Wacker v Brenton

[2003] QDC 572

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Wacker v Brenton [2003] QDC 572
PARTIES:	JON HAROLD WACKER

Applicant

DARRYL FRANCIS BRENTON

Respondent

FILE NO/S:	210/2003
PROCEEDING:	Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING  COURT:	District Court Southport
DELIVERED ON:	19 June 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Southport
HEARING DATE:	17 June 2003
JUDGE:	Newton DCJ
ORDER:	Application granted – respondent to pay applicant $15,000 by way of compensation
CATCHWORDS:	Application for criminal compensation – s 24 Criminal Offence Victims Act (1995) – mental or nervous shock (moderate) assessment at 20% of scheme maximum in respect of post-traumatic stress disorder
COUNSEL:	Mr C Bagley - applicant No appearance by or on behalf of respondent
SOLICITORS:	McLaughlins – applicant

[1] This is an application for compensation under s 24 of the Criminal Offence

Victims Act (1995).

[2]  The respondent, Darryl Francis Brenton, was convicted in the District Court at Southport on 23 October 2002 of a number of offences including assaulting the applicant, a police officer, whilst the applicant was acting in the execution of his duty. The respondent was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment in respect of that count.

[3]  The circumstances of the offence included the respondent approaching the applicant who had called upon him to stop and throwing a backpack at the applicant, striking him in the chest. The applicant and another police officer gave chase and the respondent turned to face them and removed a black-coloured hand gun from his trousers and pointed it at both the applicant and the other police officer. At this stage the applicant was some five or six metres from the respondent. The respondent, before running away through a shopping arcade, threatened to shoot the applicant. Subsequently the respondent was apprehended by police at another location.

[4]  As a result of the offence committed against him the applicant claims to have suffered mental and nervous shock.

[5]  Mr Chittenden, a registered psychologist, consulted with the applicant on 5 March 2003. In a report dated 6 May 2003 he notes that the applicant experiences flashbacks of the incident and that if he is required to go out on a raid or similar police activity, he becomes extremely anxious and tense and ensures that all persons, if possible, are covered, lest anybody be hurt. The applicant finds that he now perspires heavily, his heart beats faster, and at times he gets the shakes, which never happened previously when working in a police operation.

[6]  Mr Chittenden has further noted that the applicant does not like talking about the incident and has become hyper-vigilant, looking out all the time for anybody that might in some way accost him and has become quite cranky and irritable. The situation has endangered his marriage.

[7]  Mr Chittenden has concluded that there is no doubt that the applicant was severely traumatised by the incident which has had a profound effect on his ability to function as previously in the police service. Unfortunately the applicant has not had any effective treatment and this has exacerbated his psychological condition. Mr Chittenden sees the applicant as suffering from the classic symptoms of post- traumatic stress disorder and assesses his condition as being at a moderate level.

[8]  A recommendation was made that the applicant have eight to ten sessions with a clinical psychologist experienced in working with trauma and anxiety states, as the applicant requires a course in cognitive behavioural therapy, relaxation and desensitisation. The present rate is approximately $160 per session. As the incident occurred some two years ago it is, in Mr Chittenden’s view, significant that the applicant is still suffering quite severe symptoms and it is therefore a matter of urgency that he seek appropriate help.

[9] I accept the contents of Mr Chittenden’s report and assess the mental or nervous shock resulting from the incident under item number 32 in schedule 1 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act (1995) at the top of the range permitted for such injury which is 20% of the scheme maximum which is $75,000. The assessment thus yields an amount of $15,000.

[10]I am satisfied that the applicant has in no way contributed to the assault upon him by the respondent.

[11]I order that the respondent, Darryl Francis Brenton, pay criminal compensation of $15,000 to the applicant, Jon Harold Wacker.

- - - - -