M and H
[2005] FCWA 8
•20 DECEMBER 2004
JURISDICTION:
FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
ACT: FAMILY COURT ACT 1997
LOCATION: KALGOORLIE
CITATION: M and H [2005] FCWA 8
CORAM: TOLCON J
HEARD: 13, 14 & 20 DECEMBER 2004
DELIVERED: 20 DECEMBER 2004
PUBLISHED: 24 JANUARY 2005
FILE NO/S: PT 6228 of 2001
BETWEEN: M
Applicant/Father
AND
H Respondent/Mother
Catchwords:
Residence - Children of Aboriginal background - Applicant has denigrated children's Aboriginality - Children to continue to reside with the respondent mother
Contact - Applicant to have defined contact
Legislation:
Family Court Act 1997 s 66, s 90, s 166
Category: Not Reportable
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant: Self Represented Litigant
Respondent: Mr Athanasiou
Solicitors:
Applicant: Self Represented
Respondent: Ferrier Athanasiou & Kakulas
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Nil
1 On 5 November 2001 the applicant filed his Form 3
Application seeking residence of
.N A M born September 1997 now aged 7 years and herein referred to as N and
.A E M M born October 2000 now aged 4 years and herein referred to as A.
2 The Respondent filed her Form 3A Response on 19 December
2001. On 5 November 2003 the applicant filed an Amended Form
3 Application and on 5 July 2004 he filed a further Form 1
Application seeking final orders in relation to the children. The
respondent filed her Form 3A Response on 10 December 2003 and her Form 1A Response on 22 November 2004.
3 At trial the following orders were sought
(a) By the Applicant –
“1. That the applicant father be solely responsible for the care, welfare and development of N and A and the said children reside with him.
2. Contact with the mother to be supervised in Perth.
3. The mother attends family counselling and a domestic violence workshop.”
(b) By the Respondent –
“1. That the Form 1 of the father filed on 5 July 2004 be dismissed.
2. The mother be solely responsible for the care, welfare and development of N and A and the said children reside with her.
3. That any orders for contact be supervised by the father’s parents.
4. The supervisors ensure that the children are removed from the presence of the father if he commences to abuse their aboriginality, the mother’s family, the children’s siblings or their culture.
5. That the father be restrained by injunction from abusing aboriginality, the mother’s family, the children’s siblings and their culture to the children.”
4On 2 October 2003 an order was made that the children be separately represented and that the Director of Legal Aid, Western Australia be requested to arrange such representation. The Director of Legal Aid, Western Australia was not prepared to fund separate representation and hence the matter comes before the court without the children being separately represented.
(Page 4)
5On 20 April 2004 Joanne Thorpe, Social Worker, was appointed Single Expert. She interviewed the relevant parties and others and published her Report on 12 July 2004. At page 15 of her Report she published her recommendations, which are:
“If the Court considers that the children should continue to reside with the mother it will ensure that the children can:
.Maintain continuity of care with the mother who has provided their primary care since birth
.Remain residing with their siblings for whom they have expressed a close and affectionate bond
.Continue to attend the same school and continue to participate in their normal sporting activities
. Maintain contact with their extended family
.Be within a relatively short distance of their paternal extended family
.Continue residing within the community they have lived in throughout their lives, thus further maintaining continuity of care
.Reside with the parent who has demonstrated the lesser denigrating behaviour towards the other parent, thereby enhancing the opportunity for the children to have positive relationships with all of their family.
The parents may wish to enhance their relationship with the children by the following:
.Mr M can contact the children’s school and they will forward copies of the children’s progress reports to ensure that he is informed of their educational development.
.I understand that Mr M has previously supplied the children with a mobile phone to enable him to have regular contact with him. He alleges that the mother has prevented this from occurring. It would be in the children’s interests if they could continue to have telephone contact with the father between visits and a formalised schedule of telephone contact could be drawn to suit all parties. If this phone is only used by the father and the children and not answered or used in
(Page 5)
other ways by the mother or her family then further conflict between the parties could be lessened.
