Director of Public Prosecutions v Michael Gorman

[2025] VCC 22

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA

Revised Not Restricted

Suitable for Publication

AT GEELONG

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CR 24-00576

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

v

MICHAEL GORMAN

---

JUDGE:	HIS HONOUR JUDGE MULLALY
WHEREHELD:	Geelong
DATEOFHEARING:	11 December 2024
DATEOFSENTENCE:	24 January 2025
CASEMAYBECITED AS:	DPP v Gorman
MEDIUMNEUTRALCITATION:	[2025] VCC 22

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

---

Subject:  CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE

Catchwords:  Failing, as an Employee, to Take Reasonable Care for Health and Safety of Persons in the Workplace; Workplace Fatality; Plea of Guilty; Genuine Remorse; Delay.

Legislation Cited:           Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004 (Vic).

Cases Cited:                   R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 240; 169 A Crim R 581. Sentence: With Conviction, Released on a Six Month Adjourned Undertaking.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Office of Public Prosecutions	Ms M. Tittensor SC with Mr T. Acutt	Office of Public Prosecutions
Forthe Accused	Ms A. Dickens	Peacock Waters

VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT REPORTING SERVICE 240623

HIS HONOUR:

1Michael Gorman, on 11 December 2024, I heard your plea in mitigation following your plea of guilty to one charge of failing as an employee to take reasonable care for the health and safety of a fellow employee at your workplace. That employee was Mr Glenn Humm. Both you and Mr Humm were working for a company, Air Radiators Pty Ltd, a business located in Lara. Both of you were qualified fitters and turners. You were in fact technically employed by a labour hire firm who contracted to Air Radiators. Mr Humm was employed directly by Air Radiators. He had worked there since 2007. You had been contracted to Air Radiators for, as I understood it, nine to ten months.

2On Saturday 16 October 2021, now over three years ago, both you and Mr Humm were asked to work at Air Radiators. I understand that both you and Mr Humm were, in effect, doing extra duties, or overtime, on the Saturday. What your employer required was that various items in a shed near a guillotine machine had to be moved so that on the following Monday a crane could be used to move the guillotine machine. It is clear that the whole undertaking was a one-off task and not part of your or Mr Humm's usual duties. On that Saturday morning, the responsible manager on site at Air Radiators for this task was a Mr Paul Moore, whose formal title was 'Facilities Manager'.

3When you arrived at work at 7 am on that Saturday morning, Mr Moore spoke to you about the task of moving the material near the guillotine, clearing the way for the crane to come on the following Monday. A short time after you commenced moving material using hand trolleys, that is around 7.30 am or so, Mr Humm arrived at work. He was also to move the material out of the way, working with you to get that done. At this point, it is important to note that there was no job safety analysis, or JSA, discussed by the manager and you employees. There was, as I understand it, no written job analysis or risk analysis of this one-off task.

4In other words, there was no oral or written set of instructions put forward and discussed as to any risk before the task was undertaken.  Both you and Mr Humm moved scrap metal by various means, including the hand trolleys. Most of it was moved, then around 8 you, Mr Gorman, went and got the forklift. You drove the forklift to the area where the scrap metal and guillotine was inside the shed. The forklift was then used to move various items. Some were moved on the forklift tines themselves, others were on a pallet. By being on the pallet, of course, this facilitated the moving of items by use of the forklift, with the tines moving a pallet.

5By 8.35 am, you and Mr Humm had moved all of the material save for what was stored in a metal stillage. The stillage was an upright metal frame that had five slots. The slots held scrap or offcut metal. It seems it was routinely used near the guillotine to hold or store offcuts rather than they be left lying around on the ground. There were many pieces of metal offcuts in the stillage. They were not evenly distributed. They did not fit neatly within the dimensions of the stillage frame, but rather hung out the front and with some of the larger pieces of metal. They hung out the front by quite a distance. In other words, picking up the stillage so the open end was up against the forklift, would have been impossible.

6The stillage did not have any grooves or the like to facilitate the tines of the forklift, thus which would have ensured safer lifting and manoeuvring of the stillage and its contents by a forklift. The stillage with all the contents was moved outside the shed. In front of the shed there was a drain, meaning the surface of the area outside the shed where the forklift was, was to a degree, uneven. I have watched the tragic incident that unfolded which was captured by the CCTV cameras that were directed at the very spot that the incident occurred. What can be seen was the stillage with all the protruding offcuts of metal.

