Chambers v Commissioner of Police
[2022] NTSC 14
•17 January 2022
CITATION:Chambers v Commissioner of Police [2022] NTSC 14
PARTIES:CHAMBERS, Kim
v
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
TITLE OF COURT: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION: SUPREME COURT exercising Territory jurisdiction
FILE NO:2021-03959-SC
DELIVERED: 17 January 2022
HEARING DATE: 17 January 2022
JUDGMENT OF: Kelly J
CATCHWORDS:
Police Administration Act 1978 (NT), s 14B, Part IV
Supreme Court Rules 1987 (NT), Order 56
Hales v Commissioner of the Northern Territory Police [2007] NTSC 67
Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission [2010] HCA 1REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Plaintiff:R Murphy
Defendant:C McGrath
Solicitors:
Plaintiff:Murphy & Associates
Defendant:Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services
Judgment category classification: C
Judgment ID Number: Kel2207
Number of pages: 19
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWINChambers v Commissioner of Police [2022] NTSC 14
No. 2021-03959-SC
BETWEEN:
KIM CHAMBERS
Plaintiff
AND:
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
Defendant
CORAM: KELLY J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 17 January 2022)
The plaintiff, Kim Chambers is a sergeant in the Northern Territory Police Force. He has been the officer in charge of the Maningrida Police Station since 2011.
On 9 June 2021 he received a Notice of Intention to Transfer signed by Assistant Commissioner Bruce Porter. The Notice says:
NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA
POLICE ADMINISTRATION ACT
Section 14B
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO TRANSFER
TO: Sergeant Kim Chambers
In pursuance of section 14B of the Police Administration Act (the Act) the Commissioner may, as the Commissioner thinks fit, after giving a member written notice, transfer a member from the position held by the member to another position in the Police Force and/or from the locality in the Territory where the member is stationed to another locality in the Territory.
Now I, Acting Assistant Commissioner Bruce Porter APM, delegate of the Commissioner, formally notify you that I intend to transfer you from your current position of:
Sergeant, Maningrida Police Station – PIPS no: 9375
to:
Sergeant, Darwin and Road Policing Command – PIPS no: Unattached
In accordance with the relevant transfer policy document, the decision to transfer you is made with balanced consideration and in recognition of:
·The organisational need of Workforce Development and your skills and experience to perform the required duties.
This transfer is not pursuant to Part IV of the Act.[1]
Before the decision to transfer is finalised, I invite you to respond to this notice. You have 14 days to respond in writing.
If you wish the transfer to proceed without delay, you can advise the Commissioner or their delegate in writing within the 14 days.
Within 7 days of either receiving your response or the expiry of the 14 days a decision on the transfer will be made. If you do provide a response, it will be considered prior to the final decision by the Commissioner and/or their delegate.
DATED 9th DAY OF JUNE 2021
………………………
Bruce D Porter APM
Assistant Commissioner, People and Cultural Reform
On 22 June 2021, the plaintiff sent a response to “Chair, 14B Transfer Panel and Delegate of the Commissioner of Police”. After reciting receipt of the Notice, that response was as follows:
The letter came as a surprise to me as only six months earlier I had a conversation with my current Divisional Superintendent during which I was open about my future plans. I was advised by him that he was “supportive of my position, I am well respected in community and performing at a high level”. This was added to My Career and attached to this response.
I would ask you to take the following into consideration when making a decision in relation to my transfer:
I have completed almost 23 years of service with the NT Police, during that period I served just over 20 years continuous service at a number of remote locations.
·During the 20 years of service I have transferred with my family to a number of stations which were difficult to fill at the time. At each location I served well beyond my tenure dates.
·I made a commitment to remote policing early in my career despite there being some suggestion that this has been detrimental to my career progression and promotion. I however have no regrets how I have served my career. I have enjoyed it immensely and always recommend remote service to others.
·I have never been the subject of a PIP or been involved in any disciplinary action during my career.
·I am within five 5 years of compulsory retirement.
·I have been stationed at Maningrida as the OIC for the past 10 years, during that time I have found the work at times challenging but extremely rewarding. I have built up a strong Police/ Community relationship which I believe will pay significant dividends into the future. This is supported by attached references from senior community elders and organisations.
