Potter v Stokes & Grogan

[2008] QDC 63

[2008] QDC 63

DISTRICT COURT
CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE KINGHAM

No 2938 of 2007

JOYCE LORRAINE POTTER	Applicant
and
NATHANIEL MURRAY STOKES	First Respondent
and
JEFFREY MARK GROGAN	Second Respondent
BRISBANE ..DATE 27/02/2008

ORDER
HER HONOUR: This is an application for compensation under the

1

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995, by Joyce Lorraine Potter.

The application has been served as required either by the Act
or pursuant to orders of this Court and the application is

within time. The offence involved is armed robbery with a	10
dangerous weapon whilst in company, an offence against the
person. On the 8th of January, 2006 the respondents committed the offence. The respondent Grogan was sentenced by me on the 18th of July, 2006. The respondent Stokes was sentenced by
another Judge of this Court on the 6th of July, 2007.	20
The applicant was then a 63 year old woman. At about 4.15 in the afternoon she was walking past the Kentucky Fried Chicken store at Kallangur and was confronted by the second respondent
Grogan who shoved her and grabbed at her handbag. Grogan was	30
with the respondent Stokes who yelled at the applicant to give
them her purse. She was backed up against the wall and she
said, "Just take the money". The respondent Grogan demanded
the purse and at that time the respondent Stokes produced a
boning knife, about 30 centimetres long, and he waived it in	40
front of her stomach. Understandably, Ms Potter seriously
apprehended that she would be stabbed. The respondent Stokes yelled at her to give them the purse. She fumbled getting it from her bag and dropped it. One of the respondents then
grabbed the purse and they ran off.	50

In the course of this offence, the applicant sustained
bruising to her right arm and right wrist but, as I noted when
I sentenced the respondent Grogan, the much greater and more 2 ORDER 60

nervous and anxious and had been diagnosed with post traumatic	10
stress disorder, had become suspicious of people; and untrusting and had moved to more secure premises.
Dr McGuire's report was prepared in December of 2006, after
Mr Grogan was sentenced but before Mr Stokes had been	20
sentenced. Dr McGuire's diagnosis was that, at that time and that was then almost a year after the incident, the applicant was suffering from post traumatic stress disorder at a severe level. There had been some attenuation of symptoms and that
would continue over time. She identified a number of ongoing	30
difficulties that the applicant has. She recommended a course of 12 sessions of counselling.
I have had regard to the affidavit of the applicant who
referred to the symptoms that she described to Dr McGuire and	40
deposed to those symptoms continuing. They include the
following types of impacts: She is frightened and anxious
when she is in public and is easily frightened by noises and
movements that catch her off guard. She has difficulty
sleeping and has taken action to make their new home more	50

1

serious injury to Ms Potter was the emotional impact of the
offence. Over the next six months between when the incident
occurred and when I sentenced Mr Grogan, I was told the
applicant only went out in public three times; that she was

secure. Whilst she did have nightmares, they have abated. is walking near the site of the incident. Before the offence the applicant was a regular walker and would walk 45 minutes 3 ORDER 60

1

twice a day. She no longer does walk and has put on weight
and become less fit which has had an impact upon her. She has

become more irritable. She has been treated by her general practitioner. She has had two counselling sessions but not the 12 recommended by Dr McGuire. Since the offence she has	10
had difficulty in her dealings with men and her attitude towards young people has been affected. Her ability to enjoy her former social life has been affected by the incident.
I am satisfied that the applicant still suffers, if not, at	20
the upper end of the severe level of post traumatic stress
disorder, certainly at the mid range of severe for post
traumatic stress disorder. I have reflected that in the award
that I will make today. I am also satisfied that the
applicant has in no way contributed to her injuries. Nor is	30
there any indication of a pre existing condition which would explain her symptoms. They are entirely consistent with what happened on that day.
Taking all those matters into account, I think it is	40
appropriate to award an amount of compensation of $21,000. bruising and laceration and $20,250 being in the middle of the mental and nervous shock severe range.
50
...

-----

4 ORDER 60