YBB v PFX[2012] QDC 243

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

1. [1]
   This is an application for criminal compensation pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 and also pursuant to regulation 1A of the Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 for the impact of two sexual offences. The applicant’s date of birth is 4 August 1992. At the time of the relevant offences, he was aged approximately 12-13 years and is now aged 19 years. The respondent to this application was aged approximately 35-36 years at the date of the offences. He was a friend of the applicant’s family.

2. [2]
   The Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 and the Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 were repealed by the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009, which commenced on 1 December 2009.  Chapter six of the latter Act deals with repealed and transitional provisions.  Section 155(1) of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 provides that where a conviction happens before commencement, a person may apply to the Court for an order for criminal injuries compensation if s 154(1)(a)(i) applies to the person. It may be accepted that, had the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 not commenced, the applicant could have applied to the Court for compensation under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995. Section 167(2) provides that if a person has applied to the Court for an order for compensation under the old scheme, then the Court must hear and determine the application under the repealed provision.

3. [3]
   The respondent was found guilty of the following counts on 16 November 2007 at the District Court at Brisbane:

Count 1: Indecent treatment of a child under 16 on a date unknown between 1 February 2005 and 1 October 2005; and

Count 2: Indecent treatment of a child under 16 on a date unknown on or about 1 January 2006.

He was sentenced on 14 March 2008.

4. [4]
   It is apparent, therefore, that the convictions occurred prior to the commencement of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 and that the provisions of s 155(1) of that Act have been satisfied.

5. [5]
   Section 154 of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 provides as follows:

1) This division applies if –

1. a)
   a person could have, if this chapter had not commenced, applied to a court for an order requiring the payment of compensation for injury suffered because of a personal offence committed before the commencement, under –

1. i)
   section 24 of the repealed Act; or

2. ii)
   section 663B of the repealed Criminal Code chapter; and

2. b)
   at the commencement, the person has not made an application under a provision mentioned in paragraph (a)(i) or (ii) for the injury.

6. [6]
   Section 24 of the repealed Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 provides that if ‘the convicted person’ is convicted on indictment of a personal offence the person against whom the personal offence was committed may apply to the Court for an order that the convicted person pay compensation for injuries suffered because of the offence.

7. [7]
   It may be accepted, then, that the applicant is a person who could have applied under s 24 of the repealed Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 by reason of the fact that he is the victim of a personal offence committed against him by the respondent who was convicted on 16 November 2007 in the District Court.  Section 154 (1)(a)(i) of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 is satisfied.

8. [8]
   The affidavit of James Robert Hodge, commercial agent, filed 29 June 2012 establishes to my satisfaction that the respondent was served on 18 June 2012 with the following documents:

1. (a)
   Letter from Legal Aid Queensland dated 6 June 2012 giving notice of intention to proceed with the application on 13 August 2012;

2. (b)
   Originating application (Filed on 13 January 2010);

3. (c)
   Affidavit of the applicant;

4. (d)
   Affidavit of Dr Sandra Michelle Hacker; and

5. (e)
   Affidavit of Lorraine Penshorn, paralegal with Legal Aid Queensland.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the respondent at the hearing of this application.

9. [9]
   Section 155(2) of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 provides that an application must be made before the earlier of the following:

1. a)
   the expiry of the period within which the person could have, if this chapter had not commenced, applied for the order mentioned in section 154(1)(a);

2. b)
   the end of two months after the commencement.

In relation to s 155(2)(b), the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 commenced, as previously noted, on 1 December 2009.  Under s 155(2)(b) an applicant therefore had until 31 January 2010 to apply for orders from a court under s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995.  This application was filed on 19 January 2010, thus complying with the provisions of s 155(2)(b) of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009.

10. [10]
    Section 155(3) of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 provides that the court to which the application is made must hear and decide the application under the relevant provision.  Section 155(4) provides that for subsection (3), the repealed provision, and any other provisions of the repealed legislation that are necessary or convenient to be used in relation to the application, continue to apply as if chapter six of the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 had not commenced.

