Re An Application Under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983 and Atilio Grzic [1996] ACTSC 25 (11 April 1996)

SUPREME COURT OF THE ACT

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER THE CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ACT
1983 and ATILIO GRZIC
No. CIC60 of 1996
Number of pages - 2

COURT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
MASTER T CONNOLLY

HEARING

CANBERRA, 11 April 1996
11:4:1996
Date of Reasons for Decision: 19:4:1996

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Z Gabriel

Instructing Solicitors: Snedden Hall and Gallop

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 $20,200.00.

DECISION

MASTER T CONNOLLY This is an application for an award of compensation under the terms of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983. The applicant, Atilio Grzic, works in his brother's supermarket, the Garran Foodtown. On 2 August 1985 he was in the storeroom of the supermarket between 1.15pm and 1.30pm when the shop was subject to an armed robbery. He was alerted by his nephew, and ran into the store. As he approached the service area he saw his sister in law, Lydia Grzic by the cash register, with two persons in balaclavas armed with a pistol and a sawn off shotgun. He then saw his brother John grab Lydia and lead her away as the two offenders took money from the till.

2. Quick action by the Australian Federal Police followed, and the offenders were apprehended, charged, and brought before the Courts. On 14 February 1996 they were sentenced to terms of imprisonment in the Supreme Court. As this is an application flowing from a crime for which persons have been convicted in the Supreme Court it is properly within my jurisdiction.

3. I am satisfied from the evidence in the applicant's affidavit before me that this incident has had a particularly marked effect on him. Apart from the obvious and expected trauma that anyone would suffer at being the victim of an armed robbery where weapons are present, involving a serious fear for the applicant's own life and that of his brother and sister in law, I am satisfied that the applicant suffers a post traumatic stress disorder with an overlay of guilt because he in some way blames himself for not being able to do anything to stop the robbery. This has led to depression.

4. Given this evidence Counsel for the Australian Capital Territory, quite properly in my view, suggested an award under Section 6(1)(c) of the Act of $18,000 for pain and suffering, which is toward the upper end of awards for victims of armed robbery. I am satisfied that this is appropriate, because it is clear that the applicant has been more markedly affected by this incident than his brother. The applicant's concern that he did not stop the robbery is understandable and very genuine, but in fact there is nothing that an unarmed man, however brave, can really do when confronted by offenders armed with a sawn off shot gun and a pistol. An armed robbery on suburban shopkeepers is properly described as a cowardly crime. What can the shopkeeper do to defend themselves or their families when confronted with firearms?

5. I am satisfied that this award is appropriate in this case, together with a sum of $1,420.00 for treatment expenses under Section 6(1)(a) of the Act and $780.00 for expenses (not being legal fees) in bringing the matter to hearing.

6. As I said in my reasons for decision in the related applications by Mr and Mrs Grzic, an award of compensation to the victim of an armed robbery can not take away the distress caused by the incident, but it is an indication of community concern for the victims of these crimes.

7. Again, I commend Counsel for the Territory for conducting this matter in a manner which avoided the need to put the applicant through further distress.