Beacon & Peevey (No 2)

[2021] FCCA 833

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BEACON & PEEVEY (No 2) [2021] FCCA 833

Catchwords:
FAMILY LAW – Parenting – weight to be given to the child’s views – questionable insight of parents into child’s needs – contravention application subsumed into substantive applications.

Legislation:

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) ss.60B, 60CA, 60CC(2), (3)

Applicant: MR BEACON

Respondent: MS PEEVEY

File Number: HBC 839 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge McGuire

Hearing date: 5 March 2021

Date of Last Submission: 26 March 2021

Delivered at: Launceston

Delivered on: 7 May 2021

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant: Appeared in person:

The Respondent: Appeared in person

ORDERS

1. That that all extant Orders in respect of the child, X born 2009 be discharged.

2. That the parents have equal shared parental responsibility for X.

3. That X live with the mother.

4. That X spend time and communicate with the father as follows:

   (a)On two occasions in each school term such to take place at City B and conditional upon the father giving not less than 21 days’ notice in writing or by email to the mother of him electing to spend such time with X and conditional upon the father ensuring that X participates in any of his team sporting events during such times;

   (b)For 8 nights in the term one school holidays from the first Saturday at a time to be agreed between the parties until the second Sunday at a time to be agreed between the parties dependent upon travel arrangements and bus timetables;

   (c)For the entirety of the term two school holidays being from the first Saturday at a time to be agreed between the parties until the third Sunday at a time to be agreed between the parties (noting that there will be no time with during term three school holidays0;

   (d)In the summer holidays 2021/2022 and each alternate year thereafter for 21 nights commencing 29 December at a time to be agreed between the parties noting such to include …… and in 2022/2023 and each alternate year thereafter for 21 nights commencing the Saturday prior to …… at times to be agreed between the parties;

   (e)That should Easter not coincide with the first term school holidays then in 2022 and each alternate year thereafter from Good Friday at a time to be agreed between the parties until the day prior to the recommencement of school at a time to be agreed between the parties (but noting no time-with in 2023 and each alternate year thereafter);

   (f)For a period not exceeding 4 consecutive days in each winter for the purpose of undertaking a trip to Town G with the father to give not less than 7 days’ notice of electing to take up such time but with the mother then as soon as practicable to notify the father of any potentially conflicting days in July or August in each year when X has prior sporting or other commitments but such notice to the father being prior to any notice received from the father requesting such time-with (and such periods to not occur more than twice each winter season); and

   (g)That for the purposes of school holiday time-with the mother will be responsible for placing X on the bus from City B to City N or, alternatively, delivering X herself to City N at a time to be agreed between the parties and at the completion of such holiday period then the father be responsible for placing X on the bus from City N to City B or, alternatively, delivering X to Town F, Tasmania (being approximately one hour travel from City B) at times to be agreed between the parties where on each occasion the relevant parent advise the other parent by email or text message with not less than 48 hours’ notice whether X will be travelling by bus or by car transport.

5. That X have telephone contact with the father or any members of the father’s family on X’s mobile telephone number at any reasonable time between 9.00 am and 7.00 pm and that the mother and the mother’s family have telephone contact with X on his mobile telephone at any reasonable time between 9.00 am and 7.00 pm when X is in the care of his father and each parent to make all reasonable attempts to ensure that X accepts such telephone calls.

6. That all extant contravention applications be otherwise dismissed.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT HOBART

HBC 839 of 2013

MR BEACON

Applicant

And

MS PEEVEY

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. X is 12 years old. Unsurprisingly he carries his mother's maiden name as his surname.  X loves sports.  By all accounts he is a very talented player and, at least at the moment, he lives very much for his sport.  X seems stable, grounded and adept in most aspects of his life be they academic or social.  He enjoys his school.  He loves spending time with his mates.  He is an outdoors boy who enjoys camping, the beach and riding his bike.

2. X lives in City B with his mother and stepfather, Mr M.  Both adults appeared to be intelligent, child focused and generally present as beneficial adults for X.  X's mother, Ms Peevey, is actively involved in his sport and has accompanied X with the team to interstate tournaments.  She very much values the social and team experiences for X and his activities and exploits as a 12 year old boy. 

