured this far and will continue to endure as a result of her injuries, I consider that the appropriate sum is $400,000.
69It is appropriate also to factor in the need to not overshoot the amount of compensation, as this is a summary procedure in which the parties have not examined the claim in as much detail as ordinarily seen in civil claims. However, I am satisfied Ms Conti has made out her case for very significant consequences of fractures to her head and hands, scarring and psychological damage. I therefore reduce the amount I consider appropriate by 15 per cent which brings the amount of compensation to $340,000.
70Ms Conti has received $5,000 in special financial assistance from VOCAT which will be deducted from this figure.
71Pursuant to s85B of the Act, I order Mr Ransley pay Ms Conti the sum of $335,000.
---
0
9
0