Crabbe v Haynes

[2009] QDC 27

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Crabbe v Haynes [2009] QDC 27

PARTIES:

CRABBE

(Applicant)

v

HAYNES

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

150/09

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court

DELIVERED ON:

26 February 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 February 2009

JUDGE:

Samios DCJ

ORDER:

The respondent to pay the applicant the sum of $36,000

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal law – compensation – stab wound and mental or nervous shock – assessment

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 ss 19(1)(a), 20, 21, 22(3), 22(4), 24(2), 25(7), 25(8)

COUNSEL:

Mr A Hoare, for the applicant

SOLICITORS:

Shine Lawyers for the applicant

Robertson O’Gorman for the respondent

1. This is an application to assess criminal compensation for injuries suffered by the applicant caused by a personal offence committed by the respondent against the applicant.

1. The offence committed by the respondent against the applicant was that on 20 May 2005 he committed a malicious act with intent.  The respondent pleaded guilty to this offence on 10 May 2007.

1. The applicant was born on 24 December 1980 and was 24 years of age at the time of the offence.  The respondent was born on 2 April 1980 and was 25 years of age at the time of the offence. 

1. The basis on which the respondent was sentenced was that prior to April 2005 he had been in a relationship with a young lady but this relationship had come to an end.  This young lady then formed a relationship with the applicant.  On 20 April 2005 the applicant and the respondent and the young lady were drinking together at the young lady’s house.  An altercation took place between the applicant and the respondent during which they exchanged blows and both were injured in the altercation.  Then on 20 May 2005 the applicant and the young lady were at home when the respondent arrived.  The respondent indicated he wished to talk to the young lady.  The applicant went to a bedroom to wait and then the respondent went into the bedroom and asked why the applicant had stolen his girlfriend.  An altercation took place between the applicant and the respondent.  However, at the end of the altercation the respondent stabbed the applicant in the back with a knife.  The respondent then left the house and left in his car.

1. The applicant suffered a large haematoma to the right flank and a 2cm-3cm laceration in the centre of the haematoma and blood was oozing from the wound.  The treatment received included wound packing, pressure dressing and IV antibiotics.  He was transfused with three units of blood.  The applicant was managed conservatively without the need for surgery until he was discharged on 23 May 2005.  The opinion of the treating surgeon was that if left untreated the injury would have been likely to endanger the applicant’s life due to blood loss, risk of further bleeding and possible infection.

1. The knife used in the offence was not located.  The applicant described it to police as having a black and silver handle and a six inch blade.  The applicant was advised by medical staff that he received a 13½cm to 14cm deep wound in the vicinity of his lungs, liver and kidneys. 

1. The offence has had a significant impact upon the applicant.  Before the offence, the applicant was an up and coming games programmer full of life and enjoying the future ahead.  He worked hard but enjoyed life nonetheless and always strived to better himself.  He had a good social life.  However since the offence he has retracted from his former life and has become a recluse.  He suffered nightmares, difficulties sleeping, he would wake up his fiancé, he would dream of being repeatedly stabbed.  He required sedative prescription from his doctor.  Notwithstanding the medication his depression continued.  He tried to take his own life.  In doing so he shattered his left leg and required an external fixater for the injury.  He received treatment from a psychiatrist.  He spent a house deposit he had saved up on prescription medication, taxi cabs and lost income just to keep himself going.  Because of his disturbing behaviour caused by the attack his mother asked him to leave the house.  He also fell out with other family members.  He then turned to alcohol and also illicit drugs.  In an altercation with his girlfriend he severed a finger.  This has had an impact on his work as a computer programmer.  His relationships including that with his girlfriend and other people have been affected.  He is anxious about confronting the respondent.  He fears the respondent may attack him again.  He feels disappointed with himself and feels worthless.  He looks back on his life and sees a lot of failure.  He feels that he would be better off if he were dead.

1. These effects of the offence upon the applicant are sworn to by the applicant.  The applicant also has repeated these effects to Dr Larder, a psychiatrist who saw the applicant for examination and review on 8 May 2008.