3. At Town D, some hours travel from City B lives Mr Beacon.  He is X's father.  Like Ms Peevey, Mr Beacon very much loves X and enjoys spending as much time as possible with him.  Mr Beacon is a former educator.  He is intelligent and articulate just like X's mother.  Mr Beacon no longer works and now pursues his interest in water activities and seems to enjoy a happy, healthy and active lifestyle.  Mr Beacon has another son, Y, who is 13 years old.  Y spends time with Mr Beacon during weekends and holidays.

4. Relative to the greater majority of children whose living arrangements, interests and welfare occupy the day-to-day work of these Courts, X is both a very stable and fortunate young boy.  His parents do not bring to this Court argument as to the 'usual suspects' of mental illness, violence, and substance abuse. They are in their own lives quite obviously stable and well-adjusted adults.

5. Unfortunately for X, Ms Peevey and Mr Beacon do not like each other.  They separated after an extremely short relationship prior to X's birth.  X has habitually lived with his mother.  Mr Beacon delegates this role to her.  He asks only for time with X and superficially is not ambitious in his quest.  He currently spends and asks for time with X during school holidays and for one or two weekends during school terms.  Yet, and unfortunately for X, his parents have been embroiled in this mutual dispute, conflict, criticism, acrimony and antagonism virtually since his birth.  The Court file show proceedings in these Courts since 2013. They have had the benefit of understanding and enduring the negativity and trauma of a trial such conducted by my colleague, Judge Baker, in 2013.  Yet with the wisdom and insight of her Honour’s orders and reasons, they continue to litigate.  It is perplexing indeed that two intelligent and capable parents with so much to offer their child as role models should be unable to compartmentalise their own intense dislike for each other such that they need to utilise the facilities of this Court to air those personal issues under the veil of claiming to do so in the best interests of their young son.

6. Each of the parents appeared before me at the latest trial unrepresented.  They had been given the benefit of the facilities available to this Court including a number of the section 11F reports from family consultant Ms J but alas to no avail.

7. Prior to the taking of evidence I informed them as to the procedure of a trial with an invitation to ask questions at any time as to the process.  I informed them that my focus was on X's best interests and again appealed to their intelligence and reason with one last forlorn hope that they could avoid a further trial with the obvious (to me) vicarious negative implications and impact on their young son of his parents once again litigating over him.  Sadly, my pleas went unheard and they determined each to fight on.

8. Mr Beacon is the applicant.  He came to Court armed with an affidavit prepared without legal assistance.  It was affirmed 21 February 2020.  Despite his intelligence and claimed focus on X's best interests, it was obvious to me that his prime intention was for the Court to strike penalties against Ms Peevey. His affidavit is negative, critical and accusatory.  He asked me to impose bonds and/or fines/penalties and the like.  That focus was almost entirely historical, negative and critical.  Alleged contraventions were his focus.

9. Not surprisingly, when Ms Peevey began her cross-examination of Mr Beacon, her own attitude and demeanour was strikingly similar to his.  Her questions were historical, personal and entirely critical of him.

10. Relevance in the sense of X's best interests in maintaining meaningful and settled relationships with his parents featured little in either the questions or the responses during this process of cross-examination.  After a period of unsuccessfully attempting to focus each of the parents on the relevant issues being X's parenting arrangements into the future, I determined that the exercise was one of abject futility in the traditional form of a trial being the giving and adducing of evidence tested by relevant cross-examination.  I had variously attempted to reason and cajole and even ridicule these parents into focusing on their son.  As such, I determined to move to a process of 'judicial mediation' with both of the parties back sitting at the bar table.  This continued with optimistic prospects of success for approximately one and a half hours until the luncheon adjournment.  During that time I managed to have the parties focus on X rather than the other parent.  I encouraged negotiation and concession rather than bald conflict.  A number of issues and concepts were 'agreed'.  It had been a long morning and, perhaps unwisely, I determined to take the luncheon break with ambitions of a negotiated resolution in the afternoon which, of course, would have empowered each of the parents in reaching a consensus in respect of their child (something that would have been foreign to them) and, of course, and more importantly, perhaps allowing X, either directly or indirectly, to understand that his parents had achieved what parents are supposed to do, whether they be married, separated or never married, being to make such important decisions for him.