11. [11]
    As previously indicated, the offences were committed against the applicant on a date unknown between 1 February 2005 and 1 October 2005 in relation to count one, and on or about 1 January 2006 in relation to count two. Accordingly, the application for compensation is properly commenced under the provisions of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995.  Section 40(1) of that Act provides that an application to a court for a compensation order against a convicted person must be made:

1. a)
   within three years after the end of the convicted person’s trial; or

2. b)
   if the applicant is a child at the time of the trial – before the end of three years after the child becomes an adult; or

3. c)
   with the Court’s order under s 41 – at any other time.

12. [12]
    The respondent pleaded not guilty in the District Court at Brisbane on 14 November 2007 to two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 years.  He was found guilty on 16 November 2007 of the offences and was sentenced on 14 March 2008 to imprisonment for 12 months, suspended forthwith for an operative period of two years.  The date of birth of the applicant is 4 August 1992.  The applicant was thus aged 15 years at the date of conviction and sentence.  He therefore had three years from the date he turned 18 (that is until 4 August 2013) to file his application for criminal compensation.  The application was filed on 19 January 2010 and therefore has been filed within time under s 40(1) of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995.

13. [13]
    A further issue arises in relation to continuation of proceedings after a period of delay. Rule 389 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 states:

1)  if no step has been taken in a proceeding for one year from the time the last step was taken, a party who wants to proceed must, before taking any step in the proceeding, give a month’s notice to every other party of the party’s intention to proceed.

2)  if no step has been taken in a proceeding for two years from the time the last step was taken, a new step may not be taken without the order of the court, which may be made either with or without notice.

3)  for this rule, an application in which no order has been made is not taken to be a step.

14. [14]
    In this application r 389(2) is relevant, the application having been filed on 19 January 2010, and the Court’s leave is sought to continue with the application. In Tyler v Custom Credit Corp Ltd and ors [2000] QCA 178 the Court of Appeal held that the Court’s discretion in deciding whether to give leave to proceed under r 389 is not to be fettered by rigid rules.  Atkinson J (with whom McMurdo P and McPherson JA agreed) identified a number of factors which a Court will take into account:

1)  how long ago the events alleged in the statement of claim occurred and what delay there was before the litigation commenced;

2)  how long ago the litigation was commenced or causes of action were added;

3) what prospects the plaintiff has of success in the action;

4) whether or not there has been disobedience of court orders or directions;

5) whether or not the litigation has been characterised by periods of delay;

6) whether the delay is attributable to the plaintiff, the defendant, or both the plaintiff and the defendant;

7 whether or not the impecuniosity of the plaintiff has been responsible for the pace of the litigation and whether the defendant is responsible for the plaintiff’s impecuniosity;

8) whether the litigation between the parties would be concluded by the striking out of the plaintiff’s claim;

9) how far the litigation has progressed;

10) whether or not the delay has been caused by the plaintiff’s lawyers being dilatory.  Such dilatoriness will not necessarily be sheeted home to the client but it may be.  Delay for which an applicant for leave to proceed is responsible is regarded as more difficult to explain than delay by his or her legal advisors;

11) whether there is a satisfactory explanation for the delay;

12) whether or not the delay has resulted in prejudice to the defendant leading to an inability to ensure a fair trial.

15. [15]
    In relation to points 1 and 2 it should be noted that the applicant’s right to commence an application under s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 did not accrue until the date of conviction (16 November 2007).  Because the applicant was a child at the time of trial he had three years after which time he became an adult to make his application.  The applicant’s date of birth being 4 August 1992, he had until 4 August 2013 to commence these proceedings.  The application was filed in this court within time on 19 January 2010.

16. [16]
    In relation to point 3 the medical evidence relied upon in support of the application, and in particular the report of Dr Sandra M Hacker, psychiatrist, which will be considered in due course, clearly establish good prospects of success for the application.

17. [17]
    In relation to point 4 there has been no disobedience of court orders or directions in this matter.

18. [18]
    In relation to points 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 the applicant relies upon an affidavit sworn by Patricia Maree James filed 3 August 2012. Ms James is a lawyer in the employ of Legal Aid Queensland who has the carriage of this matter on behalf of the applicant. Ms James states as follows:

2.  On 16 July 2009, Legal Aid Queensland granted the applicant legal assistance to make a claim for criminal compensation.

