Re An Application Under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983 and Verlie Fitzgerald [1994] ACTSC 56 (9 June 1994)

SUPREME COURT OF THE ACT

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER THE CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ACT
1983 AND VERLIE FITZGERALD
No. CIC31 of 1994
Number of pages - 3

COURT

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

HEARING

CANBERRA, 2 June 1994
9:6:1994

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr D Claxton
Instructing Solicitors: Wood Fussell

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr K Holmes

Instructing Solicitors: ACT Government Solicitor

ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

Compensation be awarded to the applicant in the sum of $30,609.00.

DECISION

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

2. On 27 May 1993 an indictment was presented against Michael Jay Hammond charging him with armed robbery of the applicant on 12 February 1993. He pleaded guilty, and admitted 30 other offences, which were taken into account on his sentencing.

3. He was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 6 years, to be released on recognizance after 2 years.

4. The following account of the robbery is taken from the Statement of Facts tendered at the sentencing hearing.

"In the evening of Friday the 12th of February 1993 Verlie Fitzgerald
was working at Bells Dry Cleaning Shop in Hawker Place, Hawker. She was
employed there as a part time manager. She was the only person on duty.
Apart from dry cleaning Bells also rents videos at that store.
At about 8.05 pm the accused came through the front door and walked
toward the video section of the store. As he passed Ms Fitzgerald she
observed that he had both hands under the bottom portion of his
windcheater.
A short while later as Ms Fitzgerald was returning some videos to the
shelves she was approached by the accused. He had a black balaclava
over his head. The accused said to her:
"I'm not going to hurt you. I want the money."
She saw that he was carrying a knife. The knife had a blade about
30cm long. He was holding the knife by its handle with the tip of the
blade upward and about 20 centimetres from her face. She screamed in
fright and he said:
"Don't scream. I won't hurt you. I just want the money, where is it?"
She said: "It's in the till."
He said: "All I want is the money."
She said: "Just take it."
He then grabbed her from behind with his left arm around her shoulder
and the right knife carrying arm against her right upper arm. Holding
her in that position he pushed her toward the counter.
When they got to the counter, he said:
"I'm not going to hurt you."
She said: "Oh, you promise."
He said: "Yes."
She said: "I've got five children."
He momentarily released his grasp as he looked toward the front door.
He then took hold of her right upper arm and led her to the cash
register. At his insistence the cash register was opened and he took
money from it. He then opened a drawer below the register and took
money from it. Having placed the money in a bag he had taken from the
drawer he walked from the store. As he did so he said:
"I didn't hurt you."
When the police arrived she was observed to be distressed by what had
occurred.
Throughout the incident Ms Fitzgerald was terrified and feared the
accused would use the knife.
In all $1,160.00 in assorted denominations was taken by the accused."

5. Immediately after the robbery the applicant suffered from nightmares, flashbacks and extreme difficulties in sleeping. She consulted her general practitioner, Dr Goonerage, who prescribed Normison.

6. She became subject to bouts of crying, and on two occasions had to contact her husband to come home from work to console her.

7. She consulted Dr Brian White, psychiatrist, on 25 February 1993. He found significant symptoms of insomnia, nightmares, hypervigilana, anxiety, depression, increased arousal, reduced enjoyment and withdrawal from normal activities. Those symptoms were much worse when she was exposed to anything that reminded her of the robbery. This was particularly so when she was required to attend Court to provide a victim impact statement. By 23 August 1993 she had consulted Dr White on 13 occasions.

8. His diagnosis was of a post traumatic stress disorder. He found it difficult to assess the prognosis. His report of 23 August 1993 concluded,

"It is most unlikely that she will reach the stage of having no further
effect on her life, and it is certainly unlikely that she will ever
forget the trauma. In the longer term, she is likely to have continuing
but manageable anxiety and phobias relating to things that remind her of
the robbery, including working alone at night.
It is therefore difficult to provide an accurate estimate of her need
for treatment in the short term future. At this time she does remain
significantly anxious and depressed by the robbery, and I anticipate
that a minimum of a further six months treatment is therefore likely.
Such treatment sessions would be at intervals of every two to four weeks
for approximately one hour. The AMA rate for such a session is
currently $170.
Also, due to the persistance of her symptoms it may be appropriate to
consider antidepressant medication. I will be discussing this option
with her if her symptoms continue to give her serious difficulties.
In such cases, where someone has been seriously affected by a traumatic
event it is likely that she will require intermittent treatment at times
in the longer term future; especially if she has future reminders of the
robbery. In this type of syndrome, it is not uncommon for a person to
get significant improvement but to suffer a relapse months or years
later when under stress or when exposed to reminders of the original
trauma."

9. She needed treatment for abdominal pain, brought on by stress and reaction to medication.

10. Dr White referred her for treatment to Mr Orme, consultant psychologist, for a recently devised treatment called Eye Movement Desensitization Reprocessing. She underwent three treatments, which were all that were approved by the Workers Compensation insurer of her employer. Mr Orme reported some improvement at the end of the treatment. Her impression, and that of her husband, was that she experienced some immediate, short term relief, but that her sleep was even more disturbed after the treatments.

11. The applicant's husband gave evidence of the severe effect the incident has had on his wife's personality. Beforehand she was friendly, outgoing, involved with other people and confident. She remains depressed, withdrawn, extremely security conscious and dependant.

12. Her own evidence was that her condition had deteriorated from the time of filing the application till the hearing. She continues to work, because of financial necessity, but at different premises.

13. Dr White reported on 25 May 1994 that he had continued to treat her. He thought she would benefit from more Eye Movement Desensitization Reprocessing sessions with the psychologist. Her anxiety was not fully resolved, her mood remained mildly depressed and her concentration had limitations.

14. He was prescribing a very low dose of antidepressant medication, as the applicant is reluctant to increase it, as to do so threatens her sense of being in control of herself.

15. He recommended that she continue with monthly psychiatric sessions, and discussed with her the option of increasing her medication if her mood did not improve with the Eye Movement Desensitization Reprocessing.

16. The cost of the ongoing treatment is being met by the Workers Compensation insurer.

17. For her pain and suffering I award $30,000.00. The costs of bringing the application were $609.00.

18. I award compensation to the applicant of $30,609.00.