Re R v Thomas; Re Jack

[1998] QSC 52

IN THE SUPREME COURT

OF QUEENSLAND  Appn. No. 3398 of 1997

Brisbane

[Re R v Thomas; Re Jack]

IN THE MATTER of an application by LORNA JACK for criminal compensation pursuant to s.663B of the Criminal Code (Queensland)

- and -

IN THE MATTER of s.663B of the Criminal Code (Queensland)

- and -

IN THE MATTER of THE QUEEN v. JOHN CONWAY THOMAS

CATCHWORDS:                 CRIMINAL COMPENSATION - s.663B Code.

Counsel:  Mr A.J. Kimmins for the applicant.

No appearance on behalf of the respondent.

Solicitors:  Tony Bailey for the applicant.

No appearance on behalf of the respondent.

Hearing Date:  17 March 1998

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - CHESTERMAN J.

Judgment delivered 20 March 1998

The applicant who is now aged 33 was raped by the respondent on 19 October 1987.  She was then 23.  On 30 March 1988 the respondent was convicted of the rape and sentenced to six years' imprisonment.  The offence occurred at about 8.00 p.m. when then applicant was walking home having been drinking with some friends. 

I neglected to say that the offence took place on Mornington Island where the available medical treatment is rudimentary.  The applicant was treated after the assault at the local hospital.

Rape is an abhorrent crime but happily the applicant appears to have suffered minimal physical trauma.  Not surprisingly, she suffered a post-traumatic stress disorder which Dr Curtis, consultant psychiatrist, has described as moderate to severe which persisted for about two months.  It then diminished in severity and persisted at that reduced level for another one or two months.  After that according to the applicant's account given to Dr Curtis she recovered fully.  She has been unable to fall pregnant since the rape but this condition appears unrelated to the assault. 

The applicant told Dr Curtis, whom she saw on 15 December 1996 at Mt Isa, that the rape had had a very bad effect on her.  She was very nervous and could not sleep properly.  She was preoccupied with the rape which made her feel both sad and angry.  She became irritable and sought to avoid people.  She felt estranged from those around her.  Her worst feelings lasted for about a month.  After that she was able to put things behind her and revert to a normal life. 

The applicant appears to be a woman of considerable strength of character and psychological resilience.  She was described by Dr Curtis as a forthright person who made no effect to exaggerate her sufferings.  He thought she had recovered fully from her stress disorder.  She has made a determined, and successful, effort to return to normal and put the shock and distress of the rape behind her. 

The Court is to assess compensation by reference to the ordinary principles applicable to the assessment of damages for personal injuries.  The function of an award of compensation is not to punish the respondent nor to put a price upon the applicant's violation.  Though she was victim of a serious crime, the applicant has most fortunately suffered only temporary injury and psychological reaction. 

The injuries suffered by the applicant are broadly similar to those suffered by the applicant in application no. 2453 of 1996 heard before Botting DCJ (judgment given 9 May 1997).  His Honour assessed compensation for the “pain and suffering” component in the sum of $8,750. 

I think an appropriate award is $10,000.  I find that the applicant did not contribute directly or indirectly to her injuries.

I order the respondent to pay the applicant's taxed costs of and incidental to the application.