Lawrence v Coconut
[2008] QDC 251
•7 October 2008
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Lawrence v Coconut [2008] QDC 251
PARTIES:
EMILY DORIS LAWRENCE
(Applicant)
v
GREGORY MORRIS COCONUT
(Respondent)FILE NO/S:
148 of 2008
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:
Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:
DELIVERED ON:
7 October 2008
DELIVERED AT:
Cairns
HEARING DATE:
22 August 2008
JUDGE:
Bradley DCJ
ORDER:
That the respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $12,750 by way of compensation
CATCHWORDS:
COUNSEL:
No appearance for either party (written submissions received on behalf of the applicant)
SOLICITORS:
ILS Qld Limited for the applicant
On 25 October 2005 the respondent was convicted in the District Court at Weipa of assaulting the applicant and causing her bodily harm whilst he was armed with an offensive instrument. The offence was committed at Napranum on 18 October 2004.
The applicant now seeks an order for compensation for the injuries suffered by her because of the offence pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act (“the Act”).
The respondent, who was born on 19 July 1965, was personally served with the application and the supporting material on 3 July 2008. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the respondent at the hearing of the application.
On 18 October 2004 the applicant, who was then 40 years of age, was at her house and the respondent, her de facto, had asked to come inside and have a sleep. The applicant went inside and closed the door. The respondent got angry with her and the applicant did not know why. The respondent said to the applicant “I’m going to look for something to hit you with,” and the applicant ran outside the door and went towards the kitchen. The applicant got to the front yard and the respondent caught up with her. The respondent pushed the applicant towards the fence and she fell down and the respondent picked up a brick, threw it at the applicant and hit her in the head causing it to bleed. The applicant asked the respondent to leave her alone. The applicant was lying on the ground bleeding the respondent kicked her in the back. The applicant does not know how many times the respondent kicked her in the back and at sentencing it was submitted on the respondent’s behalf that the kicking was minimal and caused no injuries.
On 18 October 2004 the applicant was taken by ambulance to the Weipa Hospital and examined by Dr Chika Asomugha. In a statement made by Dr Asomugha on 2 March 2005, Dr Asomugha states that the injury sustained by the applicant was a “3cm-long jagged (lacero-contused) wound on the left parieto-occipital area of the face”.
Dr Asomugha states that the wound was stitched with four stitches of prolene and subsequently dressed. The applicant was not formally admitted into the ward but was kept for a short stay inside the hospital.
In an affidavit sworn on 2 January 2008 and filed in support of her application the applicant states that she was able to block a second brick thrown at her by the respondent with her hand. So far as her emotional reaction to the event is concerned, she states:-
“I was very frightened of the respondent and when they released me from hospital I was too scared to go home. I was afraid of him for a long time. Now I am still wary of him and prefer to avoid him where I can. I get nervous sometimes when I pass by the place that it happened.
I get bad memories of the attack that are hard to push away sometimes.
I get anxious a lot and sometimes wish I was dead.”
In her statement to the police the applicant said that as a result of the attack, in addition to the cut to her head, she also had a large lump on her head and bad bruising on her back.
I have been provided a number of photographs taken of the applicant apparently shortly after the attack which, in addition to the large cut on the left side of her head, show lacerations to the back of her left hand and abrasions and lacerations to the middle of her back. I am satisfied therefore, that the respondent is responsible for injuring the applicant’s back as a result of the commission of this offence.
On 8 October 2007 the applicant was interviewed and assessed by Ian Ritchie, a forensic psychologist. In his report of 15 October 2007 Mr Ritchie notes instructions that the applicant is making another claim arising out of an assault upon her by the respondent on 4 December 2004 and that the applicant has already been psychologically assessed in regard to that matter by another psychologist. This claim was heard on the same date as the one relating to the December 2004 offence.
The applicant told Mr Ritchie that she is in receipt of a disability support pension because she suffered from rheumatic fever for which she receives regular intravenous medication. The applicant also suffers from hypertension, diabetes and asthma. The applicant told Mr Ritchie that the respondent had broken her left arm with a bar at some time before committing the assault on her on 4 December 2004. She says that she experiences chronic back pain as a result of the offence committed in December 2004.
The applicant told Mr Ritchie that she suffers from occasional headaches and also feels dizzy especially when standing up and that she takes Panadeine Forte for the headaches.
In Mr Ritchie’s opinion the applicant suffers no diagnosable psychiatric/psychological disorder associated with the current offence. However the applicant had been assessed as suffering Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Depression associated with the offence committed by the respondent on 4 December 2004 and Mr Ritchie considered that the applicant continued to suffer from these conditions.
Mr Ritchie thought it likely that the applicant would continue to suffer moderate levels of fear of the respondent, sometimes overwhelming and unwanted memories of his violence against her and moderate levels of anxiety when in the vicinity of the crime scene, for the foreseeable future. Mr Ritchie considers that the present offence was 30% responsible for Ms Lawrence’s current symptoms and that she could benefit from counselling.
I am satisfied that there was no behaviour whatsoever on the part of the applicant which contributed to her injuries.
The applicant was born on 7 May 1964. She was 40 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence and is now 44.
The applicant is entitled to compensation for the lacerations and bruising she received as a result of the offending and for mental or nervous shock. In circumstances where the applicant is currently making a claim for mental or nervous shock resulting from a subsequent offence, and in light of the contents of Mr Ritchie’s report it is appropriate that in this case she be awarded compensation for minor mental or nervous shock.
I therefore assess compensation in accordance with the Compensation Table which is Schedule to the Act as follows:-
Item 1: Bruising 2% $ 1,500.00
Item 2: Laceration to head 5% $ 3,750.00
Item 31: mental or nervous shock (minor) 10% $ 7,500.00
$12,750.00
I order that the respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $12,750 by way of compensation.
0
0
0