Ibac v Hilgart
[2021] VCC 193
•3 March 2021
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
AP 20-1072
AP 20-1073
| INDEPENDENT BROAD-BASED ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION |
| v |
| FLORIAN HILGART BRAD McLEOD |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE QUIN |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne |
DATE OF HEARING: | 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,16 & 17 February 2021 |
DATE OF RULING: | 3 March 2021 |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | IBAC v Hilgart & Anor |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2021] VCC 193 |
REASONS FOR RULING
---
Subject: Unlawful assault
Catchwords:
Legislation Cited:
Cases Cited:
Sentence:
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Director of Public Prosecutions | Ms D. Manova | IBAC |
For the Appellant Hilgart | Mr M. Thomas | Tony Hargreaves & Associates |
For the Appellant McLeod | Mr R. De Kretser |
HER HONOUR:
1This matter comes before the court as an appeal against conviction and sentence imposed at the Heidelberg Magistrates' Court on 29 July 2020 pursuant to Division 1 Part 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
2Mr McLeod is before this court on three charges of unlawful assault, Charges 1, 2 and 3, all breaches of s.23 of the Summary Offences Act, whilst Mr Hilgart is before the court only on Charge 3, unlawful assault. In respect of Charge 3 it is alleged that Mr McLeod encouraged Mr Hilgart to commit the assault and that they are both criminally liable for that offence.
3The hearing of this matter commenced on 8 February and finished on 17 February 2021. A number of witnesses, including Mr Goutzoulas and both the appellants, gave evidence. Documents from the court book and other sources were tendered as exhibits including video footage of the alleged assaults. See the exhibit list.
4At the conclusion of the evidence counsel made oral submissions and provided the court with written submissions and I have considered all of that material.
5The prosecution, with the consent of both appellants, tendered a prosecution opening which sets out the circumstances alleged to constitute the offending. I propose to attach a copy of this document to these reasons.
6This offending is alleged to have occurred after police members, including both appellants, attended at the Preston home of Mr Goutzoulas in September 2017. I note that a number of concessions were made by the prosecution that were not included in the opening. Significantly, that in relation to Mr Goutzoulas's behaviour at the front door, immediately prior to and after the door was opened, Mr Goutzoulas behaved in an aggressive, hostile and violent manner towards police.
7It is readily apparent from viewing the video that concession is properly made. The footage taken from CCTV cameras installed at the house reveal an escalation in Mr Goutzoulas's agitation particularly from the time that Mr Goutzoulas first started yelling at police officers who were originally attempting to resolve the situation in a calm and considered manner.
8The situation, however, quickly became more heightened when Mr McLeod went up the stairs and Mr Goutzoulas challenged Mr McLeod in a manner that involved him raising his arms and hitting out towards Mr McLeod. He, in turn, utilised OC spray and with the assistance of five other police officers took Mr Goutzoulas outside to the front of his house and placed him on the ground and ultimately handcuffed him.
9This last period after Mr Goutzoulas is on his side on the ground but before handcuffs are secured on him is relevant to Charges 1 and 2. Charge 3 is alleged to have occurred when, after spraying Mr Goutzoulas with the hose two times to clear OC spray that had been administered to him, that Mr Hilgart sprayed Mr Goutzoulas a third time at the encouragement of Mr McLeod.
10In order to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of each of the offences of unlawful assault I need to be satisfied that one, the appellant applied force to Mr Goutzoulas's body. Could we have the sound off please? Two, that the application of that force was intentional or reckless and three, that the application of that force was without lawful justification or excuse. The issue in respect of each of the charges relates to this third element.
11A significant amount of evidence relating to police training and tactics manuals were tendered and though relevant these serve as guides to police officers and I am conscious each situation a policeman finds themselves in needs to be considered in proper context. I do not propose to refer to every piece of evidence or the voluminous material before me. Rather I will refer to what I consider to be critical to the determination of the issues in this matter and resolution of conflicts in the evidence.
12MR THOMAS: Sorry Your Honour.
13HER HONOUR: Yes?
14MR THOMAS: Your Honour, was just on mute very briefly. Went on mute.
15HER HONOUR: Sorry, I don't know how that happened. Where did you get up to?
16MR THOMAS: Your Honour just talked about referring to some of the important passages to resolve conflicts in the evidence.
