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 the respondent was convicted on indictment on 4 October 2007, namely assault occasioning bodily harm in company and threatening violence.

Facts

3. [3]
   The applicant was the victim of a home invasion on the evening of 10 January 2006, by the respondent and two accomplices. The respondent threatened the applicant with an iron bar ultimately striking him in the lower left rib area. The respondent also threatened to burn the applicant’s house down later that night (“the incident”).

Injuries

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

• An 8 cm x 5 cm bruise and abrasion on the left side of his anterior chest;
• 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 1 Bruising/laceration etc (minor/moderate) … 1% - 3%
• Item 32 Mental or nervous shock (moderate) … 10% - 20%

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]
   Although the physical injuries suffered by the applicant were minor, the incident had a profound psychological effect on him. The respondent did return on the night in question and attempted to burn down the applicant’s house. Following the incident the applicant went into hiding, lost his job and suffered insomnia. He sold his house and moved to a new city. The impacts upon his lifestyle have been considerable. In her report dated 2 October 2008, Dr Richardson, psychologist, is of the view that the applicant is suffering from a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in the moderate range and moderate Depression.

10. [10]
    I am satisfied that the applicant did not contribute to the injury.

11. [11]
    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:

Order

12. [12]
    I order that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $12,750.00 by way of compensation.