Ali and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)

[2021] AATA 3344

Ali and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review) [2021] AATA 3344 (17 September 2021)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number:          2021/0117

Re:Mr Jaafar Ali

APPLICANT

AndSecretary, Department of Social Services

RESPONDENT

Decision

Tribunal:Senior Member B. Pola

Date:17 September 2021

Place:Brisbane

Pursuant to section 43(1)(a) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), the Tribunal affirms the decision of the Social Security and Child Support Division, dated 20 November 2020.

.........................[SGD]...............................

Senior Member B. Pola

Catchwords

SOCIAL SECURITY – Disability Support Pension – Whether medical conditions fully diagnosed, fully treated and fully stabilised – Whether 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables during the Qualification Period – Decision under review affirmed

Legislation

Social Security (Active Participation for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2014 (Cth)

Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (Cth)
Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (Cth)

Social Security Act 1991 (Cth)

Cases

Bobera and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2012] AATA 922

Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60; (1979) 46 FLR 409, 419
Fanning and Secretary, Department of Social Services (2014) 144 ALDA 133; [2014] AATA 447
Faulkner and Comcare [2007] AATA 1541

Harris and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 404

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member B. Pola

17 September 2021

BACKGROUND

1.       On 5 February 2020, the Applicant, Mr Jaafar Ali, lodged a claim for the Disability Support Pension (herein referred to as the ‘DSP’) with Services Australia (herein referred to as the ‘Agency’)[1].

[1]     Exhibit R1, T7, pages 61 to 93.

2.       On 9 June 2020, the Applicant was advised by the Agency that his claim for the DSP was rejected[2].

[2]     Exhibit R1, T11, pages 106 to 107.

3.       The decision to reject the Applicant’s claim for the DSP was affirmed by an Authorised Review Officer (herein referred to as an ‘ARO’) after an internal review by the Agency on        3 September 2020[3].

[3]     Exhibit R1, T17, pages 117 to 122.

4.       The Applicant applied to the Social Services and Child Support Division (herein referred to as the ‘SSCSD’) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (herein referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), to review the Agency’s decision to reject his claim for the DSP. On 20 November 2020, the SSCSD of the Tribunal affirmed the decision to reject the Applicant’s claim for the DSP[4].

[4]     Exhibit R1, T2, pages 6 to 11.

5.       The Applicant applied to the Tribunal for a second review of this decision on  6 January 2021[5].

[5]     Exhibit R1, T1, pages 1 to 5.

JURISDICTION

6.       This is an application to review a decision of the SSCSD of the Tribunal, which affirmed a decision to reject the Applicant’s claim for the DSP.

7.       The Applicant’s claim of 5 February 2020 has been reviewed in accordance with section 135 of the Social Security (Administration Act) 1999 (Cth) (herein referred to as the ‘Administration Act’) by an ARO as per the decision dated 3 September 2020[6].

[6]     Exhibit R1, T17, pages 117 to 122.

8. The SSCSD of the Tribunal subsequently reviewed the decision of the ARO and published reasons on 20 November 2020 [7].

[7]     Exhibit R1, T2, pages 6 to 11.

9.       In accordance with section 179(1) of the Administration Act, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the Applicant’s DSP claim of 5 February 2020.

ISSUES

10.     The issue before the Tribunal for consideration is whether the Applicant was qualified to receive the DSP in relation to his claim lodged on 5 February 2020 and ending 13 weeks later, on 6 May 2020[8] (herein referred to as the ‘Qualification Period’).

[8]     The Qualification Period is discussed in later paragraphs of this decision.

11.     The issue for the Tribunal to resolve in respect of the Applicant’s claim for the DSP is:

(a)Whether the Applicant had impairments during the Qualification Period in accordance with section 94(1)(a) of the Social Security Act 1991 (Cth) (herein referred to as ‘the Act’)?

(b)Whether the Applicant’s impairments attract 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables contained within the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2011 (here in referred to as the “Determination”) within the Qualification Period for the purpose of section 94(1)(b) of the Act? 

