CRANDON and REPATRIATION COMMISSION
[2004] AATA 87
•3 February 2004
Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 87
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No Q2002/56
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION ) Re ANTHONY LEWIS CRANDON Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Deputy President Don Muller
Mr. I.R. Way, MemberDate3 February 2004
PlaceBrisbane
Decision The Tribunal:
1. Changes the diagnosis of the psychiatric illness suffered by Anthony Lewis Crandon from major depressive disorder to post traumatic stress disorder.
2. Sets aside the decision of the Veterans’ Review Board on 21 November 2001, in relation to the claim for disability pension for chronic gastritis, and in substitution decides that Anthony Lewis Crandon’s chronic gastritis is not related to his eligible service.3. Affirms the decision under review to reject claims by Anthony Lewis Crandon for disability pension for post traumatic stress disorder, alcohol abuse and hypertension.
SIGNED
D.W. MULLER
DEPUTY PRESIDENT
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – chronic gastritis – claimed infection did not occur during eligible service – PTSD, alcohol abuse, hypertension - Tribunal satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that claimed major stressor did not occur – other stressors do not satisfy Statement of Principles – claims for disability pension rejected – VRB decision re: chronic gastritis set aside – change of diagnosis from major depressive disorder to PTSD – VRB decision re: PTSD, alcohol abuse, hypertension affirmed
REASONS FOR DECISION
Deputy President Don Muller
Mr. I.R. Way, Member1. Anthony Lewis Crandon, the Applicant, seeks a review of his rejected claims for disability pension pursuant to the provisions of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, in relation to the following disabilities:
(a)He seeks a change of diagnosis from major depressive disorder to post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
(b)He claims that he has PTSD and that it is war-caused.
(c)He also claims that he suffers from alcohol abuse and hypertension, and that they are both war-caused.
2. The Applicant claims that his above disabilities arose out of his service in the Royal Australian Navy, when he served on the HMAS Jeparit in 1971, during two periods when the ship was in waters off the coast of Vietnam. He claims that he experienced the following stressful situations, which were sufficiently severe to precipitate his psychiatric illnesses:
(a)When the Jeparit was travelling up river from Vung Tau to Cat Lai, the ship was fired upon from the shore;
(b)He assisted in the unloading of the Jeparit and then travelled inland in a transport vehicle. During the road trip he saw numerous bodies of Vietnamese civilians who appeared to him to have been shot in the head;
(c)He saw a dog eating one of the bodies;
(d)At night on board ship he heard scare charges exploding around the ship and the noise “terrified” him.
3. The Repatriation Commission seeks review of a decision of the Veterans’ Review Board (VRB) dated 21 November 2001, that Anthony Lewis Crandon’s chronic gastritis is war-caused.
4. The VRB gave the following reasons for finding that Mr. Crandon’s chronic gastritis is war-caused.
“Chronic gastritis
37. The relevant Statements of Principles are Instrument No: 60 of 1999, which was in force at the date of the decision under review, and No: 75 of 2001, which is currently in force.
38. The diagnosis was based on a report dated 28 February 2001 by Consultant, Gastroenterologist Dr M.S. Thompson which followed upper G.I. endoscopy and colonoscopy:
‘He was found to have minor distal gastritis with the histology of his biopsies confirming H pylori.’
39. The Board is reasonably satisfied that this diagnosis is appropriate in answer to the veteran’s claim made in respect of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease.
40. Each Statement of Principles includes the following factor:
‘suffering from Helicobacter pylori infection of the stomach before the diagnosis of chronic gastritis.’
41. Mr Harcourt argued that the requirements of this factor are met in this case.
42. For the reasons given above, the Board finds that the factor set out in paragraph 5(a) of the Statement of Principles No: 75 of 2001 is raised by the evidence in this case. The Board is therefore of the opinion that the material raises a reasonable hypothesis within the meaning of subsection 120(3). Accordingly, the Board turned to the application of subsection 120(1) to determine whether it could accept sufficient of the facts as are necessary to support the raised hypothesis.
43. Mr Harcourt put it to the Board that unhygenic conditions experienced by the veteran while in South Vietnam raised the likelihood of the Helicobacter pylori infection having been contracted during that period. The veteran was required to dive in the harbour and the river to inspect the ship beneath water level and the waters were notoriously unhygienic.
