DZLG and Repatriation Commission
[2011] AATA 573
•19 August 2011
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2011] AATA 573
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2010/0697
VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION ) Re DZLG Applicant
And
Repatriation Commission
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Deputy President J W Constance
Dr K J Breen, Member
Date19 August 2011
PlaceMelbourne
Decision The decision of the Repatriation Commission made 8 May 2009 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Commission to be reconsidered in accordance with these reasons for decision.
.....(sgd J W Constance)...
Deputy President
VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENTS ACT 1986 (CTH) – s 70 – defence-caused disease – Generalised Anxiety Disorder – category 2 stressor – clinical onset – decision set aside and remitted.
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 70, 120(A)(4), 120B and 120B(3)
Lees v Repatriation Commission (2002) 125 FCR 331
Repatriation Commission v Gosewinckel (1999) 59 ALD 690
REASONS FOR DECISION
19 August 2011 Deputy President J W Constance
Dr K J Breen, MemberINTRODUCTION
1.The Applicant has applied to the Tribunal to review a decision of the Repatriation Commission that the Generalised Anxiety Disorder from which he suffers was not caused by his defence service as a member of the Royal Australian Navy.
2.For the reasons which follow we have decided that the condition from which the Applicant suffers is defence-caused and the decision under review will be set aside. The matter will be remitted to the Commission for reconsideration in accordance with these reasons.
EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS OF FACT
3.Unless otherwise stated the following findings of fact are made on the basis of the evidence of the Applicant. We are satisfied that the Applicant was an honest witness who gave his evidence to the best of his recollection.
4.We are reasonably satisfied of the facts found.
5.The Applicant was born in 1954. He joined the Royal Australian Navy on 10 May 1972 and was discharged on 2 February 1975.
6.It is agreed between the parties that the Applicant rendered eligible defence service within the meaning of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) (the Act) from 7 December 1972 and 2 February 1975. We are satisfied on the material before us that this is a proper agreement
7.Between 10 May 1972 and 7 May 1973 the Applicant was posted to HMAS SYDNEY for Common Sea Training.
8.On 16 March 1973 the Applicant was on board HMAS SYDNEY which was then at sea between Singapore and Australia. On that day he attended Sick Bay to seek treatment for an injury to his penis which had occurred 4-5 days previously. He had experienced a stinging sensation in his penis and expected to receive an antiseptic cream to treat his condition.
9.At Sick Bay Lieutenant Surgeon Clarke told the Applicant that he proposed to circumcise him and that he should have a shower and report back to Sick bay in half an hour. This the Applicant did. Dr Clarke then performed the circumcision.
10.The Applicant said that the operation “just happened” [1] and that he had no opportunity to object. He said that as Dr Clarke was a Lieutenant Surgeon and he was an Able Seaman he did not query what he was told. He felt “quite shocked” [2] when he was told what was to happen to him.
[1] Trans.21.3.11.
[2] Trans.21.3.11.
11.During the operation the effects of the anaesthetic began to wear off and the stitching of the wound was completed while an attendant restrained the Applicant. At some stage, in the presence of the Applicant, the same attendant held the removed foreskin in tongs and joked about using it for fishing.
12.At the conclusion of the operation Dr Clarke told the Applicant to get dressed and to return to his mess. The Applicant fainted before he was able to return to his mess and was confined to Sick Bay until 20 March 1973.
13.The entire clinical notes of the operation which appear in the Applicant’s Service Medical Records read as follows”
Admitted 16/3/73.
Operation) circumcision under local anaesthetic.
Post operative recovery uneventful.
Discharged 20/3/73 for later review
The clinical notes were certified to be a true copy and signed by Lieutenant Surgeon Clarke.[3]
[3] Ex.T1 p.24.
14.The In-Patient Record which precedes the Clinical Notes records the nature of the surgical operation as “Circumcision”. The same document incorrectly records the “Final diagnosis of principal disease or injury leading to admission” as “Circumcision”. [4]
[4] Ex.T1 p.23.
15.Following his discharge from Sick Bay the Applicant returned to his mess where he rested for a period of about one month, having been relieved of his duties. The Applicant does not have a clear recollection of the time spent resting, although he does recall going ashore when the ship berthed in New Zealand. Navy records show that the HMAS SYDNEY berthed in New Zealand on 2 April 1973.[5] At this time the Applicant had not recovered fully from the effects of the operation.