(i)If so, did the Applicant have a continuing inability to work as defined in section 94(2) of the Act for the purpose of section 94(1)(c) of the Act?

RELEVANT LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS

12.     The medical qualification criteria regarding eligibility for the DSP are set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 94(1) of the Act:

94 Qualification for disability support pension

(1)A person is qualified for disability support pension if:

(a)the person has a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment; and

(b)the person’s impairment is of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables; and

(c)one of the following applies:

(i)the person has a continuing inability to work;

(ii)the Secretary is satisfied that the person is participating in the program administered by the Commonwealth known as the supported wage system

13.     To be medically qualified for a DSP, a person must therefore have a physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment, that has a total rating of 20 points or more under one (or several) Impairment Tables, and a continuing inability to work which, in some circumstances, includes participation in a program of support.

14.     Section 26(1) of the Act provides that, “…the Minister may, by legislative instrument, determine tables relating to the assessment of work-related impairment for disability support pension”.

15.     It is the Tribunal’s role to stand in the shoes of the original decision-maker[9] and determine whether the decision was the correct or preferable one on the material before the Tribunal[10].

[9]     Faulkner and Comcare [2007] AATA 1541 at [27].

[10]    Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60; (1979) 46 FLR 409, 419 (per Bowen CJ and Deane J).

16.     Given this, the Tribunal must make its decision in accordance with the Social Security (Tables for the Assessment of Work-related Impairment for Disability Support Persons) Determination 2011 (Cth) (herein referred to as the ‘Determination’) which came into effect from 1 January 2012. The following paragraphs outline key sections of the Determination.

17.     Section 6 of the Determination provides that, “the impairment of a person must be assessed on the basis of what the person can, or could do, not on the basis of what the person chooses to do or what others do for the person”[11]. Further, the Impairment Tables in the Determination may only be applied to a person’s impairment after the person’s medical history, in relation to the condition causing the impairment, has been considered[12].

[11]    The Determination, section 6(1).

[12]    The Determination, section 6(2).

18.     An Impairment Rating may only be assigned to an impairment if[13]:

(a)the person’s condition causing the impairment is permanent; and

(b)the impairment that results from that condition is more likely than not, in light of evidence, to persist for more than two years.

[13]    The Determination, section 6(3).

19.     Further, for a condition to be considered permanent pursuant section 6(3)(a) of the Determination, the condition must also[14]:

(a)be fully diagnosed by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner; and

(b)be fully treated; and

(c)be fully stabilised; and

(d)be more likely than not, in light of available evidence, to persist for more than two years.

[14]    The Determination, section 6(4).

20.     When considering whether a condition has been fully diagnosed by an appropriately qualified medical practitioner and whether the condition has been fully treated, the following is also to be considered[15]:

(a)whether there is corroborating evidence of the condition; and

(b)what treatment or rehabilitation has occurred in relation to the condition; and

(c)whether treatment is continuing or is planned in the next two years.

[15]    The Determination, section 6(5).

21.     A condition is considered fully stabilised if[16]:

(a)either the person has undertaken reasonable treatment for the condition and any further reasonable treatment is unlikely to result in significant functional improvement to a level enabling the person to undertake work in the next two years; or

(b)the person has not undertaken reasonable treatment for the condition and:

(i)significant functional improvement to a level enabling the person to undertake work in the next two years is not expected to result, even if the person undertakes reasonable treatment; or

(ii)there is a medical or other compelling reason for the person not to undertake reasonable treatment.

[16]    The Determination, section 6(6).

22.     Reasonable treatment is a treatment that[17]:

(a)is available at a location reasonably accessible to the person; and

(b)is at a reasonable cost; and

(c)can reliably be expected to result in a substantial improvement in functional            capacity; and

(d)is regularly undertaken or performed; and

(e)has a high success rate; and

(f)carries a low risk to the person.

[17]    The Determination, section 6(7).

23.     Section 6(8) of the Determination provides that, “the presence of a diagnosed condition does not necessarily mean that there will be an impairment to which an impairment rating may be assigned”. While section 6(9) of the Determination sets out circumstances to be considered in relation to pain.

