Von Zedlitz v Lumley
[2004] QDC 524
•17 December 2004
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Von Zedlitz v Lumley [2004] QDC 524 PARTIES: JACQUELINE VON ZEDLITZ
Applicant
and
CHRISTOPHER EDMONSTON FURNEAUX LUMLEY
Respondent
FILE NO: 639/04 PROCEEDING: Application for criminal compensation ORIGINATING COURT: District Court Brisbane
DELIVERED ON: 17 December 2004 DELIVERED AT: Southport HEARING DATE: 8 December 2004 JUDGE: Newton DCJ ORDER: Respondent to pay to the applicant criminal compensation in the sum of $75,000.00 CATCHWORDS: Application for criminal compensation – assessment with respect to severe bruising; moderate bodily scarring; severe mental and nervous shock and adverse impacts under regulation 1A
Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995
Public Trustee Act 1978COUNSEL: Mr C Bagley – applicant
Respondent in personSOLICITORS: McLaughlins – applicant
Respondent in person
This is an application for criminal compensation pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (“the Act”). In an affidavit filed on 29 October 2004, Stephen James Forster, the Regional Manager Southport for the Office of the Public Trustee of Queensland deposed that the Public Trustee is actively managing the property of the respondent under Part VII – Administration of Property of Prisoners of the Public Trustee Act 1978. The records maintained by the Public Trustee disclose that some $46,500 is currently being managed on behalf of the respondent.
The respondent was convicted by a jury in the District Court at Southport on 4 April 2003 of one count of rape and one count of torture. Both offences were committed against the applicant on or about 24 September 2001. The respondent was sentenced to a term of eight years’ imprisonment in respect of the rape and five years’ imprisonment in respect of the torture. A declaration that the respondent be declared and convicted of a serious violent offence in respect of both counts was overturned on appeal.
The applicant was subjected to anal penetration with a stick or cane, and also was subjected to a painful and violent beating over a significant period of time with a cane.
Dr Culliford, a Government Medical Officer, examined the applicant and recorded the following in her notes:
“Can remember very little. Had a couple of drinks last night. Remembers nothing until waking up this morning with ?needle in her arm … confused, vomiting, no memory of the events.”
Dr Culliford gave evidence that the applicant was distressed and at times incoherent and that it was difficult to obtain a history from her. Her memory faded in and out. She appeared to be in quite significant pain. She had extensive linear (tram-track) bruising across her buttocks and upper thighs and a bruise across her back. Tram-track bruises are white in the middle with a coloured bruise either side of the white; they are caused by a linear object being forced against the skin. More than 10 impacts were needed to have caused this bruising. The photographs of these injuries confirmed Dr Culliford’s findings and demonstrate the extent of the bruising, as well as the pain that the applicant must have experienced. The photographs of the lineal scarring graphically demonstrate the significance of the scarring suffered by the applicant. She also had a 2cm lump on the back of her head and what appeared to be two needle marks or injection sites at the left bend of the elbow.
On cross-examination, Dr Culliford conceded it was possible that these marks were mosquito bites, although that was not the opinion she formed at the time. She had a bruise on her right breast, three 1cm bruises on her right elbow and a bruise on her thigh. Dr Culliford could not say how the bruise on her right breast was caused.
The applicant was reluctant to allow a genital examination. An external examination did not reveal any injury to the external genitals. A digital vaginal examination revealed no internal injuries or irregularities, but the applicant then resisted an internal speculum examination of the vagina. Dr Culliford’s notes stated that the applicant experienced “no vaginal pain”, although in cross-examination she said that other factors, such as the applicant’s difficulty in passing urine and the problems experienced in examining her, pointed to the possibility that this statement was incorrect. It should be noted that the respondent was acquitted by the jury of a separate count of rape involving an alleged vaginal penetration with a stick or cane. It follows that no compensation is to be awarded in respect of any reported vaginal injury.
The doctor examined the applicant’s anus externally and noticed that she had extreme anal spasm, i.e. the sphincter of the anus was absolutely rigidly closed in painful spasm, making it impossible to do a proctoscopic examination. There were no external tears or injury. Anal spasms can last for 72 hours or even longer and often occur after some external stimulus, usually trauma, to the area, whether by surgical intervention, penetration of an instrument or a natural fissure.
