Re Martin

[1999] QDC 39

IN THE DISTRICT COURT

HELD AT BRISBANE

QUEENSLAND

[Re Martin]

[Before McLauchlan DCJ]

Plaint No 928 of 1999

BETWEEN:

IN THE MATTER of an Application by DAVID GILBERT MARTIN for criminal compensation pursuant to Section 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995

AND:

IN THE MATTER of Section 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995

AND:

IN THE MATTER of THE QUEEN -v- PAUL OWENS

JUDGMENT

Judgment delivered:              

Catchwords:  

Counsel:    ~

Solicitors:   ~

Hearing Date(s):                   ~

IN THE DISTRICT COURT
HELD AT BRISBANE
QUEENSLAND
  Application No 928 of 1999
BETWEEN:

IN THE MATTER of an Application by DAVID GILBERT MARTIN for criminal compensation pursuant to Section 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995

AND:

IN THE MATTER of Section 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995

AND:

IN THE MATTER of THE QUEEN -v- PAUL OWENS

ASSESSMENT OF COMPENSATION
Dated  the           day of March, 1999

On 24th October 1996 the applicant was attacked by the respondent with a broken stubbie bottle which he used to slash the applicant’s face.  The attack was entirely unprovoked by the applicant.  The applicant was taken to the local hospital in Normanton where he was treated.  It was noted that he had a small cut near the corner of his right eye, another cut under the right eye, a cut on the bridge of his nose and a graze on his right cheek.  It appears that for a time he experienced parasthesiae and dysthesiae, being abnormal sensations from cut nerve fibres in his face which lasted some months but have now disappeared.  He has residual scars which do not constitute a severe cosmetic defect.  Dr Ian Curtis, a consultant psychiatrist says that the applicant suffered an upper limit “mild acute stress disorder” which was transient and probably most severe during five to seven days of facial healing after the assault.  He has some ongoing sense of mental upset about being attacked as he had been. 

I think it is appropriate that the applicant be awarded compensation in respect of lacerations to his face to a severe extent, entitling him to 5% of the scheme maximum, or $3,750.  He has also suffered minor facial disfigurement and I would allow him in that respect 10% of the scheme maximum, or $7,500.  With respect to mental or nervous shock it is not contested that this should be assessed at the minor level.  Again I think that the appropriate percentage is 10% of the scheme maximum again producing a figure of $7,500.  In the result compensation is awarded in the sum of $18,750 and the respondent is ordered to pay that amount to the applicant.