Re Marshall

[2003] QDC 302

[2003] QDC 302

DISTRICT COURT

CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE HOATH

No 2423 of 2003
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 24 OF THE CRIMINAL OFFENCE VICTIMS

ACT 1995

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY STEPHEN LLOYD MARSHALL THAT

GEORGE HILTON McCLURE PAY HIM CRIMINAL COMPENSATION

No 2424 of 2003
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 24 OF THE CRIMINAL OFFENCE VICTIMS

ACT 1995

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY MARK ERNEST EDWARDS THAT

GEORGE HILTON McCLURE PAY HIM CRIMINAL COMPENSATION

BRISBANE

..DATE 07/08/2003

ORDER

07082003 T33/TW12 M/T CMS84/2003 (Hoath DCJ)

HIS HONOUR: These are two separate applications by serving	1
police officers for criminal compensation for injuries sustained as a result of the offence of serious assault committed upon them by George Hilton McClure.

10

As the claims arise out of the one incident and as both officers suffered a similar injury it is appropriate to deal with them together.

The applicants Mark Ernest Edwards and Stephen Lloyd Marshall

20

were on duty on the 24th of January 2000 at the Boondall arrested by police and placed in the rear of a police van.

Prior to being placed in the van McClure had been struggling

30

violently and had apparently suffered some injury to his
mouth. Some time after McClure was placed in the van the
applicants opened the rear door of the van to check on his
condition. Whilst doing that the respondent spat a mixture of

blood and saliva in their faces.

40

At the scene both applicants had their faces and eyes cleaned with a saline wash by St John's Ambulance officers. They were then taken to St Andrew's Hospital where blood samples were taken from them to test for the presence of hepatitis B and C

50

and HIV. Those test, obviously, wouldn't show whether they

had been contaminated that day by the respondent.

2 ORDER 60

07082003 T33/TW12 M/T CMS84/2003 (Hoath DCJ)

Both officers underwent further blood tests at three monthly	1
intervals before being cleared of having contracted any infectious disease as a result of the respondent's actions.
On the 25th of July 2001 the respondent was convicted of

10

offences of serious assault on each of the applicants. These
applications are for compensation as a result of injury
suffered by them because of those assaults. As neither
applicant suffered any physical injury their claim falls to be

assessed on the basis of mental or nervous shock.

20

The amount of compensation an applicant is entitled to under the Criminal Offence Victims Act does not involve applying the principles used to determine common law damages for personal injury, but is limited to the amount specified or within the

30

range specified for a particular injury referred to in the most serious cases and other cases being scaled down accordingly.
compensation table in schedule 1 of the Criminal Offence

40

At the time the offences were committed on the applicants the respondent appeared to be drugged, he had some items in his possession consistent with drug use and needle marks were visible on his arms. It was later ascertained that the

50

respondent had served time in prison. Although attempts were
made from prison authorities to ascertain whether the
respondent was recorded as having hepatitis or HIV, that

information was not provided to the applicants.

3 ORDER 60

07082003 T33/TW12 M/T CMS84/2003 (Hoath DCJ)

Not unnaturally in the circumstances that I have just related,	1
it was reasonably open to both officers to conclude that the respondent may be a carrier of hepatitis or HIV infection.
The applicant, Mr Edwards, is 43 years of age, he is a married

10

man with two children under five. As a result of his concern
over the possibility of having contacted a communicable
disease from the respondent he had difficulty sleeping, had
persistent thoughts of having contacted hepatitis or HIV and

became more weary in dealing with offenders.

20

Sexual relations with wife were strained and he was fearful of passing any infection to his wife and young child.

He was transferred from patrol work and now performs

30

administrative work with less enthusiasm. Earlier this year
Mr Edwards was seen by Dr Diana Cameron a clinical and neuro-
psychologist who was of the opinion that the applicant
suffered reactive depression as a result of the assault.

Dr Cameron expressed the view that he suffered mental anguish

40

and worry over a 12 month period.

Since being cleared of having contracted any disease his symptoms have, for the most part, abated.

50

Stephen Lloyd Marshall is 34 years of age. He was married at
the time of the offence, but is now divorced. He has a
daughter who was just over two years of age at the time of the

offence.

4 ORDER 60

07082003 T33/TW12 M/T CMS84/2003 (Hoath DCJ)

As a consequence of the offence the applicant became worried	1
about having contracted a communicable disease and further worried that he could pass it on to his wife and child.
He lost interest in sexual relations with his wife and

10

attributes this as a contributing factor to the break up of
his marriage.

He became hesitant about bodily contact with his daughter. He had difficulty sleeping and had recurring nightmares. He

20

considers that, as a consequence of this offence, he is a less depression as a result of the assault.

effective police officer. Mr Marshall was also seen by Dr

30

Mr Marshall's symptoms have also, for the most part, abated suffered by both officers, those differences tend to even out
since being cleared of the disease. In Mr Marshall's case, Dr
Cameron suggests that he could benefit from some counselling.

40

and in my view, on an assessment of compensation, their
entitlement appears to be relatively similar. In my view, a
reasonable assessment of their entitlement would be 15 per

cent of the scale maximum. That is, the sum of $11,250.

50

Accordingly, I order that the respondent, George Hilton
McClure pay the applicant, Mark Ernest Edwards, the sum of

$11,250 by way of compensation for injury suffered by the

5 ORDER 60

07082003 T34/BLW36 M/T CMS84/2003 (Hoath DCJ)

applicant as a result of the offence of serious assault of	1
which the respondent was convicted on the 25th of July 2001.
I further order that the respondent, George Hilton McClure, pay the applicant, Stephen Lloyd Marshall, the sum of $11,250

10

by way of compensation for injury suffered by the applicant as
a result of the offence of serious assault, of which the

respondent was convicted on the 25th of July 2001.

Anything further, Mr Jones?

20

MR JONES: No, your Honour, thank you.

HIS HONOUR: Thank you for your assistance.

30

-----

40

50

6 ORDER 60