First published in The Age

The lawyer for the first member of the stolen generation to be awarded compensation by a court says it is time for all states to set up voluntary compensation plans.

The South Australian government was ordered to pay Aboriginal man Bruce Trevorrow $525,000 for injuries, losses and false imprisonment.

Mr Trevorrow was 13 months old in 1957 when a neighbour drove him from his Coorong family home, south-east of Adelaide, to the Children's Hospital on Christmas Day, with stomach pains.

Hospital notes tendered to the South Australian Supreme Court show staff recorded that the child had no parents, was neglected and malnourished.

Two weeks later, he was given under the authority of Aborigines Protection Board to a woman, who later became his foster parent, without the permission of his natural parents.

He did not see his family again for 10 years.

Trevorrow's lawyer and prominent civil libertarian, Julian Burnside QC said the case illustrated beyond a doubt how much damage was done to the stolen generation.

"It's now time for them (the states) to set out a compensation plan that will deal with that," he told ABC Radio.

"It's much more sensible to do it in a way that is consensual, than to do it by litigation."

Aboriginal Social Justice Commissioner Tom Calma said it was an important judgment.

"It does show that people were stolen, were taken away from their families, and have suffered immensely over the years," he told the ABC.

"And this is the first time the courts have recognised that in a meaningful way."

Mr Trevorrow launched the legal action in June 1998, claiming he had lost his cultural identity, suffered depression, became an alcoholic and had an erratic employment history after being taken as a child from his family.

The court heard the 50-year-old was depressed due to chronic insecurity and had been treated with antidepressants and tranquillisers since he was 10.

Ruling in favour of Mr Trevorrow, Justice Thomas Gray said the state falsely imprisoned him as a child and owed him a duty of care for his pain and suffering.

The SA government was considering whether to appeal the decision.