Hancock v Ketchup - [2007] QDC 368

[2007] QDC 368

DISTRICT COURT
CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE ROBIN QC

No 74 of 2007

JASON MERVYN HANCOCK	Applicant
and
LORELLE JOYCE KETCHUP	Respondent
TOWNSVILLE ..DATE 14/05/2007

JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR: This is an application for compensation under the

Criminal Offence Victims Act by a police officer, Jason Mervyn
Hancock. The respondent Lorelle Joyce Ketchup has not
appeared today when called, although she was served at Palm

Island on affidavit material before the Court.

It is the all too common scenario of a person being arrested
or under arrest by police, spitting with their spittle coming
in contact with the face of the victim. It is equally
repellant whether the contact is with eyes, nose or mouth.

The victim, in these days of heightened concern about	20
communicable diseases, is immediately subjected to the
protracted and, as was stated from the Bar table today,
unpleasant testing regime which fortunately did not result in
bad news for the applicant. Indeed, in my experience, it is
very rarely bad news for the applicant, which is not to say	30
that fears of the worst are not genuinely and reasonably held with sad consequences for the victims in all manner of ways including their sexual relations with their partners which are typically disrupted and sometimes for very long periods.
40
Reliance has been placed on a decision of my own in Mount Isa,
Nikas v. Melville (2004) QDC 460. I expressed the view there
that at least in Mount Isa something of a tariff had emerged from which it would be invidious for a Judge to depart. The award there was $15,000, consistent with the earlier decisions	50
that I referred to. It may have seemed generous in relation to Judge Hoath's decision in Brisbane in Marshall v. McClure (2003) QDC 302 where the applicant and his fellow police

2 JUDGMENT 60

officer Edwards each received $11,250. The coincidence of the

awards suggests that Judge Hoath too was alert to the drawing of distinctions being invidious in contexts like the present.

Another case which was handed up for the applicant is Best v.

Brown (2006) QDC 407, a decision of Judge Tutt, where the	10
award was $7,500 in circumstances which seem closer to the
present ones in that fortunately there was absent anything
resembling the gloating and cruel comments by the offenders
suggesting to police that they would become infected. In the
matters where the awards were higher, there was also the	20
presence of blood in the offender's spittle, which one would expect to heighten the victim's concern.
Although it is suggested that an award of $15,000 is
appropriate, there are problems for Mr Hancock in the cautious	30
report of Mr Walkley, psychologist, on the 30th of November 2006 which states as part of the conclusions:

"On the basis of my clinical examination of Mr
Hancock supported by the psychometric evaluation

which accompanied it, I formed the opinion that at 40
the present time this man does not suffer…

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.

Continue reading Hancock v Ketchup

Details

AGLC: Hancock v Ketchup [2007] QDC 368
Case: [2007] QDC 368
Decision Date: 14/05/2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hancock v Ketchup, the applicant, Jason Mervyn Hancock, sought compensation under the Criminal Offence Victims Act after being spat at by the respondent, Lorelle Joyce Ketchup, while performing his duties as a police officer. The respondent failed to appear in court despite being served with the necessary documents. The incident in question involved Ms Ketchup spitting on Mr Hancock, leading to psychological distress and a series of health tests due to concerns about communicable diseases.

The court had to determine the appropriate amount of compensation for Mr Hancock's psychological injuries. This involved considering the precedent set by previous cases such as Nikas v Melville, Marshall v McClure, and Best v Brown, where different amounts of compensation were awarded based on the circumstances of each case. The court also had to weigh Mr Hancock's psychological report, which indicated that while he did not suffer from depression or post-traumatic stress disorder, he experienced an adjustment disorder with anxiety due to the incident.

In its judgment, the court acknowledged the psychological impact on Mr Hancock, noting his changed attitude towards his job and interactions with Aboriginal people, as well as his dissatisfaction with the support received from his employer. Despite the psychologist's report suggesting that Mr Hancock's symptoms were dissipating, the court deemed it necessary to award compensation to respect the psychological consequences of the offence. The court ordered Ms Ketchup to pay Mr Hancock $12,000 in compensation under the Act.

Orders