17HER HONOUR: Yes. All right. That's fine.
18MR THOMAS: Thank you, Your Honour.
19HER HONOUR: In respect of conclusions to be drawn from the evidence, I have considered all relevant legal principles including those relating to an accused giving evidence and also relating to circumstantial evidence and satisfaction or otherwise that on consideration of the whole of the evidence the only reasonable inference that is open.
20In respect of both Charges 1 and 2 the relevant provisions regarding the power to arrest are set out in the prosecution's submissions and were not in dispute. It is necessary to consider in addition to self defence whether Mr McLeod's actions were justified under s.462A of the Crimes Act as a lawful use in effecting the arrest including handcuffing of Mr Goutzoulas.
21Section 462A was recently considered in a different context by the Court of Appeal in Gebrehiwot v State of Victoria [2020] VSCA 315 where the court considered the history of the provision. The use of force by police in effecting or assisting in effecting arrest, in this case in respect of Mr Goutzoulas, is lawful as long as the use of force is not disproportional to the objective that Mr McLeod believed on reasonable grounds to be necessary to effect or assist in effecting the arrest of Mr Goutzoulas.
22The test is both subjective and objective. The first requirements concern whether Mr McLeod had a subjective belief that what he did was necessary for the order he sought to achieve. That belief must be based on reasonable grounds in the circumstances as he perceived them to be.
23An assessment of the reasonableness of the force utilised by Mr McLeod must be made in a realistic manner and take into account that situations can change very quickly and police officers often make decisions in the heat of the moment and under significant pressure or as referred to in some of the authorities, the agony of the moment.
24The second requirement that the force must not be disproportionate depends on a comparison being made between the extent of force used and objective to be achieved. Such may involve considerations of other options that may not have been considered by Mr McLeod though being objectively reasonable. See paragraphs 112, 115 and 116 of that authority.
25Additionally, the question of self defence has been raised by defence. It is necessary to consider whether the prosecution has proved that Mr McLeod was not acting in self defence, whether Mr McLeod believed on reasonable grounds that it was necessary in self defence or in defence of other police officers to do what he did, namely, to punch or hit Mr Goutzoulas and spray him at close range with OC spray.
26Mr McLeod gave evidence to the effect that he remained fearful of Mr Goutzoulas's suicide by cop threat from the outset or from the time of arrival at Mr Goutzoulas's home and that he was fearful of this throughout, that is until Mr Goutzoulas was secured with handcuffs. That he felt that the situation had significantly escalated when Mr Goutzoulas was yelling, threatening and behaving in an aggressive manner. That he was aware of some of the history in respect of Mr Goutzoulas and took very seriously his threat of suicide by cop.
27That Mr Goutzoulas was extremely difficult to manoeuvre, weighing 50 kilograms more than him. That Mr Goutzoulas remained resisting the entire way. That he was aware that Mr Goutzoulas did not have a weapon in his hands after he had been taken down, though there was every possibility he would attempt a gun grab and that was why he believed it was necessary for his hands to be cuffed.
28That in hitting Mr Goutzoulas in the manner in which he did, Charge 1, it was necessary in that he was attempting to produce a reflex action in his right arm so that his lower arm or hand would rise to enable handcuffing of Mr Goutzoulas. This action was accompanied by words to act as a distraction but similarly the OC spray to Mr Goutzoulas in close range, Charge 2, was necessary to effect this handcuffing. Mr Goutzoulas was still forcefully resisting and he was unable to access his hands. It was reasonable and necessary to utilise the OC spray in the manner in which he did and that was the most reasonable option in the circumstances.
29There is video coverage of the whole incident that took place between the time the six police members arrived in three separate cars at the address and approached the residence until Mr Goutzoulas was about to be taken away by ambulance. It goes for approximately 20 minutes.
30I was provided with footage relating to the critical times when the assaults took place with different angles and speed as to what was occurring. I was also provided with the transcript of words that can be heard whilst the recording of events are taking place. There was no challenge to either the video recording or transcripts or that these were not accurate.
31As revealed in the evidence, Mr McLeod is recorded as saying in relation to his previous dealings with Mr Goutzoulas that he had dealt with him on numerous times over the last few years and that he had not been aggressive towards him, that he had chronic back problems and the threats of suicide were mostly just talk.
