G v. Svensson

[2007] QDC 307

[2007] QDC 307

DISTRICT COURT

CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE O'SULLIVAN

No BD1596 of 2007

G	Applicant
and
KENNETH ROY SVENSSON	Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 02/10/2007

JUDGMENT

MR J STEVENSON (instructed by LAQ) for the Applicant

HER HONOUR:  Okay, then the other one is the matter of
G.  What did we do with it the other day?  If I look at
the endorsement.  Yes, so I've just got to publish my reasons
in it, haven't I.

MR STEVENSON:  Thank you, your Honour, yes.

HER HONOUR:  Okay, I'd proceed to do that.

MR STEVENSON:  Thank you, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:  You can sit down.  You have nothing further to
add to that one?

MR STEVENSON:  No, nothing further, thanks, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:  The applicant seeks criminal compensation from
the respondent arising out of the conviction of the respondent
of two counts of an unnatural offence, one between 31 August
1990 and 3 March 1991 and the other between one 30 - I pause,
the certificate indictment says "31 September".  Well, you
can't have 31 September, so presumably it's meant to be 30
September 1990 and 3 March 1991.

The applicant was born on 3 March 1973.  The respondent was
born on 23 July 1942.  The difference in age is reflected in
the sexual exploitation of the applicant by the respondent.
The respondent was a member of a paedophile ring involving the
respondent and others and the applicant and others.

The applicant was introduced to the respondent via other
persons and, in particular, Garry and Robin Ford.  Mr Ford was

a member, and it would seem, a significant figure, within the paedophile ring.  The applicant in this application sought compensation against Mr Ford in the Supreme Court, and on
Justice Mullins granted compensation in the sum of $20,000 in accordance with the Criminal Code.  I have had the opportunity of reading Justice Mullins' criminal compensation judgment.

28 August 2007

The applicant was a camera assistant, and the respondent was
involved with a company called Video Image Productions.  In
order to obtain, keep the job, the applicant was required to have anal intercourse with the respondent.  Indeed, right from the outset the respondent said that the applicant "would get a job if he had sex" with the respondent.  The applicant approached the respondent on a couple of occasions during the course of his employment, in order to seek recognition that his work was satisfactory, and he was no longer required to have sex with the respondent.  The respondent refused his requests outright, and made it plain that he would be fired unless he agreed to the respondent's sexual demands.

The respondent held very considerable power over the
applicant, as did other members of the paedophile ring.  Mr
Ford's appalling rituals have become notorious in this Court
and the Supreme Court, and the paedophile ring which operated
was extremely exploitative of the young men caught up in it.

The applicant's position was aggravated by the fact that the
respondent was using his employer position to exercise power
over him. 

It is certainly true that the applicant did not commence his relationship with the respondent as his first sexual experience.  He had, sadly, been previously corrupted when very young in New South Wales.

I have a report from Dr Colls dated 13 April 2006.  He refers to the applicant trying to have the sexual exploitation stopped and his feeling of manipulation, which Dr Colls notes, has continued.  As at April 2006 the applicant was mistrustful of employers, suspicious of people and their motives, and prone to panic attacks.  Dr Colls notes that the applicant is remorseful of the lost time in his life and his lack of relationship with his brother and sister because of his initiation into this paedophile ring.  Dr Colls notes that the panic attacks are easily provoked.  The applicant is subject to depression which he initially treated with drugs.  He notes that the applicant has occasional disturbing dreams.

Dr Colls sought to apportion the affect on the applicant of
the conduct of the various members of the paedophile ring.
The applicant expressed the view to Dr Colls that he thought
Mr Ford was 50 per cent responsible, Mr Jones 30 per cent
responsible and the respondent 20 per cent responsible.  The
applicant noted to Dr Colls, and in his affidavit material in this Court, that he was grateful because the respondent, unlike other members of the paedophile ring, pleaded guilty, and thus the respondent was not faced the trauma of a trial, (although, sadly, he faced many others).

The applicant received extensive psychiatric assistance from a
GP with expertise with victims of sexual abuse as children,
and Dr Colls diagnosed a DSMV IV Post-traumatic Stress Disorder of mild severity which he thought might continue for five to 10 years or indeed could be indefinite.  Dr Colls opined that the promiscuity and substance abuse of the applicant are a separate behavioural consequence from the
post-traumatic stress disorder.  Dr Colls notes, and the
applicant deposes in his affidavit, to a feeling that "no one
would see me and acknowledge my abilities but use me for sex"
and his self-image as being the sex toy of the respondent.

I also have a report from Dr McGuire dated 19 March 2007.  She
refers to self-blame by the applicant, the applicant being
socially isolated.  She notes that he now works from home, but
because of his difficulties with trusting employers.  This, of
course, has the consequence that his income opportunities are
greatly reduced.  If this were a common law claim, the damages
for this head alone would be very considerable.
The applicant has provided an affidavit to this Court.  He
refers to the matters outlined in Dr Colls' and Mr McGuire's
report and says that he "felt out of control of my life and
dirty".  He said the respondent acted like he owned him, and
he was in no doubt that the respondent would make it very
difficult for him to get a job in the industry.

The affects of the respondent's offences come on top of
affects due to the actions of others.  However, it is clear
that there has been a substantial contribution by the
respondent to the applicant's continuing affects, and this is
fully canvassed in the reports of both Dr Colls and Dr
McGuire.  There are no contributory factors.

If this were a common law claim or indeed if it were a claim
under the Criminal Offences Victims Act, the award would be for a very substantial sum. However, this is a claim under the Criminal Code, and I am restricted to a maximum award of $20,000. 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.

-----