Watson v Barry

[2003] QSC 143

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Watson v Barry [2003] QSC 143

PARTIES:

Edith Dawn WATSON
(applicant)
v
Christopher BARRY
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

S.330/03

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

14 May 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Townsville

HEARING DATE:

9 May 2003

JUDGE:

Cullinane J

ORDER:

Order the respondent Barry to pay criminal compensation to the applicant in the sum of $5,000.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – CRIMINAL COMPENSATION – where now-repealed provisions of the Criminal Code apply – where applicant has suffered psychological injuries

Criminal Code, Chapter LXVA (since repealed)

McClintock v Jones (1995) 79 A.Crim.R. 238, applied

COUNSEL:

A J Kimmins for the applicant
There was no appearance for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Tony Bailey Solicitor for the applicant
The respondent acted on his own behalf

1. Although there were other respondents to this application the application has been adjourned so far as they are concerned and has proceeded only against the applicant Barry.

1. The relevant events occurred in February 1978. Accordingly the provisions of Chapter LXVA of the Criminal Code are applicable (the provisions of this Chapter have since been repealed).

1. The respondent was convicted of rape and grievous bodily harm and sentenced to four years imprisonment.  He did not appear on the application.

1. The applicant was attacked by a group of men whilst seated in a car on Palm Island.  The respondent was one of these.

1. She was assaulted and raped by each of them.

1. It would seem that some object was forced into her vagina and when she was seen at the hospital she was bleeding internally and partly conscious.

1. She has suffered psychological sequelae in the nature of post traumatic stress disorder.  It is likely she suffered from this prior to the incident but it has been exacerbated by it and according to a psychologist it is now chronic in nature.

1. The principles applicable to the assessment of compensation in a case of this kind are dealt with in the judgment of the Court of Appeal in McClintock v Jones (1995) 79 A.Crim.R. 238.

1. The prescribed amount at the relevant time is some $5,000.

1. It seems to me that any assessment of the applicant’s injuries and their sequelae must necessarily exceed such an amount.  This is putting aside any question of economic loss or care and assistance.

1. There is an application for costs, however on the assumption that there is power to award such costs I do not think an order should be made given that this application has been made some 25 years after the relevant events.

1. I order the respondent Barry to pay criminal compensation to the applicant in the sum of $5,000.