ST v Tobin[2012] QDC 337

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

1. [1]
   This is an application for compensation under the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (“the Act”). Although the Act has now been repealed, the application was filed on 24 August 2009, so that it is not affected by that repeal.^[1] 

2. [2]
   On 29 March 2007 the respondent pleaded guilty to one count of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child under the age of 16 years, nine counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16, and seven counts of unlawful carnal knowledge. All these offences involved the applicant; the indictment also alleged a number of offences of a similar nature involving another complainant. The respondent was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The counts cover a period of 3 months in the last part of 2003, and alleged various forms of sexual activity on various occasions, ranging from indecent touching to full intercourse.

Background

3. [3]
   The applicant was born on 1 February 1989, and so was 14 at the time of the offending, when the respondent was 23. The other complainant was a friend of the applicant although a little younger. She had met the accused through her brother, and the first sexual activity was with the other complainant. This came to the attention of the applicant, and on an occasion when the applicant was visiting the other complainant’s house, she began to participate in sexual activities with the respondent. It is not necessary to go into details, but it appears that on most occasions both complainants were present at the time of the offending.

4. [4]
   It is not clear just how the matter came to the attention of the authorities, though it does not appear there was any complaint by the applicant. Somehow the behaviour of the other complainant came to the attention of someone, and as a result she was interviewed by the police. Following that interview arrangements were made for the applicant to be interviewed, which occurred on 8 March 2004, over three months after the offending ceased.^[2]  The applicant told police that she had initially said something to her sister but in a very guarded way, then the other complainant began telling people and ultimately told her mother, and then the matter came to the attention of the police: Exhibit A page 58.

Physical Injury

5. [5]
   The applicant was examined by a medical practitioner at the Mater Hospital on 12 July 2004. At that stage the applicant complained that penetration was initially very painful and with some blood loss, and examination of the hymen revealed a full transaction which appeared old and fully healed, consistent with previous sexual intercourse. The applicant claimed that this was a physical injury caused by the offending, since at the time of the offences she had not had intercourse with anyone else. In her third affidavit^[3] the applicant said that she started a relationship with her first boyfriend when she was 15, and had sexual intercourse with him for a period of eight months. According to the report of the medical practitioner who conducted the examination in July 2004^[4] the applicant “also reported sexual activities with one other individual which did not involve full penetration and with which there was no associated pain or blood loss.”

6. [6]
   The applicant under cross-examination denied that this was a reference to sexual activity with the boyfriend spoken of in her affidavit^[5], whom she said she only met after this examination (p 12); she explained the reference on the basis that she had spoken to this medical practitioner about her having been touching herself in terms which were sufficiently cryptic for the doctor to have arrived at the conclusion expressed in his report. It is difficult to believe that any reference to the applicant’s having been touching or digitally penetrating herself could have led the medical practitioner, who knew that he was examining her on a referral from the Juvenile Aid Bureau, to include the reference quoted in his report, although I suppose such a misunderstanding is possible.

7. [7]
   The applicant has consistently said her first sexual intercourse was with the respondent. The report of the medical practitioner is consistent with the tear to the hymen having occurred then. I accept that the offending caused this injury, which would be a laceration for the purposes of Item 1 of the Schedule. There would have been some temporary pain and blood loss, but it healed and it is apparent from what the applicant told that doctor that it did not remain painful throughout the period of the offending. I will allow one percent in respect of the physical injury.

Nervous Shock

8. [8]
   The applicant also claims she suffered nervous shock as a result of the offending. On 20 October 2009 the applicant was seen by a psychiatrist, Dr McGuire, for the purposes of a report.^[6]  Dr McGuire diagnosed post traumatic stress disorder exemplified by nightmares, flashbacks, avoidance behaviour and hyper-vigilance. She was said to suffer the condition to a severe degree. Dr McGuire added that the applicant has borderline personality traits as exemplified by self harm. The applicant complained to Dr McGuire of flashbacks during sexual activity and at other times. She also complained of problems getting to sleep and of waking frequently during the night. She was constantly looking out for the respondent, and experienced panic when she thinks of him. She has security fears, being alone in her own home only three times, and has had to ring her father to come and get her. She also complained she had an exaggerated startle reflex, was afraid of the dark, lacked trust especially of older men, disliked people touching her, and was irritable.

