DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

1. [1]
   Shane Michael Geritz (the applicant) applies pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 for compensation for injuries he sustained when he was unlawfully wounded by Vicky Leah Geritz (the respondent) on 17 July 2004.

2. [2]
   The respondent was convicted on her plea of guilty to the offence of unlawful wounding on 9 March 2007 in the District Court at Beenleigh before His Honour Judge Dearden.

3. [3]
   The applicant claims compensation for physical injuries and for mental or nervous shock. I am satisfied that the offence of unlawful wounding to which the respondent entered the plea of guilty on 9 March 2007 is a personal offence and that the injuries sustained by the applicant are compensatible.

4. [4]
   The respondent did not appear, however, on 20 June 2008 Dearden DCJ granted leave for service to be executed by ordinary pre-paid mail on the respondent at 4 Stuart Street, Marsden. Ms Hewitt, for the applicant, swears that On 24 October 2008 the respondent was notified that the hearing was to be heard on 3 December 2008 at 10am.

5. [5]
   The respondent’s name was called three times by the Bailiff and there was no appearance. I am satisfied that all steps have been taken to formally notify the respondent of the proceedings and under those circumstances I am satisfied that sufficient notice has been given of the hearing of the application.

Background

6. [6]
   The applicant is the brother of the respondent, due to a family breakdown they were brought up in separate households.

7. [7]
   On 17 July 2004 the applicant was drinking and an argument commenced over the playing of music on a stereo. After a short argument the respondent stabbed the applicant. The applicant sustained three stab wounds, one to the right arm, one to the chest/abdomen and one to the left chest wall.

8. [8]
   The applicant was admitted to the Princess Alexandra Hospital for some ten days.

9. [9]
   In the Schedule of Agreed Facts tendered on sentence, the following facts appeared:

“On Saturday, 17 July 2004 at about 6pm the complainant was in the company of four friends at his house and they were drinking beer and listening to some music while seated on the back porch. The accused was at home at the beginning of the evening. The complainant described the music as moderate and volume may be a bit loud, everybody was in a good happy mood. At about 6:30pm and while everyone was seated out the back of their house, the accused came home through the front door and she stood inside the back screen door and started yelling and screaming at the complainant annoyed that he was using her stereo to play the music. She was also complaining about everyone drinking alcohol. The complainant went inside the house to speak to the accused and told her that if she did not want them playing her stereo he would turn it off. The accused then turned it off and a verbal argument ensued between the accused. The accused kept on at the complainant at which time he went outside and told her that if she kept carrying on he was going to come back inside and knock her out if she kept it up. The complainant did not physically touch her in any way. The complainant describes it quietening down for a short while and he finished drinking his beer outside. He says that when he finished his beer he then got up and walked to the screen door. He didn’t see where the accused was at that point so he slid the screen door open halfway and as soon as he did this the accused appeared in front of him and the accused then jabbed the complainant with a 30 cm kitchen knife two or three times. The complainant describes the accused using jabbing or punching motions to the chest.” 

Contribution

10. [10]
    The Applicant’s Outline of Argument includes at point 4.3.2:

“The applicant has said to the respondent that if she kept carrying on he was going to come back inside and knock her out.”

After the applicant made that statement the respondent obtained the kitchen knife and attacked the applicant.

11. [11]
    The primary judge made no comment upon contribution. However, it is clear on the face of the material placed before His Honour that there was a threat made before the respondent armed herself with a knife.

12. [12]
    The materials relied upon by the applicant do not include a transcript of submissions on sentence.

13. [13]
    In my view the applicant has by his conduct contributed to the injuries and I assess the contribution at 20%.

Injuries

14. [14]
    The applicant claims compensation for physical injuries and scarring caused by stab wounds and also for mental or nervous shock.

15. [15]
    In his sentencing comments, the primary Judge described the injuries in the following terms:

“The medical examination says that his injuries involved puncture wounds to the right arm, abdomen and his left chest including a puncture to his lungs. The most serious of these was the stab wound to the left chest wall near the left nipple, which breached the true skin and required a chest catheter to drain the fluid in between the lungs and the chest wall.”

16. [16]
    The applicant was interviewed by Dr Barbara McGuire on 12 September 2008. Dr McGuire opines:

“He has Post Traumatic Stress Disorder characterised by nightmares, flashbacks and avoidant behaviour and hyper vigilance. He suffers from this condition to a moderate degree. The prognosis is that overtime it should improve. His alcohol abuse preceded the incidence but it has been exacerbated by it. He now demonstrates problem drinking endangering his job. He never had any treatment or counselling.”

The claim

17. [17]
    The applicant seeks an award of compensation for the three stab wounds and bodily scarring.

18. [18]
    Ms Hewitt for the applicant submits that a separate award should be made for each of the three stab wounds and additionally for bodily scarring.

19. [19]
    Her Honour Judge Kingham considered a similar application in the matter of Corne v Jansen [2008] QDC 262. Her Honour had to consider an application for compensation where there were various injuries which were sustained as part of the same course of conduct. Her Honour made the following observations:

“In assessing compensation, it is incumbent upon the court to ensure that there is no duplication of compensation but ‘it is equally important to ensure that an applicant is fully compensated as the current scheme properly permits’ (R v Pangilinan; ex parte Owens [2001] QSC 391)

It is 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 (Zaico & McKenna v Jones [2001] QCA 442). In this case I consider it is appropriate to adopt the latter approach.”

20. [20]
    I respectfully adopt Her Honour’s reasoning. In my view, it is not appropriate to award three separate awards of compensation under Items 26, 25 and 24 for the three stab wounds as claimed by the applicant nor in my view is it appropriate to make a separate award for bodily scarring.

21. [21]
    The better course is to provide one award of compensation for a stab wounds under Item 26 recognising the fact there have been three stab wounds and there has been some bodily scarring.

22. [22]
    I am satisfied that the applicant has suffered mental or nervous shock.

23. [23]
    It is clear on the agreed statement of facts that there was a degree of contribution by the applicant and in present case I assess the contribution at 20%. I award compensation calculated as follows:

Item 26 – 30% = $22,500

Item 32 – Mental or Nervous Shock (Moderate) - 10% = $7,500 

Total - $30,000 discounted by 20% or $6,000 = $24,000

24. [24]
    I award the applicant the sum of $24,000 compensation for injuries sustained by him as a result of the commission of offences for which the respondent was convicted on 9 March 2007.