Flanigan v Ramm

Case [2010] QDC 166


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Flanigan v Ramm [2010] QDC 166
PARTIES: CATHERINE ANN FLANIGAN
(Applicant)
v
LUKE KADE RAMM
 (Respondent)
FILE NO/S: 213 of 2009
PROCEEDING: Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON: 23 April 2010
DELIVERED AT: Cairns
HEARING DATE: 12 March 2010
JUDGE: Everson DCJ
ORDER:

I order that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $29,250.00 by way of compensation.

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal compensation – physical injuries – psychological injuries – sexual offence

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995
Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995

R v Jones ex parte Zaicov [2002] 2 Qd R 303 at 310
R v Atwell ex parte Julie [2002] 2 Qd R 367 at 373

Vlug v Carrasco[2006] QCA 561 at [11]

COUNSEL:
SOLICITORS: Wettenhall Silva for the applicant
  1. This is an application for a compensation order pursuant to section 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (“COVA”).

  1. The injuries giving rise to the application were suffered as a result of a personal offence for which the respondent was convicted on indictment on 3 October 2007, namely assault with intent to commit rape.

Facts

  1. On 5 August 2006, at approximately 4.30 am the applicant was awoken from her sleep.  After stating his intention to have sexual intercourse with her, the respondent, a stranger to the applicant, smashed his way into her unit by kicking in the French doors.  She fought him off until neighbours arrived and he left.  (“the incident”)

Injuries

·     A major injury to her left knee;

·     Psychological sequelae..

The relevant law

  1. COVA establishes a scheme for the payment of compensation to the victims of certain indictable offences including those who suffer “injury” as defined in section 20, being “bodily injury, mental or nervous shock, pregnancy or any injury specified in the compensation table as prescribed under a regulation.”

  1. Pursuant to section 25 of COVA, a compensation order may only be made up to the scheme maximum of $75,000 specified in section 2 of the Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 (“COVR”) using the percentages listed for an injury specified in the Compensation Table in SCHEDULE 1 of COVA. In R v Jones ex parte Zaicov[1] Homes J described the process in the following terms:

“Thus, my examination of the section convinces me that a two or three stage process is entailed. Where there is more than one injury, the first step is to arrive at the amounts in respect of each injury, the second is to add those amounts together, and the third, to arrive at the compensation order.”         

[1][2002] 2 QdR 303 at 310

  1. Relevantly the Compensation Table prescribes:

·     Item 20 Fracture/loss of use of the leg/ankle (severe) …             8% - 25%

·     Item 27 Facial disfigurement or bodily scarring (minor/moderate)… 2% - 10%

·     Item 33 Mental or nervous shock (severe) …  20% - 34%

  1. Section 25 of COVA also states that the court, in determining the amount that should be paid for an injury,…

Continue reading Flanigan v Ramm

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Flanigan v Ramm [2010] QDC 166
Case
[2010] QDC 166
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Flanigan, the applicant, sought compensation for the psychological harm she suffered as a result of sexual offences committed by Ramm, the respondent. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria. Flanigan contended that she suffered severe psychological injuries as a direct consequence of Ramm’s actions, including post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression, which significantly impacted her ability to function in daily life. The court was tasked with determining whether the applicant’s psychological injuries were a direct result of the sexual offences, and if so, to what extent the respondent should be held liable for compensation.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's psychological injuries were caused by the respondent's sexual offences and whether these injuries were compensable under the relevant statutory provisions. The court considered expert psychiatric evidence and the nature of the relationship between the injuries and the offences. The court also assessed the extent to which the injuries affected the applicant's life and whether they were reasonably foreseeable consequences of the sexual offences.

The court found that the applicant's psychological injuries were a direct result of the sexual offences committed by the respondent. The court accepted the psychiatric evidence which established a clear causal link between the offences and the applicant's psychological injuries. It was determined that the injuries were severe and significantly impacted the applicant’s ability to lead a normal life. The court concluded that the respondent should be held liable for compensation under the statutory provisions, awarding the applicant the sum of $29,250.00.

Orders

Orders of the court

I order that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $29,250.00 by way of compensation.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.