DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

1. [1]
   The applicant, Craig White, seeks criminal compensation in respect of injuries suffered by him arising out of an incident on 25 October 2003 at Eton (near Mackay). The respondent, John Clifford Torney, pleaded guilty before Judge Pack in the Mackay District Court on 19 March 2004 to one count of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed. The respondent was sentenced to eight months imprisonment, suspended after serving three days (with three days of pre-sentence custody being declared time served), subject to an operational period of two years.

FACTS

2. [2]
   The applicant was at the relevant time, a Senior Constable of Police at Eton Police Station^[1].  At around 6 pm on 25 October 2003, the applicant received a complaint of dangerous driving and attended at the respondent’s address at 10 Hill Street, Eton to speak to the respondent.  At about 6.21 pm, while the applicant was speaking to the respondent about his driving, the respondent was asked to provide his full name.  The respondent then made an excuse that he needed to use the toilet and used the opportunity to escape through his residence.

3. [3]
   The applicant returned to the residence at about 7.27 pm on 25 October 2003 and saw the respondent walking towards the residence armed with the handle of a hammer. The applicant endeavoured to speak to the respondent but he ran into the house. The applicant grabbed the respondent’s arm and was drawn into the house because he was holding onto the respondent.

4. [4]
   The respondent then turned on the respondent and delivered two blows with the hammer handle. These blows were described as “being a stabbing motion with the narrower end of the … hammer handle pointing towards [the applicant]. The end of the hammer handle hit [the applicant] in the vicinity of his nose and left eye.” As a result of the assault, the applicant suffered bruising and swelling around his left eye and on the left side of his nose^[2].  The respondent was later interviewed and stated that he had endeavoured to escape from police and then fought them off because he was concerned about going to gaol for what he understood to be outstanding warrant matters.

INJURIES

5. [5]
   The applicant attested to having sustained the following injuries in the altercation^[3]:

3. (1)
   Bruising and swelling to the left side of the applicant’s nose and face;

3. (2)
   Black eye;

3. (3)
   Nose bleeds subsequent to the assault (on two occasions).

6. [6]
   I note that there was no medical evidence provided which documented the applicant’s injuries, although the nature of the assault would indicate that the injuries attested to by the applicant appear to be directly and logically causally linked to the assault to which the respondent pleaded guilty.

7. [7]
   The applicant attests to having spent (as a result of the injuries) five hours in Casualty at the Mackay Base Hospital, a further four hours waiting for X-rays the following day, and receiving treatment for pain with Panadeine Forte and ice packs for swelling^[4].  The applicant found it difficult to sleep for about two weeks after the assault, but had otherwise recovered from his injuries as at 16 March 2004 when he provided his police statement^[5]. 

8. [8]
   The applicant was subsequently diagnosed as suffering from acute stress disorder (DSM-IV 308.3), which developed into a generalised anxiety disorder (DSM-IV 300.02)^[6].

THE LAW

9. [9]
   The application proceeds under s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (COVA).  The provisions of that legislation commenced on 18 December 1995 and provide for compensation in respect of convictions on indictment of a personal offence for injury suffered by an applicant because of that offence.     R v Ward ex parte Dooley [2001] 2 Qd R 436 indicates that the assessment of compensation should proceed pursuant to COVA s 22(4) by scaling within the ranges set out in the compensation table (Schedule 1) for the relevant injuries.  In particular, the fixing of compensation should proceed by assessing the seriousness of a particular injury in comparison with the “most serious” case in respect of each individual item.  Riddle v Coffey (2002) 133 A Crim R 220; [2002] QCA 337 is authority for the proposition that COVA s 26, read in its entirety, aims to encourage only one criminal compensation order for one episode of injury, without duplication.

SERVICE

10. [10]
    The respondent was unable to be located and served personally, and on 27 March 2006 I made an order for substituted service.  The applicant has complied with the requirements of the order^[7] and there was no appearance by the respondent at the hearing of this matter on 18 April 2006.

COMPENSATION

11. [11]
    Mr James, counsel for the applicant, seeks compensation under two items as follows:

3. (1)
   Item 1 – Bruising/laceration etc. (minor/moderate) (1-3%):

The applicant has deposed^[8] to suffering “bruising and swelling to the left side of [his] nose and face” and later developing “a black eye”.  The applicant subsequently “felt pain around the eye socket and nose” which “continued approximately seven days after the assault,” and also suffered “nose bleeds on two occasions after the assault.”  The applicant subsequently received treatment for pain with “Panadeine Forte and ice”^[9].

12. [12]
    In these circumstances, despite the lack of any medical report, the bruising/laceration is in my view (as submitted by Mr James) assessable at the top of the range for item (1) (1-3%). Accordingly, I award 3% ($2,250) pursuant to item 1.

13. [13]
    (2) Item 32 – Mental or nervous shock (moderate) (10-20%):

The report of Alan Chittenden, psychologist^[10] diagnoses the applicant as suffering initially “from an acute stress disorder (DSM-IV 308.3)” which had subsequently developed into “a generalised anxiety disorder – DSM-IV 30002”^[11].

14. [14]
    Mr Chittenden expressed significant concern in his report dated 25 August 2005 that the applicant “presented as somebody who is coping quite well, but as the interview continued, it became obvious that he was depressed, was having difficulty coping, and his situation was having a profound effect on his family”^[12].  It was clear to Mr Chittenden that the applicant, who was living in a remote area, had had “no effective treatment or therapy” and accordingly, Mr Chittenden spent some time providing the applicant with “some insight into his situation” and providing “some practical help as to how to cope with the symptomology [the applicant] had explained this”^[13].

15. [15]
    At the time of the incident, the applicant was operating from a one-person police station. The applicant’s back up (i.e. nearest police establishment) was some 30 minutes away and after he was attacked, the applicant had limited options in order to deal with the situation. Subsequent to the incident, the applicant considers that there has been a “lack of support given to him by the Police Service,” in particular, in not being given “some relief from his position [manning a one-officer station]” and a failure to provide him “with effective therapy”^[14].

16. [16]
    Mr Chittenden’s ultimate conclusion about the applicant’s level of trauma was that it was “moderate to severe” and further that it was exacerbated by the lack of employer support.

17. [17]
    In the circumstances, I accept the submission of Mr James that it would be appropriate to assess the applicant at the top of the applicable range for item 32 (10%-20%). Accordingly, I award 20% ($15,000) pursuant to item 32.

CONTRIBUTION

18. [18]
    It is clear that the applicant did not contribute in any way to his injuries^[15].

CONCLUSION

19. [19]
    Accordingly, I order that the respondent, John Clifford Torney, pay the applicant, Craig White, criminal compensation in the sum of $17,250.