.Court orders made on March 15th 2004 state that “the mother can attend handover with either her mother or another adult female”. However Mr M alleges that the handover on July 10 2004 was conducted in the presence of Mr B. It would seem that Mr B’s presence at the handover can contribute to increasing the
likelihood of conflict and for this reason the mother should adhere to the orders of the court.
Mr M clearly loves his children and they can benefit from a loving relationship with him and his extended family. However their relationship with him will be of little motional benefit to them if they are subjected to the violent attitudes he expressed to me about the children’s maternal relatives.
Contact could occur for half of each school holidays if the father can demonstrate that he has suitable accommodation for them and if the parents can demonstrate an ability to refrain from exposing the children to their hostility. Given the mother’s stated fear of the father and the conflict that exists between the couple, handover may need to occur via a third party. It would be beneficial to the child if the handover could occur with a mutual friend, however as a mutual and willing third party may be difficult to find, handover may need to continue to be conducted at a police station.
A communication book could be used to facilitate the handovers and any other matters. It may also be useful if the parties could agree about practical matters such as clothing supplies and toys that may need to be taken on contact visits and how responsibility for such items can be shared. In this way further misunderstandings and conflict may be avoided.
It is important that the parents refrain from speaking about these Family Court proceedings or about each other in the presence of the children.”
6On 5 October 2004 Dawn Christine Bessarab, Social Worker, was appointed Single Expert and was directed to report on the following –
(Page 6)
(a) the impact upon N and A if the trial Judge found that the applicant would not support the children’s Aboriginality and culture;
(b) any other matter considered relevant.
7On 19 October 2004 Ms Bessarab published her Report and at pages 11 to 13 she stated:
“Conclusion
In looking closely at this case I have concluded that in my opinion the issue of cultural identity is a very important factor that must be considered by the Court. Having read affidavits from both parties and closely considered the report from Ms Joanne Thorpe the Court appointed single expert in July 2004. I am of the opinion that Mr M has a very poor and unhealthy attitude that borders on racism in relation to his children’s maternal Aboriginal family and Aboriginal culture.
The impact on the children’s identity could result in considerable damage being done if their father is repeatedly communicating hateful things about Aboriginality, Aboriginal people and culture. The father in his refusal to positively acknowledge Aboriginal culture could cause the children to develop a strong sense of shame resulting in them hating their Aboriginal identity. The way in which the two children might manage this shame could be a retreat into denial or act out in anger and hostility directing it towards their mother or the broader community as they get older.
Secondly on returning to their mother’s world where they are hearing that they are Aboriginal the negative messages that they have received from their father and which they are now aware exist in the broader Australian community can still impact on their positive experiences. Mr M can directly and indirectly undermine the children’s relationships with their siblings and mother who they may begin to think of as inferior, causing them to lose respect for their family and their culture as well as themselves.
To put such responsibility onto children is not only morally wrong but raises the issue of responsible care. Children need to be encouraged to grow up in an unconditional environment that is nurturing and accepting of who they are. Mr M’s inability to accept Ms H’s Aboriginal culture puts a serious doubt on his capacity to provide a nurturing environment for
(Page 7)
his children that not only considers their physical wellbeing but takes into account their psychological, emotional and spiritual wellbeing. Denigrating their Aboriginality cuts to the core of where the two children N and A have sprung from. Contrary to Mr M’s personal beliefs, the reality is that for N and A they are of Aboriginal descent and have a large Aboriginal family who won’t go away.
In his desire to consider the children as white, Mr M has not taken into consideration the wishes of Ms H who strongly identifies as Aboriginal.
Throughout the reports there is no mention of Ms H rejecting the children’s white heritage or refusal to acknowledge it. Ms H has talked warmly about Mr M’s parents and appears to be very supportive of the children having contact.
In my opinion unless Mr M addresses his prejudices in relation to Aboriginal people and is able to change his attitude I doubt his ability to provide a culturally safe environment that wilt nurture his two children’s bi-cultural identity. Mr M appears to have some real issues around Aboriginal identity and without knowing too much about his own personal history I suspect that these issues could have their foundations in his own experiences.
