Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983 and Debra Worthy [1993] ACTSC 38 (16 April 1993)

SUPREME COURT OF THE ACT

CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ACT 1983 and DEBRA WORTHY
No. CIC84 of 1990
Number of pages - 3

COURT

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

HEARING

CANBERRA, 11 February 1993
16:4:1993

Counsel for the Plaintiff: R. Livingstone

Instructing Solicitors: Gary Robb and Associates

Counsel for Defendant: K. J. Holmes

Instructing Solicitors: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. Compensation be awarded to the applicant in the sum of $15,592

DECISION

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

2. On 25 February 1991 one Mark David Bennett was indicted in this Court on a charge that on 29 May 1990 he robbed Melody McCure, Nicholas Gajic and Michelle Denny of $13,170 in cash whilst he was armed with a replica Browning pistol. He was later convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 8 years with a non parole period of 5 years.

3. That robbery took place at the Dickson Branch of the Canberra Permanent Building Society.

4. On 29 May the applicant was employed as a part time customer service officer at that Branch. She was a married woman, aged 37, living with her husband and daughter.

5. When Bennett first came into the Branch she was working in the manager's office with the acting manager, Vanessa Lindley. Shortly after a Brambles security guard had left money to be checked on the desk in that office Mrs McCure came into the office, crying, and announced that the robbery had taken place. She tried to calm her. She then went out into the customer service area and began to attend to a customer, while Mr Gajic went outside to see where Bennett had gone. Bennett then entered the area through another door and came to her teller's position. His hand was hidden under his jumper as he demanded the withdrawal slip on which he had written the demand for money. It was by then in the manager's office. As she did not move immediately he removed the pistol from under his jumper and pointed it at her face, saying, "Now]"

6. Mr Gajic then came back inside and asked Bennett what else he could do for him. The gun was then pointed at Gajic who went into the office, returned with it, and gave it to Bennett, who then left.

7. Police arrived shortly afterwards. With the other staff she was taken to lunch, took the afternoon off work, and later attended the debriefing session with them at Woden Valley Hospital. She was unable to sleep. She went to work the next day but found herself unable to do anything useful. With the others she took the Friday off work as well.

8. She continued to suffer from sleeplessness, and from flashbacks reliving the incident. She was nervous at work, and began to suffer stomach upsets and headaches.

9. On 28 June she consulted Dr Hogg, her general practitioner, who offered her sleeping tablets but she only used them for one or two nights. She was also given a certificate for another two weeks off work.

10. In November 1990 her solicitors arranged an appointment with Dr Veness. She was still extremely anxious. Her relationship with her husband had been affected until she had resigned from the Society in September. She had taken to securing the house "like a tank", especially when her husband was away.

11. She suffered the flaring up of symptoms when the Court proceedings came on.

12. Dr Veness diagnosed a post traumatic stress disorder, mainly in the form of an anxiety state. He doubted that she would ever again be able to work as a teller, or any position dealing with the public exchanging money. He expected her anxiety symptoms to gradually diminish over the next 12 to 18 months.

13. In May 1991 she and her husband changed their house to one in Holt, as she did not feel safe in her previous address, which would have become known to Bennett.

14. At the time of the hearing of the application she was working for a Health Fund, where, although the public and money were involved, the amounts were much smaller and the risk of hold ups much less. She also enjoys the greater amount of help that she is able to give to the customers in that job.

15. In summary, she suffered an acute post traumatic stress disorder, which lasted in acute form for 12 to 18 months, and has gradually, though not yet completely, resolved. It resulted in her having to change her employment and suffer some loss of amenity.

16. For her pain and suffering I award the sum of $15,000. The expenses of bringing the application were agreed at $592.00.

17. I award compensation to the applicant in the sum of $15,592.