G v. Gritt

[2007] QDC 306

[2007] QDC 306

DISTRICT COURT

CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE O'SULLIVAN

No BD2167 of 2007

G	Applicant
and
STEVEN JOHN GRITT	Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 19/09/2007

ORDER

HER HONOUR:  The applicant was born on 23 December 1977 and seeks compensation in respect of offences committed between
and 1 January 1993.

31 December 1990

The respondent pleaded guilty to two counts of indecent treatment between 31 December 1990 and 1 January 1993 and one count of sodomy between 3 July 1990 and 1 January 1993.
He was sentenced by his Honour, Judge Healy QC, now retired, to imprisonment for a period of four years.

The respondent has sworn an affidavit in respect to the effects of the respondent's offences.   

His education was adversely affected by the abuse at the time, and he was not able to resume his education because of a lack of confidence and self-esteem which is directly related to the conduct of the respondent and others in the paedophile ring.

The applicant swears to enticement by the respondent and how he fell prey to the respondent.  As is so often the case with these matters, his confidence and trust in the respondent led him to believe then, and it would seem even now, that he was to some extent to blame for what happened.

The sodomisation of him caused both emotional and physical problems and, indeed, led to the need for attendance at a hospital due to problems with his bowels.  It is not possible for me to say what the relationship is, whether it was a physical or emotional result of the violent anal penetration, but on any view of the matter there is a link.

He deposes: "Sometimes I get a severe ache in the area of the rectum.  This comes and goes.  I think this is because of the abuse."  From that it is clear that his problems continue, notwithstanding the passage of time since the offences were committed.  Whether this is a combination of physical and emotional causes is for a medical specialist to say.  Suffice for me to say, as a Judge determining criminal compensation, that I am satisfied that the conduct of the respondent made a material contribution to these continuing problems of the applicant.

Not surprisingly, the applicant was forced to have tests concerning sexually transmitted diseases because the respondent did not use condoms. 

The applicant deposes to becoming less open after the offences, especially with his mother.  Fortunately, this has been rectified in recent years.  He is still unable to talk to his father about these matters.

He deposes to the offences having an impact on his sexual relationship with his current partner which has continued for about 15 years.  He has difficulties with sexual intercourse or even with comfort from his partner.  The thoughts of the conduct of the respondent remain in his head. Understandably, his partner has on occasions became frustrated and they have on occasions separated and continue to do so from time to time. 

The applicant now has a one-year-old child and he is "very protective" of her.

An added aspect of this matter was that the respondent managed to persuade the applicant to approach other children to attend at the places where the paedophile ring operated.  He felt guilt about that at the time and still does.  He has "very briefly thought about suicide" but fortunately his friends and family are supportive and now he is more stable because he has a child.

His trust in people has been greatly diminished and he has difficulty in explaining himself because of fear of being criticised or judged.  At the time of the abuse by the respondent, he felt he was a nobody, dirty and being taken advantage of, and this led to depression and anxiety.  It also led to alcohol and marijuana abuse in order to forget the pain. 

He says that he still feels depressed and he still has vivid images of the offences in his mind.  He says at paragraph 35 of his affidavit, "I don't think the images have got less over the years.  Sometimes it is every day and then sometimes every second day but the abuse images never go away."

He consumes speed which he says was directly attributable to the trauma of the sexual assault.  This, of course, led to problems due to the speed.

He has had problems at work when he has "repetitive vivid scenes".  He is a detailer and has had a number of jobs.  He has had particular problems because if he re-experiences the offences he can break down and he has therefore found it very hard to maintain steady employment and, as a result, has been in employment for less than half the time he might otherwise have been.

I have a report from Dr Barbara McGuire dated 8 November 2006.  This refers to the applicant first being sexually abused by a "unspecified old man when he was nine".  She considers that this distorted his view of what was sexually appropriate and rendered him very vulnerable to the incidence of sexual abuse of which the respondent was a part.

She says that the applicant feels the need to see counsellors in the future.  I would strongly endorse this comment and ask Mr Stevenson to pass that on to the applicant.  The symptoms and problems he is experiencing are those which are depressingly familiar to the Judges of this Court and can only be overcome, in my view, by extensive and professional counselling.

The cumulative effect, Dr McGuire says, reinforced the applicant's negative self-concept and he feels he is 'marked for life and can never feel normal'.  She says at page 6 of her report that at the interview he was tremulous and appeared agitated.  She says that it is highly probable that he has under-achieved at school and his incapacity to stay very long at job is related to the abuse.

It appears that all his interpersonal relationships have been significantly affected, including that with his partner and his daughter.  She says that the guilt he has experienced since the offences has led to a negative self-view and he sees himself as stigmatised.

Dr McGuire does not give a formal psychiatric diagnosis but it emerges quite clearly from her report that the applicant has suffered greatly as a result of the conduct of the respondent. 

I have read Judge Samios' judgment concerning a related matter and I have reached the view that were this a civil claim the applicant would be entitled to a very considerable sum of money because he has suffered greatly at the hands of the respondent.

If the claim were being made under the current Act, he would be towards the top range for mental or nervous shock. It is not. It is an application under the Criminal Code and I am therefore limited to an award of $20,000.

...

HER HONOUR:  I order the respondent to pay to the applicant the sum of $20,000 by way of criminal compensation, together with the costs of the application.

-----