Pidgeon v Saverin

[2003] QDC 457

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Pidgeon v Saverin [2003] QDC 457
PARTIES:	ELAINE FAY PIDGEON Applicant v RODNEY JOHN SAVERN Respondent
FILE NO:	BD 3397/03
DIVISION:	Civil Jurisdiction
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	23 December 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 December 2003
JUDGE:	Hoath DCJ
ORDER:	[1]      I order that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $7,500 by way of criminal compensation for injury received as a result of the offence of stalking of which the respondent was convicted on 5 June 2002 and sentenced on 7 November 2002.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL COMPENSATION
COUNSEL:
SOLICITORS:	Howden Saggers Lawyers for the Applicant

1. This is an application by Elaine Fay Pidgeon for criminal compensation pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 for injury suffered as a result of the offence of stalking committed upon her by the respondent between 13 February and 12 August 2001.

1. The applicant is presently 43 years of age.  She first met the respondent in 1994.  At the time the respondent was friend of her then de factor husband.  The respondent became a friend of the applicant and her children and lived in the applicant’s home on two separate occasions in 1995 and 1997.  There was no romantic association between the applicant and the respondent.

1. The offence of stalking commenced on 14 February 2001 when the respondent sent the applicant a bunch of flowers and a St Valentine Day’s card.  The St Valentine Day’s card was offensive and the applicant told the respondent that she had no interest in him and no longer wanted his friendship.

1. The respondent claimed that what had occurred was a joke and tried to resume the friendship.  He repeatedly telephoned the applicant, left messages for her, wrote letters to her and parked his car outside and drove his car past her residence.  That conduct continued despite the applicant continually informing the respondent that she had no interest in him until 11 August 2001 when the applicant moved her place of residence.

1. On the day the applicant was moving there was concern that the respondent would attempt to follow the removalist’s vehicle to see where she was moving to.  There was an incident that day involving the applicant’s son and the respondent following which the respondent was charged with dangerous driving and the offence of stalking which is the subject of the present application.

1. On 7 November 2002 the respondent was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment wholly suspended following his conviction on the count of stalking.  At the same time an order was made restraining any contact by the respondent with the applicant.  Since 11 August 2001 there has been no contact between the applicant and the respondent.

1. On 10 June 2003 the applicant was seen by Mr Jeffery Grantham, a clinical and forensic psychologist for the purpose of preparing a report for this application.  After setting out in some detail the applicant’s personal background, the circumstances of the stalking and the consequences of the stalking to the applicant as related by her to Mr Grantham, Mr Grantham concludes:

“As would be expected the stalking appears to have a significant impact on Ms Pidgeon’s emotional wellbeing.  Although she had previously experienced disturbances of mood the consequences of the stalking triggered symptoms that parallel those normally associated with trauma.  There are three types of traumas: time limited, such as that arising from a single incident; sequential, for example that which can be suffered by emergency workers; and extended exposure such as that associated with combat experience.

Ms Pidgeon experienced sequential exposure, a series of incidents which alone would have been unlikely to trigger PTSD responses but which over time gave rise to enduring emotional disturbance in the form of increased physiological arousal in the form of anxiety and fear.  These have been associated with sleep disturbance and nightmares, and behavioural changes such as avoidance and hyper-vigilance.  Depression, commonly associated with PTSD, was pre-existing in this case but may have been exacerbated to some extent.  Primarily though, Ms Pidgeon presents as having suffered a period of protracted trauma, not as intense as would be in the case in a direct assault, but nevertheless one that impinged significantly on her emotional wellbeing.  Ms Pidgeon regards herself as well able to differentiate the consequences of the stalking from the effects of her early family life:

‘The big change is the difficulty getting to sleep, dreams, the worry about him trying to get into the house, (before) I didn’t have to keep looking over my shoulder, the others are past histories not a here and now impact.’

Given that Ms Pidgeon did not experience a high level trauma such as that associated with a serious sexual assault it would seem reasonable to consider that in the longer term, in the absence of any further attention from Mr Saverin, she will fully recover from PTSD symptoms.”

1. In assessing compensation under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 it must be recognised that compensation is intended to assist the applicant and is not intended to reflect the compensation to which the applicant may be entitled under a common law action. It must also be recognised that the maximum compensation provided under the Act is reserved for the most serious cases and the amounts provided in other cases are to be scaled down accordingly.

1. The applicant suffered no physical injury as a result of the offence committed upon her by the respondent and her claim for compensation falls to be assessed on the basis of mental and nervous shock.

1. Having regard to the applicant’s injury and the range of compensation for mental and nervous shock as set out in the compensation table in schedule 1 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 I am of the view that a reasonable assessment of the applicant’s entitlement is 10 per cent of the scheme maximum, namely $7,500.

1. I order that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $7,500 by way of criminal compensation for injury received as a result of the offence of stalking of which the respondent was convicted on 5 June 2002 and sentenced on 7 November 2002.