Pascoe v Accoom

[2010] QDC 408

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Pascoe v Accoom [2010] QDC 408
PARTIES:	COLIN MAXWELL PASCOE (Applicant) v KYANNE FELICITY ACCOOM (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	211 of 2009
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING
COURT:	District Court, Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	29 October 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	7 October 2010
JUDGE:	Everson DCJ
ORDER:	That the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $22,500.00.
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal compensation – physical injuries – psychological injuries
Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995
R v Jones ex parte Zaicov [2002] QdR 303 at 310
COUNSEL:
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant No appearance for the respondent

1. This is an application for a compensation order pursuant to section 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (“COVA”).

2. The injuries giving rise to the application were suffered as a result of a personal offence for which the respondent was convicted on indictment on 23 October 2007, namely unlawful wounding.

   Facts

3. On 2 May 2007, the respondent was roaming the streets of Lockhart River after the tavern closed armed with a knife. In the mistaken belief that the applicant had sworn at her, she approached him and stabbed him in the upper chest region (“the incident”).

   Injuries

4. The applicant suffered the following injuries as a consequence of the incident:

• A 1.5 cm laceration to his right neck muscles;

• Two small superficial lacerations immediately below the above laceration;

• A contusion to the right lung;

• Pneumothorax in the chest wall cavity.

The relevant law

1. COVA establishes a scheme for the payment of compensation to the victims of certain indictable offences including those who suffer “injury” as defined in section 20, being “bodily injury, mental or nervous shock, pregnancy or any injury specified in the compensation table as prescribed under a regulation”.

2. Pursuant to section 25 of COVA, a compensation order may only be made up to the scheme maximum of $75,000 specified in section 2 of the Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 (“COVR”) using the percentages listed for an injury specified in the Compensation Table in SCHEDULE 1 of the COVA. In R v Jones ex parte Zaicov[1] Holmes J described the process in the following terms:

   “Thus, my examination of the section convinces me that a two or three stage process is entailed. Where there is more than one injury, the first step is to arrive at the amounts in respect of each injury, the second is to add those amounts together, and the third, to arrive at the compensation order.”

   [1] [2002] 2 QdR 303 at 310

3. Relevantly, the Compensation Table prescribes:

• Item 26 Gunshot/stab wound (severe) … 15% - 40%

• Item 31 Mental or nervous shock (minor) … 2% - 10%

1. Section 25 of COVA also states that the court, in determining the amount that should be paid for an injury, “should have regard to everything relevant, including, for example, any behaviour of the applicant that directly or indirectly contributed to the injury”. Furthermore, the process of assessing compensation pursuant to COVA does not involve applying principles used to decide common law damages for personal injuries and the maximum amount of compensation provided for is reserved for the most serious cases, with the amounts provided in other cases intended to be scaled accordingly.[2] If an injury is not specifically listed in the Compensation Table the court must decide the amount of compensation by comparing the injury or injuries to injuries listed in the Compensation Table and having regard to the amounts that may be ordered to be paid for these injuries.[3]

   [2]            s 25(8) referring to s 22(4)

   [3]            s 25(6)

   The assessment

2. A statement of Dr Velusamy, Emergency Registrar at Cairns Base Hospital dated 30 May 2007 records the life threatening injuries suffered by the applicant in the incident which required hospital treatment including suturing, and the insertion of a chest drain.

3. In her report dated 4 February 2010, Dr Richardson, psychologist concluded that the applicant was suffering from a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in the mild to moderate range as a consequence of the incident.

4. I am satisfied that the applicant did not contribute to the injury.

5. Having regard to the evidence before me and in particular to the matters set out above, I assess compensation pursuant to COVA and the Compensation Table as follows:-

•	Item 26 – 20%	$15,000.00
•	Item 31 – 10%	$ 7,500.00 $22,500.00

Order

1. I order that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $22,500.00.