32When police arrived they formed a semicircle at the door with Mr McLeod and another police officer engaging in conversation with Mr Goutzoulas. The plan by police was, according to Mr McLeod, to use their OST training which relied on strength in numbers to overpower Mr Goutzoulas and to secure him before the ambulance arrived. There was no evidence that plan changed or was altered as the situation became more volatile.
33At all times before there is any physical altercation police appear relaxed and in control of the situation. Mr McLeod responds to Mr Goutzoulas's lack of cooperation with threats of forced entry and the use of a crow bar. When Mr McLeod approaches the front door going up the stairs Mr Goutzoulas hits out at him. Mr McLeod sprays Mr Goutzoulas with OC spray and is then assisted by five other police officers who physically take Mr Goutzoulas swiftly out of his home and lie him on the ground on his side on the front lawn.
34A short period of time or about 10 seconds has passed since Mr Goutzoulas has hit out at Mr McLeod to when Mr Goutzoulas can be seen lying on his side on the ground. He is being held down by police officers including Mr McLeod with another police officer standing on the side with a baton and another police officer in close range. Mr McLeod's position beside leaning over the top of Mr Goutzoulas's body. Mr Goutzoulas has already been sprayed when at the door and it was apparent when he was on the ground that that was affecting him, particularly given his attempts to put his hands on his face.
35When on the ground and whilst being held down by three or four police officers including Mr McLeod, Mr Goutzoulas is beaten on the leg with a baton for a period of over six seconds. Mr Goutzoulas appears to be continuing to try to put his hands on his face. Mr Goutzoulas's level of aggression and capacity to resist has been significantly curtailed. He is distressed.
36At the time of the strike, Charge 1, Mr Messenger is holding down Mr Goutzoulas's right arm. Mr McLeod is holding Mr Goutzoulas's right hand with his left hand. At the same time Police Officer Messenger is across Mr Goutzoulas controlling his leg, hip and right arm. Other police remain in close range.
37Immediately after this hit Mr Goutzoulas is sprayed in very close range to the eyes whilst he is continued to be held in the same manner by police members. Mr McLeod issued no direction to Mr Goutzoulas to put his arms behind his back prior to striking or using the OC spray. Rather he used abusive and demeaning language to him. 'You fucking idiot', when he lifted his arm then punched or hit him, Charge 1 and when spraying him at close range, 'Did you like that? You like that? Smells good, doesn't it', Charge 2. It was not until after he said those things that Mr McLeod directed Mr Goutzoulas to put his hands behind his back which forcefully occurred moments later with the assistance of the other police.
38Other evidence occurring shortly after Mr Goutzoulas is handcuffed is relevant. Mr McLeod makes a number of comments to Mr Goutzoulas consistent with him being unhappy about Mr Goutzoulas coming at him at the door. Such remarks occur through the course of the longer video.
39'That's what happens', and later, 'Next time, mate, just open the door and relax'. 'Definitely don't shape up to me, that's silly. You came out and tried to take a swing at me. What the fuck did you think was going to happen? You came out and took a swing at me, mate. It was the only way it was going to go down.'
40Mr McLeod's demeanour at the time of making some of these comments is also apparent on the video. He is smoking a cigarette, looking at his phone, engaging in laughs with other officers whilst making some of these remarks to Mr Goutzoulas who is kneeling on the ground distressed and handcuffed.
41The critical issue is whether Mr McLeod had a belief based on reasonable grounds the degree of force used was necessary in the circumstances to effect the arrest including handcuffing and whether the force used was not excessive or disproportionate to that objective.
42I do not accept the evidence of Mr McLeod he continued to have a heightened concern or belief as to a threat by Mr Goutzoulas of suicide by cop after he is on the ground but before he is handcuffed. Though there was a body of material relating to historic threats of this nature by Mr Goutzoulas, Mr McLeod himself indicated prior to attending his belief from his experience was that he was all talk. Observations of police on arrival and the plan that was made re the physical use of numbers, this plan did not change throughout or once the situation became more heightened.
43Although Mr Goutzoulas was aggressive and making threats once he was controlled by the use of OC spray at the door and manhandled by police onto the ground he was distressed and putting his hands close to his face. The situation had changed significantly.
