Re An Application Under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983 and David John Mills [1994] ACTSC 43 (19 May 1994)

SUPREME COURT OF THE ACT

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER THE CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ACT
1983
AND DAVID JOHN MILLS
No. CIC43 of 1993
Number of pages - 3

COURT

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

HEARING

CANBERRA, 12 May 1994
19:5:1994

Counsel for the Applicant: T Chadwick

Instructing Solicitors: Snedden Hall and Gallop

Counsel for the Respondent: R Bayliss

Instructing Solicitors: ACT Government Solicitor

ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Compensation be awarded to the applicant in the sum of $13,122.00.

DECISION

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

2. The applicant was employed as a Liaison Reception Officer at the Embassy of the Islamic Republic of Iran on 6 April 1992, when the Embassy and its occupants were attacked by a number of people.

3. Indictments were presented in this Court charging eleven people with a number of offences arising out of that incident. The jury failed to agree on a verdict in respect of one accused. Various verdicts of guilty were returned against the other ten. On 18 January 1994 the Chief Justice sentenced four of the ten to terms of imprisonment and imposed suspended sentences on the others.

4. While working in his office at about midday on the day of the attack the applicant heard loud noises coming from the front of the Embassy, and on looking out saw a man hitting at the windscreen of an Embassy vehicle. A number of other persons ran into the Embassy grounds and also attacked the car. Some then ran to the building, and began breaking windows and throwing things at the front of the building. Some broke into the building, though not into his office, and began breaking and defacing the furniture and fittings. Objects containing red fluid were thrown through the windows of his office.

5. He rang the police to ask for urgent help. He could hear shoutings, screamings and glass and wood breaking. The phone went dead. He used another line to connect again to the police station. He was terrified, but tried to remain as calm as possible, to help the police to respond effectively. The intruders tried to smash in the door of his office. He could smell smoke, and believed the Embassy was on fire.

6. Police then arrived, and the attack ceased. He was heavily involved in organisation until about 9.00pm. His wife was distressed at what she had already seen on the television news. When he saw the late news he relived the experience. He was unable to sleep. He was frightened by the lights of a vehicle shining on their bedroom windows for a time. He did not know that it was a Protective Services vehicle, and feared that he had been followed.

7. The next day was very busy, but he again relived the physical and emotional reactions of the day before. Again he was unable to sleep at night. He became anxious and confused at work, and irritable and intolerant at home.

8. He attended his general practitioner, Dr Forbes, on 8 April 1992. Dr Forbes diagnosed an anxiety neurosis, prescribed Serepax, and recommended counselling. The applicant returned to work contrary to Dr Forbes' advice. He became increasingly distressed.

9. In mid-afternoon on 10 April he broke down in the office of the Embassy Administration. A legal advisor to the Embassy who was present drove him home. He was weeping uncontrollably. He went to Calvary Hospital Emergency Department at about 6.00pm. The hospital recorded that on examination he was still acutely distressed. After a long discussion he was allowed home with Normison and Serepax, and urged to undertake counselling.

10. The next morning he went back to the hospital, and obtained a referral to the Woden Valley Hospital Stress Management program, where he was seen by Ms Mander, and made appointments for further counselling.

11. On 15 April he experienced severe flashbacks, and was taken by friends again to Calvary Hospital.

12. Other members of the Embassy staff had been referred by Dr Webber, general practitioner, to Dr Knox, psychiatrist. The applicant sought help from him, and saw him first on 16 April 1992. Dr Knox saw him on two further occasions, on 21 April 1992 and 5 May 1992. Dr Webber saw him on 22 April 1992.

13. Ms Mander had a final review session with him on 6 November 1992. Dr Forbes saw him on 10 November 1992.

14. There are reports in evidence from each of the medical practitioners and Ms Mander.

15. Ms Mander reported that his presentation to her was that his symptoms had persisted, being very acute and constant for two to three months, and had then declined, but could still be triggered easily by reminders to the incident.

16. To Dr Forbes he appeared in November 1992 to be totally emotionally settled, and coping well.

17. Dr Webber diagnosed a post traumatic stress disorder, and thought his best option was to continue the treatment by Dr Knox and reduce dependency on the medications.

18. Dr Knox found him co-operative and positive, and took him through relaxation techniques and counselling. He confirmed a diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder, from which he was in the course of recovering when he last saw him.

19. In April 1993 he was retrenched from employment at the Embassy, and obtained a job as a sales assistant with Grace Brothers, where he is now employed.

20. He went through the stress of detailed recollection and cross examination about the incident at the trial of the offenders, which caused his anxiety and irritability to flame up.

21. His condition caused great tension in his relationship with his wife. Although that situation is improving, it is still not yet back to normal.

22. It is to be expected that when this final event of this application is concluded he will recover completely, but he will always have the memory of the terrifying event and of his subsequent suffering.

23. For this pain and suffering I award $12,000.00. The expenses of bringing the application were $738.00. Expenses of medical treatment were $384.00.

24. I award compensation to the applicant of $13,122.00.

25. After the conclusion of the hearing an application was made for a restriction on publication pursuant to Section 17 of the Act. The applicant gave evidence in open Court at the trial. I do not think that the interests of Justice require any restriction on publication in this case.