13 Mar 2025A man who committed assault and battery against a speed camera operator was ordered by a court to pay his victim $401,265 in damages.
Assault and battery due to mistaken belief
The NSW District Court heard the unprovoked attack happened in a car park in the town of Oberon, when the attacker mistakenly decided that an operator sitting in his vehicle monitoring a mobile speed camera was a paedophile preying on children.
The attacker, a corrections officer, was recorded on the operator’s video yelling: “You’re a… dog, open the f…. door… you’re a paedophile waiting for kids” as he yanked on the car door, forced open the car window and punched the driver in the face, despite the driver repeatedly telling him he was operating a speed camera on the nearby road.
Attacker pleads guilty to causing grievous bodily harm
The attacker had earlier pleaded guilty to the crime of recklessly causing grievous bodily harm and was sentenced to a two-year intensive correction order, to be served in the community.
The attacker did not file a written defence when the victim sought damages, and judgment had already been entered against him.
The victim claimed common law compensatory, aggravated and exemplary damages. The NSW Civil Liability Act 2002 did not apply in this case, as it is explained in Section 3B of the Act.
Judge considers severe impact of assault and battery in damages ruling
Acting Judge Leonard Levy said the “shocking assault and battery… left the victim with significant ongoing physical and psychological disabilities.” He required major dental work. The court heard the victim was no longer able to bite into hard foods such as steak or apples, and had trouble speaking in a normal voice.
The judge said the action by the attacker amounted to “vigilantism… as a serving corrections officer at the time he ought to have known better than to persist with his chosen unlawful course of conduct.” (Please see Prisk v Danslow [2024] NSWDC 535.)
When considering damages, the judge took into account the extensive dental work, oral surgery and prosthodontics the victim needed and his ongoing psychological difficulties.
His past out-of-pocket expenses of $4,739, as well as his loss of income of $3,473, had largely been paid by the workers’ compensation insurer. He claimed future expenses, out-of-pocket expenses for dental work that would amount to $140,155.
The judge accepted this future treatment to be reasonably necessary, but reduced the amount to $130,000. The judge assessed his future loss of income at $45,000.
The judge ruled that damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity of life should be assessed towards the mid-to-upper end of the range, and awarded the victim $190,000 for aggravated damages.
The total damages awarded to the victim came to $401,265 and the attacker was ordered to pay his victim’s legal costs on top of that.
Seeking compensation for assault and battery injuries
This case demonstrates the need for people who have been injured in an attack or accident, either physically or psychologically, to seek expert legal advice from a specialist in personal injury law, to find out whether they could pursue compensation for damages beyond what the workers’ compensation scheme covers.
In some cases, the person ordered to pay the damages may not have the money or resources to pay the sum awarded and may therefore fail to comply with the judgment.
If this is the case, there are ways to enforce the judgment and force the payment of those damages, however this process involves further legal action.
It may be the case that even if steps are taken to enforce the judgement, the person does not have sufficient assets or money to pay the entirety of the damages awarded.
For this reason, when considering bringing a legal action it is pertinent to consider whether the attacker has sufficient resources to pay any damages awarded.