9. [9]
   With regard to the self harm, she applicant had been cutting her arms and legs using a piece of glass. She gave separately dates of 2005 and 2007 for when this occurred, but when this was pointed out to her, said the former was probably correct.^[7]  It appeared to follow the breakdown of the relationship with her first boyfriend, and was probably precipitated by that: p 42. She stopped when she began to live with her sister: p 23. She said she had no visible scars, and conceded she had never sought medical attention for any such injury. She claimed that Dr McGuire asked to see the scars (p 15), but Dr McGuire said she did not examine her for scars (p 42), as I would expect. Any such cutting must have been quite minor, and Dr McGuire seemed to relate the self harm to her personality rather than the post traumatic stress disorder: p 31. I do not regard it as significant.  

10. [10]
    Dr McGuire was subsequently provided with copies of medical records from two medical practitioners, and education records of the applicant, and commented that she could see one episode of depression which was reported to one doctor and behavioural disturbance in the school records as being part of a constellation of symptoms probably consequent upon the offences committed by the respondent.^[8]

11. [11]
    The applicant saw Dr McGuire a second time for the purposes of a report on 30 January 2012.^[9]   Dr McGuire thought that the applicant continued to suffer from post traumatic stress disorder to a severe degree, and exhibited some borderline personality traits though these had improved since the previous assessment. The post traumatic stress disorder had not significantly improved. The applicant had told Dr McGuire that she continued to experience flashbacks about once a month, although they had ceased for a while. They were precipitated by smells and sounds and voices. She had nightmares twice a week, and at times had difficulty falling asleep. She had not received any treatment for the post traumatic stress disorder, although she had been on medication from her general practitioner which she thought had helped her. She was willing to do some counselling, something which was not the case in the past.

12. [12]
    Dr McGuire noted that the applicant had had a problem with her mother’s alcoholism, which remained a problem, and this had rendered her much more vulnerable to sexual abuse because she was seeking affection and did not have significant family support. She considered that the post traumatic stress disorder was entirely attributable to the actions of the respondent, but did not comment on whether it was more severe than it otherwise would have been because of the increased vulnerability associated with the mother’s alcoholism.

13. [13]
    In her second report Dr McGuire said that school had been a refuge for the applicant from her mother, and that she had been academically quite good until after the sexual abuse, when she was suspended once. After the abuse she found it hard to concentrate and stopped going to school because her self-esteem had been lowered by the abuse. However in her first report, she had said that the applicant at primary school never had many friends, was always the person who was picked on, had very low self-esteem, was extremely self critical, did not have any good teachers and her performance was always average.^[10]  Further, it is clear that the one occasion when the applicant was actually suspended from school occurred in May 2003, prior to the offending. At the time of her report in April 2011 Dr McGuire had in this respect misunderstood the effect of the records. When cross-examined Dr McGuire said she thought there were both positive and negative features in the school records prior to the offending, but it remained the case that she was not clear about the correlation of some matters and the time of the offending: p 35.

Education records

14. [14]
    A bundle of records of the Education Department is in evidence.^[11]  Most of these records were obtained from the secondary school, which was attended in 2002, 2003 and 2004. There was also a roll which appears to show three and a half days absent in 1999, 31 days absent in 2000, 16 of which were recorded as unexplained, and 39 days absent in 2001, of which 15 were recorded as unexplained. There was no other meaningful information about her primary school.

15. [15]
    She was treated as having left secondary school on 20 September 2004, although it appears from the school roll that there was little attendance after mid July 2004, and possibly no attendance after mid August 2004. The roll records her as being absent for a total of 90.5 days during 2004. This is certainly worse than her previous absences, although there were still significant absences during 2002 and 2003; in the latter, 34 of these days were before the end of August, and only 18.5 during or after the offending. In 2003 there is no indication of increased absenteeism associated with the offending, and absenteeism increased from 2002 to 2003 anyway. There is a note of 18 March 2003 that the applicant was caught truanting and smoking in the presence of students; her parents were contacted but she was not suspended. There was a further note on 10 April 2003 about the mother’s being concerned about truanting; the applicant was not cross-examined about this.

16. [16]
    The applicant was suspended as a result of her having been caught writing a page and a half of something which was described as a letter but which appears from its contents to have been something that she was just writing to express her feelings until the end of a class. It involved a complaint about the cancellation of a disco (p 22), and used quite vulgar language to refer to the school. She expressed a desire to be suspended, and some particular hostility to one teacher. When asked about this the applicant initially said that it did express her feelings at the time, but went on to say that she was writing something to be shown to her friends which was intended to be the sort of thing she thought they would want to read: p 8. It seems to me that she was in this way seeking to change her answer and to diffuse its initial impact. I consider her first answer was more reliable.