Dr Culliford took blood and urine samples and arranged for the applicant to stay in the hospital observation ward overnight.
[10] The following day Dr Culliford again examined the applicant and this time was able to perform an anal examination after giving her an injection of pethidine. She still had marked anal spasm. Dr Culliford could not discover any injury to the anus in the lower 5 or 6cms. The absence of such injuries did not exclude penetration of the anus with a cane.
[11] The applicant claimed to have been drugged prior to the attack on her by the respondent. This claim was not verified by subsequent testing and there is no suggestion that if she was drugged, it was by an act of the respondent. In any event, the jury must be taken to have been aware of this evidence and, in my view, the respondent is unable to derive any particular benefit from the failure of the testing to support the applicant’s claim in this regard.
[12] The applicant consulted Dr Judith Chittenden, a psychiatrist in respect of obtaining a report for use in these proceedings. Because the respondent at the hearing of this application queried the qualifications and expertise of Dr Chittenden, I will adopt the rather unusual course of outlining Dr Chittenden’s qualifications. She is a medical practitioner specialising in psychiatry and is registered to practice in this State. Dr Chittenden has worked in psychiatry since 1971. She graduated from the University of Sheffield in England with degrees in medicine and surgery in 1967. She obtained a diploma of psychological medicine from the University of Sheffield in England in 1974. Dr Chittenden became a member of the Royal College of Psychiatry, London in 1974. She became a member of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists in 1979. She became a Fellow of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists in 1983. Dr Chittenden currently is engaged in private practice specialising in child and adolescent psychiatry, family therapy and psychotherapy. I have no hesitation in accepting that Dr Chittenden’s academic and professional qualifications, together with her substantial clinical experience, well qualify her to express expert opinion in respect of the applicant’s psychological and psychiatric condition.
[13] Dr Chittenden has provided a report which is dated 12 October 2004. In that report Dr Chittenden states as follows:
“Since the attack on her person and subsequent rape and torture, Ms Von Zedlitz has not been able to return to the life which she enjoyed previously. She was not able to go out of her house over a long period of time, even if other people tried to persuade her. She was terrified and stayed in the surroundings in which she felt safe. This was entirely encompassed by her fairly small unit which she no longer kept clean and tidy, as she did previously. Her appearance suffered in that she no longer cared for herself and her friends had to visit regularly in order to help her with some of the most simple basic tasks.
As she resisted going out because of her fear and terror, she was not able to become involved in counselling on an ongoing basis, although I understand did eventually see a social worker at the Bundall Social Work Centre, a Ms Tracey Storey, with whom she still retains some contact.
Her fear and terror was increased by the court appearance when her assailant was apprehended. One of her friends who had not seen her for some time incidentally caught up with her in the courthouse, not recognising her at first and saying, ‘She looked so dreadful she could not believe it’. Ms Von Zedlitz was so frightened and terrified at this time that she was actually vomiting in the corridor of the courthouse and was obviously quite unable to cope emotionally. She appeared to be in an almost critical condition at this time, but even then her friends could not persuade her to see a psychiatrist or a psychologist on a regular basis. She was afraid to go anywhere and had to have a great deal of support to even get to the court.
Unfortunately, as a result of her assailant being able appeal so far once, but can do so on regular occasions, she apparently has to present herself each time and constantly go through appeals, and each time she is terrified of the results. I understand he has no lack of money by which to maintain constant appeals, whilst Ms Von Zedlitz is now unable to work, only copes on her own with great difficulty, and has no source of income whatsoever due to her relative inability still to go outside her home.
Ms Von Zedlitz’s friend described her up and down moods with an ‘underlying severe depression’. She described how she locks up her unit like ‘Fort Knox’, she has lights on all the time, constantly has the television on, occasionally watching it, and only has the company of her cat. Ms Von Zedlitz said that she had improved to the extent that she could walk down the street to the local shop for milk, but rarely makes this trip on her own. She said her ability to go down the street depends on her mood at the time and her general emotional state.
…
Ms Von Zedlitz said that after the attack she was in hospital for a week and had to have attention to her wounds and she was physically disabled for some time after going home in that she could not walk or stand properly and it was extremely painful to lie down. She had anal and vaginal symptoms for a long time after the attack and still has some symptomatology due to the injuries that she received in those areas. She needed to return to the hospital for an operation on her anus due to the injuries caused there and at present she was still in a situation where she could not pass a motion comfortably.