3.  In the initial stages of the file, the Litigation Guardian changed her contact details without informing Legal Aid Queensland and this contributed to delay in obtaining the necessary Authorities and Acknowledgements signed by her before any work could be commenced on the file.

Effect of change of legislation

4.  On 1 December 2009 the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (COVA) was repealed and the Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (VOCAA) introduced a new statutory scheme for making applications for criminal injuries compensation.  In order to proceed with an application for compensation under the old scheme provided by COVA, the application had to be filed within strict time limits prescribed by the transitional provisions of VOCAA.

5.  Applications for criminal injuries compensation are handled by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Unit within Legal Aid Queensland.  The Criminal Injuries Compensation Unit is staffed by the full-time equivalent of 2.1 lawyers and 3 full time paralegals.  This has been the case for many years and was certainly case from well before the enactment of VOCAA.

6.  The change of legislation resulted in a very large number of applications for assistance for criminal injuries compensation being made to Legal Aid Queensland over a very short period of time.  As a consequence, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Unit was required to obtain written instructions from each existing client, a number in the vicinity of 400, as to which scheme the client wished to proceed with.  Very few clients opted to proceed under the new scheme.

7.  In order to meet the statutory limits, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Unit had to lodge ex gratia applications with the Department of Justice and Attorney General by 1 December 2009 and file all court applications by 31 January 2010.

8.  This resulted in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Unit having to manage an exceptionally large caseload of active files from early 2010.  As a consequence, the timeframe in which preparatory work could be complete on individual files became drawn out in virtually every case.  This file was no exception.

9.  TBB instructed Legal Aid Queensland to proceed with YBB’s application under COVA and the Originating Application was filed on 19 January 2010 so that it would not be statute-barred.

10.  There was a short delay in the provision of material from the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and then further delay in obtaining a report from Lifeline Caboolture requested on the applicant’s behalf.

11.   Once all of the conviction and background medial material was obtained, an appointment was made for the applicant to attend a psychiatric appointment in Brisbane on 28 July 2010.

12.  This appointment had to be cancelled as the applicant was living in Victoria at that time.  An appointment with another psychiatrist had to be made and there was some difficulty in finding a psychiatrist who was prepared to do a medico-legal report at Legal Aid rates in the area in which the applicant resided.  This added to the delay in the matter.

13.  The applicant eventually saw Dr Hacker, Psychiatrist on 8 February 2011.

14.  After receipt of Dr Hacker’s report, steps were taken to obtain instructions from the applicant for the purposes of preparing his affidavit in support of the application for compensation.

15.  Preparation of the applicant’s affidavit was delayed, in part because of the apparent difficulty faced by him in undertaking this task. I was informed by the TBB, on 27 February 2012 that the applicant was having difficulty talking to me about the effects of the offences.  There were also delays in Legal Aid Queensland following up the provision of information due to the circumstances described in paragraphs 6 to 8 of this affidavit.

16.  Dr Hacker was also requested to provide a supplementary report addressing relevant matters.  Again, due to the circumstances described in paragraphs 6 to 8 of this affidavit, there was initial delay in reverting to Dr Hacker for this purpose.  Ultimately two addendum reports were required and received from Dr Hacker dated 31 January 2012 and 14 March 2012 respectively.

17.  All affidavits in support of the application for compensation were filed in the Court on 30 April 2012, apart from the Affidavit of Service which was filed on 29 June 2012.

19. [19]
    In the circumstances outlined in the affidavit of Ms James, I am of the view that the delays in this litigation have been satisfactorily explained. In particular any delay caused by the applicant himself has to be assessed in the context of the effects upon him of the unlawful conduct of the respondent. The huge burden on the workload of those employed in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Unit at Legal Aid Queensland as a result of the change in law relating to victims legislation on 1 December 2009 has clearly had a very significant effect on the capacity of that unit to effectively manage cases in a timely fashion.