17. [17]
    I have looked at the information about results in the material in evidence, but it is very limited and often difficult to interpret. The only actual reports as such are a semester 1 and semester 2 report for 2002; pages 39-40. There are no equivalent documents for 2003 or 2004. The various subject results range from A- (drama) to C+ (Indonesian) in semester 1, and from B+ (Health and Physical Education) to D (Enterprise Education Option) for semester 2. The only subject which was in both semesters, Health and Physical Education, improved from B to B+. Behaviour was rated between A and C in semester 1 and between A and D in semester 2. There are other reports from Year 8, but some of these are difficult to date. Few of these documents actually have dates on them; one exception is a report of 25 March 2003, which speaks in very positive terms of the applicant; page 33-4.

18. [18]
    There are two “care class” report documents for class 8A, page 41 and page 47 which obviously relate to different semesters but do not disclose the relevant semester. One discloses 5.5 days absent and the other 30.5 days, neither of which match the roll records on page 6.^[12]  The report on page 47 is quite positive, while that on page 41 notes “some issues towards the end of the semester, [she] has adjusted her classroom behaviour and is now achieving again”. This may be a second semester report, as indicated by a file note on page 59, where two other teachers referred the applicant to her care teacher for case management because she was “continually displaying off task behaviour in class”. This had already led to lunchtime detention. There is also a year 8 integrated studies semester 2 report for 2002 on pages 45-46, which is essentially incomprehensible. There are similar documents on pages 55-58, equally incomprehensible; the year and semester are not identified, and they are therefore not susceptible of meaningful comparison.

19. [19]
    There is a progress report in term 1, 2003 dated 15 April 2003; page 35-6. The care teacher is generally positive though she said that “this term she appears to be having difficulties focussing on her work”. Results varied between subjects, with some teachers very positive towards her while others were less so; behaviour ranged from “always good” to “unco-operative”, with two other teachers describing her as “easily distracted”. There is one (undated) care class report for year 9, which is generally positive but notes that she “had a difficult beginning to this year. She has had to learn to take responsibility for her actions in class and to cope with peer influences in order to maximise her learning. She has clearly resumed achieving high outcomes we know she is capable of.” There are however no reports to demonstrate to what extent the latter proposition was correct, nor the date on which that assessment was made. The only other material from year 9 is that relating to her suspension in May 2003. The only other document which provides any information is a year 10 progress report dated 5 April 2004; again the results are mixed, but in two subjects she was assessed as not trying, in two as easily distracted, in three as needing more effort, in one, “no effort shown”. The care teacher commented that “absences are unacceptable and will impact on assessment”.

20. [20]
    I have difficulty in seeing how this material overall demonstrates that there was any substantial adverse change after the period of offending; the real problem is that there is no detailed material after year 8, though such material as there is suggests to me that, after a good start in year 8, there was some decline in performance in the latter part of the year which continued during year 9^[13]. The negative assessment in April 2004 would be consistent with a general decline in performance during year 9. Taking her explanation for the circumstances surrounding her offending at face value, she had chosen a peer group who valued an unco-operative and disruptive attitude in class and a negative, hostile attitude towards at least some teachers. The matter is complicated by the fact that so much of this assessment would be entirely subjective, and I suspect that these days some teachers readily give positive assessments regardless of the true situation.

21. [21]
    Overall I do not accept that the school records demonstrate behavioural disturbance consequent upon the offences committed by the respondent, and I do not accept Dr McGuire’s opinion in her letter of 20 April 2011 to that effect. Dr McGuire’s reference in paragraph 6 of her second report to the suspension occurring after the sexual abuse was wrong (p 35), and I also consider that Dr McGuire was not justified on the basis of this material in concluding that the applicant had been academically quite good prior to the abuse. Nor do I accept that the difficulty in concentrating arose only after the abuse; it seems clear that this was a significant problem for the applicant well before the latter part of 2003.^[14]  I consider in these respects that Dr McGuire has misunderstood the factual position, and has also failed to have sufficient regard to what the applicant had told her previously about the substantial difficulties she had in primary school. This impacts on the reliability of Dr Maguire’s overall conclusion.

