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 a personal offence for which the respondent was convicted on indictment on 10 May 2006, namely grievous bodily harm.

Facts

3. [3]
   The applicant is a police officer. In the course of performing her duties in Cairns on 11 October 2005, she was struck in the face without warning by the respondent (“the incident”).

Injuries

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

• A left tripod fracture of the zygoma;

• An undisplaced fracture of the left coronoid process of the mandible;

• 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:

Item 7: Facial fracture (moderate)………… 14%-20%

Item 31: Mental or nervous shock (minor)…. 2%-10%

8. [8]
   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

9. [9]
   I have been provided with a report of Dr Finn, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon dated 15 April 2009, which records that he performed surgery on the applicant on 14 October 2005. Neither fracture was plated. Dr Finn was of the view that whilst “facial form and function have been returned, there may be some elements of jaw joint dysfunction, which remain” and that the applicant probably would “never have a completely normal jaw again”. A report of Dr Ding, Consultant Psychiatrist, dated 10 August 2006, has also been put in evidence before the Court. It records the applicant developing a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (“PTSD”) and Depression following the incident. He summarised her symptomatology in, inter alia, the following terms:-

“She experienced intrusive symptoms in her nightmares and daytime flashbacks, marked hyper-arousal with a constant need to check her windows and doors and over-reaction to noises outside her house, over-reaction to the sight of male Aboriginals and associated avoidant behaviour.

There was a degree of depression in mood and certainly heightened anxiety, both of which affected her day to day adjustment with significant subjective distress.”

10. [10]
    Dr Ding observed that there had been “significant improvement with the passage of time and treatment”, noting that the applicant had returned to work after six weeks of sick leave, such that her “psychiatric disorder is now in partial remission with some persistent symptoms”.

11. [11]
    I am satisfied that the applicant did not contribute to the injury.

12. [12]
    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 7:   18%   $13,500.00

Item 31:  10%   $  7,500.00

      $21,000.00

Order

13. [13]
    I order that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $21,000.00.