JURISDICTION : CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ASSESSOR OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

ACT : CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION ACT 2003

CITATION : H [2022] WACIC 4

CORAM : R GUTHRIE

DELIVERED : 21 APRIL 2022

FILE NO/S : CIC 158 of 2019

BETWEEN : H
Applicant

Catchwords:

Turns on its own facts – Global award to take account of police officer removing himself from front line

Legislation:

Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003, s 12, s 18, s 19, s 45

Result:

Compensation awarded

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Not applicable

Solicitors:

Applicant : Not applicable

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Burke v Vittorio; Burke v Persall [2008] WADC 169 [34]
Crumby v Kuru (1995) 13 SR (WA) 331 at pp 333–334
Hogben v Darcy [2009] WADC 63 [13]
Welsh v Kelly [2008] WADC 149 [9] – [10]

Reasons for Decision:

1 On 17 January 2019 the applicant, “H”, a police officer, lodged an application in relation to an incident which took place at Queen Victoria Street, Fremantle on 10 February 2016. As a consequence of that incident the offender, “I”, was charged and convicted in the Magistrates Court at Fremantle on 19 July 2016 with obstructing a public officer and disorderly behaviour in public (the offences). As the offender was convicted of those offences the application was made pursuant to section 12 of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 2003 (the Act).
2 The applicant provided a detailed victim impact statement which in addition to describing the impact of the incident upon the applicant, set out the circumstances of the offences. He also provided photographs of the scene of the offences. I will return to a description of those photographs below as they are critical to the circumstances of this incident.
3 I obtained the police brief which contained a copy of the statement of material facts in relation to the prosecution of the offender. I summarise the events leading to the offences as follows. At about 8:52 pm on Saturday, 10 February 2016, the offender was at a unit in a block of apartments in Queen Victoria Street, Fremantle. Police attended the Queen Victoria Street address because they had been alerted to a dispute between the offender and his neighbours. Upon arrival police noted the offender yelling obscenities from the balcony of his apartment at such a volume he could clearly be heard outside the building in the courtyard area of the apartment block. Because of the noise, several tenants from other apartments were present to observe what was taking place. Police warned the offender to stop his behaviour, however the offender continued shouting obscenities in a loud clear voice. Whilst shouting obscenities the offender threw several objects from his balcony including a mobile phone, a pot plant and drink cans. One of these objects and struck the applicant in the head, although he suffered no apparent physical injuries at that time. The offender’s behaviour continued until approximately 10:00 pm when police gained entry to the offender’s property and were able to arrest him. He was then conveyed to Fiona Stanley Hospital for a mental health assessment and was released the following day. The offender was initially charged with disorderly behaviour in a public place and assaulting a public officer. However, after the offender’s solicitor negotiated with police the charge of assaulting a public officer was amended to obstructing a police officer. Following the amendment to the charges the offender pleaded guilty to both charges and was convicted in the Magistrates Court of disorderly behaviour in public and obstruct public officer receiving a spent conviction. Given the offenders plea of guilty the above facts were not put in issue.
4 The police brief provided did not include any statements from the police officers present at the time of the offences, however, the applicant’s victim impact statement set out in detail the circumstances of his involvement with the offender. In the applicant’s victim impact statement, he recites he was a First-Class Constable attached to the Family Violence Unit. On Saturday, 10 February 2016 he was on duty together with Senior Constable “D”. In response to information received they attended at the premises of the offender in Queen Victoria Street in Fremantle and conducted enquiries with neighbouring units. Whilst talking to neighbours the officers were disturbed by the offender who was shouting profanities in a loud clear voice. The applicant and Senior Constable “D” exited the neighbouring units and approached the offender’s dwelling. As they attempted to engage verbally with the offender, he began throwing missiles at them. A pot plant smashed narrowly missing the applicant’s head. A phone and drink cans were also thrown at the applicant, who had no cover or protection and feared for his safety. He attempted to back away to avoid being hit by these missiles which continued to be thrown at him. One of the objects struck him on the head. It was unclear which object had struck him from this barrage of items as the area was poorly lit. When struck by the object he staggered backwards attempting to regain his composure and seek cover. Having been struck on the head by an object the applicant felt immediate pain and discomfort but continued in his engagement with the offender. He called for immediate back‑up and an additional five police officers and a police dog arrived shortly thereafter. Those officers brought with them riot shields. Under orders from the applicant’s sergeant, he and other officers entered the offender’s property with riot shields in hand. At this point the applicant noticed his head was pounding and he was uncertain as to what would take place when inside the offender’s premises. The officers burst through the offender’s door and pushed the offender over with riot shields. He was then placed in handcuffs and taken to Fiona Stanley Hospital for a mental health assessment.