22. [22]
    During cross-examination the applicant accepted that she had some distractions at school before the offences, that in 2002 when she was in year eight there was concern about her being engaged in off-task behaviour, and that when confronted by teachers she adopted an argumentative and aggressive attitude; page 9. She accepted the accuracy of the school roll records in relation to the significant absences prior to the offending. This is broadly consistent with what was said by Dr McGuire in her first report, about problems in primary school. It is however not possible to accept the conclusion in Dr McGuire’s letter of 20 April 2011 relating the behaviour at school to the offences committed by the respondent.

23. [23]
    Paragraph 6 of Dr McGuire’s second report said that prior to the abuse the applicant had been academically quite good but after the abuse she found it hard to concentrate and stopped going to school because her self esteem had been lowered by the sexual abuse. Presumably this was based on what the applicant told her. What was said in Dr McGuire’s second report was consistent with what the applicant said in her affidavit filed 22 April 2010, paragraph 10. But it seems clear that the problem of concentration preceded the abuse, as did the problem of absenteeism, and there is no objective support for the proposition that the applicant’s school result were adversely affected to any significant extent. I consider parts of paragraph 10 to be unreliable and, in particular I do not accept that her loss of concentration was attributable to the offending. It is probable that this misunderstanding of the position at school affected the conclusion reached by Dr McGuire; this undermines the weight of her evidence. It may be however that the applicant’s condition became worse as a result of the offending.

Assessment – nervous shock

24. [24]
    With regard to the severity of the applicant’s psychiatric condition, her medical records indicate that she has rarely complained in the past to any treating medical practitioner about psychiatric problems. She conceded under cross-examination that when spoken to by a social worker at the Mater Hospital in connection with her pregnancy in December 2007 she said that she had no history of mental illness or depression, and that she said the same thing again in February 2008: p 16. She had never complained prior to this to any medical practitioner that she was depressed, and did not mention depression until after the baby was born in February 2008.

25. [25]
    The applicant said she did not have a good professional relationship with the general practitioner she saw between late 2007 and June 2010. That doctor’s records show some notes about emotional symptoms, but on a quite limited basis, at their worst in September 2009 when she complained about being depressed, very anxious, upset, angry, not sleeping well, emotional and crying; however shortly afterwards she reported that her depression was feeling better now, and in October that she was feeling better most of the time.^[15]

26. [26]
    The applicant in her affidavit filed 22 April 2010, para 27, said that she does not like being physically examined by her doctor who was male. However, there are plenty of female general practitioners in practice these days. It should not be too difficult for the applicant to locate one, and it seems a little surprising that she has not done so if this is in fact an issue of significance to her. In April 2011 the applicant began seeing a different (male) doctor at the Acacia Ridge Medical Centre, with whom she appears to have been able to discuss issues relating to the offending, and whom she described as very supportive.^[16] 

27. [27]
    She said she was prescribed Lovan for depression, and found this was helpful (page 5, page 21) although she had stopped taking it when she became pregnant again. This doctor recommended counselling, which she did undertake, though she was not happy with this, more because of the attitude of the counsellor than because of any difficulties in talking about the offending: p 5. The records of the practice^[17] show that there was discussion with this doctor on 25 July 2011, but apart from the reference to the prescription for Lovan there is little in the notes to indicate just what symptoms were experienced. I would not expect a general practitioner to investigate the matter as thoroughly as a psychiatrist would, so the content of these is probably not significant in itself.

28. [28]
    On 10 August 2011 there was a report of modest improvement in mood, though she still had low energy levels; a further script was given for Lovan. On 9 September 2011 she was said to be tolerating the medication well, she still had trouble sleeping and was getting thoughts of self harm once or twice week but was otherwise doing well, with improvement in appetite, energy levels and libido. It appears from the note for the next attendance on 7 October 2011 that at about this time she was separating from her husband, which would be likely to be upsetting anyway. She reported improvements in appetite, sleep and energy levels in the week since they separated, and said that she would like to see a female psychologist, and had no further thoughts of self harm. It appears that she actually disclosed the abuse to him for the first time in October 2011, when she reported that she was doing better in relation to mood after she began taking the Lovan.

29. [29]
    The respondent submitted there were questions about the validity of Dr McGuire’s diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder. Although there are, I think, reasons to be wary about Dr McGuire’s opinion as to its severity, and perhaps prospects of improvement, on the whole I do not consider that there is on the material or arising from the cross-examination a sufficient reason for me not to accept the evidence of Dr McGuire, who is a duly qualified and quite experienced psychiatrist, that the applicant is suffering from post traumatic stress disorder as a result of the offending. I therefore accept that evidence.