24.     Sections 7 to 11 of the Determination provide guidance as to how Impairment Tables should be used to assess information and evidence and how to assign Impairment Ratings.

25.     In particular, section 8(1) of the Determination provides that, “symptoms reported by a person in relation to their condition can only be taken into account where there is corroborating evidence”.

26.     While section 11(1)(c) of the Determination provides that in assigning an Impairment Rating, “if an impairment is considered as falling between 2 impairment ratings, the lower of the 2 ratings is to be assigned and the higher rating must not be assigned unless all the descriptors for that level of impairment are satisfied”.

Continuing inability to work

27.     As previously detailed in paragraph 10 of this decision, s94(1)(c)(i) of the Act states that in order to qualify for the DSP, a person must have a “continuing inability to work”. Section 94(2) of the Act stipulates that:

(2) A person has a continuing inability to work because of an impairment if the Secretary is satisfied that:

(aa)in a case where the person’s impairment is not a severe impairment within the meaning of subsection (3B) or the person is a reviewed 2008-2011 DSP starter who has had an opportunity to participate in a program of support—the person has actively participated in a program of support within the meaning of subsection (3C), and the program of support was wholly or partly funded by the Commonwealth; and

(a)in all cases—the impairment is of itself sufficient to prevent the person from doing any work independently of a program of support within the next 2 years; and

(b)in all cases—either:

(i)the impairment is of itself sufficient to prevent the person from undertaking a training activity during the next 2 years; or

(ii)if the impairment does not prevent the person from undertaking a training activity—such activity is unlikely (because of the impairment) to enable the person to do any work independently of a program of support within the next 2 years.

28.     A severe impairment is defined in s94(3B) of the Act:

A person’s impairment is a severe impairment if the person’s impairment is of 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables, of which 20 points or more are under a single Impairment Table.

29.     Section 94(3C) of the Act states that:

A person has actively participated in a program of support if the person has satisfied the requirements specified in a legislative instrument made by the Minister for the purposes of this subsection.

30.     The Social Security (Active Participation for Disability Support Pension) Determination 2014 (Cth) came into effect from 3 January 2015, and sets out the requirements for ‘active participation’ for those people required to demonstrate they have actively participated in a Program of Support

QUALIFICATION PERIOD

31.     Schedule 2, Part 2, section 4(1) of the Administration Act outlines that the Qualification Period for a social security payment occurs within the 13 weeks after the day on which the claim is made. Where a person subsequently becomes qualified after the lodging of the claim, the commencement date for the DSP is the date on which the claimant becomes qualified[18].

[18]    The Administration Act, Schedule 2, Part 2, section 4(1)(d).

32.     For the purposes of this decision, the day which the Applicant’s claim for the DSP was lodged with Centrelink was 5 February 2020[19] and concluded 13 weeks after that day. The Tribunal finds the 13 week period ended on 6 May 2020.

19     Exhibit R1, T7, pages 61 to 93.

33.     This means that for a claim to be successful, the person must be qualified for the DSP during this Qualification Period, noting that changes in medical conditions which occur later are not relevant to this claim, but may be relevant to a separate future claim. Further evidence (medical or other) provided outside the Qualification Period may be considered, however only if it is referable to the Applicant’s condition during the Qualification Period[20].

[20]    Bobera and Secretary, Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs [2012] AATA 922 at [34]; Harris and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations [2007] FCA 404 at [1]; Fanning and Secretary, Department of Social Services (2014) 144 ALDA 133; [2014] AATA 447 at [31].

CONSIDERATION

34.     The application was heard in Brisbane on 2 September 2021, and all parties appeared in person. The Applicant was self-represented, and the Respondent was represented by Mr Chris Murphy of Services Australia. The Applicant had a support person present to assist them with the proceedings (who did not appear as a witness), in addition to the services of a translator.

35.     The Tribunal considered oral submissions made by the Applicant and Respondent, in addition to submitted written evidence, as outlined in the Exhibit Register (Annexure 1 of these reasons).