11. Sadly, on return from the luncheon adjournment, and when asking the mother if she had reflected on the apparent success of the late morning, she expressed her desire to continue the trial in the traditional form.  Mr Beacon returned to the witness box.  Ms Peevey proceeded to cross‑examine, as in the morning, in a negative and entirely personally critical way.  Mr Beacon responded in type.

12. The family consultant, Ms J, was required for cross-examination.  She has been involved with this family for some years and prepared a number of reports.  Her most recent reports are from a Child Dispute Conference of 30 April 2020 and a Child Inclusive Conference of 5 August 2020. Whilst Ms J's reports are undoubtedly of great value in this matter where the relevant evidence is sparse at best, cross-examination by the parents was little more than an exercise in each parent again emphasising his and her criticisms of the other parent and attempting to elicit support from Ms J.  She did not oblige. 

Current Arrangements

1. Pursuant to the consent orders of September 2015 X continues to live with his mother in City B. He spends two weekends each school term with his father at Town D. There have been some variations to these arrangements and on occasions the father has travelled to City B for time with X. However, any flexibility is overborne by suspicion and alleged contraventions.

The Father's Proposal

1. The father provides a case outline which is convoluted but where he seeks to increase school holiday time with X perhaps only by one week each year? 

2. Mr Beacon emphasises the importance for he and X of spending time in Adelaide with the extended paternal family.  Further, Mr Beacon places some emphasis on the ability to take X holidaying each winter in Tasmania but obviously where such arrangements would require flexibility which in turn requires a high degree of communication and co-operation between the parents.

3. Mr Beacon argues that X use the facility of bus travel for changeovers as a primary order.

4. Generally, Mr Beacon is an advocate of flexibility and communication in respect of X and perhaps consistent with his general demeanour but inconsistent with the negativity of his affidavit material and the historical relationship between the parents. Mr Beacon maintains that the mother has previously contravened orders but agreed for his applications to be subsumed in these substantive parenting proceedings.

The Mother's Proposal

1. The mother generally seeks to reduce time for X with the father.  Her Response provides orders sought as follows:

   ·Failing agreement between the parents in respect of issues of parental responsibility then the mother be free to make decisions she deems consistent with the best interests of the child;

   ·That [X] live with the mother;

   ·That [X] spend time with the father on the fifth weekend of each school term, such to take place in [City B] between Friday at 4.00 p.m. and Sunday at 4.00 p.m.;

   ·That for the term school holidays [X] spend time with the father from the first Sunday at 12 noon until the following Saturday at 12 noon;

   ·That [X] spend two weeks with the father each summer school holidays commencing alternatively on the Saturday before […] or on the Saturday after […].

2. The mother’s material also indicates a desire in her for some flexibility.  Indeed, some of her evidence is suggestive of an intention for she and her family unit, including X, to undertake a lengthy excursion around Australia or similar with the implication that Mr Beacon agree to some suspension of his time with X.

3. The issue of telephone contact between X and each parent is also problematic here.

Relevant Law

1. The orders that I am asked to make are parenting orders and, as such, I must have X's best interests as my paramount consideration pursuant to s.60CA of the Family Law Act 1975 (‘the Act’). In determining those best interests I am to reference each parent’s proposals and the probative evidence before me to the mandatory considerations set out in ss.60CC(2) and (3) of the Act against a background of the objects and principles of the legislation set out at s.60B as follows:

   (1)The objects of this Part are to ensure that the best interests of children are met by:

   (a)ensuring that children have the benefit of both of their parents having a meaningful involvement in their lives, to the maximum extent consistent with the best interests of the child; and

   (b)protecting children from physical or psychological harm from being subjected to, or exposed to, abuse, neglect or family violence; and

   (c)ensuring that children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential; and

   (d)ensuring that parents fulfil their duties, and meet their responsibilities, concerning the care, welfare and development of their children.

   (2)The principles underlying these objects are that (except when it is or would be contrary to a child's best interests):

   (a)children have the right to know and be cared for by both their parents, regardless of whether their parents are married, separated, have never married or have never lived together; and

   (b)children have a right to spend time on a regular basis with, and communicate on a regular basis with, both their parents and other people significant to their care, welfare and development (such as grandparents and other relatives); and

   (c)parents jointly share duties and responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children; and

   (d)parents should agree about the future parenting of their children; and

   (e)children have a right to enjoy their culture (including the right to enjoy that culture with other people who share that culture).

