Dunlop v. Popit

[2008] QDC 264

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Dunlop v Popit [2008] QDC 264

PARTIES:

JOSEPH ROBERT DUNLOP

(Applicant)

v

CHRISTOPHER ROSS POPIT

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

517/08

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application for criminal compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court Southport

DELIVERED ON:

14 November 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Southport

HEARING DATE:

10 November 2008

JUDGE:

Kingham DCJ

ORDER:

I order Mr Popit pay Mr Dunlop the sum of $11,250 by way of compensation for injuries sustained by him as a result of the offence for which Mr Popit was convicted on 8 August 2007.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – COMPENSATION – assessment of compensation

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – SERVICE – sufficient notice of proceedings given to serve respondent

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 ss 24, 28(1)

COUNSEL:

C Bagley for the applicant

SOLICITORS:

Price & Roobottom Solicitors for the applicant

1. This is an application by Mr Dunlop pursuant to s24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 for compensation for injuries he sustained in an assault by Mr Popit on 26 January 2006.  Mr Popit was convicted on his plea of guilty to serious assault of Mr Dunlop on 8 August 2007.  Mr Dunlop claims compensation for mental or nervous shock.  I am satisfied Mr Popit’s offence is a personal offence and that the injuries Mr Dunlop sustained are compensable.

1. Mr Popit did not appear and was not served personally with the documents.  Extensive enquiries on Mr Dunlop’s behalf failed to locate Mr Popit but did reveal an address at which Mr Popit had apparently once resided.  The application was given to a person at that address who identified himself as the former partner of Mr Popit’s mother.  He confirmed Mr Popit had formerly resided there. Later, the supporting affidavit material was sent by express post to Mr Popit at the same address.  That address is the address nominated by Mr Popit on a bail application and is the last known address in records of the Registry of the Southport District Court.  On 1 November 2008 a public notice appeared in the Courier Mail which advised of this application, when and where it would be heard and how the documents and further information could be obtained.  In the circumstances, I am satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to draw this application to Mr Popit’s attention.  I am satisfied that the respondent has been given sufficient notice of the hearing of this application by those measures. (s28(1))

1. When he was assaulted by Mr Popit, Mr Dunlop was a constable of police with the Queensland Police Service.  On 26 January 2006 he and another officer responded to reports that Mr Popit was armed with a knife and threatening people. When the officers arrived, and while they were still in the police car, Mr Popit lunged at him with his knife, but luckily did not make contact.  Both officers left the vehicle, drew their service pistols and pointed them at Mr Popit.  Mr Popit was instructed to drop the knife.  He was in an agitated state, refused to obey police instructions, and moved towards Mr Dunlop’s colleague, Mr Luzardo.  Mr Luzardo backed away.  Mr Popit called on them to shoot him.  Mr Popit’s girlfriend intervened and he was disarmed but he continued to advance towards Mr Luzardo.  Mr Luzardo holstered his weapon, drew his capsicum spray and sprayed Mr Popit who became agitated, and punched that officer twice to the left side of his face and skull.  Mr Dunlop intervened and eventually Mr Popit was subdued. 

1. On the material filed by Mr Dunlop it is evident that he did sustain some minor physical injuries in this incident. Mr Popit was not sentenced on that basis and Mr Dunlop does not seek an award for any physical injuries.  His claim relates solely to the psychological injury he sustained as a result of the incident.  It appears that a significant contributor to the psychological condition he developed was the enormous responsibility he felt in having to protect his fellow officer in a life threatening situation and his reaction to being placed in a position where it may have been necessary to take another person’s life.

1. Dr Diana Cameron, clinical and neurological psychologist, examined Mr Dunlop on 19 October 2007, 21 months after the incident.  She diagnosed him as suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder which had somewhat ameliorated but was still presenting as an adjustment disorder (with mixed features of anxiety and depressed mood).  She attributed this to the shock he experienced, when Mr Popit lunged at him with the knife through the driver’s window barely missing his face, and to his vicarious trauma when he believed his partner would be killed.  He developed nightmares, flashbacks, mood variation, anxiety and panic attacks which became exacerbated when he returned to patrol work.  These symptoms have ameliorated somewhat since Mr Dunlop left the police force.  His relations with his wife became strained although their marriage has survived.

1. Mr Dunlop did not contribute either to his injuries or to the incident in such a manner that would justify a reduction in his compensation award.

1. I award compensation under Item 32 – Mental or Nervous Shock (Moderate), in the sum of $11,250, 15% of the scheme maximum. 

1. I order Mr Popit pay Mr Dunlop the sum of $11,250 by way of compensation for injuries sustained by him as a result of the offence for which Mr Popit was convicted on 8 August 2007.