Ms Von Zedlitz said that she has scars on her buttocks, but she felt that her physical symptoms, although she has still been severely affected, had been put into the shade of her remaining psychological symptoms as a result of the attack on her. She said that although her memory was patchy over the period of time that she was imprisoned by her assailant, she said it was not only the memories that she did have that were frightening enough, but also the fear of what he had done with her which she had no memory of.
On enquiry, Ms Von Zedlitz said she felt extremely miserable and sad by what had occurred, she is often extremely weepy and tearful, not only on a regular basis when she thinks back to the situation, but also unexpectedly when talking with friends or others at times. She does not find it easy to do any of the things she used to do, she cannot go outside and with the description she gave I would diagnose her as having an agoraphobic condition now which militates against her going outside and pursuing her previous enjoyments. She has lost interest in a great many things and has no ability to do anything she did before.
Ms Von Zedlitz said that she had extremely distressing memories of images of the incident as it occurred to her and she has nightmares of the situation at regular intervals and this causes her great difficulty as she almost feels frightened of going to bed at night because of the dreams she might have which may be dreams of the incident or similar frightening events occurring to her. She often has periods of time during the day where she feels she is back in the situation again, she finds this extremely difficult, perhaps the most difficult thing emotionally and this appeared to be the time when she has attempted suicide. In all, she has attempted suicide three times since the assault, she has never any difficulty previously, she was referred to the hospital subsequent to these events and should have been probably followed up by hospital staff if they had not been under such pressure themselves.
Ms Von Zedlitz became quite upset and distressed when discussing the details of her symptomatology and became even more distressed when she described the details of the attack. She obviously had physical symptoms of anxiety at this time which were even evident on assessment with me.
The symptoms described above are intrusive symptoms indicating that this woman has post-traumatic stress disorder.
Ms Von Zedlitz also complained of major sleep disturbance with nightmares, relative insomnia, frightened of going to sleep and when she falls asleep, she is apt to be restless and wake up with nightmares. As a result of this, she feels tired and is extremely angry and irritable during the day, although she tries to put on a good front. She has extreme difficulties with concentration and memory, and often flashbacks or memories of the incident will interfere with her flow of thought.
She is constantly on edge and on the lookout for signs of danger, and it is so tiring for her to be outside for this reason that she prefers not to go out at all. Outside excursions are no longer enjoyable and are entirely for the purposes of doing something specific such as collecting an item from the corner shop. She is extremely edgy and jumpy and is upset by noises and cues from the environment which remind her of the incident, such as smells, noises, textures of materials, etc.
These indicate arousal symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.
Ms Von Zedlitz admits that she tries to avoid any reminders of the attack, although this is very difficult, and hates talking to people about it, which was evident when she was talking with me about her experiences. She lost a great deal of interest in her normal activities, felt quite cut off and detached from those people close to her, although she now appreciates their attention when she was severely affected and the fact that her closest friends ‘didn’t take no for an answer’. She felt very flat and numb, and to a certain extent still does, and has extreme difficulty in imagining a future, stating ‘everything feels black, I feel like I am dead’. The way she said this was entirely believable, and not said in a dramatic way.
The symptoms indicated above are suggestive of numbing symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder, which indicate that when a person has been in fear of their life and ‘beyond terror’ in an incident, they cannot feel afterwards in the normal ordinary sense that they did before.
Ms Von Zedlitz also has extreme symptoms of anxiety with apprehension and fearfulness, and admitted that at the time of the attack she was in absolute terror for her life for most of the time. She described difficulties with breathing (hyperventilation), tightness in her chest, palpitations, churning stomach, sweating, trembling, shaking, dizziness (although quite different from her condition of vertigo), she often fears losing control and that she is going to ‘go crazy’ with her condition over time. She is obviously excessively worried, very restless and on edge with increased muscle tension, and complains of some physical effects of anxiety with nausea and diarrhoea, indicating an irritation of gastrointestinal tract due to anxiety.