2. In respect of the ss.60CC(2) and (3) factors I glean most assistance from the reports of Ms J, the family consultant. They are informative as to the nature of the relationship of X with each of the parents as well as X's preferences, views, and the maturity and rationality of the same. Ms J's reports are instructive as to the impact of change for X and of the logistics of arrangements for his movement between parents. I have made reference above as to the general attitude of these two parents as to the responsibilities of parenting.

3. Whilst issues of family violence do not feature in a contemporaneous way before me given the geographical locations of the parties and their limited historical relationship, it is proper to note that the mother's trial affidavit sworn 1 October 2020 is replete with issues of family violence stemming from 2008.  She asserts that she is fearful of the father. She alleges that he is dishonest.  She alleges harassment and stalking.  She asserts involvement of Tasmania Police in 2017. She asserts exposure for X to the conflict between the parents. 

4. Whilst most of these issues are historical, I note and acknowledge the importance of such matters for the mother.  It goes without saying, that X should be quarantined as far as possible from exposure to any conflict between his parents. Nevertheless, I note the substantial geographical distance between the parties and their own relationship where communication is limited to the bare necessities. I repeat, however, that any ambitions for flexibility in X's arrangements are seriously compromised by these issues.

5. It is proper to note that the legislation permits me to vary existing parenting orders upon the filing of a contravention application but in this matter I am asked to consider generally X’s best interests on the substantive application.

Ms J's Evidence

1. Ms J interviewed the parents and X on 5 August 2020. He was brought to the interviews in City O by his mother and stepfather, Mr M. Ms J detected no rehearsing or coaching.

2. X was able to convey enjoyable and positive experiences of his father and his brother Y. He emphasised his enjoyment of time spent with his father in City B where Mr Beacon could experience X's sporting endeavours.

3. X identified his enjoyment in travelling to Adelaide with his father and spending time with his extended paternal family. He related similar enjoyable experiences to winter holidaying with his father. However, and as a sign of his maturity and informed preferences, X was also negative in respect of the travelling to City N to see his father during weekends in school terms. He says that he misses his sporting and social activities and notably where he is a member of sporting teams.  X is not excited by the prospects of bus travel and indicated generally that he saw little in a ‘cost/benefit’ basis of such a long travel between City B and City N on weekends leaving only limited quality time.

4. X directly stated a preference that his father travel to City B to spend time with him. It is obvious that this would accommodate both X's desire to spend time with his father and also allow him to take part in his team sporting events, something which, implicit in X’s statements, he would like his father to share. I repeat that on the evidence X is passionate about his sports. He plays team sports. He is talented and has been selected in representative teams.

5. Perhaps for the same reasons as above, X stated a preference to spend block periods of two weeks with his father during the summer school holiday periods and blocks of five nights during term holidays with again X's preference to be that the time take place mid-week and not conflict with his sporting commitments.

1. Ms J saw X as being 'aligned with his mother' but only in the sense of she having been his primary carer and not in any form of manipulation by the mother of X.

2. Ms J opines that:

   Requiring [X] to travel to [City N] against his wishes to spend time with his father midterm may now be damaging to his relationship with his father rather than being beneficial to strengthen their relationship. 

3. In her recommendations, Ms J is supportive of the mother's proposal that the summer holiday time be reduced to a two week block but says that it begin on either 29 or 30 December in each alternate year and after … in the other year.

4. Significantly, at [21] Ms J recommends the following:

   It is suggested that [X] not be required to travel to spend time with his father during term times. If [X] is travelling to [City N] for any sporting event, then it is suggested that [Ms Peevey] is required to advise [Mr Beacon] about the event, so if appropriate he can be present. Ideally time between [X] and his father could be arranged noting that some state training sessions may encourage team activities and discourage parental involvement.

   On balance it might be more appropriate that the full week during each term school holiday period continue rather than to have a reduction to five nights. However, [Mr Beacon] is strongly encouraged to be flexible in relation to the start and finishing days of this time to minimise disruption to [X’s] chosen activities.

