Gibson v George
[2010] QDC 196
•17 May 2010
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Gibson v George [2010] QDC 196
PARTIES:
LINDA JANE GIBSON
(Applicant)
v
CLAYTON REX GEORGE
(Respondent)FILE NO/S:
38 of 2009
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:
Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court, Cairns
DELIVERED ON:
17 May 2010
DELIVERED AT:
Cairns
HEARING DATE:
7 May 2010
JUDGE:
Everson DCJ
ORDER:
That the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $11,250.00.
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal compensation – physical injuries – psychological injuries
Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995
Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995R v Jones ex parte Zaicov [2002] QdR 303 at 310
COUNSEL:
SOLICITORS:
Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
No appearance for the respondent
This is an application for a compensation order pursuant to section 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (“COVA”).
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 28 July 2006, namely common assault.
Facts
The applicant was the de facto partner of the respondent. On 27 December 2005 the respondent, in the presence of her child, threatened the applicant with an axe and then proceeded to pour petrol on her and a car in which her child was seated (“the incident”).
Injuries
The applicant suffered psychological sequelae as a consequence of the incident.
The relevant law
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”.
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 the COVA. In R v Jones ex parte Zaicov[1] Holmes 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
Relevantly, the Compensation Table prescribes:
·Item 32 Mental or nervous shock (moderate) … 10% - 20%
Section 25 of COVA also states that the court, in determining the amount that should be paid for an injury, “should have regard to everything relevant, including, for example, any behaviour of the applicant that directly or indirectly contributed to the injury”. Furthermore, the process of assessing compensation pursuant to COVA does not involve applying principles used to decide common law damages for personal injuries and the maximum amount of compensation provided for is reserved for the most serious cases, with the amounts provided in other cases intended to be scaled accordingly.[2] If an injury is not specifically listed in the Compensation Table the court must decide the amount of compensation by comparing the injury or injuries to injuries listed in the Compensation Table and having regard to the amounts that may be ordered to be paid for these injuries.[3]
[2]s 25(8) referring to s 22(4)
[3]s 25(6)
The assessment
I have been provided with a report from Dr Richardson, psychologist dated 14 February 2009 in which the applicant is assessed as suffering from a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder “in the moderate range” as a consequence of the incident.
I am satisfied that the applicant did not contribute to the injury.
Having regard to the evidence before me and in particular to the matters set out above, I assess compensation pursuant to COVA and the Compensation Table as follows:-
· Item 32 – 15% $11,250.00
Order
I order that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $11,250.00.
0
0
2