Section 94(1)(a) of the Act (physical, intellectual or psychiatric impairment)

36. The Tribunal is satisfied, after review of the evidence before it, that the Applicant suffered impairments during the Qualification Period with respect to satisfying section 94(1)(a) of the Act, a point which was accepted by the Respondent[21].

[21]    Exhibit R2, page 8, paragraph 30.

37.     On review of the evidence before the Tribunal, the Tribunal finds the following impairments relevant to this application:

(a)Mental health condition; 

(b)Lower limb condition;

(c)Low intellectual capacity; and

(d)Multiple lipomas.

Section 94(1)(b) of the Act (Is a person’s impairment 20 points or more under the Impairment Tables)

38.     The Tribunal will now consider each impairment identified with respect to the application of section 94(1)(b) of the Act, and in particular whether they meet the relevant provisions contained within the Determination.

(a)Mental health condition

39.     In relation to the Applicant’s mental health condition, the Tribunal notes the following evidence:

(a)A Medical Certificate from General Practitioner, Dr Kevin Naicker of 13 February 2020, which indicates the Applicant was diagnosed with, “Anxiety/PTSD”, and was being treated with, “medication, counselling”. The Tribunal notes the date of the medical certificate of Dr Naicker was within the Qualification Period for this application[22].

(b)A Job Capacity Assessment Report (herein referred to as ‘JCAR’) of 17 April 2020 records the Applicant has stating that he had commenced counselling with a clinical psychologist, Ms Sharon Devine two months prior to the JCAR assessment, with the assessor stating the Applicant had found benefit from this counselling[23]. The Tribunal notes the Applicant has not provided corroborative medical evidence from any subsequent sessions with Ms Devine.

(c)A letter from a psychiatrist, Dr John Chalk, dated 23 July 2020 (post-dating this application’s Qualification Period), provides a background of the Applicant’s history with respect to escaping conflict in Iraq and surviving a bombing in 2006. Dr Chalk’s letter states that the Applicant has been on medication to treat his Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (Lexapro – 20 milligrams) over many years and has, in the past, attempted suicide. In his letter, Dr Chalk stated that in his opinion, the Applicant:[24]

… has benefited from seeing a psychologist. I suggested to him that he would probably gain some further benefit from some trauma-related treatment… I don’t think he needs ongoing psychiatric care from myself at the current time, although I would be happy to review him again should the need arise...

(d)A letter dated 23 January 2021 (post-dating the Qualification Period) from a registered psychologist, Ms Stephanie Clemment, states that the Applicant has suffered injuries from his exposure to conflict between Iraq and Lebanon, whilst he resided overseas[25]. Ms Clemment’s opinion was that the Applicant had, “… high severity PTSD symptoms…”.

[22]    Exhibit R1, T9, page 97.

23    Exhibit R1, T10, page 58.

[24]    Exhibit R1, T13, pages 109 to 110.

[25]    Exhibit R1, T21, pages 127 to 129.

40.     The introduction to the relevant impairment table to assess the Applicant’s mental health condition, Table 5 – Mental Health Function within the Determination, expressly stipulates the following with respect to the diagnosis of a mental health condition (extract below)[26]:

[26]    The Determination, page 22.

41.     The Tribunal is of the view that there is a lack of corroborating medical evidence from a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist diagnosing the Applicant’s mental health condition prior to, or during the Qualification Period.

42.     The Tribunal observes that:

(a)Dr Chalk’s letter post-dates the Qualification Period;

(b)There is no medical evidence corroborating the Applicant’s clinical history with Ms Devine (clinical psychologist) before the Tribunal (observing that there must be corroborating evidence as stipulated in the requirements of Table 5 – Mental Health Function within the Determination); and

(c)Ms Clemment is a registered psychologist and does not satisfy the requirements for diagnosis as stipulated in Table 5 – Mental Health Function within the Determination.

