Wakerly v Jupiter
[2002] QDC 283
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Wakerly v Jupiter[2002] QDC 283
- Add to List
Wakerly v Jupiter[2002] QDC 283
Wakerly v Jupiter[2002] QDC 283
DISTRICT COURT | Application No D19 of 2002 |
CIVIL JURISDICTION
SENIOR JUDGE SKOIEN
MATTHEW PAUL WAKERLY | Applicant |
and
DEAN SCOTT JUPITER | Respondent |
MOUNT ISA
DATE 25/09/2002
JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR: This is an application for criminal compensation, brought under the provisions of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995. It arises out of an assault by the respondent on the applicant which occurred on 23 September 2000.
On that occasion, while acting in the execution of his duty as a police officer, he was spat upon by the respondent. The spittle contained blood from a recent wound to the mouth which the respondent had sustained. The spittle penetrated the mouth and eye of the applicant.
The consequence of this was that the respondent was convicted on the 23rd of November 2001 of the offence of serious assault.
The material consists principally of the affidavit of the applicant and a report of a psychologist. Not unnaturally the applicant in the circumstances had to be assessed for the possibility that the blood may have contained a communicable disease, most seriously, HIV/AIDS. For this reason he underwent four blood tests in the following six months at the end of which time he was told that the results were negative.
However, not unnaturally, during those six months he suffered a great deal of mental and emotional stress and trauma the details of which are set out in his affidavit and in the report of the psychologist. I have no doubt that the feelings of stress were acute from time to time and were seldom far below the surface.
The psychologist's report diagnoses a condition of post traumatic stress disorder during that six month period. The principal symptoms of this was sleep difficulty, irritability (particularly in relation to members of the Aboriginal community), difficulty in concentration and hypervigilance. His sexual life was also severely curtailed during this period. Fortunately the psychologist considers that by at least the date of his interview which was 27 May 2002, the condition had resolved completely. I feel comfortable, however, in assuming that it did not resolve on the stroke of the expiration of the six month period and tht it took some little time after that for him to return to normal.
I think it appropriate in the circumstances that I assess his degree of mental or nervous shock at the high end of the moderate range. That is item 32 of the Act. The scheme maximum is $75,000, so the compensation which I assess is 20 per cent of that, or $15,000.
I order the respondent to pay that sum to the applicant forthwith.