Sanders v Graham

[2001] QDC 217

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Sanders v Graham [2001] QDC 217
PARTIES:	DANIEL JAMES SANDERS (Applicant) RODNEY MALCOLM GRAHAM (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	3 of 2000
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING	Cairns
COURT:
DELIVERED ON:	22/5/01
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	16/2/2001
JUDGE:	White DCJ
ORDER:	That the respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $28,000 by way of compensation.
CATCHWORDS:
COUNSEL:
SOLICITORS:	Ms. Ybarlucea (Legal Aid Office Qld) for the applicant No appearance for the respondent

[1] On 19 July, 1999 the respondent was convicted in the District Court at Cairns of the
following offence:-

“That on the 19th day of March, 1999 at Mareeba in the State of Queensland he unlawfully did grievous bodily harm to Daniel James Sanders.”

This is an application by Daniel James Sanders for compensation pursuant to s.24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995.

1. In March, 1999 the applicant was in custody at Lotus Glen Correctional Centre in relation to warrants for unpaid traffic fines. During this time he shared a cell with the respondent. On 19 March, 1999 the applicant was told by a prison officer that he was going to the prison farm and to gather his belongings. The applicant went to his cell in order to do so. The respondent entered the cell and saw a pair of the applicant’s jeans on his bed. The respondent asked the applicant if he could have the jeans. The applicant refused. The applicant continued to gather the rest of his belongings and then grabbed his jeans trying to get them out of the respondent’s hands. The respondent then hit the applicant with a closed fist on his nose and underneath his left eye. Medical reports concerning the applicant’s physical injuries disclose the following:-

(a)	A black eye
(b)	Numbness over the left infra-orbital nerve distribution extending down to the upper jaw
(c)	Diplopia (double vision)
(d)	Resolving peri-orbital haematoma in the left infra-orbital region
(e)	Sub-conjunctival haematoma over the temporal side of the sclera (outer layer of eyeball)
(f)	Fracture of the left infra-orbital floor with a blow out fracture and trapping of the extra-ocular muscles causing diplopia. This injury required a bone graft repair to the left orbital floor blow out fracture with the bone graft taken from the applicant’s left hip.

Examination on 1 November, 2000 revealed that the applicant was still suffering from numbness in the distribution of the left infra-orbital nerve which was likely to be permanent and represented a 5% impairment. He also suffered from diplopia when tired.

1. There are also reports dealing with the applicant’s emotional and psychological effects of the offence. Robert Bright, a clinical psychologist, summarises his opinion as follows:-

   “Mr. Sanders has experienced a physical trauma, which although brief in duration, has had considerable physical and psychological consequences, resulting in significant distress and impairment mentally and socially for a duration in excess of 3 months.

   As such he is in compliance to the diagnostic criteria of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder – PTSD – (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - 4th Ed.) The symptoms can be further described as of moderate severity and chronic duration.

   Effective PTSD treatment requires specialist skills, without which Mr. Sanders’ symptoms are unlikely to remit. If I were to conduct such therapy the time scale would be 10 sessions at a cost of $900.”

[4] I accept the submission of the applicant’s solicitor that the following items of the
schedule to the Act are applicable in this case:-

Item 2 Bruising/laceration (minor)

Item 8 Facial fracture (severe)

Item 27 Facial disfigurement (minor/moderate)

Item 29 Loss of vision (one eye)

Item 32 Mental or nervous shock

However, because of the multiplicity of items and the degree of overlapping I do not consider it appropriate to try to assess compensation on an item by item basis. Taking all of the injuries into account I am of the view that $28,000.00 is an appropriate figure for compensation in this case.