7Mr Humm then made some adjustments to the tines of the forklift to aid in the lift and the manoeuvre of the stillage. It is established by all the documents in

the depositions and legal papers that before the lift, you discussed with Mr Humm that you would have to get over the drain hump. I take from that, that you considered that moving the stillage on the forklift over the drain was a concern. You had it seems in the recent past raised the issue of loaded vehicles such as a scissor lift moving over the drain hump, that is raised it with management.

8As I understand it, you were told, or instructed, to use the forklift on this job and that necessarily included moving the stillage, which was plainly very heavy, by using the forklift. As I have said, there was no organised plan such as to first empty the content or most of the content of the stillage and then moving that content by hand-operated trolleys. There was no plan to avoid the drain hump while the forklift was loaded up with the stillage. This was in my view an example of two hardworking, responsible, safety-conscious men doing their best to do a one-off job, making up as they went along, what to do.

9The tragedy that unfolded in which Mr Humm, a much-loved husband and father, lost his life and was completely avoidable if simple steps were taken. Such as emptying the stillage in full or of the larger awkward pieces of metal sheeting. Those items, as I said, could have been moved much more safely even if it took longer. If the forklift had to be used, discussions, plans and strategies could and should have been put in place to ensure the forklift did not go over or turn on the uneven drain hump. Because, to get the job done and by doing the best that you and Mr Humm could, you used the forklift with the tines adjusted to lift the stillage. Because of what was in the stillage, it did not sit on the forklift hard up against the vehicle end of the tines. That would have been safer, or best, or better practice.

10Also, the material in the stillage was uneven, with there being heavier items or more items to one side. That too increased the risk of the stillage falling off the forklift. As mentioned, there was nothing on the stillage frame to facilitate the forklift tines making the load more stable.  You moved the forklift a short

distance towards the stillage before positioning the tines underneath the frame and lifting it. Because it was in broad terms unstable, Mr Humm remained close to, or arm's distance, from the load. As you reversed back and then moved forward to drive over the drain and off to where the stillage was to be delivered, Mr Humm remained close to the stillage on the forklift. Indeed, he moved with the forklift and closer as you drove forward.

11It is clear from the CCTV footage that with the load on and at the height it was and its dimensions, you in the forklift driver's seat did not have a continuous clear view of Mr Humm. As you moved the wheels over the drain, the stillage frame wobbled or became more unstable. Mr Humm instinctively moved towards it to try and stabilise it. Unfortunately, the load was too unstable, and it quickly fell towards the side that Mr Humm was walking. His brave efforts to stop the fall meant that the stillage, when it fell, fell on him, crushing him underneath.

12What followed was your utter shock as you tried, first, to physically move the heavy load of Mr Humm. That of course was impossible. You then, with considerable skill, and notwithstanding the dreadful circumstances, manoeuvred the forklift tines and moved the stillage off Mr Humm, so as you could try to help him. You did what you could and called Triple 0 as you ran to the office to get further help. Unfortunately, even with emergency help that arrived, Mr Humm could not be revived. I will shortly elaborate upon your plea of guilty to an offence established by the Occupational Health and Safety Act.1

13Offences under that Act can be committed where no injury or consequence actually arises. The purpose of the Act is to reduce risk and elevate systematic safety, hopefully thereby avoiding injuries and deaths within the workplace. Thus, though in some appellate cases there is an emphasis on sentencing judges not assessing the gravity of an offence by reference to the tragic consequences.  It is necessary for those of us who see and hear and

1 2004 (vic).

experience the deep pain caused, in particular by workplace deaths, to spend time acknowledging the grief of the deceased worker's loved ones. That is very much to the fore in this case because Glenn Humm was a beloved, decent man who is much missed.

14Mr Humm's lifelong partner, Ms Janine Archibald, wrote in her victim impact statement of how they had been together since they were both teenagers, 15 years old. She spoke of how they together raised two beautiful children, worked hard to set themselves up so that they could retire early, travel and enjoy life while still young enough. She wrote that 'we still had so much to do' and sadly continued 'everything we had planned for our future is gone'.