[5] Ex.R4 para.8.
16.From the time the Applicant returned to his mess from Sick Bay he was taunted by many of his fellow seaman. Jokes were made referring to the size of his penis and his inability to engage in sexual intercourse. He was called names which referred to the state of his penis. When the ship anchored off Lindeman Island (20‑21 March 1973[6]) the comment about using his foreskin for fishing was repeated in his presence.
[6] Ex.R4 para.8.
17.The Applicant’s mess was located in a position such that it was used as a thoroughfare for crew members. The Applicant’s recollection is that “pretty much everybody who walked through had something to say …… it seemed common knowledge …… I was made a joke.” [7] The comments continued frequently up to and including the time the ship was berthed in Auckland. This was 7-12 April 1973.[8]
[7] Trans. 21/3/11.
[8] Ex.R4 para.8.
18.The Applicant “outwardly … tried to participate in the jokes” [9], but felt very embarrassed and humiliated by them. He tried to stop himself becoming increasingly humiliated but the jokes “just kept going.” [10]
[9] Trans.21/3/11.
[10] Trans.21/3/11.
19.In May 1973 the Applicant was posted to HMAS ALBATROSS for Air Technical training. He completed this training in October 1973 and was promoted to seaman ATA. He was promoted to Able Seaman ATA in January 1974.[11]
[11] Ex.R4 para.2.
20.At the same time the Applicant was posted to HMAS ALBATROSS many of the Ordinary Seamen from HMAS SYDNEY were posted with him and the jokes continued, although not all related to his circumcision. The Applicant was unable to be specific as to what was said to him. He said that he “started to feel pretty depressed about it all.” [12] He began to feel alienated, aggressive and lonely. He felt isolated and that nobody liked him any more. He did not make friends easily while he was posted to HMAS ALBATROSS.
[12] Trans.21/3/11.
21.In December 1973 the Applicant fractured a bone in his hand during a fight. The fight was in a bar not on Navy premises and did not involve other Navy personnel.
22.In May 1974 the Applicant was arrested by police following an incident during which the Applicant discharged a rifle in a public street. He has only limited recollection of this incident. He was admitted to the Psychiatric Ward of a General Hospital where he remained until 14 November 1974. The Applicant was subject to a Medical Board of Survey in November 1974. Subsequently he was approved for discharge on medical grounds and was discharged in February 1975.[13] He was upset when he was discharged as he wished to make a career in the Navy. However he believed that having been admitted to a Psychiatric Ward he could not continue in the Navy and wished to be discharged.
[13] Ex.R4 para.2.
23.During the period the Applicant was hospitalised he received treatment which included both group and individual sessions with medical professionals. At no time during these sessions did he tell anyone of the circumcision and the way in which he had been treated subsequently. He did not want to discuss this with female staff and he felt too embarrassed to do so.
24.On 19 November 1974 the Applicant signed a Medical Statement on Discharge.[14] That statement recorded that he did not suffer from any disabilities at the time, that he had not suffered from any disabilities during service and that he did not claim to be suffering from any disabilities which he considered to be due to or aggravated by service. The Applicant said that the statements were not true. He was assisted in completing this form by a sailor and was “pretty much told what to put down.” [15]
[14] EX.T1 p.15.
[15] Trans.21/3/11.
MEDICAL EVIDENCE
Service medical documents
25.Notes in relation to the Applicant's treatment in the Psychiatric ward include the following:[16]
[16] Exhibit T1, pp 12 and 13.
[the Applicant] was treated with Chlorpromazine for a few days for anxiety – then was embarked – on psychotherapy with Mrs Sullivan, who reports as follows:
“This patient began psychotherapy showing disturbance and conflict in important areas of personality organisation and interpersonal functioning. His behaviour indicated unstable emotional and impulse control, a lack of healthy, realistic self-esteem, and tendencies to operate at a regressive, primativised level.
