DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

1. [1]
   This is an application for a compensation order pursuant to the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (the Act) by Erin Louise Rosolen (the applicant). The respondent to the application is Jason Christopher Ryan.

2. [2]
   The respondent has chosen not to appear or be represented at the hearing of the application. As a consequence the application proceeded in his absence and solely on materials placed before the court by the applicant.

3. [3]
   On 14 February 2003 the applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court at Beenleigh to a total of 10 offences of armed robbery together with 10 related offences of unlawful use of a motor vehicle. One of the armed robbery offences (Count 9) was committed on a bank at which the applicant was working as a trainee bank officer. During the robbery the respondent pointed a firearm at the applicant. It was this act of menacing the applicant and others with the firearm during the robbery that forms the basis of the present application.

4. [4]
   The legislative scheme for the payment of compensation to victims of crime introduced by the Act creates an entitlement to compensation for any injury suffered by a victim of crime as a result of a personal offence committed against the victim. The statutory right to compensation arises on conviction of the offender in the District or Supreme Court.

5. [5]
   In this case the compensable injury on which the claim is based is “mental or nervous shock” (s. 20 the Act). Armed robbery is an indictable offence (ss. 409, 411 Criminal Code). If the armed robbery offence in which the applicant was menaced with the firearm is a conviction for a personal offence committed against the applicant and the mental or nervous shock was caused by that offence, the applicant is entitled to a compensation order against the respondent.

6. [6]
   The indictment does not name the applicant in the relevant count (Count 9). The respondent, when he entered the bank, menaced the bank manager and a teller with the firearm. He addressed the demand for money primarily to the bank manager, a Mr Langlands, who is named in the charge. The applicant was working nearby in the bank. She stood and raised her hands above her head. At one point during the robbery she caught the respondent’s eye. At that point he aimed the firearm directly at her. A question which arises on the primary facts is whether the offence of armed robbery was committed against her person. If the offence was not committed against the applicant’s person, she is not entitled to a compensation order (s. 21 the Act).

7. [7]
   On the authority of Summers v Dougherty and Anor (2000) QSC 365 it is not necessary an applicant for compensation be named in the charge. As the respondent was one of the bank’s employees who was directly menaced with the firearm, the armed robbery offence should be understood to have been committed against “the person” of each of the bank’s employees who were directly menaced with the firearm (See R v Callaghan and Fleming ex parte Power (1986) 1 Qd R 457^[1]).

8. [8]
   The only questions remaining therefore are whether the applicant developed a mental or nervous shock as a result of the armed robbery offence and, if she did, the appropriate award of compensation.

9. [9]
   The material relied on by the applicant includes psychological reports from a Ms McDonald dated 12 June 2001 and 17 February 2004, and psychiatric reports from a Dr Oelrichs dated 13 July 2003 and 19 February 2004, and from a Dr Majumdar dated 17 February 2004. I was told the reports were obtained from a WorkCover file raised for the applicant. A reasonably clear picture of the effect of the offence on the applicant emerges from those reports.

10. [10]
    The robbery occurred on the applicant’s first day of work at the bank after leaving school. Immediately after the robbery she was seen to be emotionally distressed. An attempt to return to work on the Wednesday was unsuccessful. The bank arranged some counselling for her, but she did not feel any counselling was helpful at that time, or that the bank was sympathetic to her. She resigned from the bank within two weeks and, on 28 February of the same year, commenced a traineeship with the Department of Education as an administration officer at the Murrumba Downs district office.

11. [11]
    The applicant was referred to the psychologist McDonald for counselling by her local doctor. In Ms McDonald’s first report (12/6/01) the applicant’s emotional problems were recorded as fears and phobias about anything associated with the robbery. This extended to avoiding banks (and ATM outlets). The applicant reported sleep disturbance, feelings of anxiety and thinking about the robbery. On administration of the standard tests the applicant satisfied the criteria for post traumatic stress disorder, severe depression, anxiety and stress. Ms McDonald particularly noted a preoccupation with suicidal thoughts. The applicant did tell Ms McDonald she enjoyed her work as an administration officer, although presumably her mental state impinged adversely on her work.

12. [12]
    The applicant’s progress was reviewed by a psychiatrist (Dr Oelrichs) about two years later. The applicant seems to have managed to maintain employment over this period. She continued working as an administrative assistant until she changed employment in May 2002. This job was based in the city. She held this job for about 12 months, when she commenced as a legal secretary for a local solicitor. At the date of Dr Oelrich’s review the applicant worked full-time as a legal secretary and, in addition, worked as a waitress two or three nights a week.

