Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983 and Nicholas Gajic [1993] ACTSC 40 (16 April 1993)

SUPREME COURT OF THE ACT

CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ACT 1983 and NICHOLAS GAJIC
No. CIC87 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 $10,600.

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 a customer service officer at that Branch. At about 11.00 am he was seated at a teller station when Bennett came into the building and went to the station of Melody Symons, whose married name is McCure. Very soon thereafter she came and tapped him on the shoulder and showed him a withdrawal slip with a demand for money written on it. She was obviously distressed.

5. Mr Gajic looked up to see Bennett place the pistol on the counter, pointing directly at him. Of course he was terrified. He obeyed Bennett's command, opened his teller drawer and handed the money to him. Bennett then got more money from Michelle Denny at another station. The pistol he kept in full view. Then he went out the door.

6. While Melody took the note in to the acting manager's office, the applicant went to another door and looked into the carpark area. When he looked back inside Bennett was there again, demanding the note. He seemed more aggressive and nervous than before. As he said, "Don't fuck with me, I want it", he raised the pistol and pointed it directly at the applicant's face. He expected to be killed if he did not obey. He went into the office fearing to be shot in the back as he did so, picked up the note and brought it back to Bennett, who then ran away.

7. Despite his understandable terror, the applicant displayed courage, common sense and poise during the incident, to avoid inciting Bennett. He then helped to calm the other distressed bank officers. Shortly afterwards the police arrived, and after statements were taken and money counted he left with the other officers for lunch. A relief staff took over for the afternoon.

8. He did not sleep well that night. He returned to work the next day. Over the next months his sleep was disturbed, and he experienced feelings of anger at the Bank management and of inadequacy at not having done more to capture Bennett. He became tense and depressed. In July he consulted his general practitioner, Dr Foo, because of his disturbed sleep. He insisted to Dr Foo that he had not been affected by the robbery, so that no medication was prescribed, but of course he had been harmed more than he was prepared to admit.

9. In November 1990 his solicitors referred him to Dr Veness. By this time he had sought and obtained another job. He had experienced the heightened tension associated with the Court proceedings at which he had to give evidence.

10. In Dr Veness's opinion he had developed an anxiety state as a direct result of the psychological trauma he had suffered during the robbery. His symptoms had diminished over the six months since. His inherent courage, strength of character and decisiveness helped him, not only during the incident, but also in the process of recovery.

11. When he gave evidence on this application in February 1993 he said that, "I believe I've sort of tried to keep the whole situation out of my head. I think it is probably about a year now that everything has been okay."

12. For the reasons I set out in my decision in the application of Vanessa Lindley (SC 86/90) I do not think that the applicant could reasonably have been expected to pursue any claim for compensation at common law against his employer for not preventing the robbery in the first place or for not dealing more effectively with its consequences afterwards. He makes no claim for loss of income.

13. For his pain and suffering I would award the sum of $10,000. The expenses of bringing the application were agreed at $600.00.

14. I award compensation to the applicant in the sum of $10,600.