During the first months of treatment, the emphasis was on helping him make sense of his aggressive acting-out and on alleviating his anxieties about his hostile impulses and phantasies [sic]. His readiness to take flight from his problems and his fears about close personal interpersonal relationships make it difficult for him to work on understanding his conflicts. He had to content with considerable anxieties over being exposed as weak and in danger of humiliation if he gave up his negativistic, provocative attempts to control and defeat significant figures (including representatives of authority).
He seems to have made some gains in tolerating tensions and ambivalent feelings and in more realistically evaluating himself and others. However I would regard him as still likely to show ego weakness and maladaptive behavioural patterns and as in need of continuing psycho-therapeutic help.”
He wishes to be discharged from the Navy and this appears to be in his best interest.
Follow up: He will continue to see Mrs Sullivan (psychologist) at R.G.H (H) on a weekly basis for the time being.
(LORNA I KING)
MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT
15.10.1974
This patient was admitted under my care at the Repatriation General Hospital
Heidelberg on 11th May, 1974.
Despite his response to treatment over the months, it appears that he has underlying personally problems (Personality Disorder) with related depressive symptoms.
In view of his tendency to become depressed, particularly in authoritarian situations such as the Forces, I would recommend that he be discharged from the Navy on medical grounds, as a return to duty at this stage would aggravate his condition.
(Paul E Debenhan)
2nd Assistant in Psychological Medicine.
Dr Clarke, General Practitioner
26.Dr Clarke was the Lieutenant Surgeon who performed the circumcision of the Applicant. He gave evidence by telephone.
27.Dr Clarke had no recollection of the operation on the Applicant. He gave the following relevant evidence:
·“in those days I don’t think we ever asked for consent as we do in these days …… I guess I would have taken non-objection as implied consent” [17];
[17] Trans.21/3/11
·he could not envisage the Applicant being held down during the procedure;
·usually it would not have been necessary to admit the Applicant to Sick Bay;
·he would not have told the Applicant to return to full duties after the operation;
·it would have been unusual for the Applicant to be admitted to Sick Bay for four days;
·he should have recorded the problem causing the need for circumcision and if he did not do so he was “just being slack”; [18]
·there would have been a certificate issued if the Applicant was unfit for duty;
·at the time “record keeping was not all that fantastic”.[19]
[18] Trans.21/3/11.
[19] Trans.21/3/11.
Dr Baron, Consultant Psychiatrist
28.Dr Baron assessed the Applicant on three occasions in early 2009 for the purpose of preparing a report.[20] He also interviewed the Applicant's partner and his brother.
[20] Ex.T1 p.47.
29.Dr Baron diagnosed the Applicant as suffering a chronic generalised anxiety disorder. He reported that the diagnostic criteria are the claimant being constantly anxious and keyed up with poor memory and concentration. In his opinion the date of onset of the Applicant's condition was sometime after March 1973 and led to him being hospitalised in May 1974.
30.In his report Dr Baron stated:[21]
The claimant suffered from anxiety and depressive symptoms that commenced at the age of 19 while serving in the Navy in 1974. It appears that these symptoms followed an injury to his penis. As far as I can deduce he had a normal early life and enjoyed his time in the navy until the injury to his penis and circumcision which he recalls as a very distressing event that was compounded by subsequent teasing as it became common knowledge on the ship which he found humiliating and led to the development of anxiety and depressive symptoms. He responded by acting out his distress in a number of aggressive actions. The symptoms were severe enough to lead to a prolonged period of hospitalisation and discharge from the Navy..The fact that he did not discuss the details of his experiences with treating staff most probably were related to the bravado of a young man and the ethos in the navy at the time and shame on his part. As a result the original treating persons were at a loss to account for his symptoms and fell back on phrases such as sibling rivalry and personality disorder which hardly account for why he should have been apparently symptom free up to that point. Treatment with group therapy in retrospect was a treatment method that was unlikely to have resulted in benefit when such sensitive and intimate topics were involved. Certainly personality factors have played a part. He now presents as a rather shy and sensitive man and it is not unlikely that had the Medical Officer’s recommendation of ongoing treatment been followed, but in an individual rather that group setting, that a different outcome would have occurred. There are no relationship between the diagnosed conditions and any event before or after service.
[21] Exhibit T1 pp. 49-50.