·I believe that my transfer out at this time would be untimely and detrimental to Police with the upcoming trial and Coronal (sic) inquest involving an Alice Springs police officer. Maningrida has seen relative calm in the community around this issue I believe in part due to the current rapport between Police and community members. Any issues raised are normally dealt with calmly and quickly.
·The transfer would also cause me significant financial hardship. I recently divorced (3 years ago) after 30 years of marriage which has had a significant effect on my financial situation leading into retirement.
·I have been attempting to rebuild my retirement funding in the short time I have left to retirement. If I were to be transferred into Darwin I would suffer significant financial disadvantage with the loss of CRIA (12%), GD allowance (7%) and other allowances, this would be estimated at $47,000. I am also now a single person and a transfer at this time to Darwin would entitle me to a 2 bedroom unit. I would therefore have to place most of my personal effects which I have accumulated over the 30 years of marriage into storage at an (sic) additional costs and see the deterioration of my possessions.
·I ask that my circumstances be considered for an exemption from transfer until the middle of next year when I intend to complete a Return to Service to Darwin in July/Aug 2022. I will be planning to taken (sic) a period of long service following my return to Darwin as part of my transition into retirement.
·My transfer in 2022 would allow the tenure of the incoming OIC to cover the lead up to the completion of the new station (@ Dec 2023) and also a commissioning period following its completion. It would also allow me time to transfer my community knowledge and rapport to staff replacements during this 12 month period. This would provide continuity and maintain the current trust and working relationship between Police and community elders and TO’s.
·This period will also allow for further partnership with community agencies and stake holders that is occurring to develop a youth offenders program and services to deal with the spike in recent youth offending in Maningrida. I will also continue to provide input into Police infrastructure department for design and construction of the new police station.
The plaintiff attached a number of references from community organisations and his “My Career” printout.
In addition to this response, a solicitor employed by the NT Police Association wrote a letter to Acting Assistant Commissioner Porter referring to two Police General Orders (General Order – Transfer Section 14B dated 15.10.2020 and General Order - Transfer and Promotion for Non-Commissioned Officers dated 21.01.21) and attaching copies of those General Orders.
On 6 July 2021, the plaintiff received a Memorandum entitled, “14B Transfer Notification – Request Further Response” dated 5 July 2021. That Memorandum referred to the guiding principles in General Order – Transfer and Promotion for Non-Commissioned Officers. It expressed concerns about certain aspects of the plaintiff’s performance in the role of OIC of the police station at Maningrida.
First, the Memorandum stated that since the report from Supt Muldoon referred to in the plaintiff’s response in which Supt Muldoon said he was performing well and he saw no reason to move him prior to his retirement, the Supt had had further opportunity to assess his performance. The Memorandum referred to a visit to Maningrida on 4 March 2021 during which the Supt saw the plaintiff at a “MACCS” meeting. The Memorandum made some observations about that meeting and said:
As the OIC of Maningrida you need to demonstrate a high level of leadership and bring people/stakeholders together to work on common community issues. I am advised by Supt Muldoon that he could not see this happening during his visit.
The Memorandum than referred to conversations between the plaintiff and Supt Muldoon in which Supt Muldoon spoke about a transfer “being an opportunity to make a move and allow someone else an opportunity to come in with fresh eyes to drive some change in the community” and the plaintiff resisted the idea.
The Memorandum then raised issues with the plaintiff’s review of active PROMIS cases in 14 day audits. The suggestion was that the plaintiff was simply writing, “Active investigation being attended to by the case officer – refer to Diary,” without performing a proper audit of the files. The Memorandum cited one example given by Supt Muldoon in which the last entry in the investigation Diary had been made on 15 April 2021 and six audits had been made since then with comments along the above lines. The Acting Assistant Commissioner said:
It is quite obvious that you did not undertake a review as the investigation is not being attended to by the case officer as there has been no activity on it since 15 April.
The Memorandum criticised the plaintiff for actively engaging with members of the community to gather support for his response to the Notice and said that the Acting Assistant Commissioner was aware of other members of the community who were not supportive of the plaintiff. It then referred to high levels of crime in the community and stated:
I have not been provided any tangible evidence of what actions you have taken to work in partnership with the community and our people to find solutions to try and achieve outcomes and reduce the crime.
