Latta v Weatherall

[2012] QDC 197

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Latta v Weatherall [2012] QDC 197

PARTIES:

KRISTY-LEIGH LATTA
(applicant)
v
TAMARA LOUISE WEATHERALL
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

D82/09

DIVISION:

Application jurisdiction

PROCEEDING:

Application for criminal compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Toowoomba

DELIVERED ON:

29 June 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Ipswich

HEARING DATE:

28 June 2012

JUDGE:

Bradley DCJ

ORDER:

The respondent pay criminal compensation to the applicant in the sum of $20,250.00.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION – where respondent pleaded guilty to robbery with personal violence – whether applicant entitled to compensation for  mental and nervous shock

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) s 24

COUNSEL:

S Taylor for the applicant
Respondent did not appear

SOLICITORS:

Neil O’Brien & Associates for the applicant
Respondent did not appear

HER HONOUR: This is a matter of an application for a criminal compensation order by Kristy-Leigh Latta. On the 20th of May 2009, the respondent was convicted on a plea of guilty in the District Court in Toowoomba of a number of offences, including one of robbing the applicant, and using personal violence to the applicant. The applicant now seeks an order pursuant to section 24 of the now repealed Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995, which I will refer to as the Act, for compensation for the injuries suffered by her because of the offence.

The respondent, who is presently incarcerated in Brisbane Women's Correctional Centre, was served with the application and the supporting material on the 21st of June 2012.  She was invited in a letter accompanying the material to contact the Court to appear by telephone if she wished to do so.  The respondent did not appear at the adjourned hearing of this matter yesterday, and I will determine it in her absence.

Although the Act has now been repealed, this application was filed on the 4th of September 2009, and therefore can be dealt with pursuant to the repealed Act.  The offence was committed in Toowoomba on the 1st of March 2009.  I was not the sentencing Judge, and I've not been provided with the submissions made during sentencing proceedings.  However, the sentencing remarks of Judge Richards imply that the respondent accepted the prosecution's allegations.

According to the applicant's statement to police, the applicant, who was 18 years of age at the time, worked part time at a corner shop at Wilsonton.  On the 1st of March 2009, the applicant opened the store at around 6.00 a.m., and was working alone.  Shortly afterwards, the respondent, who was then 17 years of age, came into the store.  She was apparently under the influence of alcohol, and she started harassing the applicant.  She demanded cigarettes, and then money, and wanted to use the shop toilet.

Although the applicant put her own money in the till so that the respondent could have the cigarettes, she could not and did not comply with the other demands.  The respondent left the store and returned a number of times repeating her demands for money.  At the respondent's request the applicant telephoned a cab for her.  The respondent came behind the counter and tried to access the cash registers.  She threatened to take knives out of a drawer, and threatened the applicant with violence.

The applicant was terrified, and screamed out to a lady who was passing the store.  This lady called the police.  Before police arrived, the respondent pulled the panel relating to the security system off the wall, and a scuffle broke out between the two young women over the store telephone.  Eventually, the applicant ran out of the store, and the police arrived shortly afterwards, by which time, the respondent had a knife in her hand.  Clearly, there was no behaviour whatsoever on the part of the applicant which contributed to her injuries.

In an affidavit sworn on the 19th of October 2010, the applicant states that as a result of her emotional reaction to the events on the 1st of March 2009, she had to discontinue a TAFE course she was doing at the time.  She received assistance from WorkCover and Centrelink, and was assisted back to work part time.  At the date of the swearing of her affidavit, however, she was still experiencing difficulty attending work and carrying out her duties.

In paragraph 10 of her affidavit, she states, "The incident on the 1st of March 2009 has affected my every day life in every way.  I am now so much more emotional when approaching every aspect of my life.  Initially, I had difficulty in going out at all, including using public transport, but now I have less difficulty.  However, I have become very withdrawn, especially with people I don’t know.  I try to make myself go out, but I continue to have difficulty going out by myself." 

The applicant has been treated and assessed by Renita Neal, a psychologist.  In a report dated the 22nd of October 2009, Ms Neal describes the symptoms experienced by the applicant, which are consistent with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, which the applicant has suffered as a result of the offence.  These symptoms are listed in the report as follows:

"One, she experienced an event that involved threat of death or serious injury or a threat to her physical integrity.  Two, her experience involved intense fear and helplessness.  Three, she persistently re-experiences the event through intense psychological distress, and physiological reactivity at exposure to internal or external cues that symbolise or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event.  Four, she persistently avoids stimuli associated with the trauma as indicated by efforts to avoid thoughts, feelings, or conversations associated with the trauma.  Efforts to avoid activities, places or people that arouse recollections of the trauma marks diminished interest or participation in significant activities, and an inability to recollect important aspects of the event.  Five, persistent symptoms of increased arousal as indicated by difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep, difficulty concentrating, hyper-vigilance, exaggerated startle response." 

In the report, Ms Neal outlines the way in which the incident has affected the applicant in all aspects of her life - emotionally, psychologically, socially, and has adversely affected her regarding her education, housing and ability to work.  In Ms Neal's opinion the applicant's condition is severe.  Despite her young age, the applicant has experienced a number of major incidents in her life, which have adversely affected her.  Nevertheless, Ms Neal is of the opinion that she was functioning normally prior to the offence. 

Clearly, on the material before me, the offence committed by the respondent on the applicant has had a profound and lasting impact on the applicant.  It has adversely affected her well‑being in many areas of her life, and clearly, she has suffered significant mental and nervous shock.  She is entitled to compensation for mental and nervous shock within the severe range in accordance with the compensation table, which is schedule 1 to the Act.

I assess her injury at 27 per cent of the schedule maximum, that is $20, 250, and I order that the respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $20, 250 by way of criminal compensation. 

-----