31.In a further report dated 12 September 2009 [22] Dr Baron confirmed the diagnosis of Chronic Generalised Anxiety Disorder and that at the time the Applicant was not depressed to a clinically significant degree. In his opinion the Applicant could become significantly depressed under stress.
[22] Ex.T1 p.77
32.When he gave evidence Dr Baron expressed the opinion that the onset of the anxiety disorder was about the time of the circumcision. Dr Baron said that it was the teasing which followed the operation, rather than the operation itself, which caused the onset of the condition. He did not agree that the correct diagnosis was that of Personality Disorder as he would have expected such a condition to become evident before the Applicant joined the Navy and there was no evidence of this. In his opinion all that can be deduced from the records of the Applicant's hospitalisation was that “his behaviour was pretty disturbed.” [23]
[23] Trans. 21/3/11.
Dr Strauss, Consultant & Occupational Psychiatrist
33.In September 2010 Dr Strauss assessed the Applicant at the request of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. He provided two reports and gave evidence.
34.In his report dated 7 September 2010 Dr Strauss expressed the following opinions:
·the Applicant suffers from a Generalised Anxiety Disorder;
·the Applicant gave “a credible history of quite severe stressful circumstances involving his circumcision, the circumstances surrounding his circumcision and the harassment and bullying he suffered for some time thereafter while still in the Navy” ;[24]
·when hospitalised the Applicant did not give a full account of events because of his state of mind and sense of shame at the time;
·there is no evidence to suggest that the Applicant had any psychological problems or a personality disorder before he joined the Navy;
·the Applicant's anxiety disorder is related to the events described and he has suffered from significant psychosocial stressors which have brought about his psychiatric problems;
·the Applicant's psychiatric condition began within days of his circumcision.
[24] Ex.R5 p.8.
35.When he gave evidence Dr Strauss said that his impression was that the Applicant's character prior to his joining the Navy was unremarkable. He expressed the opinion that if the history given by the Applicant is accepted the diagnosis of Personality Disorder is unlikely to be correct.
LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND
36.Section 70 of the Act provides that the Commonwealth is liable to pay a pension to a member of the Forces who is incapacitated from a defence-caused disease. The parties agree that the Applicant's service in the Navy is eligible defence service.
37.In accordance with subsection 120A(4) the Tribunal is required to decide this matter to its reasonable satisfaction.
38.Section 120B of the Act applies to this claim. Subsection (3) of section 120B provides in part:
…
In applying subsection 120(4) to determine a claim, the Commission is to be reasonably satisfied that an injury suffered by a person, a disease contracted by a person or the death of a person was war-caused or defence-caused only if:
(a) the material before the Commission raises a connection between the injury, disease or death of the person and some particular service rendered by the person; and
(b) there is in force:
(i)a Statement of Principles determined under subsection 196B(3) or (12); or
(ii)a determination of the Commission under subsection 180A(3);
that upholds the contention that the injury, disease or death of the person is, on the balance of probabilities, connected with that service.
…
39.It is agreed that the Statement of Principles concerning Anxiety Disorder is Instrument 102 of 2007 as amended by Instrument 43 of 2010. For the reasons which follow we are satisfied this is the applicable Statement of Principles.
40.Clause 3(b) of the Statement defines “anxiety disorder” to include generalised anxiety disorder.
41.Clause 4 of the Statement provides:
On the sound medical-scientific evidence available, the Repatriation Medical Authority is of the view that it is more probable than not that anxiety disorder and death from anxiety disorder can be related to relevant service rendered by veterans or members of the Forces under the VEA, or members under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (the MRCA).
42.Clause 5 of the Statement provides:
Subject to clause 7, at least one of the factors set out in clause 6 must be related to the relevant service rendered by the person.
43.Clause 6 of the Statement provides, in part:
The factor that must exist before it can be said that, on the balance of probabilities, anxiety disorder or death from anxiety disorder is connected with the circumstances of a person’s relevant service is:
(a) or generalised anxiety disorder or anxiety disorder not otherwise specified only:
(iv)experiencing a category 2 stressor within the six months before the clinical onset of anxiety disorder.
