O'Gorman v Selff

[2010] QDC 13

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

O’Gorman v Selff [2010] QDC 13

PARTIES:

MICAEL DAVID O’GORMAN
(applicant)

And

DONNA MARIE SELFF
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

1957/09

DIVISION:

Civil jurisdiction

PROCEEDING:

Application for criminal compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

9 February 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16, 24 November 2009

JUDGE:

Rackemann DCJ

ORDER:

The respondent to pay the applicant compensation in the amount of $7,500.  

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal compensation- mental or nervous shock from police officer spat upon

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995

R v Kazakoff ex parte Ferguson [2000] QSC 156
R v Tiltman ex parte Dawe [1995] QSC 345
RMC v NAC [2009] QSC 149

COUNSEL:

Mr Hall for the applicant

No appearance for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

McCowans for the applicant

1. The applicant is a police officer who seeks compensation pursuant to the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 resulting from a serious assault committed by the respondent which led to her conviction, upon a plea of guilty, on 22 October 2007.

1. The applicant was called to attend a disturbance on 15 January 2007.  On that day the respondent was affected by alcohol and had become agitated and abusive.  This was first reflected in her behaviour towards a neighbour, which attracted the attention of police. On that day she struggled with the applicant and spat at him.  The spitting constituted the serious assault for which she was convicted.  The applicant claims that, as a consequence of the spitting, he has suffered mental or nervous shock for which he now seeks compensation.

1. Following the incident the applicant attended Redcliffe Hospital for blood tests.  During questioning the respondent had claimed she was Hepatitis C positive.  Blood tests on the applicant were repeated three times over a nine month period.  Understandably this caused the applicant concern for himself and his family.  This led him to make changes, to protect his family from any possible infection.  These changes included reduced sexual activity with his wife and increased hygiene precautions, such as keeping toothbrushes separate.  He says that his marital relationship and family life were affected and he had feelings of rage against the respondent, which were difficult to resolve with his Christian beliefs.  His self esteem was affected, until getting the final blood tests (which were negative).  He claims to have been “personally changed” by the incident. The effects upon him are more fully set out in his affidavit and recorded in the report of Dr Allan Freed, a psychiatrist who examined the applicant on the 17 June 2008. I accept the content of that material.

1. Dr Freed noted that the applicant was not depressed at the time of interview, but was still resentful and angry, in particular, that he and his wife and family had had to change the way they lived.  In Dr Freed’s opinion, the applicant’s response to the incident was more than fear, fright, unpleasant memories or anger.  In his view, it fell within the meaning “mental or nervous shock” at least in the broad sense in which that expression…