Duncan v Busch [2010] QDC 24
DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: Duncan v Busch [2010] QDC 24
PARTIES: LISA JOANNE DUNCAN
(Applicant)
v
WILLIAM JOEL BUSCH
(Respondent)
FILE NO/S: 310 of 2009
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING: Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court,
DELIVERED ON: 12 February 2010
DELIVERED AT: Cairns
HEARING DATE: 29 January 2010
JUDGE: Everson DCJ
ORDER: That the respondent pay the applicant the sum of
$26,250.00
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: Williams Graham Carman 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 10 June 2009,
namely assault occasioning bodily harm.
Facts
[3] The applicant was viciously assaulted when a group of people, including the
respondent invaded her home at approximately 12.30 am on 15 March 2008. She
-- 1 of 3 --
2
was struck in the face with a piece of timber with sufficient force to cause her to
lose consciousness and fell to the ground (“the incident”)
Injuries
[4] The applicant suffered the following injuries as a consequence of the incident:
• A fracture to the tip of the nasal bone;
• Bruising and grazing to the left orbit;
• Superficial abrasions to the chest wall and left side of her
neck;
• A 2 cm laceration to the inside of her lower lip which
required four sutures;
• Dental injuries;
• Psychological sequelae
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 etc (minor/moderate) … 1%-3%
• Item 3 Fractured nose (no displacement) … 5%-8%
• Item 5 Loss or damage of teeth … 1%-12%
• Item 32 Mental or nervous shock (moderate) … 10%-20%
[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
1 [2002] 2 QdR 303 at 310
2 s 25(8) referring to s 22(4)
-- 2 of 3 --
3
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] The report of Dr Tapp of the Cairns Base Hospital Emergency Department dated 16
March 2008 record the applicant’s injuries in a general way. At this stage it was not
clear whether or not she had suffered a broken nose. The slight fracture was
subsequently conformed by Dr Evans in his report dated 17 March 2008. One of
the applicant’s front teeth was knocked out in the incident and two others appear to
be non vital. A bony segment emerged from the midline of her papilla resulting in
an unsightly papilliary defect. She required extensive dental treatment. Long term
orthodontic treatment is recommended. She has not returned to her former pastime
of modelling. Dr De Leacy, psychiatrist expresses the view in his report dated 29
October 2009, that the applicant is suffering from a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
towards the more severe end of the moderate range as a consequence of the incident.
[10] I am satisfied that the applicant did not contribute to the injury.
[11] 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 – 3% $ 2,250.00
• Item 3 – 5% $ 3,750.00
• Item 5 – 12% $ 9,000.00
• Item 32 – 15% $11,250.00
$26,250.00
Order
[12] I order that the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $26,250.00.
3 s 25(6)
-- 3 of 3 --
Official source: https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QDC/2010/024