…
44.Clause 9 of the Statement provides, in part:
For the purposes of this Statement of Principles:
"a category 2 stressor" means one or more of the following negative life events, the effects of which are chronic in nature and cause the person to feel on-going distress, concern or worry
(c)having concerns in the work or school environment including: on-going disharmony with fellow work or school colleagues, perceived lack of social support within the work or school environment, perceived lack of control over tasks performed and stressful work loads, or experiencing bullying in the workplace or school environment.
…
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
45.The following issues arise for determination.
1)Does the Applicant suffer from the disease Generalised Anxiety Disorder?
2)If so, does the material before us raise a connection between the disease of the Applicant and the defence service rendered by him?
3)If so, is there a Statement of Principles in force which upholds the contention that the disease is, on the balance of probabilities, connected with that service?
REASONING
Does the Applicant suffer from the disease Generalised Anxiety Disorder?
46.On the basis of the evidence of Dr Baron and Dr Strauss we are reasonably satisfied that the Applicant suffers from Generalised Anxiety Disorder. They are the only practitioners who have examined the Applicant and who have been aware of the events which occurred whilst he was in the Navy. In addition we have had the benefit of their having given evidence before us and of having been questioned in relation to that evidence.
47.We have considered the reports of those who treated the Applicant when he was hospitalised in 1974 which indicate that the Applicant was diagnosed as suffering from a Personality Disorder. However we prefer the views of Dr Baron and Dr Strauss as those treating the Applicant were not fully informed of the Applicant's relevant history. We accept also the view of Dr Baron that had the Applicant suffered from a Personality Disorder it was likely to have been in evidence before the Applicant joined the Navy.
Does the material before us raise a connection between the disease of the Applicant and the defence service rendered by him?
48.On the basis of the evidence of the Applicant and the opinions expressed by Dr Baron and Dr Strauss, we are satisfied that a connection is raised between the Generalised Anxiety Disorder from which the Applicant suffers and the conduct of members of the Navy towards him on board HMAS SYDNEY and at HMAS ALBATROSS.
49.Dr Baron gave evidence that in his opinion the teasing which followed the operation caused the onset of the condition. Dr Strauss’ opinion is that the Applicant’s condition is related to the stressful circumstances involving the circumcision and the subsequent events. Further, he expressed the opinion that the condition began within days of the circumcision.
Is there a Statement of Principles in force which upholds the contention that the disease is, on the balance of probabilities, connected with that service?
50.It is not in issue that the only relevant Statement of Principles is that to which we have already referred. The questions to be determined in deciding whether this Statement upholds the connection between the disease and the service are:
1)did the Applicant experience a category 2 stressor within the meaning of the Statement of Principles; and
2)if so, was the category 2 stressor experienced within the six months before the clinical onset of the disease?
Did the Applicant experience a category 2 stressor within the meaning of the Statement of Principles?
51.We are satisfied that the conduct of the Applicant's work colleagues in the form of derogatory remarks and joking which commenced at the time of his circumcision is properly categorised as “on-going disharmony” as defined in clause 9 of the Statement of Principles. We are satisfied also that the Applicant perceived a lack of social support as a result of the manner in which he was treated by crew members at the time of the operation and the comments which followed. We are satisfied that the comments were persistent at least until the Applicant was posted to HMAS ALBATROSS in May 1973.
52.On the basis of the evidence of the Applicant and the opinions of Dr Baron and Dr Strauss we are satisfied that the effect was chronic in nature and caused the Applicant to feel on-going distress, concern and worry.
53.It was argued on behalf of the Commission that it was the trauma of the initial injury to his penis that caused the Applicant to feel distressed, rather than the effects of the operation to repair the damage and/or the comments of others. It was also put that the Applicant did not regard the joking as particularly upsetting as he did not discuss it with others on board or with those involved in his treatment in hospital.
54.We do not accept these arguments. We are satisfied that the Applicant did not regard the initial injury as particularly serious. We note that he did not seek treatment for four days and that when he did he expected to be given an antiseptic cream. There is no evidence that the circumstances of the initial injury were traumatic to the Applicant.
55.We accept the Applicant's explanation that he endeavoured to ‘go along with” the joking although he felt distressed by it. We accept also that he felt embarrassed by what had happened to him and for this reason would not have readily discussed his concerns.
56.We are satisfied that the Applicant did experience a category 2 stressor, being his concern in his work environment arising from the manner in which the circumcision was performed and the subsequent conduct of his fellow crew members.