15Ms Archibald, who read her victim impact statement with compelling dignity, spoke of her partner as a loving, hilarious man, a protective and much-loved partner, father, son, brother, uncle and friend, who loved fishing, pottering about in his garden, watching his son play football and spending time with his daughter. His loss is keenly felt by Ms Archibald who, she, on one Saturday morning that Mr Humm went to work, and he really did not want to do that work it seems, went from a woman with a full and enjoyable life, to a point where she says of herself 'the day Glenn died, I lost the person I was and I won't be the same again'.

16She tries hard just to get through each day. The grief is never-ending. She suffers anxiety requiring medication and panics if she cannot get in contact with her children, fearing the worst. Special days are not enjoyed but dreaded. Ms Archibald points out poignantly that Mr Humm, her lifelong partner, died the day before her 49th birthday. Her birthday has lost joy for her.

17Mr Humm's daughter wrote in her victim impact statement that ‘he was not only her dad, but he was my role-model and my protector'. She spoke of the fond memories and how she will forever cherish his big smile, infectious laugh, positive energy and his general way of life. He was to her a fantastic role-model

who guided her and taught her important ways of life. He always had a helping hand to give the best advice and taught her and no doubt her brother the right thing to do. She spoke of the major milestone that occurred in 2023 when she got married to her husband who also had a strong relationship with Mr Humm. She pointed out that her dad missed this important event in her life and, although it was a beautiful day, she was left with a feeling of being heartbroken and a sense of loss that he was not there to walk her down the aisle. She missed that special father-daughter moment which, as she said, 'I'll never get to experience in my life'. She goes on that she and her husband plan to start a family and she feels sad that, just as on the wedding day, her father will not get to meet future children or grandchildren and he will not be that perfect role-model for them.

18She struggles with life day to day, experiencing feelings of grief, sadness, loss, depression and heartbreak that her father is no longer there. As with many road accidents and deaths at workplaces, members of family often say that their biggest regret is that they were not able to physically say goodbye to their beloved dear father and give one last hug and kiss and express how important that person had been to them. She, like others in this situation, and the community, indeed the courts, expresses an important concept that all workers should always feel safe in their workplace and that all workers should go to work and return home safely after their shift.

19She concludes that losing her father will continue to have an impact upon her, and major milestones, and other important events are not the same. Although there was no formal written victim impact statement from Mr Humm's son, I have no doubt he too is deeply affected, missing his father dearly and acutely on special occasions.

20The Occupational Health and Safety Act imposes a duty on every employee to take reasonable care for persons whose health and safety may be affected by their conduct.  The offence is committed when, by acts or omissions, an

employee breaches that duty. What is important to understand and apply in this sentencing task, is that the duty of the employee to act with reasonable care is to be assessed, or considered, taking into account all the circumstances that the employee knew. The circumstances include such things as the experience, training and other personal circumstances of the employee.

21As I have mentioned, you, Mr Gorman, were a qualified fitter and turner. As to your experience with forklifts, it seems you were never keen to drive forklifts, but given the requirements of the labour hire contracts, you had to get a forklift licence. You got your forklift licence it seems about 12 to 18 months prior to starting at Air Radiators. You did not have a lot of experience driving forklifts before Air Radiators. You did the forklift induction when you commenced at that company. You were the least experienced of the workers at Air Radiators in driving forklifts. You had raised concerns about the particular forklift vehicle, and in particular the delay in it moving forward after pressing the accelerator and then the subsequent surging forward of that vehicle.

22You, Mr Gorman, prior to that Saturday morning, had been given some broad instructions regarding the moving of materials. You had an understanding that the stillage would be emptied of the material. For one reason or another, it was not. You say you raised this on the morning, but as I have said, there were no JSA or toolbox meetings to adapt to the fact that the stillage was still full of the heavy large metal sheets and this stillage was the last item to be moved. In terms of experience, in all the circumstances, I note you were a subordinate to Mr Humm who was a leading hand.

23As noted, I have taken into account all the circumstances – your experience, the equipment and including the absence of any JSA or particular instructions when in fact the stillage had not been emptied prior to the Saturday morning. I have also taken into account the usual requirements of forklift driving as set out in licensing requirements and, more importantly, in the Air Radiators' induction program and documents. These matters, including avoiding using the forklift to

lift unsecured loads and unstable loads such as the stillage was, also to avoid uneven surfaces such as that created by the drain and, importantly, the requirement that other persons, pedestrians if that be the right term, be at a safe distance from the forklift, including the load being lifted.

