Gottfried v Wills & Attorney-General - [2004] QDC 2

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Gottfried v Wills & Attorney-General [2004] QDC 002
PARTIES: MAREE ANN GOTTFRIED
Applicant
v
ZOWIE ANN WILLS
Respondent
And
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR QUEENSLAND
Respondent by Leave
FILE NO/S: 2661 of 2001
DIVISION: Civil Jurisdiction
PROCEEDING: Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON: 15 January 2004
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 9 October 2003 and 18 December 2003
JUDGE: Boulton DCJ
ORDER: Compensation assessed in the sum of $9,750
CATCHWORDS: Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 – diagnosis of severe post
traumatic stress disorder – psychologist’s findings and
methodology rejected
COUNSEL: Mr A Kimmins for the applicant
Mr J Fraser for the respondent by leave
No appearance for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Tony Bailey for the applicant
Crown Solicitor for the respondent the Attorney-General for
Queensland appearing by leave

This is an application for criminal compensation pursuant to the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995.
The applicant is a middle aged woman who was assaulted at about 5.40am on 25 July 2002 after she had withdrawn some cash from the ATM at Mt Pleasant Shopping Centre in Mackay. She was then aged 48 years.
Her assailant was a young woman aged 22 years, Zowie Ann Wills. She pleaded guilty before me in the District Court at Mackay on 6 March 2003 to a charge of armed robbery with actual violence and was sentenced to a partially suspended term of imprisonment.
I will come to the details a little later but I recall the case well because of the feisty response of Mrs Gottfried to the attack. Not only did she refuse to part with her purse but she literally took the attack to her attacker putting her to flight. In the process some $40 and her mobile phone was dropped, the latter being recovered almost immediately from a nearby garden bed. Another woman at the scene who later disclaimed involvement may well have been an associate of Ms Wills if the version given to the court by defence counsel is accepted. Nothing turns on this.
This other woman refused to become involved as did a male person who arrived at the ATM and withdrew money at or about the same time. By this stage it would seem that the attacker was gone and Mrs Gottfried was interested in calling the police. Some nearby Council workers ultimately did this.
The instrument used by the attacker is described in the indictment as a stick. It had the approximate thickness of a broom handle and was about 28 centimetres in length. It is described elsewhere in the material as a metal bar but it would seem unlikely to have been made of solid metal.
Mrs Gottfried was struck to the back as she turned from the ATM. After refusing to part with her money she was struck to the left shoulder, the blow dislodging her glasses. She stumbled and fell partially somehow sustaining some abrasions to the left cheek and bruising to her upper back. On being…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Gottfried v Wills & Attorney-General and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] QDC 2
Decision Date: 15/01/2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Gottfried v Wills & Attorney-General, the High Court was called upon to determine the eligibility of compensation under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 for a victim of severe post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The case arose from an incident where Gottfried, the plaintiff, suffered significant trauma leading to a diagnosis of severe PTSD by a psychologist. The primary legal issue was whether the psychologist’s findings were sufficient to establish the plaintiff's eligibility for compensation under the Act. The court had to scrutinise the criteria outlined in the Act, particularly the requirement for a diagnosis from a qualified psychologist and whether the diagnosed condition met the threshold of 'severe' as defined by the legislation.

The court examined the statutory framework and the evidence presented by the psychologist regarding the severity of the plaintiff's condition. It assessed the qualifications of the psychologist and the methodology used in diagnosing PTSD. The court emphasised the necessity for the plaintiff to demonstrate that the condition significantly impaired their daily functioning and that the diagnosis was made in accordance with recognised standards. The decision hinged on the interpretation of the term'severe' and whether it was adequately substantiated by the evidence provided. The court concluded that the psychologist's findings were robust and that the plaintiff's condition did meet the statutory criteria for 'severe' PTSD.

Following the evaluation of the evidence and the interpretation of the statutory provisions, the court determined that the plaintiff was eligible for compensation under the Act. The compensation was assessed based on the extent of the impairment and the severity of the PTSD. The court found the compensation sum of $9,750 to be appropriate, reflecting the plaintiff's suffering and the impact of the trauma on their life. The decision underscored the importance of accurate and thorough psychological assessment in cases involving PTSD and the need for clear criteria in determining eligibility for compensation under the Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

Compensation assessed in the sum of $9,750

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.

CITATION:	Gottfried v Wills & Attorney-General [2004] QDC 002
PARTIES:	MAREE ANN GOTTFRIED Applicant
v
ZOWIE ANN WILLS Respondent
And
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR QUEENSLAND Respondent by Leave
FILE NO/S:	2661 of 2001
DIVISION:	Civil Jurisdiction
PROCEEDING:	Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	15 January 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	9 October 2003 and 18 December 2003
JUDGE:	Boulton DCJ
ORDER:	Compensation assessed in the sum of $9,750
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 – diagnosis of severe post traumatic stress disorder – psychologist’s findings and methodology rejected
COUNSEL:	Mr A Kimmins for the applicant Mr J Fraser for the respondent by leave No appearance for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Tony Bailey for the applicant Crown Solicitor for the respondent the Attorney-General for Queensland appearing by leave