The Memorandum concluded:
Taking into account the transfer guiding principles and taking into account the need to mitigate organisational risk, in this case our ongoing failure in serving and protecting the community, not keeping the community safe and reputational risk to the agency, I find that on the information I have that there is an organisational need for your transfer.
It ends with this request:
I hereby provide you with opportunity to provide further response as to my intention to transfer you pursuant to section 14B of the Act, taking into account the considerations I have provided to you listed above.
I also invite you to provide your preference for location of transfer if in fact I do transfer you based on my assessment of all your responses.
The plaintiff provided a further response addressing each of the matters raised in the Memorandum. For example he said that attendance at the MACCS meeting was poor because it clashed with another meeting and that he did not take a more active role because Supt Muldoon seemed to take charge. He referred to a telephone conversation in which Supt Muldoon told him he should “move on”; that it was not a disciplinary or performance issue and that “we just need to invigorate” the position. He denied not doing proper file audits and denied that the example given in the Memorandum was accurate as the investigating officer on the file in question had in fact made another entry in the diary on 16 June 2021. He defended his conduct in approaching community members for references. He said that the property crime was mostly due to 10 principal offenders and that a number of them had been arrested. He also referred to bringing stakeholders together in a community meeting.
On 9 October 2021, the plaintiff received a notice entitled “Outcome of notice of intention to transfer”. The Notice recites the giving of the above notices and responses, and the provisions of s 14B and states:
After considering all of the information including your responses, I, Assistant Commissioner Bruce D. Porter APM, delegate of the Commissioner, formally notify you that the outcome of the Notice of Intention to Transfer you from your current position has been to proceed with your transfer for the reason/s set out below:
·The organisational need to mitigate risk;
·Your skills and experience to perform the required duties;
·Your circumstances namely, you have not been subject to a transfer involving a geographical relocation since 2011 having served in the same position and location since 2011; and
·You have not been subject to a 14B transfer previously.
Your transfer will take effect on the service of this document and will be published in the next Police Gazette after service. The timeframe of your actual transfer will be in accordance with the relevant transfer policy. Your placement in the Darwin and Road Policing Command will be in consultation with the Commander of the Command on review of the current list of vacant Sergeant positions.
Correspondence from the plaintiff’s solicitors followed and on 30 December the plaintiff filed an originating motion seeking declarations that the Commissioner’s decision to transfer the plaintiff under s 14B of the PAA:
·was not a bona fide attempt to exercise the power under s 14B;
·was unreasonable (as based on a deficient or erroneous assessment of the plaintiff’s workplace performance by Supt Brendan Muldoon);
·alternatively failed to take into account a relevant consideration (namely the NT Police Force’s Managing Underperformance Guidelines); and therefore
·was void;
and sought an order in the nature of certiorari under Order 56 of the Supreme Court Rules quashing the decision.
The plaintiff also sought an interlocutory injunction restraining the Commissioner from acting on the decision to transfer the plaintiff pending the determination of this proceeding. That application was listed for hearing on 7 January 2022, but the application was withdrawn when the substantive proceeding was given a hearing date before the transfer was due to be implemented. On that date I also granted an extension of time from 29 December to 30 December to commence the proceeding for the relief sought in paragraph 6 of the Originating Motion filed on 30 December 2021 (ie the application under Order 56 for an order in the nature of certiorari) and made orders for the filing and service of written submissions.
The plaintiff relied on an affidavit by the plaintiff setting out the history of the matter (summarised above) and annexing the relevant documents, and an affidavit by the plaintiff’s solicitor, Mr Murphy annexing the Managing Underperformance Guidelines.
The defendant in this proceeding is the Commissioner of Police. It is common ground that the decision to transfer the plaintiff from Maningrida to Darwin was in fact made by Assistant Commissioner Bruce Porter who signed the relevant documentation. No issue has arisen in this proceeding questioning the authority of the Assistant Commissioner to make that decision. The plaintiff makes three essential complaints about the decision of the Assistant Commissioner to transfer him under s 14B.
(a)The plaintiff asserts that the decision to transfer him was not a bona fide attempt to exercise the power under s 14B of the PAA.
(b)The plaintiff contends that the decision is unreasonable and therefore void.
