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 7 November 2000, namely assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed.

Facts

3. [3]
   On 5 July 2000, the 15 year old complainant was struck on the bridge of her nose by a rock at approximately 9.00 pm. The rock was fired by the respondent from a sling shot (“the incident”).

Injuries

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

• Minor soft tissue facial injuries, principally to the bridge of her nose;
• 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 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. [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 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. [9]
   In her affidavit, the applicant describes her physical injuries as “a very sore nose and a black eye” and “a cut on the bridge of my nose”. Photographs of these injuries in evidence before me reveal them to be very minor.

10. [10]
    In her report dated 26 January 2006, Dr Richardson, psychologist asserts that the applicant is suffering from a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder “in the moderate range” and “moderate to severe” Depression which the applicant “reports is associated with” the incident. The report contains a most cursory history of the applicant which happened long ago in the context of any other life stressors which are not explained. It is therefore a most unsatisfactory report for present purposes.

11. [11]
    The fact that this report has been unchallenged given the nature of this proceeding and the unsurprising failure of the respondent to appear, does not mean that it will necessarily be accepted by the Court as establishing an entitlement to compensation of the magnitude contended for. The absence of a context for the assessment is such that I am not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that all of the psychological symptomatology referred to can be attributed to the incident.

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 – 2%$  1,500.00
• Item 32 – 12% (less 50%)$  4,500.00

$  6,000.00

Order

14. [14]
    I order that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $6,000.00.