Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983 and Staci Lea Hodgkinson [1993] ACTSC 61 (25 June 1993)

SUPREME COURT OF THE ACT

CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ACT 1983 and STACI LEA HODGKINSON
No. CIC130 of 1992 and 52 of 1993
Number of pages - 3

COURT

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

HEARING

CANBERRA, 13 May 1993
25:6:1993

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. In matter No CIC 130/92 compensation be awarded to the applicant in

the sum of $12,000.
2. In matter No CIC 52/93 compensation be awarded to the applicant in
the sum of $30,833.

DECISION

MASTER HOGAN These are two applications for compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983, which by consent are being heard together.

2. This procedure is particularly appropriate because the unfortunate applicant suffered as the result of two armed robberies committed some four months apart by the same offender.

3. On 11 December 1992 Stephen Bennett pleaded guilty and was convicted in this Court on 3 charges of armed robbery, and was sentenced effectively to imprisonment for 4 years with a non parole period of 2 years and 6 months.

4. The first incident involving the applicant occurred on 23 April 1992. She was then aged 23, and had been a teller with the National Australia Bank for over 4 years. She enjoyed her work, and was able and enthusiastic. A series of reports by her supervisors bears testimony to her abilities as an efficient bank officer.

5. She was on duty at the Chisholm Branch, when she heard a voice saying, "I'm not joking". She looked across to see two other tellers taking money from the teller's drawer and putting it in a bag while being threatened by Bennett, who was holding what appeared to be a gun with two barrels. He then approached her position and she handed over her cash notes. Bennett then left the Bank.

6. The Bank arranged for Mr Sutton, clinical psychologist, to debrief the staff and customers involved in the robbery. He saw the applicant that evening, when she appeared to him to have been one of the more vulnerable staff members. She had spent a long time at the police station making statements.

7. She went back to work the next day, which was a Friday, but the questions by customers distressed her, and she was advised to go home.

8. She returned to work the following Monday, but by Thursday felt unable to cope. She felt physically ill, and took a number of days off work. The Bank referred her to Dr Sutton for treatment. She had a number of sessions with him, and by about July was able to work full time and was beginning to feel more relaxed. She had moved house to return to live with her father three weeks after the robbery because she felt safer there.

9. Dr Veness, consultant psychiatrist, to whom she was later referred for treatment, confirmed the diagnosis of traumatic stress disorder, and obtained from her a history of sleep disturbance, requiring sedatives prescribed by her general practitioner, nightmares, anxiety and overeating. His impression was that in early August she was still not entirely well.

10. On 13 August 1992 she was at work in the same branch at about 2.30 pm when she heard Bennett saying, "Don't anybody move". She looked up to see him, again armed with what appeared to be a double barrelled gun.

11. She obeyed his order to face the wall, but activated a kick bar to operate surveillance cameras and an alarm. She could see another teller handing over money, but otherwise could not see what was happening. Naturally she was terrified. She heard people starting to talk after Bennett had left, and sat down to phone the police and record a description of the robber.

12. Following this incident, as Dr Sutton and Dr Veness confirm, her post traumatic stress reactions reappeared, were exacerbated and became entrenched.

13. She was so distressed she spent the next two weeks in bed. She then travelled to Sydney to stay with her grandmother. She was not able to return to work as a teller. Dr Sutton arranged with management for her to work in an area not involving customers, yet even there she had to work hard to overcome a phobic reaction to even entering the building. She was off work for about 4 months after the second robbery.

14. Eventually she decided that she could not continue with what had promised to be a successful career with the Bank.

15. Dr Veness's summary and conclusions, in a report dated 21 March 1993, are as follows:

"Miss Hodgkinson's recovery after the first hold up was tenuous. She
was then an anxious person who was just coping with her job. With
further treatment, encouragement and assistance from the employer as
well as her therapist she may have gone on to make a reasonable
recovery and to have coped with her job as a bank teller. She
certainly had the determination to do so.
The second hold up blasted into oblivion any chance of her
continuing, not only as a bank teller facing the public every day but
in respect of any kind of work conducted within the premises of a
bank. She now has a severe anxiety state, partly generalised and
partly phobic. She reports a number of very familiar changes common
to victims of this type of crime. Apart from the anxiety she also
struggles, almost daily, with depressive swings. She has withdrawn
from a wide range of social situations. She has become untrusting of
other people. Her sleep is disturbed by horrific nightmares based on
the two traumatic experiences of the hold ups. She has unwanted,
intrusive thoughts and reminiscences about the hold ups. She lives
in fear of retribution. She is phobic about banks.
Her prognosis is not good. I have grave doubts that she will ever
return to the outgoing, gregarious and happy personality she once had.

In

time, with treatment and with an alternative career in place, her anxiety
levels may well slowly fall although this is by no means certain for I
have seen a number of patients who, after one such experience, never
recover from their phobic anxiety. Sometimes this even gets worse to the
point of global agoraphobia (fear of going outside the house at all). In
her case, given her youth and determination, the former (slow recovery
from anxiety) is a more likely outcome. However, to expect her to return
to work in a bank, the National Australia Bank in particular, is totally
unrealistic. Indeed to force her to try to do so would amount to mental
torture."

16. She still takes Mogadon to help her sleep, and Prothiaden to relieve her depression.

17. She received workers compensations payments for her time off work. Although she has not yet resigned from the Bank she is proposing to study nursing after a period of working as a nanny.

18. Counsel for the Territory submitted that I should take into account the failure of the Bank to protect its employees, and the possibility of her taking action to recover damages from the Bank for its breach of duty of care. For the reasons that I gave during argument I do not think that it would be reasonable for her to embark upon such perilous litigation.

19. I accept the submission by her counsel that the second incident effectively caused her to lose the opportunity that she had for career advancement at the Bank, and that she will suffer financial loss while she undergoes training for a nursing career. It is not possible to calculate a figure for that loss of opportunity, and I simply take it into account in assessing her compensation.

20. The expenses of bringing the applications are agreed at $833.00.

21. For the injury she sustained in the first incident, claimed in application CIC No 130 of 1992, I award compensation in the sum of $12,000.

22. For the injury she sustained in the second incident, claimed in application CIC No 52 of 1993, together with the cost of bringing the application, I award $30,833.