13. [13]
    The applicant was still experiencing difficulties as a result of the robbery. She took anti-depressant (Zoloft) until December 2002. Her explanation for discontinuing with Zoloft is that she had met a new group of friends and felt very positive and very happy with her life.

14. [14]
    Two years after the robbery the applicant continued to experience symptoms associated with the robbery but to a lesser degree. She still had disturbed sleep, although she only occasionally experienced nightmares. Flashbacks also occurred but only very occasionally. She still experienced feelings of anxiety and she noted since she had stopped taking the anti-depressant that her mood had deteriorated and thoughts of suicide became more common. Despite feelings of depression, she said at that time that she was able to go out to parties with friends. Her family throughout were very supportive.

15. [15]
    The applicant’s emotional condition was not helped by ongoing health problems (endometriosis, ulcers, and secondary urinary tract infections). These unrelated medical problems necessitated short admissions to hospital.

16. [16]
    Dr Oelrichs thought the applicant’s mental health had deteriorated in the six months since she stopped taking Zoloft and recommended she undertake ongoing psychiatric and psychological treatment. At that time Dr Oelrichs thought she had an adjustment disorder with depressed and anxious mood and with some post traumatic stress features.

17. [17]
    In September 2003 the applicant embarked on a period of psychological counselling with Ms McDonald. Her response to the counselling was positive. Ms McDonald reported the applicant was no longer experiencing anxiety attacks and hypervigilance. She was less withdrawn socially and felt happier and more assertive and self confident. The applicant still experienced some bouts of depression but on the whole she felt more positive about her life.

18. [18]
    Ms McDonald’s general opinion and findings were that the applicant had made significant improvement but that she was still suffering from depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation and problems in relating to others. Her health problems were also a complicating factor as she had another short hospital admission for a severe kidney infection following surgery (November 2002), apart from ongoing problems with an irritable bowel and stomach ulcers.

19. [19]
    An updated report by Dr Oelrichs (19/2/04) confirmed the improvements in her condition in the period of approximately eight months to the report. Dr Oelrichs noted a diagnosis of chronic post traumatic stress disorder/residual symptoms/chronic dysthymia). Although the doctor thought the applicant’s post traumatic stress disorder had nearly resolved, she recommended treatment to address ongoing fears and anxiety relating to the bank premises where the offence occurred, and to assist with the management of her depressive condition.

20. [20]
    At the time of Dr Oelrichs’ updated report (19/2/04) the applicant was not employed. The position she had as a legal secretary ended in late 2003, shortly after she took an overdose of Endone tablets. She said she overdosed simply because she wanted to sleep.

21. [21]
    The material placed before the court includes an affidavit by the applicant in which she sets out the impacts of the offence on her life. Not unnaturally the applicant’s affidavit dwells primarily on the negative effects of the offence on her, and the reports summarised above are useful in balancing out the applicant’s perceptions of her situation and in identifying the progress made by the applicant since the offence.

22. [22]
    I am satisfied the applicant’s psychological and emotional reactions to the offence are a compensable injury (mental or nervous shock) under the Act. Mental or nervous shock is dealt with in items 31 (minor), 32 (moderate) and 33 (severe) in the compensation table. The legislative scheme requires the court place the applicant’s mental or nervous shock in a continuum where the most serious cases are placed at the top of the continuum and other cases are placed according to their relative seriousness. Although the applicant developed a phobia about banks, indeed about any work or workplace which involved handling money, she has been able to work in administration and as a legal secretary. While her ability to function in the workforce has been detrimentally affected by the offences, she was able to work in the years following the offence. More recently she was able to cope with the stresses of motherhood. Her essential family relationships are intact, and the post traumatic symptoms she has suffered, at least at the date of the last report by Dr Oelrichs, had substantially resolved. The offence did affect her life profoundly and is likely to continue to affect her in the foreseeable future. In all the circumstances I think her mental or nervous shock falls towards the upper half of the moderate category. The range stipulated in the compensation table for moderate cases of mental or nervous shock is 10‑20 percent of the scheme maximum. In all the circumstances, 18 percent is allowed. This calculates out at $13,500.

23. [23]
    A court in assessing compensation is required to take into account any conduct on the part of the applicant that may have contributed directly or indirectly to the injury suffered by the applicant. In this case there is no relevant conduct on the part of the applicant that should reduced the award to which she is otherwise entitled.

Order

24. [24]
    It is ordered that Jason Christopher Ryan pay to Erin Louise Rosolen the sum of $13,500 by way of compensation pursuant to the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995.