An Application Under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983 and Suzanne Ruby Howland [1994] ACTSC 36 (14 April 1994)

SUPREME COURT OF THE ACT

AN APPLICATION UNDER THE CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ACT 1983 AND SUZANNE
RUBY HOWLAND
No. CIC14 of 1993
Number of pages - 2
Criminal law

COURT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
MILES CJ

CATCHWORDS

Criminal law - criminal injuries compensation - applicant bank teller - claim based on psychological consequences of armed robbery - applicant suffering post traumatic stress.

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983

HEARING

CANBERRA, 21 October 1993
14:4:1994

Counsel for the applicant: Mr. R. Livingston

Solicitors for the applicant: Gary Robb and Associates

Counsel for the respondent: Mr. K. Holmes

Solicitors for the respondent: ACT Government Solicitor

ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Compensation be awarded to the applicant in the sum of $15,990.

DECISION

MILES CJ This is an application for compensation under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983. The application arises out of criminal conduct which occurred on 13 August 1992. The particulars accompanying the claim state the nature of the prescribed injury as "severe shock, psychological injury".

2. The conduct in question occurred when the applicant, then aged 32 years, was employed as a teller at the Chisholm branch of the National Australia Bank. She was coming back from lunch. She entered the main chamber of the bank to find a partly disguised man, apparently armed with a shortened double-barrel gun, at the counter. He directed her to remain where she was. He proceeded to direct the teller to hand over the money. He left with the parting words, "No heroes, okay?". She had the presence of mind to observe his features and, with a male employee, to follow him to a car park where she observed him getting into a car and departing.

3. The robber was subsequently apprehended, convicted and sentenced for armed robbery on 11 December 1992. He confessed to a robbery of the same bank back in April 1992 and another bank in the Tuggerangong area in January of the same year.

4. The applicant was off work for a day. She returned to work for three weeks but grew increasingly stressful, not being able to rid herself of thoughts of what had happened. She sought the assistance of her local practitioner, Dr Greenman, who prescribed medication and put her off work. She remained off work at this stage for about six weeks. At first she did not improve and was subject to vomiting diarrhoea and sleep disturbance.

5. The applicant was then referred to Mr. Tom Sutton, psychologist, who had been called in by the bank for counselling sessions for the staff on duty at the time of the robbery. In a report Mr. Sutton records continuing symptoms and also the concern of the applicant about being the subject of attention of the offender at some time in the future. She was conscious that he had been determined enough to rob the same bank twice in several months. Mr. Sutton also noted previous events in the applicant's life which made her more vulnerable to the psychological effects of the robbery. One of those features had been that she had happened to be present at the shooting during the so-called Milperra massacre in Sydney. Mr. Sutton considered that the applicant suffered from a typical post-traumatic stress disorder and was puzzled why the applicant did not keep an appointment after the second visit. This turned out to be because the applicant had found the counselling experience distressing and furthermore she had developed an irrational fear of men generally. Fortunately, she was referred to a female mental health worker who was of some but limited assistance. She received counselling from this source about once a month until March 1993.

6. After the initial absence from work, the applicant continued in her former position but ceased work on 28 June 1993. She came under the care of Dr Maxine Tennant, psychiatrist, who first saw her on 27 July 1993. The applicant continued to see Dr Tennant on a monthly basis. In a report dated 19 October 1993, Dr Tennant recorded that at that stage the applicant still felt unable to return to work, was fearful with a feeling of being unable to cope generally, was continually reminded of the events with recurrent nightmares of being shot upon entering the bank. However, she was able to return to work after six weeks absence and was transferred to administrative duties in the city. She continued to work there at the time of the hearing. She continues to take anti-depressant tablets but prefers not to take strong sleeping tablets because she has two young children and her husband works shiftwork.

7. Dr Tennant's evidence was that the applicant was suffering residual anxiety which should not unduly affect her lifestyle in the long run. The prognosis is that she will make a good recovery although she is likely to be reminded from time to time of what was a terrifying event and no doubt such reminders will be stressful for her.

8. The applicant was paid worker's compensation for all the time lost from work and for her medical and pharmaceutical expenses incurred to date. Her expenses incurred in bringing the application are agreed at $990.

9. Although it is not necessary that a prescribed injury under the Act be categorised by some particular medical or psychological label, it is clear that this lady suffered and continued at the hearing to suffer from a moderate condition of post traumatic stress disorder, which has taken some time to resolve but which is likely to do so.

10. For pain and suffering I award compensation of $15,000. The total award is then $15,990.