44I do not accept that in punching or hitting Mr Goutzoulas Mr McLeod believed it was necessary to effect the arrest or handcuffing. The action itself could not have caused the reflex action given where other members were situated holding Mr Goutzoulas. The words accompanying that action by Mr McLeod are abusive rather than a command to enable access to his hands. The use is inconsistent with the level of fear expressed by Mr McLeod.
45Additionally, given the level of restraint over Mr Goutzoulas I reject the use of OC spray in the manner in which Mr McLeod used it was in order to gain access to his hands for handcuffing particularly since Mr McLeod immediately after the spray and associated comments told him then to put his hands behind his back. A close analysis of the video, including observations of police at the door before Mr Goutzoulas was taken outside, what was said at that time and immediately after by Mr McLeod, the physical positions of various police officers, what happened to Mr Goutzoulas since he hit out at Mr McLeod, namely having been sprayed, manhandled by police onto the ground and restrained by them, and the words and demeanour of Mr McLeod throughout as shown on the video, I am of the view that in considering all the evidence the only reasonable conclusion is that Mr McLeod did not believe on reasonable grounds the assaults were necessary. In reaching that conclusion, I have taken into account the pressure of the situation and how events played out, but even so, I do not accept he believed on reasonable grounds that each of the assaults were necessary in order to affect the arrest and handcuffing.
46I am also satisfied the assaults were disproportionate to the objective to be achieved. I do not accept the first assault was an endeavour to instigate a reflex action. No such technique is included in the tactical manual or training, and in any event it was impossible to succeed given where other members, particularly Mr Messenger, were situated, controlling Mr Goutzoulas' arm. Hitting or punching Mr Goutzoulas to the area where he was struck by Mr McLeod was disproportionate to the objective to be achieved. Additionally and more significantly, the spray to the eyes in close range was contrary to training and tactics, and given the circumstances of Mr Goutzoulas, was disproportionate to what as trying to be achieved. By the time the assaults occurred, Mr Goutzoulas was not resisting, and force used by Mr McLeod was disproportionate and unnecessary.
47Further, I reject the evidence that at the time the assaults were perpetrated that Mr McLeod was fearful for himself or others, and that it was necessary to take the actions he did to protect himself or others, or was acting in self-defence or defence of others. Given the situation that Mr Goutzoulas was in at the time of the assaults, I am satisfied that any threat posed by him had passed, given he had been sprayed at the door with OC spray, had been pulled out of the doorway by six police officers, was on the ground on his side, trying to cover his face, had been beaten on the legs with a baton by one of the other officers. I also take into account the words used by Mr McLeod and his demeanour in considering his level of fear. Such circumstances provide a guide as to whether the belief of Mr McLeod was reasonable, and I am satisfied that when Mr McLeod engaged in the acts he did, he did not believe that they were necessary. I therefore find both Charges 1 and 2 proven. The critical period in the video in respect of Charge 3 occurs when Mr Hilgart is spraying the hose on Mr Goutzoulas. At the time, Mr Goutzoulas is on the ground, handcuffed, with his hands behind his back, kneeling in an upright position. Police are in close vicinity to him. Mr Hilgart gets the hose and sprays Mr Goutzoulas two times, as aftercare for the OC spray.
48The prosecution conceded that that first two sprays were acting within the police duty or the provision of legitimate aftercare. Charge 3 relates to the third spray. As to Charge 3, the prosecution must prove the action of Mr Hilgart in spraying the third spray of water was without lawful excuse. A number of issues need to be considered. Namely, did Mr Goutzoulas consent to the third spray of water, did Mr Hilgart believe that Mr Goutzoulas was consenting or might be consenting, was Mr Hilgart seeking to help Mr Goutzoulas, was Mr Hilgart acting in lawful execution of his duty as a police officer. As to consent, the prosecution must prove that he did not consent. There is no direct evidence from Mr Goutzoulas as to whether he consented or not to the third or any of the sprays. He was unable to remember anything from the time that he was on the ground. There is other evidence.
