RC v Glatzer - [2005] QDC 17

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

RC v Glatzer [2005] QDC 017

PARTIES:

RC

Applicant

v

ARNOLD HANS GLATZER

Respondent

FILE NO/S:

2818/2002

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Application for compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 February 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 February 2005

JUDGE:

McGill DCJ

ORDER:

Order that the respondent pay the applicant $10,500 compensation for the injury suffered by her because of the offences for which the respondent was convicted in this court on 19 July 1999.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – Compensation – scope of mental or nervous shock and deemed injury under Regulation.

Criminal Offence (Victims) Act 1995

Criminal Offence (Victims) Regulation 1995 s 1A.

COUNSEL:

J Stevenson (solicitor) for the applicant
M Horvath for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Jones & Co solicitors for the respondent.

This is an application for compensation under the Criminal Offence (Victims) Act 1995. On 19 July 1999 the respondent was convicted on a plea of guilty of one count of unlawful carnal knowledge of an intellectually impaired person and one count of indecently dealing with an intellectually impaired person. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The offences occurred in January 1997. The applicant was the complainant in respect of both charges. It was not disputed that the offences were personal offences as provided in s 21 of the Act.

The application seeking compensation was filed on 2 July 2002 and it is within time. The respondent appeared by counsel at the hearing of the application but only for the purpose of making submissions: no witnesses were cross-examined. The application was brought on behalf of the applicant by her litigation guardian, her mother. There was also material from a psychiatrist, Dr White, who examined the applicant for the purposes of a report to her solicitor in July 2004.

The applicant relied on two injuries caused by these offences,

(a) mental or nervous shock, in the form of post-traumatic stress disorder; and

(b) the injury prescribed by section 1A of the Criminal Offence (Victims) Regulation 1995, namely the totality of the adverse impact of sexual offences suffered by the applicant, to the extent to which the impacts are not otherwise an injury under s 20.

The evidence in support of the application includes a statement to the police, which suggests that the sexual activity was not consensual. However, the respondent has not been convicted of rape or sexual assault, and in the course of my sentencing remarks I indicated that the respondent had initiated the sexual activity but he was sentenced on the basis that it was consensual. I must proceed on the same basis for the purpose of this application.[1] The material also indicates that it was not the first occasion on which the applicant has been the subject of a sexual offence. There was tendered a report of Dr Reddan, a psychiatrist, dated 22 August 1997 which refers to an incident in about 1994, while the applicant was in employment, when she…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading RC v Glatzer

Details

AGLC: RC v Glatzer [2005] QDC 17
Case: [2005] QDC 17
Decision Date: 17 February 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In RC v Glatzer, the applicant sought compensation for mental or nervous shock under the relevant regulation following the commission of offences for which the respondent was convicted. The court was required to determine the scope of compensation available for such injuries and whether the applicant's claim fell within the deemed injury category under the regulation. The court also needed to decide whether the applicant had indeed suffered a recognisable psychiatric illness as a result of the respondent's actions.

The court began by examining the definition of "injury" under the regulation, which includes any physical or psychiatric injury caused by an offence. The court noted that the definition of psychiatric injury must be interpreted broadly to include any recognisable psychiatric illness, not just those meeting strict medical criteria. The court found that the applicant had presented sufficient evidence of a recognisable psychiatric illness, including expert psychiatric evidence, to substantiate her claim. The court also acknowledged the significant impact the respondent's actions had on the applicant's mental health, which included severe anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Having determined that the applicant had indeed suffered a recognisable psychiatric illness and that this fell within the definition of "injury" under the regulation, the court proceeded to assess the appropriate compensation. The court considered the severity and duration of the applicant's illness, the impact on her daily life, and the lack of other available remedies. The court concluded that the appropriate compensation was $10,500, reflecting the significant but not total incapacitation resulting from the injury.

The court ordered that the respondent pay the applicant $10,500 in compensation for the injury suffered due to the respondent's offences. This order recognised the applicant's suffering and provided some measure of redress, even though it did not fully compensate for the profound impact of the respondent's actions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order that the respondent pay the applicant $10,500 compensation for the injury suffered by her because of the offences for which the respondent was convicted in this court on 19 July 1999.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	RC v Glatzer [2005] QDC 017
PARTIES:	RC Applicant v ARNOLD HANS GLATZER Respondent
FILE NO/S:	2818/2002
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:	Application for compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	17 February 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 February 2005
JUDGE:	McGill DCJ
ORDER:	Order that the respondent pay the applicant $10,500 compensation for the injury suffered by her because of the offences for which the respondent was convicted in this court on 19 July 1999.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – Compensation – scope of mental or nervous shock and deemed injury under Regulation. Criminal Offence (Victims) Act 1995 Criminal Offence (Victims) Regulation 1995 s 1A.
COUNSEL:	J Stevenson (solicitor) for the applicant M Horvath for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Jones & Co solicitors for the respondent.