Brosnan v Pallas [2000] QSC 485

State 4017-1 oo-4~S-- Reporting Bureau TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be made or sold without the written authority of the Director, State Reporting Bureau. SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CIVIL JURISDICTION JONES J Application No 121 of 2000 JASON ANTHONY BROSNAN and GILLES ROGER PALLAS CAIRNS .. DATE 14/12/2000 JUDGMENT R~~;~,E;~, .• ;r}'.::i,~;~31~:~;~D 1 , Date / g_.L!.:-?-1 -:2.oo o Applicant Respondent -- 1 of 5 -- 1412-2000 D.1 T3/BV M/T CNS8G9/.2000 (Jones J). HIS HONOUR: This is an application for compensation pursuant to the Criminal Offence Victims Act (1995). The applicant was born on 25 August 1971 and is therefore 29 years of age. On 21 February 1999 whilst he was acting in the course of his duties as a police officer the applicant was attacked by Gilles Pallas and was shot in the leg. In the course of the attack he suffered a number of other injuries which I will detail, but it was the bullet wound to his right leg which, if left untreated, was likely to cause him permanent injury to health. The respondent pleaded guilty to a litany of offences including this attack on 20 March 2000 and he was sentenced to a long term of imprisonment. In brief terms, the circumstances of the attack were that the applicant in company with other police officers were conducting a search at a property near Innisfail. The respondent was apprehended, but then asked for time to clothe himself before further questioning. In the course of clothing himself, the respondent took up a pistol and then fled. The applicant, with commendable courage and lack of concern for his own safety, took off after the fleeing respondent. The applicant was not himself harmed at that time. He caught up with the respondent and when he did so was confronted by the respondent armed with a pistol pointing at him. The respondent forced the applicant to kneel down and the applicant, not unnaturally, was fearful for his life. He believed that the respondent was going to shoot him. The applicant then spun around, grabbed the barrel of the pistol, and in the course of trying to disarm the respondent the 2 JUDGMENT 10 20 30 40 50 60 -- 2 of 5 -- 14122000 D.l T3/BV M/T CNS869/2000 (Jones J) firearm discharged and the bullet entered the applicant's right, upper leg, passed behind his knee, and became lodged the muscle tissue of the right, lower leg. in Though wounded, the applicant continued to struggle with the respondent and ultimately wrestled the gun from him. But in the course of that struggle, the respondent was able to pick up a rock with which he then struck the applicant approximately three times in the head. In the course of this struggle the respondent also attempted to choke the applicant and this fact is evidenced by burn marks made by the respondent's clothing around the front of the respondent's neck. Ultimately, the respondent escaped and the applicant was able to be assisted by other police officers and taken to the Innisfail hospital where initial treatment was carried out. The list of injuries that were detected are as follows: (a) Bullet wound to the right leg; (b) Closed head injury with mild memory loss; (c) Lacerations over the right side of the head and on top of the head, left side of the head and above the left eye; (d) Lacerations to both ears; (e) Bruisings and abrasions to both arms; (f) Bruising around the face and head; and (g) A severe abrasion burn around the throat. 3 JUDGMENT 10 20 30 40 50 60 -- 3 of 5 -- 14122000 D.1 T3/BV M/T CNS869/2000 (Jones J) The plaintiff suffered a closed head injury with which he associates some mild memory impairment. Of major significance is that the applicant has suffered a post-traumatic stress disorder. The effects of that continue to the present time and the effects are more specifically detailed in a report of Vidula Garde, a forensic clinical psychologist. Ms Garde has examined the plaintiff on three occasions recently, they being 31 August 2000, 19 September 2000 and 2 October 2000. The salient findings of those examinations are the facts that the applicant experienced a very high degree of stress during this episode, that he has since then re-experienced the traumatic episode, and he persistently reports experiencing increased arousal. These disturbances have persisted up to the present time. The applicant has undergone psychological counselling and has benefited from that. The prognosis is that with continuing therapy the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder will decline. It is noted that the applicant has good social support from his family and his fiance, that he has a high level of intelligence, he has a high level of pre-incident functioning and he has the personality really to make the best of his situation. expected that he has a good prognosis. It is Notwithstanding that, I have to take account of the fact that the applicant continues in his work as a police officer. And by reason of the duties of that occupation he is destined to encounter situations where these memories will be revived from time to time. As a consequence I am satisfied that it is appropriate to place the mental and nervous shock component in 4 JUDGMENT 10 20 30 40 50 60 -- 4 of 5 -- 14122000 D.l T3/BV M/T CNS869/2000 (Jones J) the severe category, rather than a lesser one. I would assess in that respect that the allowance of 25 per cent of the statutory maximum is appropriate for that component of injury. In relation to the other areas of injury, I make the following assessments: Bruising/laceration (moderate) Gun shot wound (moderate) Head injury (no brain damage) Bodily scarring (moderate) Mental and nervous shock (severe) 3% 15% 5% 5% 25% $2,250 $11,250 $3,750 $3,750 $18,750 The total of those respective allowances is $39,750. I will make orders in terms of the draft initialled by me and placed with the papers setting out those respective allowances. 5 JUDGMENT 10 20 30 40 50 60 -- 5 of 5 --