Ms Von Zedlitz also said that she felt very low and miserable with feelings of extreme worthlessness, helplessness and hopelessness in her situation. She has no money to seek more expert counselling, but has received some counselling from a social worker at Bundall. She has extreme lack of energy, she is always tired, she has no enthusiasm for anything and no motivation. She has had an extreme loss of interest and pleasure in her normal activities; she has gained weight and admits that this is due to lack of activity and her appetite for sweet things. She also said that she could not lose weight as when her attacker ‘tried to throw her off the balcony, she was dead weight’. This appeared to be an incident within her attack that she related to me. She also said that in Court ‘it was said that I was too fat to be raped’, and she said ‘I don’t know how to deal with that’. This appears to be some kind of relationship with the fact that she has put on weight and cannot lose it now, although also admits that it is due to her feeling of general helplessness and lack of motivation. She has had a loss of sexual interest and has no interest in males, nor will she mix with males, and even avoids her male friends.
She evidences strong feelings of blame and guilt about not being able to attend her father’s illness and funeral, although it appears fairly obvious that she was neither physically nor emotionally able to help her father at the time. Her poor concentration, memory and decision-making have created chaos in her life and she has extreme difficulty in keeping to any reliable routine. She has had frequent thoughts of suicide and has acted this out on at least three occasions, and probably more for which she has not attended the hospital. She feels strongly that life is not worth living and on assessment, I felt that she was indeed at a very high risk of suicide at times, as a result of her thinking processes.
These symptoms indicate a severe degree of depression for which, unfortunately, due to her inability to go out of her home, she has been unable to have treatment, particularly as financially she is unable to seek any kind of private treatment.
As well as a definite and extreme degree of post-traumatic stress disorder, Ms Von Zedlitz has a number of adverse impacts of rape with extreme feelings of degradation, violation and devastation of self, she has an extreme lack of self-esteem and self-confidence with feelings of worthlessness, helplessness and hopelessness in her situation, and she certainly risks severe injury and possibly infection with regard to her anal and vaginal injuries.
She still blames herself for not being able to avoid the situation in which she found herself, although certainly she was drugged in the hotel whilst her friend was talking to someone else. She has an extreme feeling of insecurity and lack of confidence outside her home and in social situations, and I would diagnose her as being agoraphobic following the incident in 2001. This is added to by a feeling that everyone ‘knows’ what has happened to her when she goes out and a strong feeling of ‘disapproval’ from the general community. Whether this is real or unreal, I am unable to comment on, but this is certainly a feeling that Ms Von Zedlitz has herself.
Her difficulty in making decisions and procrastination over simple aspects of her life, her fear of meeting males and certainly an extreme fear of any future relationships, suggests that her future social life will be extremely narrow and controlled by her fear. She has an extreme fear of further assault or sexual offences against her and with this a feeling of extreme sadness and depression over what has occurred and also the aspects of her life that have been changed for ever due to her experiences. She has an absolute loss of pleasure in normal sexual relationships with extreme feelings of apprehension and fearfulness, and at times is filled with terror over certain situations or cues from the environment that remind her of the attack, either appropriately or inappropriately.
She has also had a major increase in her consumption of alcohol since the incident occurred. She used to drink mainly socially, at times above the safe limit for a woman, but in a social context, whereas now she will drink a bottle of spirits sometimes over the day when her memories are particularly bad. She knows that she should not drink, but she finds it difficult when her anxieties overcome her sense of reason at these times.
Diagnosis:
Post-traumatic stress disorder – DSM IV 309.81.
This is severe and chronic and is accompanied by symptoms of severe anxiety and depression.Ms Von Zedlitz is unable to get out of her house without considerable help and is only able to make short trips to the corner shop. In my opinion, this amounts to a condition of agoraphobia which is, technically speaking, a fear of going out due to the occurrence of severe panic attacks which are usually cued by a sound, smell or aspect of the environment, which she ‘short circuits’ with a feeling of extreme fear and anxiety. This means that she virtually cannot go out anywhere without a great deal of help. Accompanying this, as specified, are the adverse impacts of her rape and assault, which are multiple and chronic in nature.
Recommended Treatment:
1.In my opinion, Ms Von Zedlitz should have had intensive psychiatric treatment from the time she was released from hospital, as she has had extremely severe symptomatology since then. Her treatment has been made considerably more difficult by the fact that she is unable to get out of her home to any extent and has great difficulty in going to see anyone new, particularly of the male sex. She would have benefited from seeing a female psychiatrist who would have been able to give her ongoing support, psychotherapy and help for her condition.
