Re An Application Under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983 and John Grzic [1996] ACTSC 26 (11 April 1996)

SUPREME COURT OF THE ACT

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER THE CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ACT
1983 and JOHN GRZIC
No. CIC59 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 $14,300.00.

DECISION

MASTER T CONNOLLY This is an application for an award of compensation made under the terms of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983. The applicant, John Grzic, was a partner with his wife and other family members in the business of the Garran Foodtown Supermarket. It is clear from the evidence that this was a hard working family who had built up and made a success of a Canberra suburban shopping business.

2. On 2 August 1995 the shop was robbed by two assailants armed with a pistol and a sawn off shotgun. The applicant was in the tea room at the time of the attack, between 1.15 and 1.30 pm. He was alerted by a nephew, and ran into the shop. The applicant saw his wife standing between two males wearing balaclavas, who were pointing a sawn off shotgun and a pistol at his wife, who was at the cash register. The assailants were removing money from the cash register. He approached his wife, and physically pushed her towards the rear of the shop. This was a courageous act. There is little that a person can do when confronted by persons armed with a pistol and sawn off shotgun. The applicant understandably was greatly in fear of his life, and for the life of his wife.

3. 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.

4. The applicant was able to return to duties at the supermarket, but his wife was not, and as a result they have sold their interests in the supermarket. I am satisfied from the material before me that this incident has had a serious impact on the applicant, and the suggestion by Counsel for the Australian Capital Territory that a sum of $14,000 be awarded under Section 6(1)(c) of the Act for pain and suffering seems appropriate when viewed in the context of other awards for victims of armed robberies. There is also a sum of $300 for expenses (other than legal fees) in bringing the matter to hearing.

5. As I indicated at the hearing, I award the applicant the sum of $14,300. I commend Counsel for the Territory for resolving this matter and avoiding the need to put the applicant through the additional distress of re-living this incident. As I said in my reasons for decision in the application of Mrs Grzic, this award can never take away the distress caused by the crime, but it is an indication of the support the community should, and does, provide for the innocent victim of an armed robbery.