20. [20]
    In any event I am unable to discern any prejudice to the defendant as a result of the delays in bringing this application. In particular it should be noted that all relevant material has been available to the respondent including transcripts of proceedings and witness statements to police together with all relevant medical evidence including reports from Dr Hacker. The applicant’s affidavit was filed 30 April 2012 and was served together with all other relevant material upon the respondent on 18 June 2012. Furthermore, there is no suggestion that any witness is unavailable for purposes of cross-examination notwithstanding that the offences occurred some six or seven years ago. I note that the material served upon the respondent on 18 June 2012 included a letter from Legal Aid Queensland dated 6 June 2012 in which the respondent was given one month’s notice of the applicant’s intention to proceed with the application on 13 August 2012 under r389(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999.  The suggestion was made in that letter that the respondent should seek independent legal advice regarding the application.

21. [21]
    I accept that all reasonable steps have been taken by Legal Aid Queensland to prepare this matter for hearing and that it is appropriate for the Court to grant the applicant leave to continue with the application.

22. [22]
    The facts the subject of this application may be shortly summarised. The applicant’s date of birth is 4 August 1992 and at the time of the offences he was aged approximately 12-13 years. The respondent was aged approximately 35-36 years at the time of the commission of the offences. He was a friend of the applicant’s family. The Crown Prosecutor outlined to the Court the facts of the offences as follows –

‘Your Honour, the complainant in the matter was aged either 12 or 13 at the time of the offence.  The defendant – sorry, the prisoner was known to the complainant.  They were spending time together at the complaint’s address in Blackbutt and they were watching movies.  Some time during the night the complainant fell asleep on the mattress in the lounge room.  During the night he woke up and he felt someone’s hand being pulled back from inside the complainant’s shorts.  It was pulled out quickly.

At that time he noticed the prisoner laying alongside him with his hand lengthways next to him; I suppose closest to the complainant.  The complainant then rolled away from the prisoner, pretended he was asleep.  The prisoner moved away.  The complainant to the best he can recall though that event occurred about a month before the family moved away from Blackbutt.

On New Year’s Eve in 2005, this relates to count 2, the complainant at this point was 13 years old.  The complainant and the prisoner were on a camping trip to Rainbow Beach.  The complainant and the prisoner were sleeping in a tent.  On the night of New Year’s day the complainant woke up.  He observed the prisoner behind- sorry, behind him lying up against him and hugging the complainant tightly.  At that time the complainant felt something pressed against his bottom.  He believed, and those were his words, he believed that was the prisoner’s penis.  He tried to get away.  The prisoner said something like, “No, you stay here, it’s all right.” The complainant just laid back with his eyes open. After about two minutes he stood up and left.’

23. [23]
    In his affidavit filed on 30 April 2012 the applicant confirmed that he attended upon Dr Hacker, psychiatrist, on 8 February 2011 and explained to her how the offences had affected him. The applicant stated that he has read Dr Hacker’s report provided to his solicitors for the purpose of this application dated 14 February 2011, together with the doctor’s addendum report dated 31 January 2012 and her further addendum report dated 14 March 2012. The applicant confirmed that he told Dr Hacker the truth as to the effects of the offences upon him and agreed that the effects on his life of the offences have been correctly detailed in Dr Hacker’s reports and that those effects are continuing.

24. [24]
    The applicant has detailed in his affidavit the ways in which the offences have affected his education, employment, relationships and lifestyle. After the offences had been committed the applicant felt that he did not deserve to be ‘like anyone else…I didn’t feel good enough’. The applicant could not talk to other people or even be around other people. He was unable to participate in any activity in or out of school and failed to attend school almost every day. He had no compulsion to perform any school work at all. He got into fights with friends and family and pushed people away. Prior to the incidents the applicant was school captain in primary school and was a very outgoing child, however since the incident he became withdrawn and preferred to stay in the background. He now finds it difficult to trust people in general. After the incidents he found it difficult to make friends. He has become constantly concerned about security and is always locking doors and windows at home.

25. [25]
    The applicant stated that he continues to suffer flashbacks of the offences which can sometimes last for days. Images become stuck in his head and small things trigger distressing memories. He feels angry should he see anyone who resembles the respondent or if he hears anyone with a name similar to that of the respondent. He also feels physically sick when this happens. Should he watch a television programme dealing with any form of abuse he begins to feel nauseous and uncomfortable. He tries to block out memories of the abuse he suffered at the hands of the respondent. Since the offences the applicant is more irritable and angry to the stage where he has punched holes in the wall and becomes involved in fights.

