Victims told state has final say on payouts
08.11.1997
By: KOCH A Source: QNP
QUEENSLAND victims of crime granted court awards are being told that the State Government has ``an unfettered discretion'' to reduce or reject the awards.
Attorney-General Denver Beanland has exercised that ``discretion'' in scores of cases, including rape and stabbing victims _ where awards to victims have been halved or even rejected.
In the pro-forma letter sent to crime victims, the Justice Department says: ``It must be stressed that the Governor-in-Council has a totally unfettered discretion to determine each application on the material available.''
One example was the Justice Department's refusal to pay court-awarded compensation of the maximum _ $72,680 _ to a homeless Mt Isa woman disfigured when a man poured jugs of boiling water over her.
Etti Harold, 36, lives in women's shelters or in local parks. She is addicted to alcohol, including methylated spirits.
She has become the butt of derision because the scalds took skin from her head, face, back and buttocks _ and there are huge patches of white skin.
Justin Brown was sentenced to three years' jail for the assault on Ms Harold on May 3, 1994.
Counsel for Ms Harold, along with community representatives, have argued that the award should be paid to a trustee so a home can be provided for her and efforts made to cure her alcoholism.
The Justice Department has pointed out that Ms Harold has criminal convictions for drunken conduct, including assault, wounding, bodily harm, stealing and breaking and entering.
Its letter of September 15 to Ms Harold's solicitor, Tony Bailey, said: ``With regard to your client's personal offence convictions, it may well be considered inappropriate for your client to recover compensation when she herself has inflicted injury on others without the payment of compensation.
``Etti has a Christian Brother in Normanton who wants to buy her a home there and look after her, either under the guidance of the Public Trustee or the Church.''
The Courier-Mail has been contacted by dozens of lawyers and their clients who have had court awards made under the Criminal Offenders Victims Act rejected or reduced on the recommendation of Mr Beanland.
The community's responsibility to victims of crime was spelt out by Judge Demack in the 1979 case of David Sainty.
He said it was beyond argument that the community had an obligation towards victims of crime.
Judge Demack said the law allowed courts to order criminal compensation to a victim and the Governor-in-Council to adjust or delay payment _ as is still happening.
``However, if the Governor-in-Council makes a payment, the Minister is to stand in the shoes of the victim to the extent of the payment in respect of any legal claim. What Parliament giveth, it taketh away,'' Judge Demack said.
He said the power of government to defer a payment should be replaced with a requirement that a payment be made within a specified time. He suggested three months.
``The humane thing for the community to do is to require the Government to make a payment when it is needed,'' he said