30. [30]
    I am however wary about Dr McGuire’s assessment of the severity of the condition. Although she described it as being suffered to a severe degree, it is not clear whether she was expressing an opinion by reference to the classification in the Schedule to the Act, that is to say, that it is severe mental or nervous shock so as to fall within Item 33. The maximum percentage in the Schedule for mental or nervous shock is 34 percent, the top for Item 33. Section 22(4) provides that the maximum amount for compensation is reserved for the most serious cases, and the amounts awarded in other cases are to be scaled according to their seriousness. That involves a comparison between this case and other examples of mental or nervous shock, with an award of 34 percent being reserved for the most serious cases.

31. [31]
    I have determined other applications under the Act, and am aware of others determined by other Judges, where the consequences to the applicant were much more severe than those in this case; where there have been multiple admissions to psychiatric institutions, multiple suicide attempts, and psychiatric conditions so severe as to require long term intensive psychiatric management. It is commonplace for victims not to want to engage in treatment (p 25), but there are applicants whose conditions are so severe that they come to be treated anyway. There is also a tendency for the symptoms to attenuate in time anyway, particularly with growing maturity. The applicant’s life seems to have become more settled as a result of her becoming a mother, with the responsibilities that this entails, and the fact that she was assisted by medication (when she was not pregnant) also indicates prospects of improvement. I accept Dr McGuire’s evidence that it is likely that there will be a continuing “tail” of symptoms in the long term (p 26), but think it is probable that the most severe aspects of the applicant’s psychiatric problems are behind her.

32. [32]
    In the light of the all the evidence and the discussion and conclusions above, I assess the plaintiff’s mental or nervous shock in the form of post traumatic stress disorder at 20 percent, subject to the application of the factors reducing the assessment under s 25(7) of the Act. It was submitted for the respondent that this was relevant in two ways: the applicant had a pre-existing vulnerability and other difficulties in her life, which contributed to the severity of her current psychiatric problems, and the applicant had contributed to the occurrence of the injury because she was a willing participant in the offending with the respondent.

Other relevant factors

33. [33]
    As to the pre-existing vulnerability, there was evidence from the applicant that when she was growing up there was a long standing problem with her mother’s alcoholism. She got on well with her father and was supported by him, but there were serious problems in the relationship with her mother. In her first report Dr McGuire commented, under the heading “Contributing Factors”, that the applicant had had a difficult childhood characterised by low self esteem and a craving for affection. In her second report she said that the mother’s alcoholism made her much more vulnerable to sexual abuse, but the post traumatic stress disorder was entirely attributable to the actions of the respondent. This evidence excludes competing contributing causes, particularly the suggestion that the sexual relationship with the boyfriend subsequent to the offending also contributed to the condition.

34. [34]
    It was submitted that the sexual relationship the applicant disclosed with the boyfriend, prior to time she turned 16,^[18] also involved illegal intercourse, and that had also contributed to the applicant’s condition. The applicant said that the situation with that relationship was completely different and the other person was about her age, and I do not consider that there is any basis to reject Dr McGuire’s evidence on this point: p 32. Nevertheless, it does seem to be likely that, because of the applicant’s pre-existing vulnerabilities, her psychiatric condition has been more serious than it otherwise would have been, though perhaps not very much more serious. This is a relevant consideration under the approach laid down in SAY v AZ [2006] QCA 462. In all the circumstances I will make some reduction on this basis, but only by 10 percent of the award.

35. [35]
    As to the fact that the applicant was a willing participant in the offending, she was inclined to play down the extent of her cooperation, and emphasised such resistance as there was, but it seems clear that she was a willing participant, and the respondent was sentenced on that basis. The Offences Schedule^[19] reveals that on the first occasion anything sexual occurred, all that occurred was that the respondent kissed her on the lips and then put his hand down her pants, at which point she told him no and removed it. But she continued to associate with the respondent, even after further sexual activity occurred on a later occasion.

36. [36]
    In Moran v Broadbent [2004] QCA 401, the Court of Appeal upheld a refusal to award compensation in respect of psychiatric injury alleged to arise from unlawful carnal knowledge, because in that case the applicant had eagerly embraced and even actively encouraged the activity engaged in by the respondent. The Court held that there was no rule of law about such a situation, and that everything depends on the circumstances. On the evidence in that case, the judge was entitled to reject the claim completely.

