Lythgo v Lawrence

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:Lythgo v Lawrence [2010] QDC 63

PARTIES: WILLIAM GERARD LYTHGO
(applicant)

v
ADAM LEIGH LAWRENCE
(respondent)

FILE NO/S: No 1959 of 2009

ORIGINATING COURT: Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: 2 March 2010

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

JUDGE: Rackemann DCJ

ORDER: That the respondent pay the applicant compensation in the amount of $6,000.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal compensation – police officer assaulted during violent reaction by respondent – bruising / lacerations – mental or nervous shock

COUNSEL: Mr Hall for the applicant
No appearance for the respondent

SOLICITORS: McCowans Solicitors for the applicant

HIS HONOUR: This is an application for compensation pursuant to the Criminal Offence Victims' Act 1995, for injuries sustained by the applicant as a result of a serious assault, for which the respondent was convicted and sentenced on the 12th of February 2008.

The circumstances of the incident are set out in my sentencing remarks and essentially involve a violent reaction by the respondent towards two arresting officers, one of whom is the applicant. There is no basis in the evidence to conclude that the applicant, in any way, contributed to his injuries.

The injuries for which compensation is claimed is bruising/lacerations and mental and nervous shock. There is little evidence in relation to the severity of the bruising/lacerations. That is a matter which is dealt with in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the applicant's affidavit, where he deposes to having suffered bruising/lacerations which he treated himself and which did not cause him to consult a doctor. The extent of that bruising/lacerations is not further described.

I accept that some bruising/lacerations were suffered but, in the absence of any further evidence of their extent, I assess compensation for that injury at 1 per cent of the scheme maximum.

The mental and nervous shock aspect of the claim relies upon the evidence of Dr Alan Freed who provided a report on the 21st of September 2008. The hearing of this matter was adjourned in order to enable the applicant to obtain further material in relation to this injury, but no further material has been forthcoming.

The report of Dr Freed evidences his appreciation of the meaning of mental or nervous shock, at least on the broad approach adopted in R v Kazakoff, ex parte Ferguson [2000] QSC 156 which is the appropriate approach, in my view (see O'Gorman v Selff [2010] QDC 13).

In Dr Freed's opinion, the applicant did suffer mental and nervous shock. The details of the relevant symptoms are set out in his report and may be generally described as anxiety and the development of a mild speech impediment. It is perhaps a little surprising that an officer of such long experience of street work would suffer such a reaction to this incident. However, I accept that he did and I accept the evidence of Dr Freed.

On Dr Freed's evidence, the applicant's condition is improving but has not resolved. He assessed the applicant on the global assessment of functioning scale. He says that his rank has slipped from the 91 to 100 range to the 81 to 90 range, the latter being described as "absent or minimal symptoms." In that regard, I take his report to mean that symptoms are "minimal" rather than absent.

It is evident that the injury appropriately falls within the minor category of mental and nervous shock. In the circumstances, I assess compensation for mental and nervous shock in the amount of 7 per cent of the scheme maximum, bringing the total compensation assessed to 8 per cent of the scheme maximum, being $6,000

Accordingly, I order that the respondent pay the applicant compensation in the amount of $6,000.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The District Court of Queensland dealt with the matter of Lythgo v Lawrence, where William Gerard Lythgo sought compensation under the Criminal Offence Victims' Act 1995 for injuries sustained during an assault by Adam Leigh Lawrence. The applicant, a police officer, was assaulted by the respondent during a violent incident leading to the respondent’s arrest. The applicant suffered physical injuries and mental or nervous shock as a result of this assault, for which he sought compensation. The respondent, who had already been convicted and sentenced for the assault, did not appear in court for this compensation hearing.

The primary legal issues before the court were the determination of the extent and severity of the applicant’s injuries, and whether these injuries qualified for compensation under the statutory scheme. The court had to assess the physical injuries, specifically bruising and lacerations, and the mental or nervous shock claimed by the applicant. The court needed to evaluate the evidence provided by the applicant, including his own affidavit and a report by Dr. Alan Freed, to determine the appropriate level of compensation.

The court found that the applicant had indeed suffered physical injuries in the form of bruising and lacerations, though the evidence regarding their severity was limited. The court accepted that these injuries warranted compensation, albeit at a minimal level due to the lack of detailed evidence. Regarding the mental or nervous shock, the court accepted Dr. Freed’s report, which detailed symptoms of anxiety and a mild speech impediment. The court found these symptoms to constitute a minor category of mental or nervous shock, considering the applicant’s improvement but ongoing symptoms. The court ultimately assessed the total compensation at 8% of the scheme maximum, amounting to $6,000.

The District Court ordered that the respondent, Adam Leigh Lawrence, pay the applicant, William Gerard Lythgo, compensation in the sum of $6,000 for the injuries sustained during the assault. This compensation reflected both the physical injuries and the mental or nervous shock experienced by the applicant.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established