DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

1. [1]
   This is an application by Ms Corne pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 for compensation for injuries she sustained on 2 December 2003 when she was the victim of a serious assault by Mr Jansen.  Mr Jansen pleaded guilty to that offence on 7 December 2005.  Mr Jansen was personally served with the application and supporting material.  He did not appear at the hearing.

2. [2]
   On the day of the offence Ms Corne, who was a Constable of Police, was called to respond to a report of domestic violence. Mr Jansen was affected by alcohol and was aggressive and argumentative. He shook Ms Corne violently causing immediate and severe pain to her neck. He also punched her body and shoulder a number of times causing bruising, pain and an injury to her shoulder which eventually required corrective surgery. After a violent struggle, Mr Jansen was restrained and taken into custody. Ms Corne experienced severe pain and discomfort and required immediate medical attention.

3. [3]
   Mr Jansen sustained a hyperflexion/hyperextension neck injury from which she suffered for approximately six months. This has now fully resolved. The blows to her left shoulder area caused a subacromial bursitis which required surgery. After that her shoulder stabilised but Ms Corne suffers a permanent impairment of function of the left shoulder which Dr Stabler has assessed at 3%. She also bears an unsightly surgical scar (5.1cm x .9cm) to the front of her left shoulder. The scar is clearly visible if Ms Corne wears sleeveless attire.

4. [4]
   In assessing compensation, it is incumbent upon the court to ensure there is no duplication of compensation but “it is equally important to ensure that an applicant is as fully compensated as the current scheme properly permits.” (R v Pangilinan; Ex parte Owens)

5. [5]
   It is certainly open to separately assess the injury to the shoulder and the scarring. It is also open to regard the scarring as part and parcel of the shoulder injury. (Zaicov & McKenna v Jones at [25]) In this case, I consider it appropriate to adopt the latter approach.

6. [6]
   Ms Corne also sustained psychological injuries. She has consulted three practitioners, a Psychiatrist, Dr Boulnois, and Psychologists, Paul Ruston and Alan Chittenden. All three diagnosed Ms Corne as suffering from an adjustment disorder.

7. [7]
   The most recent report is by Alan Chittenden on 7 September 2006. He diagnosed her as then still suffering from an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. This assessment was made almost two years after the incident. Mr Chittenden opined she suffered from a moderate degree of psychological impact and would benefit from effective counselling.

8. [8]
   It is clear from the reports of Dr Boulnois and Mr Chittenden that a significant contributing factor to Ms Corne’s ongoing psychological injury is the treatment she experienced from work colleagues after she returned to work. Both referred to the significance of workplace bullying and harassment and the lack of support she experienced within the service.

9. [9]
   The contribution of intervening workplace bullying and harassment is a matter which is relevant to assessing what compensation should be awarded (s 25(7)). Neither practitioner has attempted to apportion between the two contributors to her condition. It is not appropriate for me to attempt that exercise, given the nature of the condition and the paucity of information in the reports.

10. [10]
    The preferable course is to fix a lower percentage on the compensation scale to reflect that contribution (Say v Az; ex parte A-G (Qld) at [23]).   Whilst the applicant sought an award under Item 32 – Mental or Nervous Shock (Moderate), taking into account the diagnosis is of an adjustment disorder, Item 31 seems apt. But for the contribution of the subsequent workplace harassment, I would have fixed an award towards the top of the range at 9%.  Taking into account the intervening contribution, I have reduced the award by 2% to 7%.

11. [11]
    Ms Corne did not contribute to the injuries or the circumstances in which she sustained them such as to justify a reduction in her award. I assess compensation at $21,000 calculated on the following basis:

1. (a)
   Item 22 – Neck/Back/Chest Injury (Moderate) - 5% of the scheme maximum = $3,750;

2. (b)
   Item 13 – Fracture, loss of use of shoulder – 15% of the scheme maximum = $12,000. 

3. (c)
   Item 31 – Mental or Nervous Shock (Minor) – 7% of the scheme maximum = $5,250

12. [12]
    I order Mr Jansen pay Ms Corne $21,000 by way of compensation for injuries she sustained as a result of the offence for which Mr Jansen was convicted on 7 December 2005.