Re An Application Under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1983 and Lydia Grzic [1996] ACTSC 27 (11 April 1996)

SUPREME COURT OF THE ACT

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION UNDER THE CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ACT
1983 and LYDIA GRZIC
No. CIC25 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 $36,725.35.

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, Lydia Grzic, worked with her husband as partners operating the Garran Foodtown Supermarket. The applicant and her husband have clearly been hard working small business people building up and successfully running for many years a suburban Canberra supermarket.

2. On 2 August 1995 between 1.15 and 1.30 p.m. the applicant was serving at the cash register while her husband and brother in law were off the main shop floor. Suddenly the applicant was confronted by two assailants in balaclavas wielding a sawn off shotgun and a pistol. The applicant was, understandably, terrified. One assailant yelled "You bastard, open the till or I will shoot you". This assailant was armed with a pistol which was pointed at the applicant. The threat was repeated by the second assailant, who was armed with the sawn off shotgun. The applicant opened the till, which was then robbed by the assailants. Her husband and brother in law were by this time alerted. Her husband pulled her away from the till, but there was nothing they could do as unarmed victims confronted by armed offenders. The offenders fled the scene.

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. There is no doubt on the evidence before me that this crime has had a devastating effect on the applicant. She clearly suffered psychological trauma, in a form often described as "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder", and has been unable to return to her work in the Garran Foodtown. As a result she and her husband sold their interests in the business, and she has suffered a resulting loss of income. This attack by armed offenders on an honest and hardworking family business has had thus destroyed the family business and the nature of the applicant's life.

5. At the hearing of this matter I was advised that Counsel for the Australian Capital Territory and Counsel for the applicant had reached agreement on the appropriate level of compensation, and having read the affidavit material I indicated a total award for the applicant in the sum of $36,725.35. This is principally made up of an award of $18,000 pursuant to Section 6(1)(c) of the Act as an amount to compensate for pain and suffering. This amount is toward the higher end of the spectrum of recent awards for victims of armed robbery, and I am satisfied that it is appropriate in this case. There is also a sum of $16,640.00 pursuant to Section 6(1)(b) of the Act as an amount to compensate for pecuniary loss caused by the crime. This has been calculated based on the difference between what the applicant has received by way of personal accident insurance and her previous earnings. I am satisfied that this is an appropriate amount. There are also amounts of $1,242.35 and $843.00 for expenses (other than legal fees) of the application and treatment expenses, which I also find to be appropriate.

6. The sum of $36,725.35 is an appropriate award. This can never take away the impact of this crime, but it is an appropriate recognition of the serious nature of the applicant's injuries and the extent to which the community, which provides the payment, views victims of armed robbery as deserving of support. I indicated at the hearing that I believe the concessions made by Counsel for the Territory were most appropriate, and have spared the applicant the further pain of again re-living this terrible incident.