26. [26]
    The applicant now has little faith or trust in people generally and in particular is mistrustful of older men. He found the legal process extremely distressing, being required to give evidence. He stated that he experiences feelings of depression following the incidents. At those times he is angry and irritable and finds it hard to be in the company of other people. He also at such times experiences feelings of guilt which can last for a week during which he has suicidal thoughts. The applicant does not take any medication for his symptoms because he worries about the stigma attached to taking such medication. He is also concerned about the potential side effects of anti-depressant medication.

27. [27]
    The applicant stated the following the incidents he turned to drugs and alcohol and felt worthless. He did not care what happened to him between the ages of 13-16. He claims that he was ‘either couch-surfing or living on the streets’ and that he became reckless. He no longer played soccer which he had previously enjoyed and tried to be like all of the other ‘bad’ kids in the neighbourhood. He started associating with the wrong crowd and got into trouble with the police. He left school after several months into year 9 and deliberately got into fights so that he would be suspended. Having left school when he was 13-14 he refused to return home and commenced living on the streets. At the age of 15 he slept in a friend’s car for some two months. He got into trouble with the police and spent approximately a week in remand in a youth justice centre. Upon his release he was placed in a drug diversion program.

28. [28]
    Eventually, the applicant resumed contact with his mother and started attending a second chance school in order to complete grade 10. He achieved this goal and then commenced looking for jobs while working as a labourer. While working as a roof tiler between May and August 2010, the applicant found his condition was improving. He found he was not as anxious around older people. He undertook a landscaping Certificate II in Horticulture and worked with his brother before becoming unemployed and being obliged to rely on Centrelink payments for income. In March 2011 the applicant obtained employment as a recycler. He has continued with this job and is now a permanent employee. However, his education has suffered as a result of the offences and even though he has a permanent job he now has limited employment prospects and opportunities because of his inability to complete the senior grades at school.

29. [29]
    The applicant sleeps for only 4-5 hours per night and feels constantly tired but claims to have become used to this feeling. He enjoys dancing as an escape from reality. He continues to experience feelings of insecurity and suffers daily panic attacks. If he has a panic attack at work he moves away from other people and waits for it to pass which can take up to an hour. He claims not to care about other people any more and constantly thinks that people are against him. He is unable to face counselling because he finds it extremely distressing to talk about the abuse. The applicant avoids seeing male doctors and tries to delay seeing any doctor unless it is absolutely necessary to do so. He has no desire to have children believing that ‘I couldn’t bring a child into the world to live a life like mine’.

30. [30]
    Following the court hearing the applicant’s family relocated because the applicant was being teased by other children at school about the incidents. This was very distressing for the applicant and he felt angry and disheartened about his life. He was upset that people had to find out about the incidents. Both his mother and his step-father were required to find new jobs after the family relocation which placed the family under a lot of financial pressure. The applicant has relocated some six or seven times during the last three or four years and has moved interstate on five occasions. Currently he lives with his mother and step-father and claims to feel safe living with them. However, he does drink to help him forget his problems and to escape reality. He no longer uses drugs but still smokes cigarettes heavily. Since he commenced working in March 2011 he is able to confine his drinking to weekends only. He is obsessional about hand washing and washes his hands about 20 times a day.

31. [31]
    The applicant stated that he found it difficult to make contact with his solicitor in order to give instructions and accepts that this did contribute to the delay in progressing this application. Whenever he is required to think about what happened and the effects upon him of the respondent’s conduct he finds that all the bad memories return which causes him to become considerably upset. Eventually he was able to instruct his solicitor in February 2012 to enable his affidavit to be finalised.

