Lewis v. Ferris and Anor [2004] QDC 81 (23 April 2004)

Last Updated: 23 April 2004

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Lewis v. Ferris and Anor [2004] QDC 81
PARTIES:	MELVYN JOHN LEWIS (Applicant) v. DARRYL JAMES FERRIS (First Respondent) And CHRISTOPHER BARRY CURRELL (Second Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	11/2002
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application for Criminal Compensation
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:	23 April 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Ipswich
HEARING DATE:
JUDGE:	Richards DCJ
ORDER:	That the respondents pay the applicant the sum of $ 18,750 by way of criminal compensation.
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal compensation
SOLICITORS:	D. McMillan for the applicant No appearance for the respondents

[1] On the 18^th September 2000 the applicant attended the Raceview Tavern at Ipswich after work. When he arrived both respondents were in the bar area and they were loud and abusive. The applicant did not stay for long but did return to the hotel later. On his return he walked past Currell to enter the bar. Currell took a swing at the applicant and Ferris grabbed him the arm and said "Come over here". He was then taken outside to a car park and asked to sit down, however, before he could do so he was punched to the head and his eye and he fell to the ground. He was then kicked to the head by Currell. He was held down for five minutes during which time Currell punched him in the face and kicked him in the head. The incident stopped when a female associate of the respondents intervened.

[2] Ferris was sentenced on 13 July 2001 and Currell was sentenced on 5 September 2003 in relation to this matter. It was regarded as a very serious attack and it was noted that the complainant did not in any way provoke or bring about the attack.

[3] The applicant suffered the following physical injuries:

(a) a periorbital swelling and a small one centimetre laceration to the right brow;

(b) a chip from one of his molar teeth on the left side;

(c) the laceration which required suturing

As a result of his injuries he was unable to attend work for 2 days.

[4] He was seen by Mrs Lennon, a psychologist, who has provided a report to the court. She has noted that:

* he is more security conscious;

* he has a fear of the dark and sleeps with a baseball bat;

* he is tired and has difficulty sleeping;

* he has increased his intake of alcohol;

* his social life is restricted;

* he does not walk anywhere at night;

* he has a reduced involvement in sport;

* for the first three months after the assault he experienced dreaming of the assault, waking up shaking, nervousness and jitteriness and hypervigilence;

* he is displaying signs of post-traumatic stress disorder;

* continues to be traumatised by the assault.

[5] The attack has significantly impacted on his social, physical and psychological well-being. Ms Lennon indicates that he continues to suffer from psychological symptoms in the moderate to severe range, and they are unlikely to resolve in the foreseeable future without the stance of a competent mental health professional to engage the applicant in a meaningful way.

[6] He is entitled to compensation under the Criminal Offence Victims Act. He did not in any way contribute to his injuries. He should be given compensation as follows:

In relation to bruising and lacerations $2,250

In relation to the damage to his teeth $1,500

In relation to the mental and nervous shock injury, $15,000

Total: $18,750

ORDER

I order that the respondents pay the applicant the sum of $18,750. Given that the two respondents were equally involved in the offence, I see no reason to apportion the compensation other than to say that they are jointly and severally liable for the total sum of $18,750.