Prince v Bonner

[2003] QDC 234

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Prince v. Bonner [2003] QDC 234

PARTIES:

SOPHIE ANN PRINCE (Applicant)

v

ANITA JOAN BONNER (Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

D847 of 2003

DIVISION:

Applications

PROCEEDING:

Criminal Compensation Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

31 July 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 June 2003, 28 July 2003

JUDGE:

Boulton DCJ

ORDER:

Order that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $22,500 by way of compensation for offence committed by her on 13 December 1999

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 – mental or nervous shock – minor physical injury – vulnerable applicant – element of exaggeration

COUNSEL:

Mr J Stevenson for Applicant; No appearance for Respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid (Qld)

1. This is an application for criminal compensation pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995.

1. The applicant, Sophie Ann Prince, was born on 25 May 1984.  On 13 December 1999 when she was 15 years of age she was stabbed to the area of the left upper lip by the respondent, Anita Joan Bonner. 

1. In her statement given to police dated 5 January 2000 the applicant gave the following description of the event:

“The next thing, I saw her pull something out of her shorts.

My sister called out, ‘She’s got a knife.’ 

Then I felt something sharp hit me on the mouth.  I fell back and saw stars round my head. 

I heard my sister say, ‘There’s a knife in her mouth.’

Then Nita pulled the knife out of my mouth.  That’s when I felt real bad pain in my mouth.  It was hurting real bad. 

I don’t remember anything else about what happened there after that.”

She was taken to the hospital where the wound was closed with three stitches. 

1. The physical injury suffered, therefore, was relatively minor.  What complicates the application for criminal compensation is the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder in the severe range.

1. I have the benefit of an expert psychiatric report from a Dr. Barbara McGuire dated 12 July 2002.  Dr McGuire was provided with the following account of the incident and its immediate aftermath:

“Sophie told me that at the time of the attack she felt terrified.  She thought that she was going to be killed and felt panic stricken.  This feeling of terror remained with her and two days later she could not leave the house to go out to the post box to collect the mail.  She was her anxiety that she moved out of Brisbane.  Her father rang her maternal grandmother in Mungindi and she went to stay with her.  Subsequently she moved to Moree to her paternal grandmother and attended school there until year 10.  At that time she saw a counsellor and was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.  Robyn Watson of the Pius X Counselling service saw her from 21 March 2000 to 16 January 2002.  She notes that shortly after Sophie located to Moree she began experiencing nightmares, sleep disturbance, aggressive behaviour and “inappropriate thoughts bordering on paranoia”.  This was in contrast to her described demeanour prior to the event.”

1. The report of Dr McGuire describes what can only be described as an extraordinary set of consequences affecting her entire life.  I therefore adjourned the proceedings when they initially came on for hearing in order to enable Dr McGuire to respond to some questions from myself in attempting to clarify the matter.  Dr McGuire gave evidence by telephone link on 28 July 2003.  She made the following observation:

“Sophie told me that she saw the knife coming towards her face – this is concerning the actual attack – and that her memory is unclear after that.  I think that seeing somebody lunging at your face with a knife would be sufficient to fill the primary criterion of post-traumatic stress disorder, which is that the individual has experienced a life-threatening situation, and although the injury itself was fairly trivial, I think that the precipitant fits the criteria required by the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Illness.  I certainly – I think that because she has limited intellectual ability she has less resilience and more primitive defences against psychic damage and I think that that may have had a perpetuating effect upon her condition.  She does present with quite a few of the symptoms set down in the criterion for post-traumatic stress disorder, namely hyper-vigilant, exaggerated startled reflexes, nightmares, and the avoidance of cues reminding her of the incident.”

1. Dr McGuire sounded a note of caution going on to say:

“…  So I certainly feel that when she came to see me she was aware that the purpose of the assessment was to present herself as having significant symptoms and that these would be compensated.  Having said that, I’m not sure that she has the intellectual ability to present – to simulate the symptoms and my feeling was that she did suffer PTSD as a consequence of the attack.  The paranoia that she expresses doesn’t fit into the PTSD picture and may well be indicative of some premorbid personality problem.”

1. The account given by the applicant to Dr McGuire goes beyond the version given in her statement to police in a very significant way.  The precipitant factor of a life threatening experience would be difficult to maintain on the basis of her initial statement.  There does seem to be an element of later reconstruction or exaggeration in the applicant’s account, along with the inclusion of a number of irrelevant matters which cannot be described as consequences of the offence.  Reference is made, for example, to conflict between other family members.  Dr McGuire refers to her paranoia which does not appear to be a consequence of the offence.

1. Dr McGuire adhered to her diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder while noting some features of the applicant’s present condition which are not typical of post-traumatic stress disorder in that she is now aggressive and difficult to get on with:

“Someone with full-blown PTSD tends to be avoidant rather than going out looking for trouble, so I think that that aspect of her history probably can’t be attributable to the attack, but certainly she has got the avoidance in that she has moved out of town and she has the over-arousal of the nervous system that is a feature of PTSD, such as the intrusive thoughts, the nightmares and the hyper-vigilance, the exaggerated startled reflexes.”

1. Mr. Stevenson submits that compensation be assessed under two heads.  Firstly, Item 24 of the Schedule, gunshot/stab wounds (minor) provides for 6% to 10% of the Scheme maximum.  Putting to one side the considerations of mental shock I award 6% under this head.  The physical injury was in the low range.

1. Mr. Stevenson submits that compensation for mental or nervous shock (severe) be awarded pursuant to Item 33 of the Schedule where a range of 20%-34% applies.  I award 24% under this head.  That produces a total figure of 30% of the Scheme maximum or $22,500.

1. I order that the respondent, Anita Joan Bonner, pay to the applicant the sum of $22,500 by way of compensation for the offence committed by her on 13 December 1999.