Re An Application Under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983 and Kevin John Cranwell Cic [1991] ACTSC 43 (11 July 1991)

SUPREME COURT OF THE ACT

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER THE CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ACT
1983 and KEVIN JOHN CRANWELL
C.I.C. No. 61 of 1989
Criminal Injuries Compensation

COURT

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

CATCHWORDS

Criminal Injuries Compensation - Applicant victim of armed robbery and assault - Injury to jaw - Emotionally upset - Unable to sleep - Unable to return to work - Post traumatic stress.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983, s.7, s.15

HEARING

CANBERRA
11:7:1991

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr A. Corish

Instructing solicitors: Messrs Snedden Hall and Gallop

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr K. Holmes

Instructing solicitors: ACT Government Solicitor

ORDER

Compensation be awarded to the applicant in the sum of $20,000.00 together with the sum of $645.00 for expenses.

DECISION

This is an application for compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983.

2. On 15 March 1989, Stuart Herbert Williams and Daniel Robert Williams, having been committed for sentence to this Court, pleaded guilty and were convicted on charges of armed robbery and assault occasioning actual bodily harm to the applicant. They were sentenced to imprisonment for seven years with a three year non parole period, and five years with a two year non parole period, respectively.

3. The applicant is a 61 year old service pensioner. He had been in full-time work as a butcher, including time spent managing various shops, until June 1988, after which he obtained casual work. He enjoyed the work and the company, without the burden of responsibility of management. He said in evidence that his life revolved around his going to work. He intended to continue working.

4. On Sunday, 14 August 1988, he was working at the shop of Export Meats at the Tuggeranong Hyperdome. The shop closed at 4.00pm and he had finished his cleaning up duties and received his pay at about 5.35pm. As he was preparing to leave, the two offenders entered the back of the shop. Another employee and the owner of a nearby shop were also present.

5. Both offenders were masked. One made it obvious that he was carrying a firearm. At first the applicant did not take their threats seriously. One took hold of his arm. He attempted to shrug off the grip. The assailant then hit him with clenched fist to the left side of the jaw.

6. He was then pushed into the open cold store room. Shortly afterwards, the other two people were also forced inside and the door of the cold room was shut on them.

7. His fellow worker undid a fastening inside the cold room, and after five minutes they were able to get free. Their attackers had left. They had taken money from the till and from the other shopkeeper but not from the applicant. The police were called. It was 11.45pm that night by the time the applicant had finished making a statement to the police at Woden Police Station.

8. Understandably he was frightened and upset by the incident. His jaw was painful. He went to see his general practitioner, Dr Bonnette, the next day. There was bruising over the left angle of the jaw. X-rays did not reveal any abnormality. Dr Bonnette prescribed rest and heat treatment and gave him a certificate for three days' absence from work. The jaw was painful and he had difficulty eating for some weeks.

9. He returned to see the doctor on 29 November, a fortnight after the robbery. By then his jaw had completely recovered.

10. He was, however, emotionally upset. He had a feeling of worthlessness, was irritable, relived the incident at night time and was unable to sleep properly. He lost interest in work and did not return to work at all after the robbery. He missed the mateship and the self esteem he had enjoyed from his work.

11. In 1991 his solicitor referred him for assessment to Mr Petroni, clinical psychologist, whose opinion is that he is still suffering from a post traumatic stress disorder. Mr Petroni gave evidence and was cross-examined. He expressed the view that the syndrome was now chronic and he did not think that it would change.

12. Although for the most part he has overcome the problems of sleep disturbance, loss of concentration and exaggerated alertness from which at first he suffered, nevertheless there persists the numbing avoidance response, which prevents him from returning to places or activities which might remind him of the incident.

13. He and his wife felt that the loss of his employment opportunities forced them to sell their home. There is no evidence to support this conclusion and there is no evidence of his rate of pay or hours that he proposed to work.

14. Nevertheless it is clear that a reasonable compensation for his pain and suffering and loss of the amenities of life would be of the order of at least $10,000.00 and that on any reasonable assessment his loss of income earning capacity, both past and future, would exceed that sum.

15. There were no issues raised for determination under s.15(1) or 15(2) of the Act.

16. Having regard to the limit imposed on compensation by s.7, I award $20,000.00 compensation.

17. For the expense he incurred in making the application, I award to him the sum of $645.00.