(c)The plaintiff contends that the Assistant Commissioner failed to take into account a relevant consideration, namely the Police Force’s Managing Underperformance Guidelines.
Alleged lack of bona fides
The defendant relied on an affidavit of Assistant Commissioner Porter affirmed on 6 January 2022 which set out the reasons for the decision to transfer the plaintiff. In that affidavit the Assistant Commissioner said (at paragraphs 12 to 14) (grammar and punctuation in the original):
12. I considered information from Superintendent Brendan Muldoon in the memorandum dated 10 May 2021. It was provided there was a need for a refresh to generate new ideas and reinvigorate community engagement and that Sergeant Chambers has not been able to drive any significant change in the community of recent times. It was provided that Sergeant Chambers had been consulted and wished to stay in Maningrida until retirement but for transfer to occur he would prefer to transfer to Darwin. It was provided that Sergeant Chambers:
a.Has spent the entirety of his career form (sic) March 1999 in regional and remote localities;
b.The need for a refresh to generate new ideas and reinvigorate community engagement;
c.Has served in the same geographical location in excess of 10 years;
d.Has served in the same position for in excess of 10 years;
e.Has not had a transfer involving geographical relocation in the past 3 years;
f.The vacancy under consideration in Darwin is of the same rank; and
g.Has no dependents that would be affected by the transfer.
13. I sought further information to allow my informed decision making for the general control and management of the NTPF, to meet the core functions of the police force and to serve and protect the community of the NT. I considered further information provided by Superintendent Muldoon, responses by Sergeant Chambers and representations by both Ms Amanda Nobbs Carcuro and Mr Raymond Murphy on behalf of Sergeant Chambers.
14. My considerations included:
a.The NTPFES Ten Year Strategy ‘Project 2030’ having Our People and Our Community at the heart of everything the agency does and having focus on enhancing culture and capability.
b.The operational need for the agency both at Maningrida and Darwin in regards to:
i.succession planning for Maningrida when Sergeant Chambers having been there 10 years and indicating being in retirement age within 5 years and looking at taking accrued leave before retiring.
ii.remote policing and having staff go remote being a priority for the agency.
iii.Development and career opportunity for staff to undertake the role of Officer in Charge in larger remote community, especially for those seeking further career advancement.
iv.Ability to instil new ideas into Maningrida in an attempt to better meet the core functions of the Police Force in that community.
v.Diversity of supervisory experience to staff at Maningrida for their development.
vi.Sergeant Chambers having not submitted any formal intention to retire and a retirement date, noting that he still has 5 years of his career available to work.
vii.The diversity of experience and expertise in remote settings held by Sergeant Chambers that he has the ability to impart to less exposed and experienced staff in Darwin for their development.
viii.The relevant skills held by Sergeant Chambers and the ability for him to utilise and to impart to less exposed and experienced staff in Darwin for their development.
ix.Own development of Sergeant Chambers with 5 years of available career remaining with exposure in a bigger setting providing own developmental opportunities and renewed vigour and further insight into the wider workings of the agency.
x.Provides greater opportunity to Sergeant Chambers to undertake higher duties in a larger setting for his own development and development of staff.
xi.The transfer of Sergeant Chambers has minimal effect on others as the member has no dependents.
xii.The cost to the NTPF for a 14B transfer or a retirement transfer are the same costs that would be borne by the NTPF.
xiii.In the event that Sergeant Chambers did commence proceedings for retirement, he would already be relocated to Darwin therefore limiting effect on him and on any accrued leave, which would be able to be taken in Darwin as expressed in his response to the Notice of Intention to Transfer.
c. The agency having focus on maximum tenure at locations and the effect it has on members’ ongoing mental health, drive and development. The agency is currently drafting a maximum tenure policy. Sergeant Chambers has served in excess of 10 years in the one location and position.
d. Sergeant Chambers has not been subject of any previous transfers pursuant to 14B and as such is not prejudicial to him with any duplication of such transfer.
e. The requirement of all members when they join the NTPF that they will serve anywhere at any time at the discretion of the commissioner.
f. Every member when joining the police force acknowledges that they will serve anywhere at any time at the discretion of the Commissioner.
