SLM v SKF

Case [2010] QDC 229


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

SLM v SKF [2010] QDC 229

PARTIES:

SLM

(Applicant)

AND

SKF

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

297/10

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

Application for criminal compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

06 May 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

04 May 2010

JUDGE:

Reid DCJ

ORDER:

1.   The applicant be entitled to a sum of $24,000 being 32 per cent of the scheme maximum from the respondent.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT –ORDERS FOR CRIMINAL COMPENSATION –CRIMINAL OFFENCE VICTIMS ACT - where applicant victim of a sexual assault – where applicant suffered from agoraphobia prior to incident - where applicant suffers from psychiatric illnesses in the form of a chronic post-traumatic stress disorder and dysthymic disorder–whether applicant separately entitled to criminal compensation for “adverse impacts”

Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995, s 20, s 25, s 27

Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995, r 1A

JI v AV [2001] QCA 510 – cited

RMC v NAC [2009] QSC 149 – followed

PAJ v AAK [2010] QCA 78 – applied

COUNSEL:

E.C.P. Earl (solicitor) for the applicant

No Appearance for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Reardon & Associates for applicant

No Appearance for the respondent

  1. This is an application for criminal compensation arising out of the rape of the applicant by the respondent on the 10th of November 2007.  He pleaded guilty and was convicted before His Honour Judge Searles on 20th of October 2009 and was sentenced to five year's imprisonment.

  1. The respondent was served, by serving the Queensland Correctional Services and the Public Trustee, with the application and supporting documentation on the 22nd of April 2010, but has not appeared on the hearing of the application.

  1. The applicant was born on the 20th of June 1981.  She was therefore 26 at the time of the offences and is now 30.  The rape was committed by the respondent in the circumstances set out in the sentencing remarks of his Honour Judge Searles.  His Honour notes that in addition to the trauma of the rape, she suffered bruising of her wrist.  The rape was described by him as both aggressive and violent and this seems clearly to have been the case.

  1. Prior to the rape, the applicant had suffered from agoraphobia since 2002.  Although this restricted her activities very significantly outside of her home, she says she was happy and busy with her life within the home.  She was the mother of a ten year old child.  I note that in her police statement, being Exhibit MLS3 she refers to herself as being "totally housebound".

  1. She says the crime has destroyed much of her remaining enjoyment of life.  She feels numbs and empty and rather than living, says she is merely existing.  (See Victim Impact Statement of 15th of October 2009 Exhibit MLS4).  The statement certainly paints a picture of very significant sorrow and emotional pain.  There is little mention of the bruising of her wrist or pubic area referred to in the material…

Continue reading SLM v SKF

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
SLM v SKF [2010] QDC 229
Case
[2010] QDC 229
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of SLM v SKF involved an application for criminal compensation under the Criminal Offenders Victims Compensation Act. The applicant, SLM, was a victim of a sexual assault by the respondent, SKF. Prior to the incident, SLM suffered from agoraphobia, and as a result of the assault, SLM now suffers from chronic post-traumatic stress disorder and dysthymic disorder. SLM sought compensation for the adverse impacts caused by the assault.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether SLM was entitled to separate compensation for the psychiatric illnesses caused by the assault, in addition to the compensation for the assault itself. The court considered whether the psychiatric illnesses could be considered as separate adverse impacts for which compensation could be awarded.

The court found that SLM was entitled to compensation for the adverse impacts caused by the assault, including the psychiatric illnesses. The court noted that the psychiatric illnesses were a direct result of the assault and were not merely an exacerbation of pre-existing conditions. The court awarded SLM a sum of $24,000, representing 32 per cent of the scheme maximum, from the respondent. The court determined that this amount was appropriate given the severity of the impact of the assault on SLM's mental health.

The court's decision recognised the significant impact that a sexual assault can have on a victim's mental health and affirmed the right of victims to seek compensation for these adverse impacts. The court's award of compensation provided some measure of redress for the harm caused by the respondent's actions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant be entitled to a sum of $24,000 being 32 per cent of the scheme maximum from the respondent.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.