49First, consideration of all the circumstances, including leading up to when Mr Goutzoulas is first sprayed, after he had been positioned on the ground and handcuffed by a number of police officers. He is clearly in a distressed state, and kneeling on the ground with his hands cuffed behind his back. At the time of the first spray, Mr Goutzoulas is talking to other police, not Mr Hilgart, and they continue to talk to him when that spray commences and is being administered. That spray is not done with any warning or explanation. Mr Goutzoulas responded to the first spray by yelling while it was happening. Once the first spray is complete, Mr Goutzoulas yells to police, challenging them, 'Are you happy? How tough are you?' Then the second spray commences, with no response from any police. There is no physical reaction or movement of Mr Goutzoulas indicative of him consenting to any of the sprays of water, or that he is relieved by it. I do not accept there is evidence of some head movement towards the spray indicative of that.
50As to the observations of Mr Hilgart on the video, there is no attempt by him to explain to Mr Goutzoulas why water is being sprayed on him. The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that Mr Goutzoulas was not consenting to the third spray. Second, the question of belief in consent. The prosecution must prove Mr Hilgart knew that Mr Goutzoulas was not consenting or might not be consenting. Mr Hilgart gave evidence that in respect to each of the three sprays, he believed Mr Goutzoulas was consenting. Each spray was part of aftercare to be provided to him. The prosecution conceded the first and second sprays were legitimate aftercare, done in the course of Mr Hilgart's duty.
51The circumstances in which those first two sprays were done is relevant as placing in context the third spray, and acceptance or rejection of Mr Hilgart's evidence he believed Mr Goutzoulas was consenting to each of the sprays, or the third spray. The third spray cannot be looked at in isolation. Mr Goutzoulas, when this third spray took place, had been taken down by six police, all who remained in close proximity to him, was kneeling on the ground with handcuffs behind his back, obviously distressed, and verbally challenging police. He was in a vulnerable position and unable to move. Given how that situation came about, Mr Goutzoulas was unlikely to consent to any further attention by police. Mr Hilgart approached Mr Goutzoulas before the first spray in a businesslike manner. There is no verbal communication between.
52Rather, the spray commences whilst Mr Goutzoulas is engaged in discussion with another police officer. As noted above, there is nothing in the actions or demeanour of Mr Goutzoulas to indicate he was consenting to any of the sprays. Mr Goutzoulas cries out during the first spray, and abuses police when that is complete. Mr Hilgart gave evidence he was not paying attention to what Mr Goutzoulas was saying, and he thought that he was still hostile. Given the level of crying out and abuse by Mr Goutzoulas, it is difficult to accept Mr Hilgart was oblivious to it, and just continued with the sprays, believing he was consenting. At no stage does Mr Hilgart ask or explain to Mr Goutzoulas what he is doing or why he is spraying him with water. When Mr Hilgart says one more, between the first and second sprays, Mr Goutzoulas does not respond, and remains still when he is sprayed again.
53I do not accept Mr Hilgart's evidence given the surround circumstances leading up to the third spray, but particularly the demeanour of Mr Goutzoulas, that Mr Hilgart believed that Mr Goutzoulas was consenting or might be consenting to this third spray. I am satisfied the prosecution have proven that the only reasonable conclusion on the evidence is that Mr Hilgart did not believe that Mr Goutzoulas was consenting or might be consenting. Mr Hilgart, assisting Mr Goutzoulas, or the Phillips principle: Mr Hilgart gave evidence to the effect that he thought the second spray was sufficient for aftercare purposes.
54He turned towards Mr McLeod, who gestured to him that another spray should be administered. In his experience, police officers have taken video footage of administering aftercare as effectively self-protection against complaint of misconduct in the administration of aftercare. Similarly, Mr McLeod gave evidence that his motivation to film the administering of aftercare stemmed from a desire for self-protection from complaint. There is evidence on the video that Mr Hilgart takes on the job of aftercare and administers it in a professional manner. Mr McLeod is in close proximity to Mr Goutzoulas kneeling on the ground. He takes his phone out towards the end of time of the second spray, in an attempt to capture that spray. Mr Hilgart is not in a position to see Mr McLeod taking out his phone. At the completion of the second spray, Mr Hilgart turns away as though to replace the hose. As outlined above, there is no verbal indication that Mr Goutzoulas wants more water, or any physical gestures or movement of his head into the spray that he wants more.
