Neagle v Reed

[2001] QDC 215

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Neagle v Reed [2001] QDC 215
PARTIES:	MARIA ELLEN NEAGLE (Applicant) MAURICE FREDERICK REED (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	95 of 2000
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Criminal Compensation Application
ORIGINATING	District Court, Cairns
COURT:
DELIVERED ON:	17/5/01
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	22/2/01
JUDGE:	White DCJ
ORDER:	That the respondent, Maurice Frederick Reed, pay the applicant, Maria Ellen Neagle, the sum of $65,000 by way of compensation.
CATCHWORDS:
COUNSEL:
SOLICITORS:	T. Price (Legal Aid Office) for the applicant Maurice Frederick Reed (self) for the respondent

[1]

The respondent was found guilty in the District Court at Innisfail of the following
offences on 8 September, 1999:-

1.	That on 11th day of July, 1998 at Innisfail in the State of Queensland he unlawfully and indecently assaulted Maria Ellen Neagle.
2.	That on 11th day of July, 1998 at Innisfail in the State of Queensland he unlawfully and indecently assaulted Maria Ellen Neagle and the indecent assault consisted of bringing into contact part of the genitalia of Maria Ellen Neagle with the mouth of Maurice Frederick Reed.
3.	That on 11th day of July, 1998 at Innisfail in the State of Queensland he raped Maria Ellen Neagle.
4.	That on 11th day of July, 1998 at Innisfail in the State of Queensland he unlawfully and indecently assaulted maria Ellen Neagle and that the said indecent assault consisted of bringing into contact part of the genitalia of himself with the mouth of Maria Ellen Neagle.
5.	That on 11th day of July, 1998 at Innisfail in the State of Queensland he raped Maria Ellen Neagle.

This is an application by Maria Ellen Neagle for compensation pursuant to s.24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995.

1. The applicant was born on 7 October, 1949. She was therefore aged 48 at the time of the commission of the offences and is now aged 51. At the time of the commission of the offences she lived alone in a small flat in Innisfail. She was acquainted with the respondent and he had visited her flat on a prior occasion. It seems that the respondent was attempting to cultivate a relationship with the applicant. Early in the morning of 11 July, 1998 the respondent entered the applicant’s flat without her knowledge. Thereafter he proceeded to commit the offences of which he was convicted. To some extent the applicant submitted to the respondent for fear of her personal safety, although she did put up some physical resistance. As a result she suffered a number of physical injuries during the course of the incident. In particular, the respondent held her down very forcefully by applying pressure to her face. This resulted in damage to her dentures and dental injuries. At one stage he sat astride the applicant, kneeling upon her shoulders, causing severe bruising to the shoulders and upper arms. Also during the course of the incident he forced her legs back over her upper torso causing a strain and soft tissue injuries to the lower back and left leg.

2. Immediately after the incident the applicant was unable to chew food properly and due to the severe emotional trauma resulting from the incident, did not seek immediate attention for her injuries. Abscesses developed and her eye-teeth were affected. Subsequently it was necessary for her eye-teeth to be extracted. She required construction of a full upper denture and adjustment and easing of her lower denture. There is a significant risk that her upper denture may eventually loosen which would necessitate a new denture being constructed.

3. The applicant continues to suffer from fairly constant pain in her mid-lumbar region, her left lower back, her left buttock and her left thigh. Debra Melrose, a physiotherapist, reports that the applicant’s straight-leg rise is decreased to the left at 45 degrees and to the right 60 degrees. She further reports that the applicant’s flexion, extension, side flexion to the right and rotation to the right are reduced and cause left lower back pain. Ms. Melrose also reports that on palpation the applicant was very tender at L3-S1 with joint stiffness and associated muscle tightness, but she has now developed reduced joint mobility, due to a chronic re-aggravation of a pre-existing back condition. Kathryn Purse, occupational therapist, reports that the comparison shows that the applicant’s functional abilities are now far more restricted.

4. The applicant also suffers from quite severe ongoing mental and nervous shock. Dr. Caniato reports that the applicant attended the Innisfail Community Mental Health service for treatment and he diagnosed that the applicant is suffering from depression with anxiety, panic disorder and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. He reports from the notes of Dr. Mundt of the Innisfail Community Health Service the applicant was suffering from increasing problems with sleep, tiredness, poor concentration, headaches, mood swings and panic attacks and that she described feeling permanently anxious, stressed and disempowered. The applicant also developed a bald patch on her head as a result of constant and compulsive scratching which is related to her anxiety. Treatment of the applicant’s depression and anxiety symptoms to date have resulted in mild improvement only. The applicant’s social functioning has declined and she has no social or family supports which, coupled with her ongoing anxiety and panic, have resulted in her remaining very socially isolated. The appearance of the applicant’s bald patch has resulted in her now wearing a wig. It is obvious from the reports that the applicant will require long term concentrated counselling for a period of 1 to 2 years. It is to be noted that the applicant felt compelled to leave Innisfail and move to Townsville. This has further aggravated her feelings of isolation because in Townsville she had no established circle of friends who might be able to provide her with emotional support.

[6]

I am satisfied that the evidence supports a claim for compensation under the
following items contained in the Schedule to the Act –

1.	1. Bruising/laceration etc (minor/moderate)
2.	5. Loss or damage to teeth
3.	22 Neck/back/chest injury (moderate)
4.	27 Facial disfigurement or bodily scarring (minor/moderate)

I am also satisfied that the applicant has established a claim for compensation pursuant to Regulation 1A which deals with the adverse impacts of a sexual offence.

1. Because of the multiple compensable injuries suffered by the applicant, in my view it is not appropriate to attempt a separate assessment of compensation in respect of each of the items mentioned above. There is no doubt that the overall consequences to the applicant have been very serious and she is entitled to substantial compensation. I have been provided with a number of compensation awards made by other judges. Some are not of assistance because the relevant facts of the case are not set out in the judgments. I have found the following cases of some assistance –

   Tran v Burley 1205 of 2000, Brisbane, Brabazon QC DCJ 10/4/2000 $52,000

   Tennant v O’Sullivan 76 of 1999, Brisbane, Botting DCJ 31/5/1999 $40,000

   Lester v Ahmed 1618 of 2000, Brisbane, Boulton DCJ 12/5/2000 $60,000

   Hall v Gilchrist 1434 of 1999, Brisbane, Forde DCJ 25/5/1999 $60,000

2. I am satisfied that the injuries sustained by the applicant in this case are somewhat more serious in their consequences than any of the above cases. However, subsection 22(4) of the Act provides as follows:-

   “The maximum amount of compensation provided under this part is reserved for the most serious cases and the amounts provided in other cases are intended to be scaled according to their seriousness.”

   Without in anyway detracting from the seriousness of the injuries suffered by the applicant in this case, I am not satisfied that it can be properly described as one of the “most serious cases”. Nevertheless, it does approach such a case to the extent that I am satisfied that $65,000.00 would be an appropriate award of compensation.