1. Dr Larder concludes that the events of the evening in question were sufficiently life threatening to fulfil criteria for a post traumatic stress disorder.  Dr Larder is concerned about the relevance of the applicant’s use of illicit drugs and alcohol consumption to this diagnosis.

1. Dr Larder’s eventual diagnosis is that the history and examination support the view that the applicant developed a severe syndrome of subjective distress and functional impairment in the period after the index incident that led to a failed suicide attempt, severe physical injuries and extraordinary levels of psychosocial disturbance in his life.  The A1 and A2 criteria for post traumatic stress disorder are fulfilled.  That is despite the applicant’s past medical history including psychological disturbances (see Report Dr Larder pp10-13).  I am satisfied the applicant has acted reasonably in his recovery despite Dr Larder’s observation the applicant has struggled to accept responsibility for his behaviour (and) develop a therapeutic alliance and enter into an effective treatment plan.  I accept the applicant’s inability to enter into such an alliance and plan, is due to him being as Dr Larder states “unpsychologically minded”.  That is, I accept it has not been the fault of the applicant that he has not as yet developed a therapeutic alliance and entered into an effective treatment plan.

1. The evidence satisfies me that the offence has caused the applicant’s post traumatic stress disorder and aggravated his use of illicit drugs and alcohol consumption.  The evidence also satisfies me that the applicant has suffered severe mental or nervous shock caused by the offence and has suffered physical injuries caused by the offence.

1. The applicant sought compensation for his physical injuries on the basis of an assessment for bruising/laceration etc. (severe) and facial disfigurement or bodily scarring (severe).  In my opinion he should be compensated for those items under the heading of ‘Gunshot/Stab wound – Severe’.

1. Pursuant to section 19(1)(a) of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (COVA) the applicant is entitled to compensation “for injuries suffered by the applicant caused by a personal offence committed against the applicant”.

1. Section 20 COVA defines “injury” to include “bodily injury, mental or nervous shock, pregnancy or any injury specified in the compensation table or prescribed under a regulation”.

1. Section 21 COVA defines a “personal offence” to mean “an indictable offence committed against the person of someone”.

1. Subsections 22(3) and (4) COVA provides:

“Compensation provided to an applicant is intended to help the applicant but is not intended to reflect the compensation to which the applicant may be entitled under common law or otherwise and the maximum amount of compensation provided is reserved for the most serious cases and the amounts provided in other cases are intended to be scaled according to their seriousness”.

1. Section 24(2) COVA provides for payment of compensation “to the applicant for the injuries suffered by the applicant because of the offence”.

1. Section 25(7) COVA provides:

“In deciding whether an amount, or what amount, should be ordered to be paid for an injury, the court must have regard to everything relevant, including, for example, any behaviour of the applicant that directly or indirectly contributed to the injury”.

1. Section 25(8) COVA provides:

“A decision on the amount that should be ordered to be paid under a compensation order:

(a)does not involve applying principles used to decide common law damages for personal injuries; and

(b)is to be decided by applying the principles mentioned in s 22 (3) and (4).”

1. The relationship between the applicant and the respondent was volatile before the offence was committed.  However, the first altercation had come to an end and the applicant and the young lady were boyfriend and girlfriend.  It was the respondent who came to the house on 20 May 2005 admittedly after three phone calls from the applicant and entered the bedroom where the applicant was waiting for the respondent to finish talking to the young lady.  It was the respondent who was armed with a knife and had no justification for stabbing the applicant even if there had been an altercation before that event.  In these circumstances I am satisfied the applicant has done nothing directly or indirectly to contribute to his injuries.

1. In all the circumstances I assess the applicant’s compensation as follows:

1.          Gunshot/stab wound (severe) – 23%

2.          Mental or nervous shock (severe) – 25%

Total – 48%

1. That is the sum of $36,000.

1. I therefore order the respondent to pay the applicant the sum of $36,000.