44. This proposition is not impossible or too tenuous in the Board’s view. No fact necessary to support the raised hypothesis has been disproven beyond reasonable doubt, nor has any fact inconsistent with the raised hypothesis been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
45. Having reviewed the whole of the material before it and for the reasons given above, the Board is not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, for the purposes of subsection 120(1), that there is no sufficient ground for determining that the veteran’s chronic gastritis was war-caused.
46. The decision under review is set aside and the decision of the Board is substituted that the Commonwealth of Australia is liable to pay pension for incapacity arising from the claimed condition.”
5. The following matters are not in dispute and the Tribunal finds that:
(a)Anthony Lewis Crandon was born in the United Kingdom on 9 February 1950.
(b)He came to Australia with his family in 1960, when he was 10 years old.
(c)His family initially lived in Geelong for 12 months. They then moved to Brisbane.
(d)He completed his schooling in Brisbane.
(e)He left high school and joined the Navy on 10 March 1967, as a Recruit Seaman on a nine year engagement.
(f)After completing basic training he joined his first seagoing ship, HMAS Duchess, on 18 June 1967.
(g)Over the following years he completed a sonar course, and a diving course. He became an Able Seaman Underwater Control (ASUC). He completed many trips to South East Asia.
(h)He joined the HMAS Jeparit on 16 August 1971. He served on the Jeparit for three months until 14 November 1971. The Jeparit was a bulk carrier which ferried supplies to Vietnam. It was crewed by naval personnel after civilian sailors refused to go to Vietnam.
(i)Jeparit made 21 visits to Vung Tau as a merchant ship and 17 as a Navy ship.
(j)The Applicant was part of the Jeparit’s crew on voyages 35 (arriving at Vung Tau on Wednesday 8 September 1971) and 36 (arriving at Vung Tau on Thursday 28 October 1971). This service constitutes “operational service” for the purposes of the Act.
(k)He was then posted ashore to HMAS Nirimba. He worked there doing shore patrol work. This work led to an interest in policing.
(l)His last posting was on the HMAS Yarra as a seaman from 1 May 1972 until he was discharged on 31 December 1973. He was discharged at his own request. “I had had enough: in the same environment all the time, drinking and smoking – I just wanted to get out of it”.
(m)He did a lot of diving work for the Navy both before and after his trips to Vietnam. He was never required to dive while he was in Vietnam.
(n)After he left the Navy, he had a short holiday, obtained a few unskilled jobs for a few months, then worked for about 12 months as a professional diver on oil rigs off Victoria.
(o)He joined the Australian Federal Police in 1974 where he remained for about two years. He was stationed at a Sydney immigration detention centre for about eight months. He was then transferred to “consular patrol” duties for the remainder of his time. He found his work to be “a bit boring” and so he joined the New South Wales State Police.
(p)He became a motor cycle highway patrolman, including trail bike patrols around Sydney and Gosford.
(q)He was promoted to First-class Constable.
(r)He was transferred to Ballina in 1982.
(s)In 1984, he attended upon an horrific car smash scene, which had occurred as the result of a head-on collision between two cars. He confronted dead and dying adults and children.
(t)The smash scene had a bad effect on him. He took stress leave and long service leave. By late 1984 he felt that he could not continue as a policeman and he resigned in January 1985.
(u)He moved to the Gold Cost where he worked for an insurance investigation firm for 12 months.
(v)He started his own business as a “commercial agent” (debt collecting). His business was successful but he later began to suffer from ill health.
(w)He had a heart attack in 1994.
(x)He ceased business in 1997.
(y)He has since done security work for two years at a hotel.
(z)For the last four years he has been the night security person at Seaworld (8pm to 4.30am).
6. The Applicant married in 1975. The marriage has apparently been mostly stable except for a three month period of separation following the Ballina crash incident. The Applicant’s wife has been supportive of him and they are still together.. They have two adult sons.
