Noble v Noble

[2001] QSC 468

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Noble v Noble [2001] QSC 468

PARTIES:

NANCY GWEN NOBLE aka LANGDON
(applicant)
v
VERNON FRANCIS NOBLE
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

663 of 2001

DIVISION:

Supreme Court Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application for criminal compensation

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court

DELIVERED ON:

7 December 2001

DELIVERED AT:

Townsville

HEARING DATE:

3 December 2001

JUDGE:

Cullinane J

ORDER:

Applicant awarded a sum of $55,000 by way of compensation

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – DISPOSAL OF PRISONERS’ PROPERTY AND ORDERS FOR RESTITUTION AND COMPENSATION – QUEENSLAND – application for compensation in respect of nervous shock and pain, suffering and loss of amenities – where respondent convicted of doing grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm to the applicant – where compensation falls to be assessed under s 663 of the Criminal Code

Criminal Code (Qld) s 663
WorkCover Queensland Act 1996
R v Chong ex parte: Chong  [2001] 2 Qd R 301

COUNSEL:

AJ Kimmins for the applicant
No appearance for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Tony Bailey Solicitor for the applicant
No appearance for the respondent

1. The applicant seeks compensation in respect of injuries sustained by her on 30^th January 1993 when she was attacked by the respondent. The respondent was convicted of doing grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm to the applicant and sentenced to five and a half years imprisonment.

1. The applicant was born on 30^th January 1993.  She and the respondent resided together in a de facto relationship but separated some two days prior to the commission of the offence following a dispute.  The applicant went to stay with relatives of the respondent.

1. On the day of the incident the respondent entered the house where the applicant was staying, took out a knife that had been secreted on him and commenced to stab the applicant.  He stabbed her on the left side and as she tried to run away she fell to the ground and he continued to stab her. She was stabbed approximately 4 times.  In the course of the assault, the blade of the knife broke away from the handle.

1. The incident occurred at Palm Island.

1. The applicant sustained a laceration to the left upper thigh, penetrating to the subcutaneous tissue.  She sustained two lacerations to the right knee, one of which also entered the subcutaneous tissue.  There was a four centimetre deep laceration to the right lateral upper abdomen extending through the lower ribs and into the abdominal cavity and there were lacerations to the right wrist.

1. The applicant suffers according to a psychologist Mr Ryan, from a post traumatic stress disorder which has persisted since the time of the assault.  He describes the applicant as having had an impairment of her emotional, physical and psycho social functioning which was more marked in the early period following the incident but which has, nonetheless continued.  He recommends psychotherapeutic intervention to further improve her position.

1. In the applicant’s affidavit she outlines  detailed events of the day.  I have no doubt that she must have suffered a terrifying experience.

1. She complains of pain and discomfort in her wrist after using it for any length of time and a lack of strength in it, compared to her other hand.  She says that when she holds a pen, her hand tends to cramp and hurt and that lifting anything of any significance causes her pain.  She also describes herself as feeling puffed and short of breath easily because of “the damage to my lung”.

1. I do not have any medical evidence in support of these matters particularly the second of the two referred to.

1. The applicant is left with scarring, a photo of which was tendered at the hearing.  This shows extensive scarring of the wrist and lower arm and I have no difficulty accepting the complaints which she makes about the pain and loss of power in this area.

1. The matter falls to be dealt with under s.663 of the Criminal Code.  This prescribes a limit to a claim for compensation in respect of mental and nervous shock.  The relevant prescribed maximum otherwise is that for which the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 currently provides. See R v Chong ex parte: Chong [2001] 2 Qd R 301.

1. Although the limitation period has expired in the present case, it is to be ignored in the absence of the respondent’s expressly taking the point.  See R v Chong (supra).

1. There are claims then for nervous shock and pain, suffering and loss of amenities.

1. I accept that the applicant should receive the maximum for mental and nervous shock.  In respect of the other claims for pain, suffering and loss of amenities, these too I am satisfied, call for the award of a significant sum.

1. I assess (including an allowance for costs) a total amount of compensation of $55,000 and make an award of compensation in this sum.