24All these risks are set out in licensing requirements and other documents, meaning that the risks in this case were foreseeable. Also in all the circumstances given the weight of the load, its instability and the proximity of Mr Humm, it was foreseeable that if the load fell off the forklift, it could cause very significant harm or worse to Mr Humm, as in fact tragically happened.

25In assessing the gravity of your failure to reasonably care for the health and safety of others at the workplace and, taking into account all the factors that I have mentioned, in the end I do not see this failure, as the events unfolded and as I have seen them on the CCTV footage, as establishing that this was a grave example, or a significant falling short of the reasonable care that had to be shown. This does not diminish the gravity of the consequences. They are, as I have said, heartbreaking. In my view, this tragedy was avoidable by better systems and planning beforehand, especially the straightforward task of emptying the stillage.

26By pressing on and just doing your best in the absence of a proper safe system, it establishes for me that your offending is at the lower end, again, notwithstanding the lifechanging consequences. You were not, as is the case in some other prosecutions under this provision of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, engaging in outrageous and dangerous skylarking or behaving in plainly reckless ways or in breach or repeated breach of safety procedures previously explained or warnings given. Your breach, that you admit by your plea of guilty, that is that you breached the Act, but it was far below what is often seen in these courts.

27As to your own personal circumstances, you are now 53. You are a married

man with a 13-year-old son with your partner. As mentioned, you are a qualified fitter and turner. You gained that qualification over 30 years ago. In addition to your trade qualification and work over the past 30 years, you also have an abiding love and interest in acting and from that scriptwriting and making short films. You met your wife, Tamara, in acting classes over 20 years ago. You have together collaborated in scriptwriting and filmmaking. Twenty years ago, after saving money from your work as a fitter and turner, you went to the United States and enrolled in a renown acting school in Hollywood.

28From there you travelled to the United Kingdom and Europe doing what acting you could. Upon returning to Australia, you commenced living and formed an enduring relationship with your partner. You had a son from a previous relationship who then stayed with you and your partner for three or four times a week. Your partner wrote in her letter to the court:

'Mick was an amazing dad to Jordan who he had joint custody of. When his son wasn't with us, Mick would love to hang with his friends, go and see live bands, act and socialise. He was ambitious. He completed Certificate IV in OH&S and Certificate IV in Fitness. In 2011, we had our son, Le Born, and Mick continued to be an incredible dad, always helping out, ensuring we had what we need, helping me care for him, working to support us during my time at home. We continued to make mini skits on YouTube and movies for short film competitions. Mick was the main breadwinner for our family through his work as a fitter and turner. He was a contractor, always in work. I can't remember him being out of work for more than a week or two between contracts. He provided us with financial security, allowing us to buy a house during COVID. When we purchased the house, it needed a lot of work and we prepared for this as Mick was very good at repairs and maintenance'.

29She went on:

'On the day of the accident, I arrived at Air Radiators and found Mick. He was frantic, sobbing and could barely make any sense of what was going on. Mick, as he was sobbing [and this speaks to your concerns and sense of what was happening to your workmate] Mick was sobbing and kept repeating to me "he's got two kids, he's got two kids'. Mick was devastated by what happened. He was unable to speak to anyone and this continued for a few weeks. He sank into a deep depression with constant low moods'.

30She goes on,

'I had no idea how our lives would be changed forever as a result of the accident on 16 October'.

31She writes how you now still feel unworthy of small pleasures such as eating nice food or having happier moments with friends. You used to take your sons to sporting events, but that has stopped as you could not cope with being in crowded places. You have become forgetful and vague, needing reminding and assistance with day-to-day tasks. You have been consulting a psychologist more or less since the accident. I will refer to the report from the psychologist shortly. There are practical aspects to the trauma that you now have. You struggle to do simple tasks like going to the supermarket. You, as I have said, struggle with being in crowded places that involve traffic. It takes you hours to make simple decisions.

