Lawrence v Coconut
[2008] QDC 250
•7 October 2008
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Lawrence v Coconut [2008] QDC 250
PARTIES:
EMILY DORIS LAWRENCE
(Applicant)
v
GREGORY MAURICE COCONUT
(Respondent)FILE NO/S:
311 of 2007
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:
Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:
DELIVERED ON:
7 October
DELIVERED AT:
Cairns
HEARING DATE:
22 August 2008
JUDGE:
Bradley DCJ
ORDER:
That the respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $9,000 by way of criminal 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 in the District Court sitting at Weipa the respondent was convicted of unlawfully assaulting the applicant and doing her bodily harm whilst armed with an offensive instrument. The offence was committed on 4 December 2004 at Napranum a remote Aboriginal community on Cape York Peninsula.
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 1995 (“the Act”).
The respondent has been personally served with the application and the supporting material and has been advised by letter of the date of hearing but there was no appearance by him or on his behalf at the hearing of this application.
The applicant and the respondent were in a de facto relationship at the time of the commission of the offence and living together in Napranum. On 4 December 2004 the applicant was standing on the roadside near the Napranum takeaway store waiting for somebody. The respondent walked up to her and said, “Come home. Mum wants you.” The applicant could see that the respondent was drunk and he smelt of alcohol. He insisted that she go with him, however she declined as she had a prior arrangement with someone else who was going to collect her to go shopping. The applicant turned away from the respondent but could see from the corner of her eye that the respondent had a stick which looked like a rake handle.
The applicant felt a sharp pain to the bottom of her back as the respondent hit her with the stick. He hit her again in the same place and she fell to the ground and was in a lot of pain. The respondent then kicked the applicant once in the back. The respondent was not wearing shoes. Eventually a friend came and helped the applicant up. The applicant sought medical assistance at the Weipa Hospital.
It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that the relationship between the applicant and the respondent was a destructive one with each of them having a problem with alcohol and neither trusting the other. However, there is nothing in any of the material before me to indicate any behaviour on the part of the applicant which contributed to her injuries.
I have not been provided with any medical evidence with respect to the applicant’s injuries. However, in an affidavit sworn on 3 September 2007 and filed in support of her application the applicant states that this offence ended her relationship with the respondent as she was tired of the respondent hitting her every time he was drinking.
The applicant states that she was scared of what the respondent might do when she fell over and she -
“…could not move very well for days after the attack, I was so bruised and sore.
When he was hitting me he was saying he was going to kill me so I thought I was going to die. I was screaming out for help.
I sometimes have nightmares that he is coming after me again.”
It is apparent from submissions made at the time of sentence that the respondent has been convicted of assaulting the applicant on a number of occasions prior to the commission of this offence and in fact the applicant has made a claim for compensation for injuries suffered on 18 October 2004 (less than two months prior to the commission of this offence) which is also before me.
On 17 February 2005 the applicant was interviewed and assessed at Weipa by Chris Richardson, a psychologist. In her report of 17 February 2005 Ms Richardson refers to another claim for compensation made by the applicant arising out of an incident in March 2004 and concludes that the applicant “is reporting moderate symptomatology associated with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Moderate Depression.” In Ms Richardson’s opinion approximately 60% of the applicant’s assessed distress is in relation to the offence committed in December 2004.
In her report Ms Richardson lists the extensive initial and ongoing problems reported to her by the applicant as having been suffered since the offence. Ms Richardson concludes:-
“It is apparent that the events in 2004 have had a profound effect on Ms Lawrence and she should attend counselling to assist her gain some control over her distress. Given her symptoms, it is expected that 32 sessions with an appropriately qualified therapist would assist her gain some control over her distress and help her maintain equilibrium in her daily activities.”
The applicant was born on 7 May 1964 and was 40 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence. She is now 44.
The applicant is entitled to compensation for bruising to her back and for mental or nervous shock in the moderate range. However, any award for mental or nervous shock should be discounted to take into account the effect of previous offending by the respondent against the applicant.
I therefore assess compensation in accordance with the Compensation Table which is Schedule 1 to the Act as follows:-
Item 1: Bruising (moderate) 3% $ 2,250.00
Item 32: Mental or nervous shock (moderate) 15% $11,250.00
Less 40% deduction $ 4,500.00 $ 7,750.00
Total $ 9,000.00
I order that the respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $9,000 by way of criminal compensation.
0
0
0