7. The Jeparit’s ship’s records show that on arrival off Vung Tau on Wednesday 8 September 1971, Jeparit needed the assistance of a heavy lift floating crane to off-load two heavy fork lifts. The floating crane was not available at Vung Tau. It was decided to travel to Cat Lai, the site of a U.S. Naval base up river about eight miles from Saigon, where the fork lifts could be off-loaded. A pilot was taken on board and the Jeparit left Vung Tau for Cat Lai at 1200 on Thursday 9 September 1971.
8. In a statement made by the Applicant in May 2002, he described the trip from Vung Tau to Cat Lai in the following terms:
“During September 1971 we travelled from Vung Tau harbor up the river to Cat Lai and during the journey we were fired upon by enemy forces from the river bank, at the time we were being escorted by US patrol boats who returned fire, the ship was hit a number of times along the side. I was on deck the moment the firing started and ran for cover inside the ship I was not hit, but absolutely petrified and I feared for my life at that moment even more than at anytime before or since.
We anchored in mid river near Cat Lai for the night, although we were close to a US base we were still very vulnerable to the enemy, we had no extra security on board and no charges were used. We, the crew, walked the deck our selves and carried out security patrols on the upper deck, we were not armed. Terror and fear for my life dogged my every step throughout the night.”
9. The contemporaneous report of the Captain of the Jeparit contains the following:
“10. JEPARIT arrived at Vung Tau, and anchored in B11 anchorage at 1140 on Wednesday the 8th, to await instructions regarding the availability of a sixty ton floating crane, which was to lift the fork lifts from the ship. Originally the ship was to have proceeded directly to Saigon to discharge this cargo, however, since our ETA was two days later than planned, the situation had changed some-what. Before leaving Singapore I had been informed that the crane would be available in Vung Tau on the 6th September. Hopes had been high that it would remain there until our arrival, and hence alleviate the need to proceed up river.
11. As it happened the crane was not available, and at 1045 H the following day (Thurs 9th) a pilot ( MR QUAC PHUONG) was embarked for the passage up river to Cat Lai, about 8 miles from Saigon. JEPARIT weighed anchor and proceeded at 1200. Although the passage was without incident, it was never-the-less interesting and quite scenic.
12. The ship arrived at Cat Lai, and secured to buoys fore and aft at 1700, to commence a wait for the floating crane.
13. The road to Saigon was closed after 1900 nightly, so leave had to be confined to the village of Cat Lai, and the Naval Base. The village was not highly recommended, but the servicemen’s clubs were open to the crew.
14. At 2115 the crane arrived alongside, and work commenced at 2200. By 2315 both heavy lifts were clear of the ship.
15. A pilot ( MR T.C. VIHN) was embarked at 0715 on Friday morning for the passage back to Vung Tau. At 0820 the ship slipped and proceeded, anchoring at 1122 in B11 anchorage, to await a berth along-side. This became available at 1800, and at 1845 I weighed anchor and proceeded to berth port side to on de Long Pier, Vung Tau.
16. By 2030, cargo discharge operations had begun, which were to continue until the morning of Monday the 13th, by which time re-loading was well underway. Loading was completed at midnight on Tuesday 14th.
16. JEPARIT cast off and proceeded for Sydney at 0700 on Wednesday 15th September.”
10. The Applicant described the other claimed stressors in his statement of May 2002 in the following terms:
“HMAS Jeparit and her crew had a bounty placed on her head by North Vietnamese forces, this with the fact we were unarmed was extremely stressing and terrifying and all crew feared for their lives, whilst in Vietnamese waters.
During the ships period of unloading it was berthed in Vung Tau harbour, members of the Australian army carried out armed security duties on board and on the wharf area all personnel including army personnel required a pass to gain entry to the ship and wharf. No local civilians were allowed aboard. During our time berthed along side charges were dropped over the side every 15 minutes day and night, to ward off enemy divers from deploying mines on the hull. I slept on board the ship and could hear every explosion, this was terrifying and distressing and very little sleep was gained.
Travelling from the ship to Australian bases and returning was always hazardous as our lives were placed in imminent danger from enemy gunmen intent on taking shots at us from the bushes or tree line, we never were but we were lucky, during these trips I always feared for my life. During a number of trips a number of dead bodies were observed along the roadside with obvious gun shot wounds to the head, we never stopped or slowed down, as this was not wise. The threat of ending up the same way was always there, the feeling of terror and the fear for your life was even more compounded at the sight of these casualties. On one such trip I saw to my horror a dog feeding on the body of a young man who had met his death in the same manner previously described, we continued on, a sight I will never forget and still dream about to this day.”