2.Ms Von Zedlitz would also be greatly aided by seeing a clinical psychologist over a fairly long period of time, not with a view to reinforcing her situation, but to enable her to ‘move on’ with her life, probably using cognitive behavioural therapy techniques. Her ability to relax would also be facilitated by some relaxation and desensitisation techniques with a view to trying to reduce her level of anxiety which is continually present and fluctuates according to her circumstances.
3.Ms Von Zedlitz would be helped by the input of a dietician and an exercise therapist with a view to improving her general physical state which is at present extremely poor due to inactivity and her psychological symptoms. If she were able to be more physically active, this would certainly help to reduce her constant level of stress and anxiety and her general level of depressive symptoms.
Summary and Prognosis:
Ms Von Zedlitz had an extremely traumatic experience where she was genuinely in fear of her life and was demeaned and denigrated in the course of a sexual assault which occurred over a long period of time and involved many sadistic activities on the part of the perpetrator. In my mind, there is no doubt that Ms Von Zedlitz was both anally and vaginally injured as a result of the assault and she also had obvious physical evidence and effects of the attack on her person.
As a result of the attack, Ms Von Zedlitz has clear evidence of severe post-traumatic stress disorder and an accompanying high level of anxiety and depressive symptoms. She also suffers from severe adverse impacts of the rape and assault as specified.
Unless Ms Von Zedlitz has treatment for her condition, she will continue to be severely restricted in virtually all her lifestyle activities including her occupational, domestic and social life. With treatment she may, after some time, be able to return to some restricted life worth living.
In my opinion, Ms Von Zedlitz was functioning normally previous to the events of 24 September 2001.”
[14] Counsel for the applicant, Mr Bagley, conceded that he was unaware of any mention being made during the trial, by the applicant, of an incident where the respondent tried to throw her off the balcony. That part of the history of the incident given to Dr Chittenden by the applicant should, therefore, be disregarded when making an assessment of compensation in this case. The difficulty in this regard is probably the result of the applicant continuing to experience flashbacks of various events that occurred during the night on which she was assaulted by the respondent. It is most unlikely, in my view, that when viewed against the entirety of the traumatic events experienced by the applicant during the attack, this recollection individually is of any significance. Whether the applicant was subsequently told something about any incident involving being thrown from a balcony is pure speculation and is quite irrelevant for the purposes of this application. I am satisfied that it does not affect the weight of Dr Chittenden’s report.
[15] In a subsequent report dated 7 December 2004, Dr Chittenden lists the adverse impacts of rape as including the following:
“A feeling of degradation and devastation (violation) – very severe.
Extreme lack of self-esteem and self-confidence subsequently with feelings of worthlessness, helpless and hopelessness in the situation, which continues.
Fear of STD or HIV infection and chronic injury.
Feelings (inappropriate) of guilt and blame in not being able to avoid situation. Also, guilty about not attending father’s funeral.
A major feeling of insecurity and lack of confidence outside her home and in social situations.
Fear of disapproval from the general community (‘everyone knows’).
Concentration and memory affected, difficulty in making decisions and procrastination, which causes chaos in her life.
Fear of future relationships of her choice. Avoids males, even previous male friends.
Fear of further assault or sexual offences against her.
Feelings of extreme sadness and depression.
Loss of pleasure in normal activities. Agoraphobia.
Loss of pleasure in normal sexual relations (total abstinence since assault).
Feelings of apprehension afterwards, fearfulness and occasional terror. Panic attacks, especially outside her ‘safe’ areas.
Fear of losing control or ‘going crazy’ (felt, but not true); controlled by fear.
Constant feelings of worry, restless and on edge.
Subsequent increase in alcohol consumption – severe (self-medication).
Gastrointestinal symptoms indicating anxiety, weight gain (protective).
Suicidal behaviours on at least three documented occasions.
There is also a great deal of anxiety with regard to what happened whilst she was unconscious episodically. Also, some events were so horrific that she was only able to remember them over several days in which the police interview took place. This occurs in extremely horrifying circumstances where the person’s terror has been overwhelming.
In many years of interviewing people for psychiatric reports, I would regard Ms Von Zedlitz’s account of her assaults and forced incarceration over a period of time in a condition of physical injury and terror as the most psychiatrically severe that I have seen.