43.     Even if the Tribunal were to take a very generous interpretation of Dr Chalk’s letter of  23 July 2020 and that the reference to his understanding of the Applicant’s medication history and reported Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder could be taken as a formal diagnosis prior to or during the Qualification Period, the Tribunal is of the view that the Applicant’s mental health condition could not be considered fully treated and fully stabilised.

44.     This is so in circumstances where Dr Chalk had recommended the Applicant undertake further trauma-related treatment in his letter of July 2020, as had Ms Clemment, who also recommended that the Applicant continue psychological sessions on a regular basis in her letter of 23 January 2020. The reported ongoing need for further treatment by Dr Chalk and Ms Clemment, which post-dates the Qualification Period, suggests the Applicant’s mental health condition may not have been optimally treated prior to, or during the Qualification Period.

45.     In the absence of evidence from the Applicant of a diagnosis made by a psychiatrist or evidence from a clinical psychologist prior to or during the Qualification Period for this application with respect to the Applicant’s mental health condition, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s mental health condition was not fully diagnosed.

46.     Therefore, an impairment rating cannot be assigned for the Applicant’s mental health condition.

(b) Lower limb condition

47.     With respect to the Applicant’s lower limb condition, the Tribunal notes the following evidence:

(a)Radiology undertaken in February 2020 which concluded, “[there is a] small ill-defined hypoechogenicity involving the distal Achilles which may be due to tendinosis or partial thickness tear”[27].

(b)A form titled, ’Claim for Disability Support Pension’, completed by Dr Kevin Naicker and submitted to the Agency on 5 February 2020, states in the medical details section that the Applicant had, “… L achilles tendon chronic tear. R foot toe crowding…”[28].

(c)A JCAR report of 17 April 2020 states that the Applicant sustained the injury from a bomb blast, and that the Applicant, “… reports he takes medication for pain and he has commenced physiotherapy (2 sessions)”[29].

[27]    Exhibit R1, T6, page 60.

[28]    Exhibit R1, T7, page 87.

[29]    Exhibit R1, T10, page 100.

48.     The Tribunal is satisfied on the basis of Dr Naiker’s diagnosis within the ’Claim for Disability Support Pension’ form completed on 5 February 2020, supported by the radiology undertaken by the Applicant in February 2020, that the Applicant’s lower limb condition was fully diagnosed at the time of the Qualification Period.

49.     However, the Tribunal is of the opinion that there is a lack of corroborating medical evidence indicating whether the Applicant’s lower limb condition had been fully treated and fully stabilised at the time of the Qualification Period.

50.     The Tribunal observes that in the JCAR report, dated 17 April 2020, the Applicant is reported as having undertaken two physiotherapy sessions with respect to his lower limb condition. When questioned at the hearing, the Applicant stated that this was in fact four sessions[30]. Had a report been submitted from the Applicant’s treating physiotherapist corroborating the Applicant’s submissions, it may also have cast light as to the extent of treatment undertaken and the extent to which further treatment may result in functional improvement for the Applicant.

[30]    Transcript (2 September 2021), page 10, lines 38 to 46; page 11, lines 1 to 9.

51.     The Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s lower limb condition was not fully treated or fully stabilised prior to or during the Qualification Period.

52.     Therefore, an impairment rating cannot be assigned for the Applicant’s lower limb condition.

(c)       Low intellectual capacity

53.     With respect to the Applicant’s low intellectual capacity, the only medical evidence before the Tribunal corroborating this was from Dr Kevin Naiker (General Practitioner) in a form titled, ’Claim for Disability Support Pension’ submitted to the Agency on 5 February 2020. This stated in the medical details section that the Applicant had, “… Low intellectual ability with dyslexia…”[31].

[31]    Exhibit R1, T7, page 87.