The other issue which Mr M obviously struggles with is his aggressive behavior (sic) and lack of respect for women. Mr M states that because he has not physically attacked Ms H he is not abusive. In my experience of domestic violence tack of physical force does not mean that there is no violence occurring. Mr M’s use of verbal, emotional and psychological abuse demonstrates that he is in fact very abusive, but he is not aware that this type of behavior is considered to be domestic/family violence. Unless Mr M is prepared to attend domestic violence counselling I am not entirely convinced that his behavior and attitude will change.
Recommendations
In the case of the H and M family I would like to make the following recommendations:
1. Mr M to attend Aboriginal cultural awareness training.
Kooya Consultancies is an Aboriginal company that provides cross cultural training to the community.
(Page 8)
Perhaps the Courts could negotiate with Kooya a training session that is specifically designed for families engaged with the Family Court where Aboriginal cultural identity is an important issue in custody and access cases.
2. Mr M to attend domestic violence counseling to better understand his verbally abusive behavior. I understand that Centrecare and Relationships Australia run domestic violence programs that are designed for men.
3. Mr M to attend an anger management course.
4. That the children N and A remain in the full-time care of their mother Ms H with their father Mr M continuing to have visiting and access rights. Any contact with Mr M to be supervised until such time as he has successfully completed the Kooya Cross cultural workshop and anger management and domestic violence course.
5. All contact visits to be supervised by Mr M’s parents at all times. During his access visits with the children, Mr M is to refrain from making insulting and derogatory comments about Ms H and her family.
6. Ms H to facilitate telephone contact of the children with their father. Mr M to provide a contact telephone number to Ms H to allow this to happen.
7. Both parents to consider the best interests of the children and resolve how they will support and nurture their children’s mixed ancestry such that they develop a positive attitude that is proud and confident of both their white and Aboriginal backgrounds.
To quote Ms Thorpe, ‘by resolving or transcending their conflict, the parties would be offering the children a greater chance of a well adjusted and happy future’ (p. 17). The two children N and A have the potential if allowed and supported to develop strong bi-cultural competencies enabling them to move between two different worlds. Attitudes towards Aboriginal culture are changing and there is a need in the community for Aboriginal people who are strong in their identity but also able to live and communicate in the non- Aboriginal community. N and A have the advantage in that they have parents who are positioned in both. However if this
(Page 9)
potential is to be realized, it will require Mr M to change his attitude and to develop a healthy respect for Aboriginal culture by focusing on the strengths and positives instead of the deficits and negatives from which many of his comments are drawn.”
8It should be noted that Ms Bessarab did not interview any of the witnesses. I have had the benefit of observing the witnesses and the benefit of Ms Bessarab’s report when doing so.
9The applicant was unrepresented and at the commencement of the proceedings I provided him with a copy of the relevant provisions of the Family Court Act 1997 and went through the law with him. I was satisfied that the applicant was able to represent himself.
By way of background
10 The Parties –
. Commenced to cohabit on 10 April 1997
. Finally separated 2 July 2001
. Have an acrimonious relationship
.N and A are the only children of the relationship and reside with the respondent.
11 The Applicant -
. Born August 1970 and is aged 34 years
. Butcher by occupation
.His mother is of non-Aboriginal background and his father has an Aboriginal heritage
.Is a regular user of marihuana; he claimed that it helped him to relax
.Stated that if his application for residency of the children was unsuccessful, he would appeal my decision.
12 The Respondent -
. Born February 1974 and is aged 30 years
.Her father is Italian and her mother is of the Wongi people
(Page 10)
. Has 5 children –
.C K M born October 1991 now aged 13 years; T S M born January 1993 now aged
11 years, whose father is K M of the Wongi
people
. N and A
.R B B Jnr born February 2004, whose father is R B B Snr
.Commenced a relationship with Mr B in the latter part of 2001.