5. Nevertheless, surprisingly, and despite the reservations set out above, by the end of the evidence and the making of written final submissions, the mother’s position has softened significantly. Unfortunately, Mr Beacon remained in a punitive mind set. The mother had moved to the following proposal:-

   i.That [X] spend time with the father for 8 nights in the term one school holidays from the first Saturday until the end of the following Sunday;

   ii.That [X] spend time with the father for the entirety (14 days) of the term two school holidays;

   iii.That [X] not spend time with the father during the term three school holidays;

   iv.That in summer holidays 2021/2022 and each alternate year thereafter [X] spend time with the father for 21 nights commencing 29 December such to include […] and in 2022/2023 and each alternate year thereafter [X] spend time with the father for 21 nights commencing the Saturday before […] and again to include […] (with the rationale being to eliminate [X]splitting his time with the father);

   v.Should Easter not coincide with first term holidays then in 2022 and each alternate year thereafter [X] spend such time with the father and in 2023 and each alternate year thereafter [X] spends such Easter holiday period with the mother;

   vi.To accommodate the father’s interest in […] then “for not more than 4 consecutive days each winter for the purpose of undertaking a trip to Town G […] in Tas. The father shall give at least 7 days’ notice of his desire to undertake such trip. The mother shall as soon as practicable notify the father of any potentially conflicting days in July or August when the child has a prior commitment to attend. Such notice to the father must be prior to any notice received from the father requesting the trip (and shall not occur more than twice each winter)”;

   vii.For the purposes of school holiday contact the mother will be responsible for placing [X] on the bus from [City B] to [City N] or, alternatively, delivering [X] herself to [City N] and at the completion of such holiday period then the father would be responsible for placing [X] onto the [City N]-[City B] bus or, alternatively, delivering [X] to [Town F] (being approximately one hour from [City B]) whereupon the mother would collect [X]; and

   viii.That the father and the father’s family be free to contact [X] on his mobile phone at any time of their choosing between 9.00 am and 7.00 pm and the mother, as far as practicable, ensure that [X] answers the phone if he is home and available with mutual telephone communication for the mother and her family when [X] is spending time with the father.

6. The force of the mother’s argument in support of the above is that school term weekend time for X is contrary to his interests in that it is onerous travel of several hours each way which does not give benefit to the child and the father on a cost/benefit basis. Further, the mother says that X himself prefers not to travel during school terms on account of both the onerous travel and the frequent conflict with his sporting and social commitments in City B. It is implicit in the mother’s argument that the father himself could perhaps travel to City B for weekends as has previously been the case on some occasions.

7. Unlike Ms Peevey, the father has remained steadfast in the orders that he seeks. Despite the benefit of Ms J’s reports noting X’s difficulties with travel, Mr Beacon continues to ask that X travel from City B-City N by bus and return by bus twice per school term together with the additional travel with his father from City N-Town D-City N. Although in his final address Mr Beacon referenced that he would be willing to travel to City B twice per school term to spend time with X, he continues to insist that the child travel twice per term. Interestingly, and although apparently grateful when appraised of Ms Peevey’s more altruistic and conciliatory final submissions, Mr Beacon’s submissions were still focused to a large degree on punitive responses both retrospectively and prospectively where he asks variously for penalties and bonds.

Findings and Conclusions

1. On the evidence I am able to find that X has established a generally beneficial relationship with each of his parents. It is clear, however, that his primary attachment is to his mother who has been his primary carer since birth. He is established in her home and family unit and in City B generally where he has strong social and extracurricular connections and commitments.

2. Despite historical evidence and residual high level animosity and mistrust between these parents, matters of family violence do not feature with any weight in my considerations of X’s parenting arrangements. Notably, the parents have been separated for many years and live geographically well apart. Indeed, their conflict appears to now manifest most prominently in litigation.

3. X is twelve years of age. Ms J sees him as mature, informed and thoughtful. He has expressed his views and preferences and, although aligned in many ways to his mother, does so with a high degree of objectivity. X loves his dad but has a preference not to travel during school terms to spend weekends with his father. X has experienced the travel and it is onerous. The father’s suggested travel on a Friday evening and return on the Sunday is questionable on a cost/benefit basis but travel which X does not look forward to.  The evidence suggests more than five hours of travel over the weekend. The use of buses as preferred by the father only compounds and aggravates these difficulties.

4. X’s primary attachment and source of dependence is his mother. He has always lived with her. He has visited with his father. As such, the nature of his relationship with each of his parents have developed differently but he loves each of them and enjoys their company.