Counsel for the plaintiff cross-examined Assistant Commissioner Porter on paragraph 14 of his affidavit but it is fair to say that that cross-examination was directed solely to the merits of the decision – that is to say whether the matters set out in the affidavit in fact justified the decision to transfer the plaintiff. For example in relation to paragraphs 14 b. (vii) and (viii), it was suggested to the Assistant Commissioner that the plaintiff was already giving the benefit of his experience and expertise to police officers he supervises in Maningrida and that the only difference resulting from a transfer would be that he was supervising different police officers – a proposition the Assistant Commissioner readily agreed to. In relation to paragraph 14 c. the Assistant Commissioner was asked to agree (and did agree) that the maximum tenure policy was not yet in place and that he had made no specific enquiries about the plaintiff’s mental health.
The Assistant Commissioner was asked whether he undertook any investigation to determine whose version of events was correct in relation to the situation at Maningrida, the plaintiff’s or Supt Muldoon’s. He answered that he had not and that, having received two different accounts relating to the plaintiff’s performance, he decided not to take any performance issues into account, and based his decision on the operational issues set out in his affidavit. He summarised those in his answer as follows:
--As in he’s been there ten years, there probably is a need to change, for the community because he has been there ten years and it’s difficult for him to have new and invigorated ideas because he’s been in the same location, doing the same thing tor ten years. That there was also opportunity for someone else to undertake that role and get the development. That there is opportunity for him also to have a different change in his career by coming to Darwin, with having other opportunities to do higher duties as a senior sergeant at a number of locations, not just the one higher duties job that he did do at Northern Division. So these are all my considerations. I did not take into account the performance issues raised by Mr Muldoon with Mr Chambers. I gave Mr Chambers opportunity to provide response to what Mr Muldoon said. I considered that response. I did not take it into consideration because that was not part of my decision-making for operational needs.
It was not suggested to the Assistant Commissioner in cross-examination that his expressed reasons for the transfer were not his real reasons or that he did not act bona fide in deciding to transfer the plaintiff. Nor was it suggested to the Assistant Commissioner that he was not telling the truth when he said that he took into account the plaintiff’s responses. (In any event no complaint is made of any procedural unfairness.)
Allegation of unreasonableness
The plaintiff submitted that the defendant’s decision to transfer the plaintiff was “erroneous, deficient and unreasonable”. The plaintiff contended that the decision to transfer the plaintiff “is premised on the conclusion that the transfer was needed to mitigate organisational risk” and that “the basis for that conclusion rests on three issues, the first being the acceptance of observations made and conclusions drawn by Muldoon with regards the Plaintiff’s attendance at and participation in the MACCS meeting at Maningrida on 04.03.2021, the second being the Plaintiff’s purported failure to have properly monitored Police PROMIS jobs, and the third being a rise in crime statistics particularly property crime in the 2020-2021 financial year and the Plaintiff’s failure to have shown that he had worked in partnership with the Maningrida Community to address the increase in property crime.” These three issues are said to be “fundamental to the Defendant’s decision to transfer the Plaintiff.”
In written submissions, counsel for the plaintiff gave reasons why those three issues “cannot be used as a basis for concluding that the Plaintiff’s transfer is required to mitigate organisational risk”. Those reasons essentially boil down to stating that the Assistant Commissioner should have accepted the plaintiff’s explanations in relation to these matters in his responses.
The first thing to be said about this submission is that it is based on a false premise – namely that the sole reason for the Assistant Commissioner’s decision to transfer the plaintiff was “mitigation of organisational risk”. The Assistant Commissioner explained in his affidavit the reasons for the decision, and I accept that the considerations he refers to in the affidavit are in fact the considerations he took into account. (Indeed he was not challenged on that.)
The second reason why this submission cannot be accepted is that it is based on a false second order premise – namely that the “organisational risk” consisted of the three issues identified by the plaintiff and nothing else. Again, this is contradicted by the Assistant Commissioner’s affidavit, which I accept to be true.
