Tunaley v Cooper - [2006] QDC 200

No judgment structure available for this case.

[2006] QDC 200

DISTRICT COURT
CIVIL JURISDICTION
JUDGE ROBIN QC
No 299 of 2005

GLENN ROY TUNALEY Applicant
and
LINDA JANE COOPER Respondent
Catchwords female offender who pleaded guilty on the basis of being present when "home invasion" offences happened, where it appeared the identified male accused who had perpetrated the actual violence was not proceeded against

TOWNSVILLE
..DATE 06/07/2006
JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: This is an unusual criminal compensation

1

application which was originally listed for yesterday when the respondent was called and did not appear. There was confusion in the applicant's camp about the date of hearing leading to
the matter being adjourned until today when, once again, the

respondent has not appeared when called. 10
She was served, according to Exhibit 1 which is a copy of an
affidavit of service not on the file, perhaps because it is
wrongly headed in the Magistrates Court, on the 22nd of June
this year by commercial agent Peter Frisch at a place called 20
Jarrah House in La Perouse, New South Wales. Statements from
the Bar table suggest that is some kind of rehabilitation
centre for people with severe drug difficulties; my knowledge
of the respondent from sentencing her confirms she has been in
diabolical trouble with the criminal law for drug matters. 30
According to Mr Frisch, when she accepted service she said:
"Yes, that's me, but I wasn't the one who hit him. It
was a fellow. It's all documented."

40

The "fellow" can be identified as one Stansbury who was a co- reasons which one can only speculate about. It is concerning
accused on the indictment before the Court at Beenleigh on the
5th of September 2002 in relation to offences against Mr

50

given the seriousness of the offending which was of a home
invasion nature.

JUDGMENT

2 60

Exhibit 2 is a copy of the sentencing submissions which, in

1

this case, bolster rather than, as often happens, undercutting
the applicant's case. The respondent pleaded guilty to
entering the applicant's dwelling with intent to commit an
indictable offence therein by means of a break while in

company, and using actual violence on the 9th of February 2001 10

at Loganlea. The indictment also charged the respondent and Stansbury with unlawfully assaulting the applicant and doing him bodily harm, and with a like offence in respect of a woman
who was in bed with the applicant at the time of the early
morning visit. 20

The Crown case has always been that all violence was perpetrated by Stansbury.
The purpose of the visit was to collect an amount of $170 30

which the respondent apparently wished to claim from the woman in relation to some clothing which had allegedly been supplied to her on an earlier occasion.
There were two attacks on the applicant - the first when, 40
roused from sleep, he moved across the bed in an attempt to

protect the woman. He received, in the course of doing that or getting out of the bed, a serious blow to the head which, in his statement the same day, he said was caused by a punch.
A couple of months later he revised his opinion and attributed 50

the damage to a kick by a steel-capped boot, which seems to be consistent with photographic records made very recently in the applicant's solicitor's office.

JUDGMENT

3 60

The next instalment of violence occurred when the invaders had
left the dwelling - indeed, when the respondent was back on
the street decamping. Mr Tunaley decided to confront
Stansbury in the driveway of the property, and once again

appears to have come off second best, being hit and kicked 10
again. There would be serious difficulties in the way of
holding the respondent accountable for what happened in the
driveway were it not that Exhibit 2 confirms that she was
sentenced on the basis of bearing responsibility under section
7 or section 8 of the Criminal Code. The Court was told that 20
she had not anticipated any violence would occur.
Unusual as the circumstances are, it seems to me that the
provisions of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 render the
respondent liable to pay compensation. 30
The initial police statement indicates that Mr Tunaley had not
been to the doctor by the time he gave it, causing one to
wonder how serious his injuries truly appeared. It was not
until May that he saw his general practitioner, Dr Watson, who 40
had been treating him for years for a bad back. Exhibit 2
confirms that there was a considerable cut on the applicant's
forehead which required stitching. Exacerbation of any back
complaint seems to have resolved fairly quickly but Mr Tunaley
was complaining by mid-May 2001 of new back problems, this 50
time in his neck area, and occasional headaches, of a kind
that he had not experienced before.

JUDGMENT

4 60

His main complaint is of psychological consequences which Dr

1

Likely diagnoses as post-traumatic stress disorder; he says
severe. In some respects it seems to me, on the basis of
other material before the Court, that Mr Tunaley has
overstated things, particularly in respect of the seriousness

of his physical injuries. That may conceivably have had some 10
impact on the diagnosis of PTSD, which apparently continues.
Dr Likely was alarmed, as anyone would be, at the extent of
ingestion of psychotropic drugs by Mr Tunaley. It is
uncertain to what extent the drugs he has been using have been
prescribed by a competent medical person. 20
As indicating that Mr Tunaley is not overstating things, Mr

Griffith relies on his denial of suicidal ideation. I think it appears from all the material that Mr Tunaley is a person with difficulties in his life, not all of which are