Mr B –
. Is 31 years of age
. Is of the Wongi people
.Employed as a youth worker; he also works as a station hand at M Station. It was his evidence that a large number of people on the station were relatives and that they were members of a Christian community
.Travels to town on weekends to be with the respondent
.Intends to return to town once he is able to secure suitable employment
.Has a 12 year old daughter from a previous relationship, whom he has not seen for some 12 months.
13 The parties commenced cohabitation in 1997 and finally separated in July 2001. The evidence satisfied me that –
. initially the parties enjoyed a good relationship
.towards the latter part of the period of cohabitation their relationship deteriorated, the applicant claiming that the respondent was absenting herself from the family home (see paragraphs 1 to 15 of his
(Page 11)
affidavit) and her parenting of the children was not appropriate.
14 The respondent stated the breakdown of the parties’
relationship was caused by the applicant’s –
. attitude to their Aboriginal background
. use of drugs
.general conduct and behaviour towards her (see paragraphs 10 to 21 of her affidavit).
15 I was satisfied that by July 2001 the parties had ceased to cohabit and that their attitude towards one another was an acrimonious one.
16 On 31 July 2001 the applicant inappropriately removed a necklace from the respondent’s neck (see paragraph 16 of the applicant’s affidavit and paragraph 22 of the respondent’s affidavit).
17 In the month of August 2001 there were a number of incidents caused by the applicant’s inappropriate conduct towards the respondent (see paragraphs 23 to 25 of the respondent’s affidavit). This resulted in the respondent obtaining a Violence Restraining Order.
18 On 21 October 2001 the applicant, after his release from prison and in contravention of the Violence Restraining Order, called at the respondent’s home. When the respondent refused to open the door the applicant –
. turned off the electricity to the house
.let down the tyres to the respondent’s motor vehicle (see paragraph 26 of the respondent’s affidavit and paragraph 19 of the applicant’s affidavit).
19 I was satisfied that the applicant had acted inappropriately on this occasion and I accept the respondent’s evidence in preference to that of the applicant.
20 On 25 October 2001 the respondent’s interim Violence
Restraining Order was confirmed for two years.
21 I am aware of the various allegations raised by the parties. No useful purpose is served by my referring to the matters raised, save that
.I was satisfied that the applicant’s conduct in public and before the court on 1 October 2003 was inappropriate and a cause for concern (see paragraphs 40 to 45 of the respondent’s affidavit);
.on 6 July 2004 the applicant inappropriately executed a recovery order which had been made 2
October 2003 (see paragraphs 52 to 54 of the respondent’s affidavit); in his oral evidence the applicant acknowledged that he should not have had the recovery order executed as he did not have an order for contact.
Significant Persons
22 The Applicant –
. At page 5 of her Report, Ms Thorpe stated:
“Mr M presented as a strong and intense man who expressed his considerable frustration at the perceived injustices of his situation. He demonstrated negative attitudes to women and used offensive language…..
He was not able to demonstrate empathy for his ex partner nor to accept any responsibility for the breakdown of the relationship.”
Having had the opportunity of observing the applicant’s general conduct in court and the evidence, I agree with Ms Thorpe’s assessment.
.The applicant acknowledged in evidence that he had not been open and frank to Ms Thorpe and in particular about his accommodation in Perth.
.Ms Thorpe stated that the applicant “loves his children and they can benefit from a loving relationship with him. However, their relationship with him will be of little emotional benefit to them if they are subjected to the violent attitudes he expressed to me about the children’s maternal relatives.”
.I was satisfied on the evidence that the applicant had acted inappropriately towards the respondent in the presence of the children.
. Expressed concern about the respondent’s and her extended family’s general anti-social behaviour in the presence of the children. Having had the opportunity of observing the respondent and Mr B and having regard to their oral evidence, as well as the evidence of Ms Thorpe and Mr Craig Shaw, an
officer from the Department of Community Development, my concern is the applicant’s
conduct, rather than that of the respondent and her extended family. The evidence satisfied me that the applicant was aggressive and confrontational towards the respondent and did not appreciate his conduct could have a detrimental effect on the children’s emotional needs.