The third reason this submission cannot be accepted is that it essentially seeks a merits review of the Commissioner’s decision. There is no right of appeal to this Court against a decision of the Commissioner under s 14B of the PAA – that is to say, no right to seek a review of the merits of a decision of the Commissioner or his delegate to transfer a police officer under s 14B. For this Court to make an order in the nature of certiorari quashing a decision to transfer a police officer under s 14B, the plaintiff must show that some error has been made in exercising the discretion, for example in acting on a wrong principle, taking into account irrelevant considerations or leaving a relevant consideration out of account.[2] Other than the claim that the Assistant Commissioner failed to take into account the Managing Underperformance Guidelines (which is dealt with separately below), no such error has been identified.
The plaintiff’s submission under the heading of unreasonableness is framed as one in which the Assistant Commissioner is said to have made findings of fact about the three issues referred to in para [22] above without any evidence and his decision is therefore unreasonable. However, that contention is based on the assertion that the plaintiff provided “a full answer” to these issues in his responses and boils down to an assertion that the Assistant Commissioner should have accepted those answers/ explanations. This is an attempt to seek a review of the merits of the Commissioner’s decision and provides no basis for the issue of an order in the nature of certiorari. (It should also be noted that the Assistant Commissioner did not in fact make the findings of fact complained of.)
Alleged failure to take into account a relevant consideration
The other basis upon which the plaintiff attacks the Assistant Commissioner’s decision is that he is said to have failed to take into account a relevant consideration – namely the Northern Territory Police Force’s Managing Underperformance Guidelines. The plaintiff contends that each of the three issues referred to above “are instances of the Plaintiff’s purported poor workplace performance”. The plaintiff continued in written submissions:
It is submitted that the Guidelines are relevant in this matter as the imposition of a performance improvement plan (PIP) under the guidelines represents an alternative method of mitigating organisational risk by identifying and overcoming workplace performance gaps. In that respect they do not fetter the Defendant’s discretion to transfer the Plaintiff under s14B of the PAA and are therefore a lawful and relevant consideration that has not been taken into account by the Defendant in this matter.
The final sentence in that submission makes no logical sense. In any case, the evidence of the Assistant Commissioner was that he did not take into account any performance issues, was not considering taking action for any underperformance by the plaintiff, and did not, therefore, consider the guidelines to be relevant.
Conclusion
The power to transfer a serving police officer conferred by s 14B of the PAA was considered by this Court in Hales v Commissioner of the Northern Territory Police.[3] In that case, Southwood J said at [90]:
Under s 14 of the Police Administration Act the Commissioner of Police is charged and invested with the general control and management of the Police Force. Under s 14B of the Police Administration Act the Commissioner of Police is given very wide powers of transfer. He may transfer a member of the Police Force as he thinks fit. According to the obligations that the Commissioner of Police has under s 14 of the Police Administration Act and the express terms of s 14B of the Act, the Commissioner of Police’s powers of transfer are wide enough to cover all of the operational matters referred to in paragraph 11 of the affidavit of Assistant Commissioner McAdie sworn on 21 July 2006 and they are wide enough to cover the transfer of Sgt Hales. The main constraints on the exercise of the power of transfer are that the transferee must be given reasonable notice of any proposed transfer and an opportunity to be heard in relation to the proposed transfer and the power must be exercised bona fide for the control and management of the Police Force.
Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that in transferring the plaintiff, the Assistant Commissioner was not acting bona fide for the control and management of the Police Force. However, as noted above, this was not put to him in cross-examination and there is no reason whatever to suppose that the reasons and considerations set out by the Assistant Commissioner in his affidavit and in cross-examination are not his genuine reasons for the decision he made. The powers of transfer in s 14B are wide enough to cover all of the operational matters set out in paragraphs 12 to 14 of the Assistant Commissioner’s affidavit and they are wide enough to cover the decision to transfer the plaintiff under that section.
It has not been shown that the Assistant Commissioner failed to take into account any relevant consideration. Given the Assistant Commissioner’s expressed reasons for his decision to transfer the plaintiff, the Managing Underperformance Guidelines were not applicable.
ORDERS:
(a)The plaintiff’s claims are dismissed. There will be judgment for the defendant.
(b)The plaintiff will pay the defendant’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding.
----------
[1] Part IV of the Police Administration Act 1978 (NT) (“PAA”) deals with disciplinary matters.
[2]See, for example Kirk v Industrial Relations Commission [2010] HCA 1 at [56] and [67]
[3][2007] NTSC 67
0
2
0