DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

1. [1]
   This is an application for a compensation order pursuant to section 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (“COVA”).

2. [2]
   The injuries giving rise to the application were suffered as a result of personal offences for which each of the respondents were convicted on indictment on 24 January 2007, namely one count of burglary with a circumstance of aggravation, two counts of deprivation of liberty and one count of common assault.

Facts

3. [3]
   The offences occurred on the evening of 14 February 2006 when the armed, masked respondents forcibly entered the applicant’s dwelling. They tied up the applicant and a colleague by applying electrical tape to their hands and feet and threatened them with the weapons they were carrying which included knives and a baseball bat. During his ordeal the applicant feared for his life and that of his colleague (“the incident”). Their ordeal was only brought to an end by the arrival of the police.

Injuries

4. [4]
   The applicant suffered the following injuries as a consequence of the incident:

• Ligature marks on his hands and feet from being taped with electrical tape;

• Psychological sequelae.

The relevant law

5. [5]
   COVA establishes a scheme for the payment of compensation to the victims of certain indictable offences including those who suffer “injury” as defined in section 20, being “bodily injury, mental or nervous shock, pregnancy or any injury specified in the compensation table as prescribed under a regulation.”

6. [6]
   Pursuant to section 25 of COVA, a compensation order may only be made up to the scheme maximum of $75,000 specified in section 2 of the Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 (“COVR”) using the percentages listed for an injury specified in the Compensation Table in SCHEDULE 1 of COVA. In R v Jones ex parte Zaicov^[1] Homes J described the process in the following terms:

“Thus, my examination of the section convinces me that a two or three stage process is entailed. Where there is more than one injury, the first step is to arrive at the amounts in respect of each injury, the second is to add those amounts together, and the third, to arrive at the compensation order.”         

7. [7]
   Relevantly the Compensation Table prescribes:

8. [8]

1.Bruising/laceration etc (minor/moderate) ………… 1% - 3%

32.Mental or nervous shock (moderate) ………… 10% - 20%

9. [9]
   Section 25 of COVA also states that the court, in determining the amount that should be paid for an injury, “should have regard to everything relevant, including, for example, any behaviour of the applicant that directly or indirectly contributed to the injury.” Furthermore the process of assessing compensation pursuant to COVA does not involve applying principles used to decide common law damages for personal injuries and the maximum amount of compensation provided for is reserved for the most serious cases, with the amounts provided in other cases intended to be scaled accordingly.^[2] If an injury is not specifically listed in the Compensation Table the court must decide the amount of compensation by comparing the injury or injuries under injuries listed in the Compensation Table and having regard to the amounts that may be ordered to be paid for these injuries.^[3]

The Assessment

10. [10]
    The applicant records that the ligature marks “took a few days to go down”. In her report dated 20 January 2008 Dr Richardson, psychologist concluded that the applicant was suffering from a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in the moderate range and a Major Depressive Disorder which she specifies as being mild to moderate. She records that the applicant attributes responsibility for his “distress” such that he feels that the first respondent, the third respondent and the fourth respondent are each 30% responsible and that the second respondent is 10% responsible. In his sentencing remarks dated 1 February 2007 Griffin SC DCJ concluded that the first and third respondents were “significantly involved” in the incident, that the fourth respondent was “somewhat less involved” and that the involvement of the second respondent was “the least involvement of all”. He further recorded that in untying the applicant’s hands the second respondent demonstrated “some compassion”.

11. [11]
    Pursuant to s 26 of COVA, I find that each of the respondents directly and materially contributed to the applicant’s injuries. In providing for separate liability for each of the respondents for an amount scaled according to their respective contributions to the applicant’s injuries, I find the percentages nominated by the applicant to be appropriate. They are broadly consistent with the findings made by the sentencing judge which are set out above.

12. [12]
    I am satisfied that the applicant did not contribute to the injury.

13. [13]
    Having regard to the evidence before me and in particular to the matters set out above, I assess compensation pursuant to COVA and the Compensation Table as follows:

Item 1:   1%   $    750.00

Item 32:   15%   $11,250.00

       $12,000.00

Order

14. [14]
    I order that the respondents jointly pay the applicant the sum of $12,000 and that they be separately liable for the following amounts:-

• The first respondent:   $3,600.00

• The second respondent   $1,200.00

• The third respondent   $3,600.00

• Third fourth respondent  $3,600.00