R v G

[2012] QDC 38

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	R v G [2012] QDC 38
PARTIES:	R (applicant) v G (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BD185/10
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:
DELIVERED ON:	13 March 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 March 2012
JUDGE:	Samios DCJ
ORDER:	1.   Respondent to pay the Applicant $13,500.
CATCHWORDS:
COUNSEL:
SOLICITORS:

1. This is an application for criminal compensation to be assessed for injuries suffered by the applicant as a result of indictable offences committed by the respondent upon the applicant.  The applicant was 23 years of age and living with the respondent, who was 31 years of age.  The indictable offences committed by the respondent upon the applicant were one count of assault occasioning bodily harm and one count of assault occasioning bodily harm while armed.  These offences were committed by the respondent upon the applicant on the 31st of December 2008 and 1 January 2009. 

2. The respondent pleaded not guilty to committing these offences, but, after a three day trial, he was found guilty by the jury.  I then sentenced him to terms of imprisonment on the 5th of November 2009.

3. The basis upon which I sentenced him was that on the 31st of December 2008 the applicant wanted to go out for New Year's Eve.  However, the respondent did not want to do so.  The applicant decided to go out and the respondent grabbed her around the wrist.  He did so with considerable force, leaving a significant bruise to her wrist.  He also punched her to the forehead.

4. The applicant left and returned the next day to collect her belongings.  Unfortunately, the respondent was still present, and on this occasion he grabbed the applicant by the throat and dragged her down the hallway, through the garage and into the street.  He was calling her names.  He held a metal torch, which he was using in a menacing manner.  He also punched the applicant and kicked her on multiple occasions, leaving multiple bruising to a number of parts of her body.  These offences were serious offences.

5. The medical report available regarding the physical injuries suffered by the applicant confirms the bruising to various parts of the applicant's body. The most significant effect of the offences committed by the respondent upon the applicant has been the psychological trauma the applicant has suffered.  Subsequent to the offences, she was too scared and upset to return home.  She felt isolated and avoided the area where the offences occurred.  Her self-esteem also suffered.  She was often tearful and experienced sleep problems and regularly awoke as a result of nightmares.  She also had security fears at night and constantly checked that the doors were locked.  If her partner was away, she would sleep with her pet dogs in the bedroom for protection.

6. She was unable to leave the house at night and was hypervigilant and lacked trust in people.  She scared easily and felt more irritable than prior to the offences.  She changed from being a calm and happy person, and one who enjoyed social gatherings, to a person who felt they had failed to maintain their friendships and had difficulty making friends.  She frequently experienced flashbacks of the incidents which had occurred.  She also experienced flashbacks when working with people who reminded her of the respondent.

7. The applicant has confirmed these symptoms to Dr McGuire, a psychiatrist.  Dr McGuire interviewed the applicant on the 24th of May 2011.  Dr McGuire notes that the applicant is now in a relationship that is working well.  The applicant works, and with her partner.  They have been together now for three years and the relationship is stable and they are considering marriage.  However, Dr McGuire concludes the applicant suffered post-traumatic stress disorder to a moderate degree.

8. I am satisfied, on the evidence before me, that, besides the physical injuries suffered by the applicant, she has also suffered mental or nervous shock within the meaning of that term as used in the repealed Act.

9. I should mention at this stage that the application was filed on 20 January 2010. The Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 was repealed as from 1 December 2009. However, section 167 of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 provides that an application can be filed within two months of the 1st of December 2009 and, if such an application is filed within that time, the Court is obliged to continue to hear the application under the repealed Act.

10. I should also say that the applicant, I find, did nothing to directly or indirectly contribute to her injuries.  This was a cowardly attack by the respondent on two occasions upon the applicant, who offered him no provocation or excuse for what he did to the applicant.

11. I am satisfied also that the respondent has been given notice of the application and that I can proceed to assess the compensation.  I should also add that the application is within time, being within the three years allowed for the bringing of an application from the date of conviction.

12. In all the circumstances, I have come to the view that the applicant should be compensated under item 1, bruising/lacerations, et cetera (minor/moderate) three per cent, which is the sum of $2,250.

13. Further, she should be compensated under item 32, mental or nervous shock moderate, in an amount of 15 per cent, which is a sum of $11,250.

14. The total, therefore, of the compensation that I assess in this case in this application is $13,500.  I order the respondent to pay the applicant the sum of $13,500.

15. Under the legislation, I am not able to order the respondent to pay the applicant's costs of the application. There will be an order as per the draft initialled by me and left with the papers.