11. During the course of the Applicant’s oral evidence to the Tribunal, and in answer to questions by Mr. Way, the Applicant said that he was not sure whether the Jeparit was actually hit by any bullets during the trip from Vung Tau to Cat Lai, but he was sure that he had heard “a tremendous amount of firing for four or five minutes” as the ship moved up the river.
12. The Tribunal heard evidence from retired Captain Henry Alfred Josephs (RAN 1945 to 1983), former Commander of HMAS Coonawarra. Captain Josephs gave the Tribunal the benefit of his research into the official records of the Jeparit, research into Army records relating to activities in the Vung Tau/Cat Lai area in September 1971, and his own naval experience.. He made the following points:
· It is inconceivable that if the Jeparit had been fired upon during its passage from Vung Tan to Cat Lai, the Captain would have recorded, “although the passage was without incident, it was never-the-less interesting and quite scenic” and also inconceivable that the Captain would not have recorded such an incident.
· There is no mention in the records of the Jeparit being escorted while travelling up river.
· There is no indication in the records that the Captain of the Jeparit had particular security concerns while the ship was at Cat Lai. In fact he granted shore leave to non-duty personnel.
· The Army records show that there was no military activity in the vicinity of Vung Tau or Cat Lai during the relevant time.
· There is no documentary record that the North Vietnamese had placed a bounty on Jeparit, or on the heads of her crew. Commander G.S. Stevens, RAN Rtd, who was Officer in Charge, RAN Detachment HMAS Jeparit for several voyages until posted elsewhere in August 1971, told Captain Josephs that he had never heard of such a bounty, nor of any specific threat to the ship.
· The records show that all 38 of the voyages to Vietnam by the Jeparit were trouble free.
· All cargo handling, transportation and security was the responsibility of the Australian Army. There should have been no official requirement for a naval person such as the Applicant to have been involved in transportation to inland Australian bases.
13. The Applicant was examined by Dr. John Wainwright, psychiatrist, on 12 June 2002. Dr. Wainwright interviewed the Applicant for about 2½ hours. He also arranged for blood and urine screening. Dr. Wainwright’s written report of 18 June 2002 and his oral evidence to the Tribunal was to the following effect:
· Although the concept of “delayed” PTSD is controversial, he does not accept it, and he believes that a large number of reputable psychiatrists do not accept it.
· If a person has a psychiatric disorder they have to have a disturbance of function. A person with PTSD, for example, may be able to work but they would have other disturbances.
· Mr. Crandon does not have a Major Depressive Disorder, but he may have suffered a depressive illness after the death of his mother. His symptoms are better explained by a diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnoea.
· Mr. Crandon did not suffer from PTSD as a result of any experience in Vietnam. His work history, marital history, drinking patterns, reactions to conversations about Vietnam, and reactions to conversations about the road incident at Ballina, all point to a conclusion that Mr. Crandon suffered PTSD as a result of the road traffic incident at Ballina in 1984.
· Mr. Crandon still has some residual symptoms of PTSD but he no longer fulfills the full criteria for a diagnosis of this disorder.
· The normal course of PTSD is for it to improve with time: recovery can be expected in the majority of cases. This has been the case with Mr. Crandon.
· While Mr. Crandon has some anxieties with regard to his health, which is normal under his current circumstances, he does not have either a Generalised Anxiety Disorder or an Anxiety Disorder.
· Although Mr. Crandon told Dr. Wainwright that he drinks three to four cans of full strength beer per day, with an occasional tequila, there is no objective evidence of alcohol abuse or dependence. The blood and urine screens also do not indicate any alcohol abuse/dependence.
· The history taken suggests that Mr. Crandon’s alcohol intake only increased significantly after the Ballina incident and that this contributed to the temporary marital separation.
· There is no evidence that Mr. Crandon currently drinks to excess.
· Mr. Crandon would benefit from psychiatric treatment to resolve some of the residual symptoms of PTSD.