. There was evidence today from the respondent that
N is receiving counselling and has done so since 11
November 2004 because the child on returning from
contact with his father, had displayed anti-social behaviour and had made comments as to his Aboriginal background. It is claimed that the child had made reference to “half -breed mongrels” and was against his siblings. It appears that N has improved as a result of counselling. When one views the whole of the evidence and that of Ms Thorpe, it is quite clear that the applicant in this instance has made adverse comments about the mother’s Aboriginality and this is a matter for concern.
.Is currently required to pay $24 per month by way of child support. He is $3,800 in arrears with his child support payments.
.Stated that he was able to find employment but because of court commitments and the costs of exercising contact with the children, his ability to earn income has been reduced. When questioned about supporting the children, should they reside with him, he stated that he is self -employed and he would work around them, which I took to mean he would tailor his work around his parenting of the children.
. When I consider the applicant’s –
(Page 14)
.failure or inability to pay reasonable child support
.conduct towards the respondent and her family
. attitude to the children’s aboriginal heritage
I was satisfied that he was not in tune with the children’s financial and emotional needs.
.Expressed concern regarding the children’s education and referred to N’s absences from school. However, the evidence of the primary school teacher, satisfied me that N –
. attended school appropriately attired
. generally related well with his peers
.was having some learning difficulties, which are being addressed
.absences from school were not a cause for concern
.I was not satisfied that the applicant has suitable accommodation
.I do not accept that he is close to his parents. There was evidence from his mother today that she has seen the applicant on five occasions in the last 12 months
. I was not satisfied that he would facilitate contact.
23 The Respondent –
.Ms Thorpe made the following comments of the respondent:
“Ms H presented as a serious woman, who was open and friendly in her interactions with me. She has the full time care of her five children. She is supported by her extended family and is now in a relationship with a new partner with whom she has a four month old child. She states that her current relationship is a supportive one that she hopes will be long term.”
(Page 15)
.I am satisfied that she has a permanent relationship with Mr B
. Presented well
.Is the primary caregiver of her children and I was satisfied that her parenting of the children was appropriate.
24 Mr B –
.The applicant was critical of Mr B and in particular made reference to his criminal record and general conduct towards the respondent and the children. The applicant referred to comments made by N to Ms Thorpe about Mr B and the respondent’s fighting. Having the opportunity of reading the various documentation presented to me and hearing the oral evidence, I have no cause for concern in this regard.
.I was satisfied that his relationship with the respondent is a permanent one.
25 M F H ( Respondent’s Mother) –
. Has 36 grandchildren
.Foster-Carer and is registered with the Department for Community Development
.I have had the opportunity of hearing her evidence and, notwithstanding the matters raised by the applicant, I have no cause for concern.
26 Mrs M Snr (Applicant’s Mother) -
. Is aged 51 years and is not working
. Resides in Norseman with her husband, who is aged
61 years and is in receipt of a pension
. Presented well
.It was obvious to me that she wished to have a relationship with her grandchildren and it is the evidence of the respondent that she has no objection
27 Siblings –
to the children spending time with their paternal grandparents.
.N and A have other siblings, whom I have mentioned earlier. I am aware of their relationship and it is a relationship which should continue to be fostered.
Parenting Styles
28 I have concerns about the applicant’s parenting of these children, as demonstrated by his general conduct throughout the course of these proceedings and his failure to appreciate the need to be open and frank with Ms Thorpe. He did not inform her of his residence in Perth – a matter which is of some significance. I reached the conclusion from the proposals which he put forward and from his general conduct in these proceedings, that I would have concerns about his parenting.
29 As to the respondent’s parenting, she has been the primary caregiver of these children. I have had the benefit of hearing from the Department for Community Development and from the school teachers. I am aware of the matters raised by the applicant and at this time, I have no cause for concern as to her parenting style.