5 As a result of the offences the applicant felt he was affected ‘both professionally and in a personal capacity’. He noticed he was cautious when speaking to people who were physically positioned above him for fear of being struck by projectiles. He maintained larger distances between himself and others. In his private life he was reclusive. The incident led to a change in his role at work. He was no longer in a frontline position, having transferred to a largely administrative role because of the offences. He lost some shift penalties because of moving to an administrative role. He did not quantify those losses.
6 The applicant did not provide any medical evidence to support his claim for compensation. This was unsurprising given the nature of the injuries described by the applicant, namely being struck by an object which did not cause any apparent physical injury. There is no statutory requirement for an applicant to provide medical evidence in order for a claim for compensation to be assessed. (See sections 18 and 19 of the Act) An assessor is empowered to inform himself or herself as they see fit and must ultimately determine on the evidence whether an injury has been sustained. In this case I took into account all of the material on the police brief, together with the applicant’s victim impact statement and all the material submitted by the applicant.
7 The photographs of the scene provided by the applicant showed a block of apartments with parking spaces attached. There are several vehicles parked in allocated bays and around those vehicles there is detritus, in particular drink cans, a mobile phone and a plastic flowerpot which I infer were the items thrown by the offender at the officers. There appears to be soil from the flowerpot scattered on the ground. Taking all of this material into account I was satisfied the applicant had been struck by at least one object and suffered immediate pain which he endured through the period of the incident and for some time thereafter. I was also satisfied he suffered a form of acute stress reaction to the incident, both by reason of being struck by the object and by the intensity of the circumstances arising from the offender’s behaviour.
8 There was some discrepancy between the statement of material facts in the police brief which asserted the applicant had been struck by a flowerpot whereas from the applicant’s victim impact statement I discerned there was some uncertainty as to which item thrown by the offender had struck the applicant. Again, given the circumstances of the offence I did not regard this as surprising or consider much turned on this point. I was satisfied the applicant had been struck by at least one item which caused him immediate pain and headache. In addition, having been struck by an unknown object the applicant understandably considered he was at further risk of harm from the offender if more objects were thrown.
9 I was satisfied the applicant’s description of the offences and the impact upon him was enduring for some period beyond the date of the offences and resulted in him removing himself from front line police work. There was no evidence the applicant was medically unfit to continue in front line police work and this was therefore not the subject of a claim for loss of earning capacity. However, in his victim impact statement the applicant described the effect of the offences convinced him to “get off the front line” as he no longer wished to put himself in danger. I accept the offences resulted in the applicant making a rational and reasonable choice to avoid frontline duties. I considered the appropriate method of assessment was to take this into account in the assessment of injury as a global sum. Taking all these matters into account, I awarded the applicant $7,500 as a global amount. . (Crumby v Kuru (1995) 13 SR (WA) 331 at pp 333–334; Burke v Vittorio; Burke v Persall [2008] WADC 169 [34]; Welsh v Kelly [2008] WADC 149 [9] – [10]; Hogben v Darcy [2009] WADC 63 [13]).
10 The offender was convicted of the offences and a spent conviction was imposed at sentencing. From the police brief I was satisfied the offender’s behaviour was aberrant and, in all probability, related to a florid mental health incident. I did not consider it was just to impose any recovery order against the offender under Part 6 of the Act and barred recovery against the offender.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Assessor of Western Australia.

R Guthrie, ASSESSOR OF CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION

21 APRIL 2022