37. [37]
    In B v B [2005] QBC 287, the applicant was 12 and the respondent 17 at the time of the offending. After a time when they were smoking together in the toilets and kissing, she agreed to his suggestion to perform an indecent act on him. Her compensation was reduced under s 25(7) to the extent of one third because of her own conduct contributing to the offending. In M v M [2006] QDC 259, the respondent had been convicted of unlawful carnal knowledge in circumstances where the applicant, who was 15 at the time and a school friend of the respondent’s daughter, had become intoxicated on alcohol provided to her by the respondent. No reduction on the basis of contribution was made, although Robin DCJ agreed that there could well be circumstances where a substantial reduction was appropriate, or even no award at all. Finally in JML v Foster^[20], the applicant was 14 and the respondent about the same age when they a consensual act of sexual intercourse. In that case, the award was reduced by one third.

38. [38]
    In the present case there was some disparity in ages, but the applicant continued to come to the respondent and continued to participate in the sexual activities to the extent that she did. The material suggests that at times she indicated that there were some things she would not do, which supports the view that she was willing to do what otherwise occurred. On the other hand, she was vulnerable as someone craving affection and attention. In all the circumstances I consider that some reduction is justified, but would limit the reduction on this basis to 20 percent. Overall therefore I reduce the award in respect of mental or nervous shock by 30 percent, to 14 percent of the scheme maximum.

39. [39]
    With regard to the physical injury, that should be reduced by 20 percent for the contributions to the commission of the offence, but not by the other reduction which is not relevant to physical injury.

Adverse impacts

40. [40]
    The applicant also sought an allowance in respect of the deemed injury for the other adverse impacts of the sexual offending under the Regulation. Dr McGuire referred to the applicant’s suffering from Chlamydia, but there was no evidence that she caught that condition from the respondent: p 18. She also advised that the applicant believes her parenting has been compromised and she does not feel like a good mother, and always feels like nothing she does is ever going to be good enough; this does not seem to involve a reduced physical capacity to have children, and is obviously a consequence of the psychiatric condition diagnosed by Dr McGuire.

41. [41]
    It was also submitted that there had been an impact on health because she had difficulty relating to a male doctor. Given that at one stage she was relating reasonable well to one male doctor, this submission is difficult to accept, but in any event there are plenty of female doctors around and I do not regard this as a matter of any significance. In any case, it is obviously a consequence of the post traumatic stress disorder.

42. [42]
    There was some complaint about the reaction of the mother, who is unsympathetic when intoxicated, and the father, who is sympathetic but apparently reluctant to discuss the matter. The latter complaint is a little difficult to understand, in circumstances where the applicant has said she dislikes discussing the matter herself (p 5); if the father is conscious of that, it is not surprising that he would not try to discuss the matter with her. On the whole I am not persuaded that there is anything of sufficient significance to justify any allowance on this basis under the Regulation.

43. [43]
    The applicant relied on a loss of educational and occupational opportunities, but this was based heavily on the proposition that she was doing well at school until the offending, after which her ability to cope with school collapsed. I have already dealt with that issue. In my opinion, the applicant had real problems with her education anyway, even before the offending, and, accepting that after the offending her education was further disrupted, I do not accept that she has lost any great amount in the way of educational or occupational opportunities. She was working for a time with Woolworths in a position with which she could cope, and it seems that since she left that employer she has not attempted to obtain alternative employment with which she can cope: p 19. She seems more recently to have settled into the role of mother.

44. [44]
    It may be that, had it not been for the offending and some related early sexualisation of the applicant (p 25), that role would have been postponed, but it is difficult to be definite about this. I think it likely that, because she did suffer post traumatic stress disorder as I have found,^[21] there would have been some adverse effect on her schooling, but I am not persuaded that it was of great significance and I will allow only 5 percent on this basis. That is to be reduced by 20 percent and 10 percent for the same reasons as with the award for mental or nervous shock.   Accordingly I will allow only a further 3.5 percent for the deemed injury of those impacts.

45. [45]
    These percentages add to 18.3 percent. When applied the scheme maximum they produce an award of $13,725. Therefore, I order the respondent pay the applicant $13,725 compensation in respect of the injuries suffered by her because of the offending for which the applicant was before the Court on 29 March 2007. There is no power to order costs.