5. The father does not challenge the mother’s role as primary carer for X and as such her ability to provide for his physical needs is not impeached. Initially in the trial of this matter I held reservations as to the mother’s insight into the needs for X in having a meaningful and frequent relationship with his father. However, by the time of final submissions, the mother’s attitude in this respect had changed dramatically as evidenced by the orders she now seeks. Most notable is her concession to allow X to spend his birthday every year with the father. I see her position now as more child-focused and less directed to her own animosity towards Mr Beacon. To the contrary, Mr Beacon remains focused on what he believes are the mother’s deficiencies and what he asserts is her culpability in respect of isolated time-with events in the past. These views have, in my opinion, overshadowed his understanding and insight into X’s best interests.

6. The father has filed Contravention Applications which have been subsumed into these substantive proceedings. Generally, the particulars of Mr Beacon’s complaints are discreet in respect of collateral agreements reached between the parents or alleged to have been reached in respect of such issues as alternative changeover venues and times. Due primarily to deficiencies in cross-examination by both parents I am unable to make findings of fact on those allegations but do accept Mr Beacon asserts that the mother has not always been strictly compliant with court orders where she says that they have conflicted with X’s other preferences and commitments. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, I am now confident that the mother understands the sanctity and force of court orders and, like Mr Beacon, the court expects strict compliance in the future.

7. Practical issues and logistics are very much at the crux of this matter. They have caused significant and frequent issues and dispute between the parents in the past. Specifically, weekend time for X with his father in Town D in Tasmania is problematic. The father prefers that X travel by bus. The logistics of bus travel are not conducive on a cost/benefit basis. The buses travel only from City B to City N and perhaps not directly. The travel time is longer than by motor car. There is then the additional drive from City N to Town D which might take some hours. The return trip then needs to be negotiated on a Sunday and in accordance with bus timetables for travel to City B. Alternatively, the parties can each contribute to the travel by driving either one way or meeting half way at both commencement and conclusion of the time-with. This requires some logistical co-operation where neither party has been overly successful in the past and still involves substantial, lengthy and onerous travel for X. A further alternative, of course, is that Mr Beacon himself could travel to City B on occasions during the school term for weekends. Mr Beacon is not himself employed. I do accept, however, that his accommodation options would be limited in City B and he has previously utilised caravan parks. This would, however, give him an opportunity to enjoy X’s passion for his sports.

8. Having considered all of the evidence and with particular reference to the observations of the family reporter, I generally favour the position put by the mother in her final submissions. This would provide Mr Beacon and X with the opportunity to travel to Adelaide during school holidays which is something that seems important to Mr Beacon and something which X apparently enjoys being able to connect with his father’s extended family. The mother’s proposals also allow for Mr Beacon and X to enjoy another of Mr Beacon’s passions.  The final term holidays could be then reserved for X with the mother and so as to pursue his sporting interests.  I am of the view that time for the father with X during term weekends is not in X’s best interest. He does not want to travel. It conflicts with his sporting commitments. It follows then that to obligate X to travel to Town D over weekends in this context may well cause some resentment in the child and in turn damage his relationship with his father.  The benefit for X of such weekend time is dubious and minimal at best.

9. I am also prepared to make orders in respect of the mother’s submission for summer holidays noting that they seem to provide that X spend this time each year with the father and shows a high level of altruism in this mother who, on the evidence before me, has previously very much enjoyed each January with X.

10. After some considerations and reservations given the continuing antagonism between the parents, I am of the view that X’s best interests are served by there being an order for equal shared parental responsibility. X is of an age where he would benefit by seeing and understanding his parents to be contributing to the long term and important decisions in his life. These are not decisions that will be made with any great frequency. However, each of these parents are intelligent and, in their own way, child-focused. Whilst their communication and co-operation is questionable, I am confident that they would be able to contribute positively to any such decisions to be made for X.

11. Technically, Mr Beacon’s contravention applications remain alive although on an evidentiary basis dealt with together with the substantive proceedings. There was little or no evidentiary focus on these allegations or such as to allow me to make findings. I am satisfied that they were not allegations of any continuing contravention but rather specific aberrations and, in any event, de minimus in content and the contravention applications will be dismissed.

12. There will be orders accordingly.

I certify that the preceding forty nine (49) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge McGuire

Associate: 

Date: 7 May 2021