Garrett v Lawrence[2010] QDC 62

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Garrett v Lawrence [2010] QDC 62

PARTIES:   SIMON PATRICK GARRETT

    (applicant)

    v

    ADAM LEIGH LAWRENCE

    (respondent)

FILE NO/S:   No 1960 of 2009

ORIGINATING COURT: Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:  2 March 2010

DELIVERED AT:  Brisbane

JUDGE:   Rackemann DCJ

ORDER:  That the respondent pay the applicant compensation in the amount of $3,000.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal compensation – police officer assaulted during violent reaction by respondent – bruising / lacerations – mental or nervous shock

COUNSEL:   Mr Hall for the applicant

    No appearance for the respondent

SOLICITORS:  McCowans Solicitors for the applicant

HIS HONOUR:  This is an application for compensation pursuant the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 for injuries sustained by the applicant as a result of a serious assault, for which the respondent was convicted and sentenced on the 12th of February 2008. The material facts in relation to the incident were set out in my sentencing remarks. It essentially involved a violent struggle by the respondent against two officers who were arresting him. There is no suggestion in the material that the applicant in any way contributed to his injuries.

The injuries for which compensation is claimed is bruising/lacerations and mental or nervous shock. There is little evidence in relation to the bruising/lacerations. The affidavit of the applicant states, in paragraph 10, that he suffered bruising/soft tissue injuries to his arms and legs and that is understandable given the nature of the incident. However, he does not describe the extent of those injuries and in paragraph 11 of his affidavit he says that he didn't see the need to consult a doctor and he simply allowed the injuries to heal.

I accept that the applicant did suffer bruising/soft tissue injuries. In the absence of any further evidence as to the extent of those injuries I assess compensation for those injures in the amount of one per cent of the scheme maximum.

The claim for mental or nervous shock relies upon the evidence of Dr Alan Freed who provided a report on the 30th of November 2008. The hearing of this matter was adjourned on two occasions, partly to enable the applicant to obtain further material in relation to mental or nervous shock, but no further material has been forthcoming.

The report evidences the doctor's understanding of the meaning of mental or nervous shock, at least on the broad approach adopted in R v. Kazakaff ex parte Ferguson [2000] QSC 156. That is the approach which I consider is appropriate to adopt (CA Gorman v. Self [2010] QDC 13).

The doctor concludes that the applicant did suffer mental or nervous shock, but it is evident that the injury in this case was quite short lived. Dr Freed assessed the applicant on the global assessment functioning scale. As at the time of seeing the applicant, the applicant had the same ranking on that scale as he did prior to the incident.

Dr Freed, however, says that for a period of one to two months he suffered symptoms which fell within the ranking which applies to "some mild symptoms."  Those symptoms are more particularly set out in Dr Freed's report and included feelings of anxiety, nightmares and sleeping problems.

Given the extent of the symptoms and the short time period over which they were suffered, in my view the mental or nervous shock injury falls within the minor category and indeed towards the lower end of that category. Accordingly I assess mental or nervous shock injury at three per cent of the scheme maximum. The total assessment of compensation therefore is four per cent of the scheme maximum at $3,000. I order that the respondent pay the applicant compensation in the amount of $3,000.

‑‑‑‑‑