Accoom v Accoom [2010] QDC 193

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Accoom v Accoom [2010] QDC 193 PARTIES: KYANN FELICITY ACCOOM (Applicant) v GRETA ERRIN ACCOOM (Respondent) FILE NO/S: 80 of 2009 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: Application for Criminal Compensation ORIGINATING COURT: District Court, Cairns DELIVERED ON: 17 May 2010 DELIVERED AT: Cairns HEARING DATE: 7 May 2010 JUDGE: Everson DCJ ORDER: That the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $3,000.00. CATCHWORDS: Criminal compensation – physical injuries – psychological injuries Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 R v Jones ex parte Zaicov [2002] QdR 303 at 310 COUNSEL: SOLICITORS: ILS Qld Limited for the applicant No appearance for the respondent [1] This is an application for a compensation order pursuant to section 24 of the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (“COVA”). [2] The injuries giving rise to the application were suffered as a result of a personal offence for which the respondent was convicted on indictment on 26 March 2007, namely assault occasioning bodily harm while armed. Facts [3] On 12 August 2006, the respondent struck the applicant in the back of the head with a metal bar (“the incident”). -- 1 of 3 -- 2 Injuries [4] The applicant suffered the following injuries as a consequence of the incident: • A laceration to the back of her head. The relevant law [5] COVA establishes a scheme for the payment of compensation to the victims of certain indictable offences including those who suffer “injury” as defined in section 20, being “bodily injury, mental or nervous shock, pregnancy or any injury specified in the compensation table as prescribed under a regulation”. [6] Pursuant to section 25 of COVA, a compensation order may only be made up to the scheme maximum of $75,000 specified in section 2 of the Criminal Offence Victims Regulation 1995 (“COVR”) using the percentages listed for an injury specified in the Compensation Table in SCHEDULE 1 of the COVA. In R v Jones ex parte Zaicov 1 Holmes J described the process in the following terms: “Thus, my examination of the section convinces me that a two or three stage process is entailed. Where there is more than one injury, the first step is to arrive at the amounts in respect of each injury, the second is to add those amounts together, and the third, to arrive at the compensation order.” [7] Relevantly, the Compensation Table prescribes: • Item 1 Bruising/laceration (minor/moderate) … 1% - 3% • Item 27 Facial disfigurement or bodily scarring (minor/moderate) … 2% - 10% [8] Section 25 of COVA also states that the court, in determining the amount that should be paid for an injury, “should have regard to everything relevant, including, for example, any behaviour of the applicant that directly or indirectly contributed to the injury”. Furthermore, the process of assessing compensation pursuant to COVA does not involve applying principles used to decide common law damages for personal injuries and the maximum amount of compensation provided for is reserved for the most serious cases, with the amounts provided in other cases intended to be scaled accordingly.2 If an injury is not specifically listed in the Compensation Table the court must decide the amount of compensation by comparing the injury or injuries to injuries listed in the Compensation Table and having regard to the amounts that may be ordered to be paid for these injuries.3 The assessment [9] I have not been provided with any medical reports concerning the applicant’s physical injuries although in her affidavit the applicant states that she suffered a laceration to her scalp requiring stitches. A photograph of the injury is before the court and it shows an injury of the type described. The number of stitches required is stated to be six in the submissions before the sentencing judge. A claim is made for scarring however no evidence is before the court in support of this other than the 1 [2002] 2 QdR 303 at 310 2 s 25(8) referring to s 22(4) 3 s 25(6) -- 2 of 3 -- 3 allegation of the applicant in her affidavit that her hair will not grow in the area where the respondent hit her due to the scar there. [10] A report from Mr Ritchie, psychologist dated 7 November 2008, concludes that the applicant was not suffering from a diagnosable psychiatric or psychological disorder. Applying the decision of RMC v NAC4 the applicant therefore has no claim for mental or nervous shock. [11] I am satisfied that the applicant did not contribute to the injury. [12] Having regard to the evidence before me and in particular to the matters set out above, I assess compensation pursuant to COVA and the Compensation Table as follows:- • Item 1 – 2% $ 1,500.00 • Item 27 – 2% $ 1,500.00 $ 3,000.00 Order [13] I order that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $3,000.00. 4 [2009] QSC 149 -- 3 of 3 --