32She writes that you have been unable to return to work due to your PTSD; 'He'll never be able to return to his work due to the triggers in any factory environment'. She notes that you have tried to do online courses, something that you were well able to do prior to the accident. You tried to do courses in film editing, which you had some experience and skills in, but you found it in the end overwhelming, confusing and you were forgetting things that you had learnt in previous lessons, and you became discouraged. Your partner has to spend a good deal of time looking after you and prior to that, as she outlined, 'you were very social, loved having lots of people around'.

33You are not the same person, she says. You don't have the patience that you used to have. You begin the day unfortunately pessimistically, almost preparing yourself for anything bad that may happen. You partner concludes her letter with her and, I infer, your deep and abiding concern for Mr Humm's family. She wrote:

'I can't imagine the pain and suffering Glenn's family are going through and our deepest sympathy is extended to them. Mick feels the effects of this accident daily. He becomes depressed, upset and can't function like he used to. This tragic accident has consumed two families now and both will be affected forever'.

34As mentioned, you have been under psychological treatment for a number of

years. Your treating psychologist, Ms Gierer, wrote a very helpful letter to the court. She wrote as to your treatment that it commenced with a colleague of hers in January 2022, just a few months after this incident. You commenced treatment with Ms Gierer in June 2022 and have seen her regularly for more than 50 sessions since. As to your symptoms and her assessment and diagnosis, Ms Gierer wrote the following, confirming what your partner observed and wrote about. She said:

'Michael's symptoms meet the criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder. He experiences low mood, low motivation, fatigue, poor concentration and memory, increased irritability, social withdrawal, unwanted intrusive memories of the traumatic event, physical and psychological reactions to cues related to the event, disrupted sleep, feelings of shame, guilt, hopelessness, worthlessness and injustice and hypervigilance. Michael also experienced grief over this incident. Since the event, Michael has significantly reduced his social engagements and interactions and has been avoiding going out in public unless necessary'.

35Ms Gierer indicated that following repeated testing, your post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety and scales have worsened and intensified. Things have got worse. She wrote of her treatment and her prognosis of you in the following. You have been introduced to cognitive behavioural therapy- based techniques for your post-traumatic stress disorder. The sessions focus on managing mood, anxiety, sleep, improving social engagements, behavioural activation. Given the significant nature of the trauma event, your progress has been understandably limited.

36The ongoing WorkCover and legal processes have been very stressful, distressing and traumatising and this has had a negative impact on your recovery. She concludes, 'It is likely that Michael will experience the impact of this event for the foreseeable future'. In my view, there is no doubt that you are suffering a serious mental illness or, as that is referred to in sentencing, an impaired mental functioning. It has arisen since and as a direct consequence of this incident.

37Yours is a case where I have no doubt what has been said by our appellate

courts for decades applies to you, and that is that impaired mental functioning, whether it arose prior to or subsequent to the offending, can mitigate penalty and, depending on the extent of the impaired mental functioning, it may mitigate penalty significantly. The often cited appellate decision of Verdins2directs sentencing judges to consider the impaired mental functioning's impact upon important sentencing purposes. What is relevant in your case given your impaired mental functioning, that is your severe post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive illness that have arisen because of this offending.

38The most relevant aspect of the decision in Verdins is that which is expressed in the following way. It says:

'Whether general deterrence should be moderated or eliminated as a sentencing consideration depends on the nature and severity of the symptoms exhibited by the offender and the effect of the condition on the mental capacity of the offender whether at the time of the offending or at the date of sentence or both'.3

39Of lesser relevance, given that you have no relevant prior convictions, is what was said about deterrence to you. The court in Verdins said:

'Whether specific deterrence should be moderated or eliminated to the sentencing consideration likewise depends on the nature and severity of the sentence of the condition as exhibited by the offender and the effect of the condition on the mental capacity of the offender whether at the time of the  offending  or  at  the  date  of  the  sentence  or  both'.

40What is also set out in Verdins is the potential relevance of any particular form of punishment or sentence. What is said is:

‘The existence of the condition at the date of sentencing (or its foreseeable recurrence) may mean that a given sentence will weigh more heavily on the offender than it would on a person in normal health’.4

41This leads directly to guidance given in Verdins to sentencing judges as set out as follows:

‘The condition may have a bearing on the kind of sentence that is imposed and the conditions in which it should be served’.