· Mr. Crandon is moderately obese. He said that he weighed about 22 stone in 1996, but that he is now down to 15 stone.
14. The Applicant was also seen by Dr. Christopher Danesi, psychiatrist, on 23 January and 5 February 2003. Dr. Danesi’s written report of 24 February 2003 and his oral evidence to the Tribunal was to the following effect:
· He agrees with Dr. Wainwright that most people who suffer from PTSD improve. They usually go from PTSD to a generalised anxiety disorder and then to recovery. However they usually remain “sensitised”.
· He does not agree that the fact that Mr. Crandon continued to work in the Navy after his Vietnam service is necessarily inconsistent with his having PTSD. He has seen police personnel with PTSD who continue to function as police officers for a time. If they improve, they stay on in the service. If they do not improve, they retire.
· He believes that the major stressor in Mr. Crandon’s Vietnam service was his being shot at whilst on the deck of the Jeparit, enroute to Cat Lai.
· He found Mr. Crandon to be “not a good historian”. “He was not able to describe his symptoms well.”
· He considers that Mr. Crandon meets diagnostic criteria for PTSD.
· He may have suffered from significant depressive episodes (but) he did not have any significant symptoms of depression presently or gathered from the history.
· On the basis of Mr. Crandon’s assertions that he drinks approximately nine standard drinks per day, at time binge drinks, and has regular memory blackouts, Dr. Danesi also diagnosed alcohol dependency.
Chronic Gastritis
15. The VRB was in error when it did not reject the proposition that the Applicant “was required to dive in the harbour and the river to inspect the ship beneath water level and the waters were notoriously unhygienic”. The Applicant was not required to dive whilst in the waters off the coast of Vietnam. There is no reasonable hypothesis which links the Applicant’s chronic gastritis with his eligible service.
16. The decision that the Commonwealth of Australia is liable to pay pension for incapacity arising from chronic gastritis is set aside, and in substitution the Tribunal decides that the Applicant’s chronic gastritis is not related to his eligible service.
PTSD
17. Both Dr. Danesi and Dr. Wainwright agree that the Applicant does not have a major depressive disorder. Dr. Danesi has diagnosed PTSD. Dr. Wainwright believes that the applicant has had PTSD in the past but that he has improved to the point where he now only has residual symptoms of PTSD.
18. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant does not suffer from a major depressive disorder but that he does still suffer to some extent from PTSD.
19. The Tribunal changes the diagnosis from Major Depressive Disorder to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
PTSD alcohol abuse and hypertension
20. The material placed before the Tribunal points to the hypothesis that the Applicant experienced the following stressors whilst on service in Vietnam in September and October 1971.
(a)He feared for his life when the Jeparit was fired upon.
(b)He was shocked by the sight of dead bodies of civilians on the roadside.
(c)He was shocked when he saw a dog eating a body.
(d)He was terrified when he heard scare charges being set off around the Jeparit.
The stressors were of sufficiently severe magnitude to traumatise him, and to cause him to suffer from PTSD. His PTSD led to alcohol abuse, or alternatively, the stressors were of sufficient severity to cause him to drink alcohol to excess. His excessive alcohol intake caused his hypertension.
21. It is agreed between the parties that the Applicant does suffer from hypertension.
22. The relevant parts of the relevant Statements of Principles are as follows:
PTSD: No 3 of 1999 as amended by No. 54 of 1999
“5. The factors that must as a minimum exist before it can be said that a reasonable hypothesis has been raised connecting post traumatic stress disorder or death from post traumatic stress disorder with the circumstances of a person’s relevant service are:
(a)experiencing a severe stressor prior to the clinical onset of post traumatic stress disorder;
“experiencing a severe stressor” means the person experienced, witnessed, or was confronted with an event or events that involved actual or threat of death or serious injury, or a threat to the person’s, or another person’s, physical integrity.
In the setting of service in the Defence Forces, or other service where the Veterans’ Entitlements Act applies, events that qualify as severe stressors include:
(i) threat of serious injury or death; or
(ii) engagement with the enemy; or
(iii)witnessing casualties or participation in or observation of casualty clearance, atrocities or abusive violence;”
Alcohol Abuse: No. 76 of 1998
“alcohol abuse” means the presence of cognitive, behavioural or physiological symptoms indicating the use of alcohol despite significant alcohol-related problems, however these symptoms have never met the criteria for alcohol dependence. Additionally, signs of tolerance or withdrawal are absent.
