Brian Robert Benton Cic [1991] ACTSC 112 (13 December 1991)

SUPREME COURT OF THE ACT

BRIAN ROBERT BENTON
C.I.C. Nos. 7 and 28 of 1991
Criminal Injuries Compensation

COURT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Master A. Hogan(1)

CATCHWORDS

Criminal Injuries Compensation - Robbery - Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983

HEARING

CANBERRA
13:12:1991

ORDER

Compensation be awarded to the applicant in the sum of $18,098.00.

DECISION

These are two applications by the one applicant for compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983. They were heard together.

2. The first arises out of an incident that occurred on the early morning of 9 October 1989. The applicant was employed as a console operator at the Mobil Service Station in Ipswich Street Fyshwick.

3. At about 2.00 am when he was on duty in the console at the service station he turned to see a man wearing a full length frankenstein mask. He was pointing a sawn off single barrel 12 gauge shot gun in the applicant's direction. He demanded the money in the till. When he had been given that, he asked for the telephone and disconnected it from the socket. He then backed out of the door still pointing the shot gun at the applicant.

4. On 2 July 1990 Steven Ross Harmer was indicted in this Court with the offence of trespassing with intent to steal while being in possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to four years' imprisonment. On the same date, James Burnie Harrison was charged with robbery while in possession of a firearm and was sentenced to four and a half years' imprisonment. Both those charges related to the robbery of the applicant.

5. Naturally he was terrified by the incident. He tried to return immediately to work, but after one night was unable to return until 23 October 1989. He consulted his general practitioner, who prescribed Valium which calmed his nerves and helped him to sleep. By the end of October 1989 he was able to sleep satisfactorily, but he continued to suffer from nightmares.

6. Over the next twelve months he experienced feelings of anger and fear at work. He kept a shot gun behind his bed for a month or so. He sought the company of his fiance constantly, and because of the change in his emotional behaviour their relationship deteriorated. He lost interest in social activities, which till the date of the incident, he had greatly enjoyed together with his fiance.

7. Dr Saboisky, Consultant Psychiatrist, confirms that as a result of this first holdup, the applicant had an initial period of shock and then developed acute symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Those acute symptoms continued for at least six months and then there was a gradual diminution in them. However, even after a year they had not completely subsided.

8. Only weeks after the first anniversary of that incident, namely at about 2.30 am on the morning of 17 October 1990, he was the victim of another robbery. Again he was on duty in the console at the service station when Tina Louise Fleet entered wearing a white stocking over her head and with a black garment wrapped over her right hand. The appearance of the garment was such that he believed that she had a gun or some such item underneath it. He raised his hands and said, "Alright, alright", and when she demanded the till he placed it on the counter. She took the money out of the till and ran out the door.

9. On 9 April 1991 an indictment was presented in this Court against Tina Louise Fleet charging, amongst other things, a count of that robbery upon the applicant.

10. As a result of the incident, he was shocked, nervous and nauseated. He went home. He began again to have nightmares, difficulty in sleeping and headaches. He again became moody, and his social life and relationship with his fiance deteriorated to the stage where she broke off the engagement. Shortly afterwards the engagement was renewed. He is in the course of trying to obtain other employment as he continues to be concerned at working in circumstances where he might suffer another attack.

11. I accept his evidence that, although as a result of this second incident he felt worse than he did after the first, he could not afford to take more than three or four days off work, and he did not want to have Valium prescribed, so that he did not attend his general practitioner.

12. Dr Saboisky confirms that following this second hold up there was a re-emergence of psychological distress. His solicitors referred him to Dr Saboisky for a report for the purposes of these applications in May 1991. He was then still somewhat emotionally flat, but the doctor thought that he had got over the worst of his post traumatic stress disorder. He has obviously been rendered more vulnerable to decompensation into a post traumatic stress disorder or other anxiety state were he to have a similar experience again. He has benefited to some extent from consultation with Dr Saboisky and intends to continue treatment for a short time. He has already incurred expense of $400 for treatment.

13. He received workers' compensation in respect of his first absence from work, and does not appear to have lost income in respect of the second, shorter, absence.

14. For the first prescribed injury I award the sum of $8,000. For the second prescribed injury I award $10,000. The costs of bringing the application amounted to $98.00. I therefore award total compensation of $18,098.00