54.     The Tribunal observes the JCAR dated 17 April 2020 indicated the following with respect to the Applicant’s low intellectual capacity[32]:

Dr Naicker (05/02/2020) has noted Low Intellectual Ability with dyslexia, however there is no evidence to support this diagnosis. From Mr Ali’s disclosures he struggles to read and write in English, however this could be attributed to his lack of education as a child in Iraq (only 2 years). Since arriving in Australia, despite not completing his AEMP (he commenced working prior to completing his studies), Mr Ali has attained very good English speaking skills and is able to read very basic words. He was able to provide this assessor with a good history of past events, provided information related to his medications, doctor, physiotherapy and Psychologist information. He advised he has negotiated a payment plan with his finance company, so that he is able to retain his car to enable him to attend appointments and find work in the future. Mr Ali has also been able to maintain work with different employers since 2010 without any support. At this time it is not deemed appropriate to perform Psychometric testing…

[32]    Exhibit R1, T10, page 104.

55.     The Tribunal observes that further evidence was submitted post-dating the Qualification Period from Dr Naiker on 7 August 2020, referring to the Applicant as having, “… learning difficulties which he has carried over from overseas. He was poorly schooled in his war-torn home…”[33].

[33]    Exhibit R1, T14, page 111.

56.     Even if the Tribunal accepted Dr Naiker’s form of 5 February 2020 and letter of  7 August 2020 as corroborative medical evidence of a formal diagnosis referable to the Qualification Period, the Tribunal is of the view that there is a lack of corroborating medical evidence to assess whether the condition was fully treated and fully stabilised prior to or during the Qualification Period.

57.     The Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s low intellectual capacity is not considered fully diagnosed, treated, or stabilised prior to, or during the Qualification Period.

58.     Therefore, an impairment rating cannot be assigned for the Applicant’s low intellectual capacity.

(d)      Multiple lipomas

59.     The Tribunal observes that within the evidence before it, there is reference to the Applicant’s condition of multiple lipomas. The extent of the corroborative medical evidence of this condition before the Tribunal is a letter dated 7 August 2020 from Dr Naicker (which post-dates the Qualification period) that states[34]:

“… He had multiple lipomas (both upper limbs) that were removed and as a result he has scars which has restricted his lifting and carrying capacities…”.

[34]    Ibid.

60.     Even if the Tribunal took a generous interpretation of Dr Naiker’s letter of 7 August 2020 as corroborative medical evidence referrable to the Qualification Period and determined that the Applicant’s multiple lipomas were fully diagnosed, the Tribunal is of the view that there is insufficient corroborative medical evidence to determine that this condition was fully treated and stabilised prior to or during the Qualification period.

61.     The Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s lipomas are not considered fully diagnosed, treated, or stabilised prior to, or during the Qualification Period.

62.     Therefore, an impairment rating cannot be assigned for the Applicant’s multiple lipomas.

Summary

63.     The Tribunal has found that none of the Applicant’s conditions were able to be assigned impairment ratings under section 94(1)(b) of the Act.

64.     As the Tribunal has found that the Applicant did not satisfy section 94(1)(b) of the Act, there is no need to consider the remaining relevant provisions.

DECISION

65. Pursuant to section 43(1)(a) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), the Tribunal affirms the decision of the Social Security and Child Support Division, dated 20 November 2020.

I certify that the preceding 65 (sixty-five) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member B. Pola

…………[SGD]..…………

Associate

Dated: 17 September 2021

Date of hearing:  2 September 2021

Applicant:  Mr Jaafar Ali (Self-represented, in person)

Solicitor for Respondent:       Mr Chris Murphy (Services Australia, in person)

Annexure 1 – Exhibit Register

Exhibit Number	Description of Exhibit	Party	Date of Document	Date of Receipt
R1	Section 37 T Documents (pages 1 to 181)	R	01 February 2021	01 February 2021
R2	Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (pages 1 to 16)	R	29 April 2021	29 April 2021
A1	Psychologist Report from Ms Stephanie Clemmet (pages 1 to 3)	A	23 January 2021	01 February 2021
A2	Applicant Statement (pages 1 to 2)	A	Undated	24 May 2021
A3	Medicare Certificate (x 2) (pages 1 to 2); Centrelink Correspondence (page 3)	A	06 January 2021; 27 July 2021	31 August 2021
T1	Tribunal Direction DP McDermott RFD	–	22 January 2021	–
T2	Tribunal Direction CR Barker	–	24 March 2021	–