At times, Ms Von Zedlitz wishes that she died as she would not have had to suffer in the way she has since the assault, from her psychiatric symptoms which have been extremely debilitating, have changed almost all aspects of her previous lifestyle, and at present give little hope for the future. She has been severely psychiatrically affected and, in my opinion, will continue to be affected in the future from both post-traumatic stress disorder and multiple adverse impacts of her prolonged sexual assault and rape. Sadly, any continuation of the case is likely to make Ms Von Zedlitz’s psychiatric condition and adverse effects of her rape more entrenched, as she has little chance to ‘move on’ from her experience.”
[16] The respondent sought at the hearing of this application to derive some benefit from the hospital records which seem to indicate that the applicant is a person who had experienced psychological problems prior to the attack upon her by the respondent. The respondent must, however, take his victim as he finds her and it should be recalled that Dr Chittenden, in her report, made it quite clear that the applicant’s past medical history indicates that she has always been quite a healthy person. She did have epilepsy in the past but grew out of this in adulthood. She also had episodic vertigo (dizziness) for which she was effectively medicated.
[17] In an affidavit filed in the Court on 22 October 2004 the applicant confirms that she attended upon Dr Chittenden on 2 and 9 September 2004. The applicant has read the report of Dr Chittenden and confirms that what she told the doctor about the effects on her life of the incident is true and is correctly detailed by Dr Chittenden in her report.
[18] In a Victim Impact Statement the applicant states that she remained in the Gold Coast Hospital for three days due to the physical injuries sustained in the attack upon her. She also states that she is no longer able to travel on a bus as she cannot have a male behind her or near her. She cannot take a taxi for the fear of not getting to where she wants to go. She cannot drive for fear nor can she go shopping for fear. She says that she will never have a family as she will never trust a male ever again. She fears that in one of her panic attacks she will overdose on her medications and that fear and pills dominate her life now. She says that she has few remaining friends due to her severe mood swings and depression. She says that she is unable to work for fear of having to communicate with people, interact with them or be near them for fear everyone is a danger to her. She states that since the assault she has lost thousands of dollars in income due to hospitalisation and her inability to work due to bouts of depression. She constantly struggles to afford her rent or necessary anti-depressants and pain killers.
[19] I have no hesitation in accepting that Dr Chittenden is appropriately qualified to express the opinions contained in her reports. The contents of those reports should also be accepted. The evidence given in the affidavit and Victim Impact Statement by the applicant I also accept. In my view there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the applicant was in any way responsible for any of the injuries sustained by her as a result of the attack upon her by the respondent.
[20] I turn to the assessment of compensation in accordance with the Compensation Table set out in Schedule 1 to the Act. In relation to the bruising suffered by the applicant, I am satisfied that an award at the top of the scale provided in respect of Injury no. 2 – bruising/laceration (severe) is warranted. This yields the sum of $3,750.00.
[21] With respect to the residual bodily scarring, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to assess this at the maximum of the range permitted under Injury no. 27 – facial disfigurement or bodily scarring (minor/moderate). This would add a figure of 10% of the scheme maximum or $7,500.00.
[22] In relation to the mental and nervous shock evidenced in the reports of Dr Chittenden, it is appropriate, in my view, to assess this under Injury no. 33 – mental and nervous shock (severe) which would enable an assessment at between 20%-34% of the scheme maximum. In this case there can be little doubt that the upper level of this range is appropriate and I therefore add the figure of $25,500.00 to the award in respect of this injury.
[23] The totality of the “adverse impacts” under regulation 1A again fall for assessment in the light of Dr Chittenden’s reports and in particular, her subsequent report, I accept that an award of $75,000.00 would be an appropriate assessment for the totality of the adverse impacts suffered by the applicant over the past three years, and which she will continue to suffer for the foreseeable future.
[24] The Court is unable to award a total amount in excess of the scheme maximum which at present is $75,000.00. It is clear that this figure has been significantly exceeded by the assessments that I have made. In my view an award of 100% of the scheme maximum or $75,000.00 is an appropriate award in all of the circumstances and I therefore order that the respondent, Christopher Edmonston Furneaux Lumley pay criminal compensation to the applicant, Jacqueline Von Zedlitz in the sum of $75,000.00.
- - - - -
0
0
2