30
attributable to the incident.
It is sad to read that he has had children taken away from him
by the authorities. The explanation given by him, that this
all happened because a boy of 11 was found in possession of 40
cannabis which a fellow student had given to him, does not
ring true. Dr Likely records there are six children and all
from different relationships, but contact with only "two or
three".
50

Mr Tunaley is said to be socially isolated. One of the consequences of the way he has reacted to the offences has

JUDGMENT

5 60

been the ending of the relationship with the woman he was

1

protecting on the day.
The components of the assessment ought to be: under item 33 at
the bottom of the range, 20 per cent of the scheme maximum;

for the head injury and remaining disfigurement under item 27 10
or perhaps item 9, five per cent; for the back injury under
item 22, five per cent; and although the evidence about it is
not strong, for bruising or laceration, one per cent under
item 1. If my calculations are correct that produces an
amount of $23,750 which the respondent is ordered to pay Mr 20
Tunaley.

-----

30
40
50

JUDGMENT

6 60

Actions

Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Citations

Tunaley v Cooper [2006] QDC 200

Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0

respondent has not appeared when called.	10
She was served, according to Exhibit 1 which is a copy of an
affidavit of service not on the file, perhaps because it is
wrongly headed in the Magistrates Court, on the 22nd of June
this year by commercial agent Peter Frisch at a place called	20
Jarrah House in La Perouse, New South Wales. Statements from
the Bar table suggest that is some kind of rehabilitation
centre for people with severe drug difficulties; my knowledge
of the respondent from sentencing her confirms she has been in
diabolical trouble with the criminal law for drug matters.	30
According to Mr Frisch, when she accepted service she said:

company, and using actual violence on the 9th of February 2001	10
at Loganlea. The indictment also charged the respondent and Stansbury with unlawfully assaulting the applicant and doing him bodily harm, and with a like offence in respect of a woman
who was in bed with the applicant at the time of the early
morning visit.	20
The Crown case has always been that all violence was perpetrated by Stansbury.
The purpose of the visit was to collect an amount of $170	30
which the respondent apparently wished to claim from the woman in relation to some clothing which had allegedly been supplied to her on an earlier occasion.
There were two attacks on the applicant - the first when,	40
roused from sleep, he moved across the bed in an attempt to
protect the woman. He received, in the course of doing that or getting out of the bed, a serious blow to the head which, in his statement the same day, he said was caused by a punch.
A couple of months later he revised his opinion and attributed	50
the damage to a kick by a steel-capped boot, which seems to be consistent with photographic records made very recently in the applicant's solicitor's office.

appears to have come off second best, being hit and kicked	10
again. There would be serious difficulties in the way of
holding the respondent accountable for what happened in the
driveway were it not that Exhibit 2 confirms that she was
sentenced on the basis of bearing responsibility under section
7 or section 8 of the Criminal Code. The Court was told that	20
she had not anticipated any violence would occur.
Unusual as the circumstances are, it seems to me that the
provisions of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 render the
respondent liable to pay compensation.	30
The initial police statement indicates that Mr Tunaley had not
been to the doctor by the time he gave it, causing one to
wonder how serious his injuries truly appeared. It was not
until May that he saw his general practitioner, Dr Watson, who	40
had been treating him for years for a bad back. Exhibit 2
confirms that there was a considerable cut on the applicant's
forehead which required stitching. Exacerbation of any back
complaint seems to have resolved fairly quickly but Mr Tunaley
was complaining by mid-May 2001 of new back problems, this	50
time in his neck area, and occasional headaches, of a kind that he had not experienced before.

of his physical injuries. That may conceivably have had some	10
impact on the diagnosis of PTSD, which apparently continues.
Dr Likely was alarmed, as anyone would be, at the extent of
ingestion of psychotropic drugs by Mr Tunaley. It is
uncertain to what extent the drugs he has been using have been
prescribed by a competent medical person.	20
As indicating that Mr Tunaley is not overstating things, Mr
Griffith relies on his denial of suicidal ideation. I think it appears from all the material that Mr Tunaley is a person with difficulties in his life, not all of which are	30
attributable to the incident.
It is sad to read that he has had children taken away from him
by the authorities. The explanation given by him, that this
all happened because a boy of 11 was found in possession of	40
cannabis which a fellow student had given to him, does not ring true. Dr Likely records there are six children and all from different relationships, but contact with only "two or three".
50
Mr Tunaley is said to be socially isolated. One of the consequences of the way he has reacted to the offences has

for the head injury and remaining disfigurement under item 27	10
or perhaps item 9, five per cent; for the back injury under
item 22, five per cent; and although the evidence about it is
not strong, for bruising or laceration, one per cent under
item 1. If my calculations are correct that produces an
amount of $23,750 which the respondent is ordered to pay Mr	20
Tunaley.