Poi Poi v Amey
[2010] QDC 407
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Poi Poi v Amey[2010] QDC 407
- Add to List
Poi Poi v Amey[2010] QDC 407
Poi Poi v Amey[2010] QDC 407
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | Poi Poi v Amey [2010] QDC 407 |
PARTIES: | EUSTACE RYAN POI POI (Applicant) v CONWAY GEORGE AMEY (Respondent) |
FILE NO/S: | 318 of 2009 |
DIVISION: | |
PROCEEDING: | Application for Criminal Compensation |
ORIGINATING COURT: | District Court, Cairns |
DELIVERED ON: | 29 October 2010 |
DELIVERED AT: | Cairns |
HEARING DATE: | 7 October 2010 |
JUDGE: | Everson DCJ |
ORDER: | That the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $19,500.00. |
CATCHWORDS: | Criminal compensation – physical injuries – psychological injuries Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 R v Jones ex parte Zaicov [2002] QdR 303 at 310 |
COUNSEL: | |
SOLICITORS: | Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant No appearance for the respondent |
- [1]This is an application for a compensation order pursuant to section 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (“COVA”).
- [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 21 May 2008, namely unlawful wounding.
Facts
- [3]Early in the morning of 8 July 2006, the respondent was at a party at a residence in Bamaga. He was drunk and behaving in an aggressive and violent manner. At the request of the woman hosting the party, the applicant escorted the respondent to the front gate. A physical altercation developed between the respondent and the applicant. The respondent, without warning, produced a knife and cut the applicant’s face and left arm (“the incident”).
Injuries
- [4]The applicant suffered the following injuries as a consequence of the incident:
- A 6 cm laceration to his left upper arm;
- A 4 cm laceration to his right cheek;
- A small laceration to his right nostril;
- Psychological sequelae.
The relevant law
- [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]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 the COVA. In R v Jones ex parte Zaicov[1] Holmes 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]Relevantly, the Compensation Table prescribes:
- Item 24 Gunshot/stab wound (minor) … 6% - 10%
- Item 27 Facial disfigurement or bodily scarring
(minor/moderate) … 2% - 10%
- Item 31 Mental or nervous shock (minor) … 2% - 10%
- [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 to 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]A statement of Dr Walker, Medical Superintendent, Bamaga Hospital dated 7 June 2007, records that the applicant required 10 sutures to his left arm and six sutures to his right cheek and that steri-strips were used to treat his nose. Photographs in evidence reveal notable, unsightly scars on the applicant’s face and right arm.
- [10]In her report dated 27 September 2009, Dr Richardson, psychologist concluded that the applicant was suffering from a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in the mild to moderate range.
- [11]I am satisfied that the applicant did not contribute to the injury.
- [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 24 - 8%$ 6,000.00
- Item 27 - 8%$ 6,000.00
- Item 31 - 10%$ 7,500.00
$19,500.00
Order
- [13]I order that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $19,500.00.