Dickson v Economidis[2007] QDC 124

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Introduction

1. [1]
   The applicant Daniel Joshua Dickson seeks compensation in respect of injuries suffered by him arising out of an armed robbery which occurred on 4 July 2004, resulting in the respondent, Matthew Economidis, pleading guilty before Judge Tutt in the Beenleigh District Court on 4 October 2005 to a range of charges including (relevantly) a count of armed robbery in which the applicant was the complainant. The respondent (who was a juvenile at the time the offence was committed) was (relevantly) sentenced to nine months detention but released on a conditional release order for a period of three months. A conviction was recorded.

Facts

2. [2]
   The respondent was born on 6 June 1988 and at the time of the relevant offence (4July 2004) was 16 years old. The facts of the offence as outlined by the prosecutor on the sentence hearing before Judge Tutt are as follows:-

“Shortly after midnight on 4 July 2004, [the respondent] entered the BP Express on Mt Lindsay Highway, Regents Park. He walked up to the counter and produced a silver pistol. He was wearing a black balaclava at the time.

[The] console operator moved back behind a security door and [the respondent] demanded that he come out to the register. [The respondent] then demanded that the console operator move all of the money from the register and place it in a backpack. [The applicant] pleaded with [the respondent] not to shoot him and [the respondent] stated ‘Don’t worry. You’ll probably get compo for this’.

[The respondent] then demanded the Longbeach brand of cigarettes. Once [the applicant] had put all of the Longbeach cigarettes into the bag, [the respondent] grabbed the bag off the counter and walked out of the service station. [The applicant] pressed the alarm button and called police. The robbery was captured on video surveillance. Fingerprints were obtained from the counter area.

[The respondent] did have a pistol pointed in the direction of the 18 year old [applicant] for the entire duration of the robbery. [The respondent] left with $303.75 in cash and nine packets of Longbeach cigarettes valued at $100.

[The respondent] participated in a record-of-interview and during that interview, [the respondent] made full admissions to entering the store, producing the pistol, demanding the money and cigarettes and wearing a balaclava. [The respondent] further [stated] that he was pretty wasted on pot and alcohol at the time of committing the offence.”^[1]

Injuries

3. [3]
   The applicant did not sustain any physical injuries as a result of the offence but (it is submitted) suffered mental or nervous shock, namely chronic post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Law

4. [4]
   This is an application under s. 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (“COVA”). COVA commenced operation on 18 December 1995 and provides for compensation in respect of convictions on indictment of a personal offence for injuries 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 in Schedule 1. 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.

Compensation

5. [5]
   Mr Kimmins, counsel for the applicant, seeks compensation under one item as follows:-

3. (1)
   Item 32 - mental or nervous shock (moderate) (10%-20%)

The report of Peter Stoker, clinical psychologist^[2] indicates that as a result of the incident, the applicant was “suffering from a chronic post-traumatic stress disorder (DSM-IV)”. Mr Stoker noted that the applicant “continues to suffer flashbacks and nightmares of the index incident”; was “more fearful of the potential for further armed hold-up”; was “distrustful and irritable”; would “benefit from approximately 20 sessions of psychological counselling to help stabilise his emotional functioning”; was “self-medicating with the use of cannabis and [had] developed a cannabis dependency (DSM-IV)”; and “should be referred to a psychiatrist to ascertain his requirement for anti-depressant medication as he [the applicant] is now suffering moderate and severe levels of depression.”^[3]  Although Mr Stoker considered that “with counselling, medication and the passage of time” he would “expect [the applicant’s] psychological health to improve”, Mr Stoker concluded that the applicant “suffered a moderate degree of mental and nervous shock” and that the applicant’s “percentage of psychological impairment [was] in the middle to upper level of the moderate range”.^[4]

6. [6]
   Mr Kimmins submits that an appropriate award, given this report, would be a figure of 20 per cent (i.e. the top of the moderate range in Item 32 of Schedule 1). In my view, given the report of Mr Stoker, this is an appropriate submission. Accordingly, I award 20 per cent of the scheme maximum ($15,000) under Item 32.

Contribution

7. [7]
   It is clear that the applicant did not contribute in any way to his own injuries^[5].

Conclusion

8. [8]
   Accordingly, I order that the respondent, Matthew William James Economidis, pay the applicant, Daniel Joshua Dickson, the sum of $15,000.