Crossley v Steensen [2005] QSC 315

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Crossley v Steensen [2005] QSC 315 PARTIES: ROBERT ALLAN CROSSLEY (applicant) v MICHAEL LENARD STEENSEN (respondent) FILE NO/S: SC No 90 of 2005 DIVISION: Trial PROCEEDING: Application ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Mackay DELIVERED ON: 2 November 2005 DELIVERED AT: Mackay HEARING DATE: 31 October 2005 JUDGE: Cullinane J ORDER: Order that the respondent pay to the applicant by way of criminal compensation, the sum of $22,500 CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – ORDERS FOR RESTITUTION AND COMPENSTAION – QUEENSLAND – where the applicant was injured in an attack upon him by the respondent – where the applicant claims criminal compensation for the injuries sustained Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) COUNSEL: S G Naylor (sol) for the applicant No appearance for the respondent SOLICITORS: Macrossan & Amiet for the applicant No appearance for the respondent [1] In this matter the applicant seeks compensation pursuant to the Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 (Qld) as amended in respect of stabbing injuries inflicted upon him by the respondent at Airlie Beach on the early morning of 31 March 2002. [2] The respondent did not appear on the application. There is an affidavit from an officer of the Public Trustee to the effect that the Public Trustee does not intend to take any part in the proceedings and that the respondent who had been contacted by the Public Trustee did not intend to take any part in the proceedings. -- 1 of 3 -- 2 [3] The respondent pleaded not guilty to a count of attempted murder. He was found guilty by the jury of the offence of unlawful wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm. He was at the same time found guilty of unlawfully wounding another, a person who was employed by the applicant. [4] The respondent was sentenced to five years imprisonment on the count of unlawful wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm and a declaration was made that he had been convicted of a serious violent offence. [5] The applicant was at the time the principal of a company which provided security and crowd control in the Airlie Beach area. He was at a nightclub at Airlie Beach on the evening of the attack. The respondent had been refused entry to the nightclub because of his abusive and threatening behaviour. He was obviously affected by alcohol. He left but returned later having obtained a knife from his home. He moved into a position where he was behind the applicant. At this time the knife was apparently kept hidden by the respondent. When he was close enough he stabbed the applicant in the back and attempted to stab him again on a number of further occasions as the applicant tried to get away from him. It was at this time that the other man intervened and was stabbed in the arm. [6] The applicant was able to force the respondent to the ground at which point others restrained and disarmed him. The applicant was bleeding badly and was in a state of shock believing that the respondent was intending to kill him when he attacked him. [7] The applicant who was born on 16 August 1959 was admitted to the Proserpine Hospital following the attack. He was seen to be suffering a wound of some five centimetres in length and with a depth of five centimetres positioned ten centimetres lateral to the spine. This wound is said to have been to the left posterior aspect of the chest. [8] The applicant says in an affidavit filed on his behalf that as a result of the attack upon him he has become very reluctant to continue in his security business and has considerably reduced it, having lost interest in it and generally becoming somewhat indifferent to this work. In addition he has suffered the breakdown of his marriage which he sees as a result of the psychological impact of the attack upon him resulting in a degree of withdrawal from the world and a loss of interest in going out and meeting other people. [9] His relationship with his children has also been affected. The applicant believes he has become somewhat obsessive as a result of these events. [10] There is nothing to suggest that he has been left with any serious ongoing sequelae of the stab wound as such but the wounds that were inflicted at the time must be regarded as a significant injury. [11] More serious are the psychiatric or psychological consequences to the applicant of the attack upon him. [12] There is a report from a psychologist, Gail Fisher-Nusenu. She expresses a view that the applicant suffers from post traumatic stress disorder which has prevented him from returning fully to his usual occupation and has resulted in his previous -- 2 of 3 -- 3 social activities being discontinued. He would benefit from some psychological intervention. [13] On behalf of the applicant it is contended that he should be compensated under Items 25 and 32 of Schedule 1 to the Act. Item 25 is gunshot/stab wounds (moderate) which provides for an award of compensation in the range of 8 percent to 16 percent of the scheme maximum. [14] I think that it would be appropriate to allow 10 percent of the scheme maximum for the stab wound given that in the result there does not appear to be any permanent sequelae apart presumably from some scarring. This is an amount of $7,500. [15] So far as the claim under Item 32 is concerned I think that it is reasonable to allow 20 percent of the scheme maximum which represents the top of the range for compensation under that item namely the sum of $15,000. Item 32 provides for mental or nervous shock (moderate). [16] The result then would be a total of some $22,500. [17] I order that the respondent pay to the applicant by way of criminal compensation, the sum of $22,500. -- 3 of 3 --