Re An Application Under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983 v Rll Bhnf Jwl [1994] ACTSC 19 (3 March 1994)

SUPREME COURT OF THE ACT

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER THE CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ACT
1983 v. RLL BHNF JWL
No. CIC129 of 1993
Number of pages - 2

COURT

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

HEARING

CANBERRA, 10 February 1994
3:3:1994

Counsel for the Plaintiff: R Coen

Instructing Solicitors: Pamela Coward and Associates

Counsel for Defendant: K J Holmes

Instructing Solicitors: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. Interim compensation be awarded to the applicant in the sum of $11,641.

2. The sum awarded be paid into court.

3. On the filing of an undertaking by the solicitor for the applicant to pay to the persons entitled the expenses listed in Exhibit A, I direct the payment out to the solicitor for the applicant of the sum of $1,641.

4. I direct the balance of the sum awarded, namely $10,000, to be paid out to the Public Trustee to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Public Trustee Act for the benefit of the applicant.

DECISION

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

2. On 25 February 1992 a person was indicted in this court on eight counts alleging acts of indecency and sexual intercourse with the applicant, she being then eight years of age and his granddaughter. He was convicted on seven of those counts by a jury and on 9 April 1992 he was sentenced to two years imprisonment on each count of incest and one years imprisonment on each count of indecency, the sentences to be served concurrently.

3. Because of the age of the applicant I prohibit the publication of any particulars likely to lead to her identification.

4. The offences took place between 1 September 1989 and 25 December 1989. They consisted of digital penetration of the vagina, oral sex by the offender and manual masturbation of the offender.

5. The applicant was seen on a number of occasions, beginning on 12 January 1990, by Barbara Bayliss, a psychologist with the child protection unit. On her advice the applicant was able to give evidence at the committal proceedings by video link, but that facility was not available at the trial.

6. On 21 February 1990 she was examined by Dr Packer, paediatrician consultant to the Child Abuse Assessment Clinic. There were no abnormal physical effects at that time.

7. On 4 June 1993 she was seen by Dr Stern, consultant psychiatrist. She had not been receiving any treatment since February 1992. She did not appear to Dr Stern to be depressed. Her maturity and intelligence were above average for her age. Her parents were very supportive. She had been frightened and withdrawn during the two years of the assaults and the consequent court proceedings. She had handled the court appearances with courage and maturity. He diagnosed an initial acute stress disorder which had improved, leaving her with occasional nightmares and feelings of anger. However, he felt that she would be vulnerable in the long term to problems with relationships and sexuality. On receiving further information from her parents he thought that she might well have understated her problems to him. The new information indicated to him an underlying and continuing depressive reaction.

8. Her solicitors arranged an assessment by Dr Veness, consultant psychiatrist, who saw her on 2 February 1994. He also had lengthy consultations with her parents and read the statements of evidence and reports of Dr Stern and Dr Packer. He also noted the positive aspects of her own character and the loving support of her parents. However, there were worrying signs that the effects of the trauma had not abated and that she was using a defence mechanism of denial, which is not healthy and is likely to break down in the future.

9. In these circumstances I am persuaded that it is proper not to determine the application finally, but to make an interim award.

10. Only with time will sufficient information become available to enable a final determination to be made.

11. The expenses of bringing the application are $1,641.

12. I make an interim award of compensation to the applicant of $11,641. I order the compensation to be paid into Court. On the filing of an undertaking by the applicant's solicitor to pay to the persons entitled the expenses listed in Exhibit 4, I direct the payment out to the plaintiff's solicitor of $1,641.

13. I order the balance, namely $10,000, to be paid out to the Public Trustee to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the Public Trustee Act for the benefit of the applicant.