Re An Application Under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983 and Michelle Buckingham [1994] ACTSC 75 (22 July 1994)

SUPREME COURT OF THE ACT

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER THE CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ACT
1983
AND MICHELLE BUCKINGHAM
No. CIC79 of 1992
Number of pages - 2

COURT

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

HEARING

CANBERRA, 21 July 1994
22:7:1994

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr R Livingston

Instructing Solicitors: Gary Robb and Associates

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr K Holmes

Instructing Solicitors: ACT Government Solicitor

ORDER

Compensation be awarded to the applicant in the sum of $17,259.00.

DECISION

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

2. The applicant was a customer at the ANZ Bank in Dickson on 1 June 1992, when two men robbed the Bank.

3. On 16 December 1992 Michael Reginald Baker was convicted in this Court of the armed robbery, and was sentenced to imprisonment for seven years, with a non parole period of four years.

4. Baker and his accomplice were wearing balaclavas over their heads. They entered the Bank at about the same time as the applicant, threatened the staff, the accomplice being armed with a sawn off rifle. At one stage the gun was pointed in the applicant's direction. She lay on the floor as close to the counter as she could get. She heard shouting and abuse directed at the Bank staff. She was, naturally, quite terrified.

5. She suffered severe stress, and found it difficult to sleep at night, or to go out. Her solicitors referred her to Dr Hugh Veness, consultant psychiatrist, for a report. His report is in evidence, and details her symptoms and medical history. I accept his description as accurate.

6. In his opinion she was severely traumatised by the experience. Her symptoms of a post traumatic stress disorder include a phobic anxiety, compulsive remembering of the event, vivid and disturbing dreams, irritability, claustrophobia and social withdrawal. He advised urgent and intensive counselling therapy by a clinical psychologist. He expected that she would respond positively to therapy, but could be left with a degree of excessive anxiety and some over cautiousness for years to come. She did not undertake it, as she felt she could not afford it. She was unemployed at the time of the incident, and has not worked since.

7. In preparation for this hearing her solicitors referred her to Dr Stern, another consultant psychiatrist, in Melbourne.

8. He noted that there had been some improvement in her condition, but nevertheless diagnosed a chronic post traumatic stress disorder. He also advised psychiatric treatment, which should continue for three to six months. He expected gradual improvement, leaving her with some permanent recollections and phobic behaviour.

9. She intends to undergo therapy, but there is no evidence of its costs. I propose to take the likelihood of that expense into account in assessing compensation.

10. Counsel for the Territory accepted that the applicant had in fact incurred expenses totalling $1,259 in bringing the application, but pointed out that they would have been less had the applicant been referred back to Dr Veness, rather than to Dr Stern. There was no evidence about why she was sent to Dr Stern, nor of the fee that Dr Veness would have charged for a follow up consultation. I would be anxious to impress on solicitors that the expenses of bringing these applications should not be unnecessarily increased. But in the circumstances of this case, since the amount at issue is both indeterminate, and would be quite small in comparison with the amount awarded for pain and suffering, which is itself a discretionary amount, I propose to allow the sum claimed under S.5(4) in full.

11. For her pain and suffering, and costs of treatment, I award $16,000.00.

12. I award compensation to the applicant of $17,259.00.