55Mr Hilgart gave evidence he thought he had sprayed enough after the second spray, but that Mr McLeod was, by the gesture, suggesting that he should administer more. The relevant footage shows Mr McLeod gesturing and smiling towards Mr Hilgart with his phone in the direction of Mr Goutzoulas. There are no words spoken between Mr McLeod and Mr Hilgart, just gestures accompanied by Mr McLeod smiling. There is no indication from either of them, or talk regarding concern for Mr Goutzoulas and the need for more aftercare. Mr McLeod is not in any position to observe the front of Mr Goutzoulas or the spray affected area. He does not examine Mr Goutzoulas or suggest that Mr Hilgart had missed certain areas. Mr Hilgart clearly waits for Mr McLeod to indicate that he is ready with his phone, or standing in the right position to capture the event.
56When complete, Mr Hilgart says 'He thinks he's got it all, mate', presumably to Mr Goutzoulas; however, no attempt is made by either Mr McLeod or Mr Hilgart to check on Mr Goutzoulas after this third spray, and the adequacy of the aftercare provided. That is not considered again until the ambulance officer takes over between eight to ten minutes later. I am satisfied the sole purpose of the third spray is so that Mr McLeod is able to video it. Given the demeanour of Mr McLeod when he is encouraging Mr Hilgart to apply the third spray, I reject any suggestion it is done for proper police purposes. Additionally, no attempt was made to film it when the aftercare was first given; no request was made by Mr Hilgart to make sure that the whole of his aftercare was being filmed; the attitude of Mr McLeod towards Mr Goutzoulas remained consistent from the time that Mr Goutzoulas hits out at him until the ambulance arrives, as evidenced by his conduct on the video. I accept Mr Hilgart is more professional in his manner, and does express a level of concern for the welfare of Mr Goutzoulas in relation to his back and level of comfort overall at various times in the course of the whole video.
57However, I am satisfied the only reasonable conclusion open from the evidence, given the exchange between Mr McLeod and Mr Hilgart, that Mr Hilgart administered the third spray for no purpose other than the entertainment or humorous enjoyment of Mr McLeod. And finally, acting in the execution of duty and the principle in Gribble. The prosecution must prove Mr Hilgart was not acting in the scope of his duty in administering the third spray. As indicated above, Mr Hilgart took on the role of providing aftercare or flushing of Mr Goutzoulas by spraying him by the hose. He did take on that task in a businesslike manner. Was the third spray reasonable and necessary? At the end of the second spray, he turns as though the task is complete. The only reason he goes back to spray again is because of the exchange with Mr McLeod. For the reasons set out above,
58I do not accept the exchange between Mr Hilgart and Mr McLeod was understood by Mr Hilgart to be an indication from Mr McLeod that Mr Goutzoulas needed another spray or more aftercare. Mr Hilgart clearly waits for Mr McLeod to be ready for the third spray. There is no communication with Mr Goutzoulas, and no suggestion from him that he requires more care. Mr Hilgart had already determined by his actions that sufficient water had been applied. He does not re‑examine or engage with him as to check or confirm the sufficiency of it. In circumstances where he has been sprayed thoroughly twice, where Mr Hilgart considered it was sufficient, and no further examination is undertaken by him, there is no indication by anyone that not enough had been provided, and no further checking before the third spray is administered or after. I do not accept the third spray was necessary and reasonable in all the circumstances. Given those findings in respect of those four issues, I find Charge 3 proven.
59MR THOMAS: Your Honour pleases.
60HER HONOUR: Do counsel want to say anything in respect of penalty? I indicated that I would give you that opportunity. At this stage I am minded to impose the same penalty that the magistrate imposed, unless counsel want to persuade me otherwise.
61MR THOMAS: No, Your Honour; no submissions.
62MR DE KRETSER: No, Your Honour; no submissions as well, on that issue.
63HER HONOUR: All right. Well, I formally set aside the orders of the Magistrates' Court on 29 July 2020. I find the Charges 1, 2 and 3 proven against Mr McLeod, Charge 3 proven against Mr Hilgart, and I reimpose the same sentences that the magistrate imposed on that day. Any other matters?
64MS MANOVA: No, Your Honour.
65MR THOMAS: No, Your Honour.
66HER HONOUR: Thank you.
67MR DE KRETSER: No, Your Honour.
‑ ‑ ‑
0