32. [32]
    In her report of 14 February 2011, Dr Sandra M. Hacker, consultant psychiatrist, confirms that she interviewed the applicant on 8 February 2011 for a period of an hour and 20 minutes having previously perused the material forwarded by Legal Aid Queensland.  It was noted that although the applicant attempted to be cooperative he was clearly anxious during the interview with Dr Hacker and his eye contact was variable.  He tended to dismiss many of his difficulties using humour and avoidance.  Dr Hacker found that the content of the applicant’s thought demonstrated clear attempts to avoid thinking or talking about the incidents or about his past difficulties generally.  Dr Hacker found the applicant’s affect was somewhat inappropriate and that his mood was depressed.  Dr Hacker was of the opinion that the applicant suffers from a post traumatic stress disorder with depression with some obsessional features.  She noted a past history of poly-substance abuse and anti social behaviour but these are now resolved.  Dr Hacker considers that the applicant’s psychiatric disorder is of a moderate severity.  The post traumatic stress disorder with depression is likely to persist into the foreseeable future.  The symptoms of the condition include dissociative and flashback phenomena and problems with impulse control. There were no other contributing factors to the applicant’s psychiatric conditions other than the abuse incidents.  Dr Hacker notes that the applicant does not wish to attend counselling, but in her view he may benefit from psychological work involving cognitive behavioural therapy, specifically directed to his depressive ruminations and from some eye movement desensitisation and reprogramming directed at his flashbacks.  The doctor considered that the applicant should not undertake psychodynamic work related to the events and that on no account should he be referred to or treated by a male therapist.  Psychologist fees are rebated at $119.80/hr and the APS recommended fees are $212/hr.  Dr Hacker considers that treatment would be likely to be required for at least six months of weekly sessions to be of benefit but notes that the applicant may not be prepared to commit to this length of assistance.

33. [33]
    In an addendum report dated 31 January 2012 Dr Hacker turned her attention to analysing the adverse impact issues contained in her previous report. In this regard the doctor identified a sense of violation, in particular noting that the applicant was sexually abused when he was 13 and that the applicant claimed that the abuse had changed his life causing him to have very little trust in men or younger people generally. Dr Hacker also identified reduced self worth or perception as an adverse impact noting the applicant’s statement that he feels extremely distressed and worthless to the stage where he becomes suicidal and that between the ages of 13-16 he did not care what happened to him. Disease was also identified in this context as it related to a past history of poly-substance abuse, anti social behaviour and alcohol dependence. These matters were considered by Dr Hacker to comprise an adverse impact under Regulation 1A of the Criminal Offences Victims Regulation 1995 as they are not criteria for post traumatic stress disorder, although they may be commonly associated with that disorder.

34. [34]
    Dr Hacker identified further adverse impacts in relation to the disruption of relocation after the incident, the adverse effect on the applicant’s education and employment opportunities, the adverse effect on the applicant’s relationships, the adverse impact on the applicant’s health relating to his concern about the side effects of medication and the reduced capacity of the applicant to have children. All of these adverse impacts are, in my view, clearly supported by the contents of the applicant’s affidavit referred to previously, as well as by the statements made by the applicant to Dr Hacker during the interview of 14 February 2011.

35. [35]
    Accordingly, in addition to the compensation that may be assessed in relation to the post traumatic stress disorder with depression, the court should take into account the totality of the adverse impacts of a sexual offence upon the applicant pursuant to regulation 1A of the Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995.  

36. [36]
    Having regard to the evidence from the applicant as contained in his affidavit, together with the evidence of Dr Hacker set out in her three reports, I am of the view that an award of 24% of the scheme maximum (which remains at $75,000) would be appropriate. This assessment is made under Item 33 of Schedule               1 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 which permits an award at between 20% - 34% of the scheme maximum.  The assessment is supported by Dr Hacker’s opinion that the applicant has sustained post traumatic stress disorder with depression and that the condition is chronic and likely to persist in the foreseeable future.  With respect to the compensation relating to the adverse impacts of the offences it should be noted that Regulation 2A of the Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 permits an award of up to 100% of the scheme maximum.  In the circumstances of this application I am of the view that an award of 30% of the scheme maximum is appropriate with respect to the adverse impacts identified by Dr Hacker.  The total is therefore $40,500.  There is no claim in respect of any physical injury.  There is no suggestion in the material before me that the applicant in any way contributed to the mental and nervous shock he sustained as a result of the respondent’s criminal conduct.

37. [37]
    I order that 1) the applicant be granted leave pursuant to r389(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 to proceed with his application for criminal injuries compensation and 2) that the respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $40,500 by way of compensation pursuant to s 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 for injuries sustained as a result of the offences which led to the conviction of the respondent on 16 November 200 upon indictment under the Criminal Code Act 1889.