AustLII [Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback]

Supreme Court of the ACT Decisions

You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Supreme Court of the ACT Decisions >> 1994 >> [1994] ACTSC 133

[Database Search] [Name Search] [Recent Decisions] [Noteup] [Help]

Ian Charles Milner [1994] ACTSC 133 (16 December 1994)

SUPREME COURT OF THE ACT

IAN CHARLES MILNER
No. CIC 223 of 1994
Number of pages - 2

COURT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
MASTER A. HOGAN

HEARING

CANBERRA, 15 December 1994
16:12:1994

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Z Gabriel

Instructing Solicitors: Snedden Hall and Gallop

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr J Henry

Instructing Solicitors: ACT Government Solicitor

ORDER

Compensation be awarded to the applicant in the sum of $18,840.00.

DECISION

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

2. On 7 January 1993 Marcus Michael Moy was committed for sentence to this Court on a number of charges, including one of stealing money from the applicant whilst armed with an imitation pistol.

3. On 2 July 1993 he was sentenced by Justice Higgins to concurrent sentences of 3 years and 4 years for armed robbery, and 6 months and 6 months for sexual intercourse with a minor. A non parole period of 15 months was fixed.

4. At about midnight on Sunday 18 January 1993 the applicant commenced work as a console operator at the BP Service Station at Chisholm. At about 2.00am he went outside to check the levels in the fuel tanks. He then returned to the office, and as he went to the console area he heard a voice behind him say, "Open the till and be quick". He felt what seemed like a gun barrel in his lower back. He looked over his shoulder and saw Moy behind him, his face disguised by a balaclava. He was accompanied by another man, who was also wearing a balaclava.

5. He unlocked the office door, and then the drawer of the cash register. With the pistol still pointed at him by Moy, he put money into a bag that the other robber placed on the counter. Moy then knelt and opened the safe with his right hand, holding the pistol in his left. He removed a bag with money in it.

6. The robbers then began to leave. As soon as he could, the applicant activated the silent alarm. The robbers ran off.

7. At all times the applicant had no reason to suspect that the weapon pointed at him was not a real pistol. He was frightened that he could be shot and killed.

8. He came back to work the following evening. His supervisor had suggested that he take time off, but he had declined the offer. Once back at work, however, he began to experience feelings of intense fear, which brought on physical symptoms like a heart attack.

9. His employer arranged for him to receive treatment from Mr Mitchell, clinical psychologist, who saw him on 28 January, 5 and 19 February and 26 March 1993. Mr Mitchell reports that his condition was consistent with a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. His summary was as follows;
"Mr Milner was subjected to an extremely traumatic event. As a

psychological defence from the intensity and awfulness of his
feelings about the trauma, Mr Milner dissociated his feelings from
the events which initiated them. As a consequence, Mr Milner
experienced a number of debilitating symptoms. I was able to assist
Mr Milner in redressing this situation by acknowledging those
feelings and reconnecting them to the relevant events. It can
therefore be suggested that the treatment was successful. However,
I would like to re-iterate that while Mr Milner no longer suffers
from a diagnosable condition, he will not forget the trauma and the
pain of the event."

10. His solicitor referred him to Dr Veness, consultant psychiatrist, for a report. Dr Veness had a lengthy consultation with him on 24 June 1993. He was still experiencing anxiety, especially at work. He was withdrawn and irritable at home. His sleep patterns were disturbed. His concentration and memory were adversely affected.

11. Dr Veness concluded;

"When I saw Mr Milner he was suffering from a phobic anxiety state
with the episodes of anxiety directly related to being at the
workplace alone or anticipating going to work where the trauma
occurred. The anxiety state is a direct result of the emotional
trauma of the hold-up. He has additional symptoms, apart from the
phobic anxiety state, which point to a post traumatic stress
disorder. These include sleep disturbance, social withdrawal,
alienation from family members, behavioural change (irritability),
periods of depression and somatic complaints (headache).
Thus, Mr Milner is suffering from a post traumatic stress disorder
mainly characterised by phobic anxiety but with an adequate number
of diagnostic criteria to confirm the existence of post traumatic
stress disorder. Clearly he requires much more treatment than he
has received so far, useful as he felt that intervention was. I
asked Mr Milner of his attitude to further therapy and he told me he
would like to (go) back to see John Mitchell. I felt there was a
grave danger of deterioration without further therapy."

12. Despite that advice the applicant does not wish to undergo further therapy. He did not say why.

13. I think, on the basis of that evidence, that the counselling by Mr Mitchell has had a beneficial effect, but that the applicant is still suffering a post traumatic stress disorder to some extent. In the light of the conflicting messages that he is receiving from the experts it can not be said that he is being unreasonable in not undergoing further treatment.

14. I would infer that he feels that he has improved, and that he hopes that he will improve further. Only time will tell whether he is right.

15. However, I think it is probable that while he continues to work at his present job there are pressures and circumstances that make complete recovery more difficult, even though he is clearly capable of doing the job. He is nearly 58 years of age, and wants to work for a further eight or nine years. Even when he leaves work he will always have memories of the terror that he suffered.

16. The expenses of treatment were met by his employer. He did not lose any time from work.

17. For his pain and suffering I award $18,000.

18. The costs of bringing the application were $840.

19. I award compensation to the applicant in the sum of $18,840.


AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/act/ACTSC/1994/133.html