Lythgo v Lawrence[2010] QDC 63

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

HIS HONOUR: This is an application for compensation pursuant to 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 circumstances of the incident are set out in my sentencing remarks and essentially involve a violent reaction by the respondent towards two arresting officers, one of whom is the applicant. There is no basis in the evidence to conclude that the applicant, in any way, contributed to his injuries.

The injuries for which compensation is claimed is bruising/lacerations and mental and nervous shock. There is little evidence in relation to the severity of the bruising/lacerations. That is a matter which is dealt with in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the applicant's affidavit, where he deposes to having suffered bruising/lacerations which he treated himself and which did not cause him to consult a doctor. The extent of that bruising/lacerations is not further described.

I accept that some bruising/lacerations were suffered but, in the absence of any further evidence of their extent, I assess compensation for that injury at 1 per cent of the scheme maximum.

The mental and nervous shock aspect of the claim relies upon the evidence of Dr Alan Freed who provided a report on the 21st of September 2008. The hearing of this matter was adjourned in order to enable the applicant to obtain further material in relation to this injury, but no further material has been forthcoming.

The report of Dr Freed evidences his appreciation of the meaning of mental or nervous shock, at least on the broad approach adopted in R v Kazakoff, ex parte Ferguson [2000] QSC 156 which is the appropriate approach, in my view (see O'Gorman v Selff [2010] QDC 13).

In Dr Freed's opinion, the applicant did suffer mental and nervous shock. The details of the relevant symptoms are set out in his report and may be generally described as anxiety and the development of a mild speech impediment. It is perhaps a little surprising that an officer of such long experience of street work would suffer such a reaction to this incident. However, I accept that he did and I accept the evidence of Dr Freed.

On Dr Freed's evidence, the applicant's condition is improving but has not resolved. He assessed the applicant on the global assessment of functioning scale. He says that his rank has slipped from the 91 to 100 range to the 81 to 90 range, the latter being described as "absent or minimal symptoms." In that regard, I take his report to mean that symptoms are "minimal" rather than absent.

It is evident that the injury appropriately falls within the minor category of mental and nervous shock. In the circumstances, I assess compensation for mental and nervous shock in the amount of 7 per cent of the scheme maximum, bringing the total compensation assessed to 8 per cent of the scheme maximum, being $6,000.

Accordingly, I order that the respondent pay the applicant compensation in the amount of $6,000.