Was the category 2 stressor experienced within the six months before the clinical onset of the generalised anxiety disorder?
57.Clause 6(a)(iv) requires the experience of the category 2 stressor to be “within six months before the clinical onset of anxiety disorder”. To be satisfied that clinical onset of the condition had occurred we must be satisfied that the Applicant displayed all of the symptoms required by the definition of generalised anxiety disorder.[25] “The purpose of the definition is to identify those symptoms (or features) which, if observed by a clinician, would warrant a conclusion that the patient suffered from generalised anxiety disorder.” [26]
[25] Lees v Repatriation Commission (2002) 125 FCR 331; Repatriation Commission v Gosewinckel (1999) 59 ALD 690.
[26] Lees v Repatriation Commission supra. at p.337.
58.On the basis of the evidence of Dr Baron and Dr Strauss we are satisfied that the Applicant suffered a psychiatric condition within six months of his being circumcised.
59.On the basis of the evidence of the Applicant as to his feelings about the ongoing joking and taunting we are satisfied that he felt excessive anxiety and worry for the period of at least six months following the operation and that this occurred on more days than not. We take into account that the period of six months from the operation ended about four months after he was posted to HMAS ALBATROSS. On the basis the Applicant’s evidence and that of Dr Baron and Dr Strauss we are satisfied that he found it difficult to control the worry in this period.
60.Of the six symptoms set out in paragraph C of the definition, we are satisfied that the Applicant displayed at least four of those symptoms for more days than not in the six months immediately following the operation. These symptoms were:
·feeling keyed up
·difficulty concentrating
·irritability
·restless unsatisfying sleep.
We have reached this conclusion partly based on the Applicant’s description of how he felt during his time on board the HMAS SYDNEY and at HMAS ALBATROSS and his reaction to the way he was treated by those around him.. We have also taken into account the evidence of the Applicant that he had difficulty concentrating on his work as he was thinking about what had happened and what was going to happen.[27] Further we have relied on his evidence that he did not sleep very well and would wake up quite a lot.[28]
[27] Transcript 17.6.11 p-17.
[28] Transcript 17.6.11 p-18
61.In considering the evidence as to the clinical onset of the condition we have had regard to subparagraph 119(1)(h). This subparagraph provides for the decision-maker to take into account the difficulties in determining facts arising from the passage of time and the deficiencies in official records. It is relevant to the consideration of the evidence as to the frequency with which the symptoms recurred from the time the circumcision was performed.
62.It was not contended on behalf of the Commission that any of the factors referred to in paragraphs D, E and F of the definition generalised anxiety disorder excluded the condition which was suffered by the Applicant. There is no evidence before us to suggest that the condition was excluded by reason of the application of any of these paragraphs.
63.Having considered all of the evidence referred to we are satisfied that the clinical onset of the generalised anxiety disorder suffered by the Applicant occurred within the six months immediately following 16 March 1973. We are satisfied that this was the period when the Applicant felt the greatest concern related to the ongoing disharmony and lack of social support within his work environment. We repeat that we are satisfied that the category 2 stressor was the series of events which included the circumstances in which the circumcision was performed and the series of events which followed beginning with the comments which were made to the Applicant immediately after the procedure was performed.
CONCLUSION
64.For the reasons set out above we are reasonably satisfied that the Applicant suffers from Generalised Anxiety Disorder which is defence-caused within the meaning of the Act.
65.The decision of the Repatriation Commission made 8 May 2009 will be set aside and the matter will be remitted to the Commission to be reconsidered in accordance with these reasons for decision.
I certify that the 65 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of
Deputy President J W ConstanceDr K J Breen, Member
Signed: ..............(sgd D De Andrade)...........
D De Andrade, Personal AssistantDates of Hearing 21 and 22 March 2011; 17 June 2011
Date of Decision 19 August 2011
Counsel for the Applicant Mr C Colborne (21 and 22 March 2011)
Solicitor for the Applicant Mr G Isolani
Counsel for the Respondent Mr G Purcell
Solicitor for the Respondent Ms J McCulloch (21 and 22 March 2011)
Mr K Rudge (17 June 2011)
0
3
0