Singleton v Nunns

[2007] QDC 131

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Singleton v Nunns [2007] QDC 131

PARTIES:

Erin Francis Singleton
Applicant
v
Stephen Peter Nunns
Respondent

FILE NO/S:

50/2007

DIVISION:

Civil Jurisdiction

PROCEEDING:

Application for Criminal Compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

8 June 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Beenleigh

HEARING DATE:

18 May 2007

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

1.   The application is allowed.

2.   The respondent Stephen Peter Nunns pay to the applicant the sum of $20,000 as compensation for the injury suffered by the applicant as a result of the offences of which the respondent was convicted on 18 July 2005.

3.   The respondent pay to the applicant her costs of and incidental to this application fixed in the sum of $2,000.

CATCHWORDS:

Application – Criminal Compensation – Sexual Assault – Mental or Nervous Shock

COUNSEL:

Mr R Frigo for the applicant
Mr A Kimmins for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

O’Keefe Mahoney Bennett for the applicant
Price & Roobottom for the respondent

Introduction

1. The applicant Erin Francis Singleton seeks compensation in respect of injuries suffered by her following the conviction of the respondent Stephen Peter Nunns in respect of four counts of sexual assault of the applicant on various dates between 1 January 1990 and 31 December 1993 at the Gold Coast.  The respondent pleaded guilty before me in the Southport District Court on 18 July 2005 and on each of the four counts was sentenced to a period of imprisonment of six months (concurrent) wholly suspended, with an operational period of two years. 

Facts

1. The applicant was sexually assaulted by the respondent (who at the relevant time was a family friend) on four separate occasions between 1 January 1990 and 31 December 1993, during which period the applicant was aged between seven and 11 years.  The particulars included touching the applicant on the sides of her breast and on the outside of her vagina, skin on skin (Count 1), touching the applicant’s breasts under her shirt (Count 2), touching the applicant’s nipples on the outside of her clothes (Count 3) and exposing the applicant’s genitals, without touching, (Count 4).

The law

1. This is an application under the now repealed provisions of Ch 65A (ss 663A, 663AA, 663B and 663BA) of the Criminal Code[1].  Pursuant to s 663AA of the Criminal Code, a maximum “prescribed amount” of $20,000 is applicable for injuries amounting to “mental or nervous shock” where the offence occurred after 1 July 1984.  In R v Jones; exparte McClintock[2] it was held that the assessment of damages under the (now repealed) provisions of Criminal Code s 663B proceeds on common law principles of assessment of damages for personal injury, provided that the amount does not exceed the prescribed amount, and further that costs can be awarded.

   [1] Ch 65A of the Criminal Code is preserved in respect of offences which occurred prior to18 December 1995 – see Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 s 46(2)

   [2] [1996] 1 Qd R 524

Compensation

1. The applicant was examined by Allan Chittenden, registered psychologist and his report[3] diagnoses the applicant as suffering from “an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood – DSM IV 309.28”.  Mr Chittenden expresses the opinion that “there is no doubt that the experiences [the applicant] had as a young girl have had a profound effect upon her as an adult and a mother”[4].  He expresses the view that “the degree of psychological impact which [the applicant’s] experiences have caused in her life [are] moderate to severe”[5].  He further expressed the opinion that he did not believe that the applicant would “ever come to terms with what occurred” and that the applicant “presents as the typical abused person, who when she becomes older, will need to have long term psychotherapy in order to come to terms with her past, and try and make something for her future.”[6]  Mr Chittenden expressed the opinion that the applicant “needs ongoing psychiatric and/or psychological help over a long period of time, which would include psychotherapy and support of counselling” and that “the cost could … amount to $3,000-$5,000 a year depending on who [the applicant] had as a therapist.”[7]

   [3] Exhibit ADC1, Affidavit of Allan Chittenden sworn 2 February 2006

   [4] Exhibit ADC1, p3, para 18 Affidavit of Allan Chittenden sworn 2 February 2006

   [5] Exhibit ADC1, p4, para 20 Affidavit of Allan Chittenden sworn 2 February 2006

   [6] Exhibit ADC1, p4, para 21 Affidavit of Allan Chittenden sworn 2 February 2006

   [7] Exhibit MCG2, Affidavit of Matthew Gill sworn 17 May 2007

1. Mr Frigo (who appears on behalf of the applicant) and Mr Kimmins (who appeared on behalf of the respondent) jointly submitted to the court (and confirmed by way of a consent order) that the sum of $20,000 was an appropriate assessment of the quantum of compensation which should be paid by the respondent as compensation for the injuries suffered by the applicant.  I indicated to counsel at the time that I accepted their joint submission as to the appropriateness of that order for compensation, and accordingly an order was made on 18 May 2007 to that effect, with these reasons to be supplied in due course.  It was also agreed that the respondent would pay the applicant’s costs fixed in the sum of $2,000. 

Contribution

1. I do not consider that the applicant in any way directly or indirectly contributed to the injuries which she suffered as a result of the offences committed by the respondent against her[8].

   [8]Criminal Code s 663B(2)

Orders

1.   The application is allowed;

2.   The respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $20,000 as compensation for the injury suffered by the applicant as a result of the offences of which the respondent was convicted on 18 July 2005;

3.   The respondent pay to the applicant her costs of and incidental to this application fixed in the sum of $2,000.