The diagnostic criteria for alcohol abuse are those specified in DSM-IV, and are as follows
A. A maladaptive pattern of alcohol use leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as manifested by one (or more) of the following, occurring within a 12-month period:
(1)recurrent alcohol use resulting in a failure to fulfil major role obligations at work, school, or home
(2) recurrent alcohol use in situations in which it is physically hazardous
(3) recurrent alcohol-related legal problems
(4)continued alcohol use despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of alcohol
B.The symptoms have never met the criteria for alcohol dependence.
The definitions for alcohol dependence and alcohol abuse exclude acute alcohol intoxication in the absence of alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse.
Alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse attracts ICD-9-CM code 303 or 305.0.
5.The factors that must as a minimum exist before it can be said that a reasonable hypothesis has been raised connecting alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse or death from alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse with the circumstances of a person’s relevant service are:
(a)suffering from a psychiatric disorder at the time of the clinical onset of alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse; or
(b)experiencing a severe stressor within the two years immediately before the clinical onset of alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse;
Hypertension: No. 31 of 2001
“5.The factors that must as a minimum exist before it can be said that a reasonable hypothesis has been raised connecting hypertension or death from hypertension with the circumstances of a person’s relevant service are:
(a) being obese at the time of the clinical onset of hypertension; or
(b)suffering from alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse, involving consumption of an average of at least 200 grams per week of alcohol (contained within alcoholic drinks) at the time of the clinical onset of hypertension”
23. The hypothesis which is put forward on behalf of the Applicant to connect PTSD with the circumstances of his service relies heavily on the shooting incident as a stressor. Dr. Danesi said in his written statement:
“He described the stressor of travelling up the river and being shot at and standing guard all night unarmed. I consider the stressors of being shot at, with bullets ricocheting around him when he was on the deck and having to stand guard all night on an unarmed ship, meeting criteria from DSM-IV of stressor A of the diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.”
Dr. Danesi also gave oral evidence to the Tribunal in which he said that the major stressor involved in the Applicant’s PTSD was the incident in which he was shot at whilst on the deck of the Jeparit.
24. As to whether the Jeparit was actually fired upon, the Tribunal takes account of the contemporaneous report of the ship’s captain, plus the fact that the Applicant admitted at the Tribunal hearing that he really did not know whether the Jeparit was hit by bullets. The Tribunal prefers the version contained in the contemporaneous report of the ship’s captain. The Tribunal is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the Jeparit was never fired upon.
25. The so-called major stressor, said by Dr. Danesi to be the cause of the applicant’s PTSD, did not happen.
26. The other “stressors”, the dead bodies of Vietnamese civilians, the dog eating a body, and the scare charges, may well have been most unpleasant but in the Tribunal’s view they do not amount to stressors which would have been sufficiently severe to cause a life-time psychiatric illness. They do not satisfy the SoPs for either PTSD or alcohol abuse.
27. The hypotheses relating to PTSD and alcohol abuse are not reasonable because the relevant SoPs are not satisfied.
28. Consequently, there is also no reasonable hypothesis linking the Applicant’s hypertension with his eligible service.
29. The Tribunal notes further that there was no sufficiently cogent evidence placed before the Tribunal to conclude that the Applicant suffers from alcohol abuse. The diagnostic criteria set out in the SoP were not met. Indeed, Dr. Wainwright concluded that the Applicant does not suffer from alcohol abuse. The Tribunal agrees with Dr. Wainwright’s assessment.
30. The Tribunal affirms the decision to refuse disability pension on a claim by the Applicant in relation to post traumatic stress disorder, alcohol abuse and hypertension.
I certify that the 30 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President Don Muller and Mr. I.R. Way, Member
Signed: .......................................................................................
C. O’Donovan, AssociateDate/s of Hearing 6 August 2003
Date of Decision 3 February 2004
Counsel for the Applicant Mr. Clutterbuck
Solicitor for the Applicant Streeting Haney
Respondent Mr. M. Smith, departmental advocate
0
0
0