Re An Application Under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983 and Noeline Hutcheson Cic [1991] ACTSC 45 (11 July 1991)

SUPREME COURT OF THE ACT

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER THE CRIMINAL INJURIES Compensation Act
1983 and NOELINE HUTCHESON
C.I.C. No. 44 of 1988
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 - Emotionally upset - Nightmares - Irritability - Acute anxiety disorder - Post traumatic stress

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983

HEARING

CANBERRA
11:7:1991

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr R. Lawton

Instructing solicitors: Messrs Meyer Boettcher and Clapham

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr K. Holmes

Instructing solicitors: ACT Government Solicitor

ORDER

Compensation be awarded to the applicant in the sum of $12,000.00 together with the sum of $221.00 for expenses.

DECISION

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

2. On 11 February 1988, an information was presented in this Court charging that on 29 May 1987, Robert Andrey Madon ("the offender") robbed the applicant of the sum of $1,190.00. He was acquitted. However, counsel for the Territory did not suggest that I should not be satisfied, on the civil onus of proof, that the injury that she suffered was the result of his criminal conduct.

3. The applicant is 52 years of age, who has worked in the financial industry for many years as a teller and as a supervisor.

4. In May 1987 she was the supervisor at the Hobart Place branch of Civic Advance Bank, a small branch on the ground floor of the AMP building. There were only the applicant and another teller, Wendy Cartledge, on duty.

5. Shortly before 3.00pm, the offender entered the office and demanded that she give him "All the large notes". His hand was in his pocket and he indicated that he was armed. She was terrified. She opened the cash drawer and gave the larger denomination notes to the offender, at the same time activating an alarm. He took the money and left.

6. The police and audit officers arrived soon afterwards. She and Ms Cartledge went to the police station where it was obvious to the detective in charge of the case that they were suffering shock and distress. He arranged for them to be examined by Dr McGrath, the Commonwealth Medical Officer. He saw her at 5.48pm. She appeared to him to be suffering from mild post traumatic anxiety.

7. At about 7.30pm she was taken to the police complex at Weston, where she helped compile a photo fit description of the offender. She then spent some time looking at books of photographs of possible suspects.

8. She was still upset and had to force herself to go to work the following Monday and thereafter.

9. On 2 June 1987, she was asked to attend the police station for an identification parade. She was startled to hear her name called and to find that not only was she in the same room as the offender but she was instructed to touch him on the shoulder. She was so terrified that she touched on the shoulder a man whom she knew was not the offender but standing next to him. She did so to escape out of the room. She told the police that she had identified the wrong man.

10. Again, she was so obviously distressed that the police arranged her examination by Dr Smith, a forensic medical officer. She presented to him as somewhat emotionally upset with a tendency towards weeping. She was obviously suffering acute anxiety. After he had calmed her down, he suggested she take the rest of the day off but she returned to work.

11. Over the next six months or so at work she was extremely nervous at work and at home, especially when alone.

12. In February 1988, she was required to give evidence at the trial of the offender. She was cross-examined about her identification of the offender. She was frightened that he might come back later to assault her. When he was acquitted, she blamed herself and felt guilty that it was her fault that he had escaped punishment.

13. Some of the lawyers involved in the trial were regular customers of the branch and she felt embarrassed about her inadequacy as a witness. By April 1988 she felt that she could no longer cope at the Hobart Place branch and applied for a transfer to head office, where she did not have to deal with the public.

14. In May 1988 she sought medical assistance from Dr Davey, her general practitioner. She complained of feeling nervous and edgy at home and at work, of suffering from nightmares, and of having difficulty in making decisions. Dr Davey referred her to Belconnen Health Centre for counselling. She did not get much assistance from the centre, though a report from Simon Snare confirms the consistency of her complaints with her evidence about the way she was then reacting.

15. She returned to Dr Davey, who gave her a certificate for absence from work from 11 May to 27 May on the grounds of her acute anxiety state.

16. By 25 May she felt she would be able to return to work on 28 May and Dr Davey wrote to her employer about her stress. She also supported her decision to seek employment at head office, away from the public.

17. In November 1990, she left the Bank, which at that time was suffering from severe problems in management. She decided to go to live in Nambucca Heads.

18. I am not satisfied that her decision to leave Canberra and the Bank was the result of the robbery.

19. However, I am satisfied that the upset and suffering that she had at the identification parade, and at and following the trial, were so much bound up with and part of the consequences of the offence that they form part of her prescribed injury.

20. When she decided to move to Nambucca Heads, her de facto husband, with whom she had lived for 15 years, allowed her to use his mobile home to travel and live in, but he did not travel with her and has not joined her there. She has applied for jobs, so far without success. She does not feel she could work as a teller in a bank again, which restricts her choice of jobs to a degree.

21. Her solicitor referred her to Dr Hammond, who saw her first on 24 December 1990. Her relationship had ended. She was anxious and moody, but unwilling to seek medical help or take medication.

22. I do not think that all her present unhappiness can be attributed to the robbery, although she may genuinely feel that it is. But I am satisfied that because of it she was more susceptible to emotional upset than she would have been otherwise.

23. I am not satisfied that she suffered any incapacity for work as a result of the offence beyond the period for which Dr Davey gave her a certificate. She has already received Workers Compensation benefits in respect of that, and I do not include it in my award.

24. For her pain and suffering, I award $12,000.00. For the expenses of bringing the application, as set out in Exhibit E, I award $221.00.