2 R v Verdins - [2007] VSCA 102 (‘Verdins’).

3 Ibid [32.3].

4 Ibid [32.5].

42It is obvious to me that your current mental health condition and in particular your difficulties in leaving the home, interacting with others, means that there must be consideration of the conditions in which a sentence should be served. The maximum term for an individual for this offence is a fine – as I understand it up to $180,000. That maximum term means imprisonment is not an option. However, imposing a community correction order is available and is often utilised by sentencing judges.

43But, as I said, it is obvious to me that your current mental health condition and your difficulties in leaving the house, interacting with other, simply renders the imposing of a community correction order as not appropriate. It would likely be futile and, in aspects, cruel. I reiterate what was said in paragraph 2 of the limbs set out in Verdins. I have also given serious consideration to the imposition of a fine. I have to keep well in mind your financial position, which in recent times is parlous. You and your wife are financially stressed as a consequence of you being unable to work.

44I must always ensure in the application of proportionality and individualised sentencing, that is an instinctive synthesis of all aspects of your offending and all aspects of you as the offender, that in the end, the sentence is proportionate. In my view, having considered all the circumstances of the offence and you as the offender, that a proportionate sentence is one properly fixed at the lowest end of the sentencing hierarchy. Ultimately, your counsel submitted that an adjourned undertaking was appropriate. In an abundant display of fairness, Senior Counsel for the prosecution ultimately submitted that an adjourned undertaking was a penalty within range.

45Other factors are of mitigatory benefit such as your plea of guilty. Your plea followed a reduction in the seriousness of the charge you faced. Your plea of guilty means the sentence to be imposed must be less than it otherwise would have been had you pleaded not guilty and were found guilty by a jury. Your plea and your whole approach indicate deep and genuine remorse. That must

be separately acknowledged, and it is a powerful mitigatory factor. Your plea of guilty means that the family of Mr Humm and other workers at the site did not have to re-live this trauma.

46Also, as I have noted, there has been a very significant delay in bringing this matter to finality, over three years. Delay for whatever reason can be of significant mitigatory value. What has occurred has been years of having this awful tragedy weigh on your shoulders, as it has on Mr Humm's family. Your psychologist speaks of the intense stress caused to you by the ongoing investigation and court proceedings. Much of this delay was over the COVID-caused disruption to the courts, but in the end delay in this case is of significant mitigatory value.

47While it may be thought a short adjournment with you giving an undertaking is a light penalty in the circumstances where a fellow worker lost his life, what is important to remember is that this legislation and the offences established in the legislation that you breached, focus on unsafe systems and work practices and not on consequences or less so. But plainly I have not overlooked the tragedy of the loss of Mr Humm's life and the enduring grief of his family. The imposition of a penalty is not in any way a measure of the value of Mr Humm's life. His life was invaluable and so dear to those who loved him. Nothing I do can replace it.

48But to meet the sentencing purposes of denunciation, general deterrence, which are suitably and significantly moderated, and the sentencing purpose of your rehabilitation, as I have said, a proportionate individualised sentence is in my view to be at the lower end of the hierarchy. I am firmly of the view that I should impose as a sentence an adjournment on you giving an undertaking to be of good behaviour. In all the circumstances and in light of your past history, that is of a very old offence, in my view the adjourned undertaking ought be imposed with conviction.

49Doing the best I can, for Charge 1, with conviction, the penalty is that I adjourn the matter for six months with a requirement that you give an undertaking to be of good behaviour in the meantime.

50Had you pleaded not guilty to these matters and been found guilty of them, I would have imposed a lengthy community correction order together also with a substantial fine.

51Those are the orders that I make.

52A document will be produced which will need to be signed by you, Mr Gorman, and by me. We will do that now. The undertaking starts today and goes for six months. You must be of good behaviour and you must attend the court if called upon. That is, if for some reason you have not been of good behaviour, you have to attend back at the court during the period of this adjournment. Mr Waters, if you can have Mr Gorman sign that.

53Is there anything further required, Ms Tittensor?

54MS TITTENSOR: No, Your Honour.

55HIS HONOUR: Thank you. I again thank counsel for their very considerable assistance and the formalities of the court proceedings in this court have come to an end. Of course, that doesn't mean for the families things do not, as near as I well appreciate, but I thank those that are here for their dignity in which they have dealt with this matter. Thank you.

- - -