30 I now turn to the relevant provisions of the Family Court Act
1997:
66. (1) ... to ensure that children receive adequate and proper parenting to help them achieve their full potential, and to ensure that parents fulfil their duties, and meet their responsibilities, concerning the care, welfare and development of their children.
(2) The principles underlying these objects are that, except when it is or would be contrary to a child’s best interests:
(a) children have the right to know and be cared for by both their parents, regardless of whether their parents are married, separated, have never married or have never lived together; and
(b) children have a right of contact, on a regular basis, with both their parents and with other people significant to their care, welfare and development; and
(c) parents share duties and responsibilities concerning the care, welfare and development of their children; and
(d) parents should agree about the future parenting of their children.
90. In deciding whether to make a particular parenting order in relation to a child, a court must regard the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration AND consider the matters set out in Section 166 which are as follows:
Any wishes expressed by the child and any factors (such as the child’s maturity or level of understanding) that the court thinks are relevant to the weight it should give to the child’s wishes.
These children are not of an age where, even if they had made a wish, that I would take it into account.
The nature of the relationship of the child with each of the child’s parents and with other persons.
It would appear that the children have a relationship with their father. Equally so, they have a relationship with their mother and half-siblings. It is clear to me from the evidence that they have a closer, more loving relationship with their mother.
The likely effect of any changes in the child’s circumstances, including the likely effect on the child of any separation from either
of the child’s parents; or any other child, or other person, with whom the child has been living.
In this instance, these two children have spent the whole of their life with their mother and half-siblings. Notwithstanding the matters raised by the applicant, I am satisfied that the children reside in a stable environment and are making satisfactory progress at school.
On the other hand, should I consider changing the arrangements, I am uncertain as to the applicant’s accommodation and general attitude to the parenting of these children. This is a factor which favours the respondent.
The practical difficulty and expense of a child having contact with a parent and whether that difficulty or expense will substantially affect the child’s right to maintain personal relations and direct contact with both parents on a regular basis.
Should the applicant reside in Perth and the respondent in a country town there will be an expense, but this is a situation which the parties have put up with for some time and regardless of where the children reside, there will always be that difficulty.
The capacity of each parent, or of any other person, to provide for the needs of the child, including emotional and intellectual needs.
The evidence satisfied me that the applicant is not in tune with the children’s emotional and financial needs. His conduct throughout these proceedings indicates to me a lack of appreciation of meeting those needs. In that regard, I refer to the comments he has made about the mother’s Aboriginality and the way in which he has conducted himself in the presence of the children. I am satisfied that the respondent is able to meet the emotional and intellectual needs of these children and I have no cause for concern in that regard.
The child’s maturity, sex and background (including any need to maintain a connection with the lifestyle, culture and traditions of Aboriginal peoples or Torres Strait Islanders) and any other characteristics of the child that the court thinks are relevant.
I was satisfied on the evidence that the applicant would not foster a good relationship with the children’s cultural background. In fact, the evidence satisfied me that he would do anything in his power to discourage any contact with their Aboriginality.
I am satisfied that the respondent is in tune with the children’s needs in that regard and would promote their interests accordingly.
The need to protect the child from physical or psychological harm caused, or that may be caused, by being subjected or exposed to abuse, ill-treatment, violence or other behaviour; or being directly or indirectly exposed to abuse, ill-treatment, violence or other behaviour that is directed towards, or may affect, another person.
In this regard I have cause for concern in respect of the applicant’s general behaviour in the presence of the children. There was evidence before me that N is attending counselling as a result of having contact with his father and comments which were made to the child about his Aboriginality. Should the applicant continue with this course of conduct there will be a need to make restraining orders to prevent him from addressing the children in this manner and may even result in contact being refused in the future.
The attitude to the child, and to the responsibilities of parenthood, demonstrated by each of the child’s parents.
In this regard, I have expressed concerns about the applicant’s general conduct and in particular, there is a duty upon each of the parties to act in a civil manner in the presence of the children. Clearly, there is a responsibility on each party to promote a good relationship between the children and their respective parent and extended family.
Any family violence involving the child or a member of the child’s family.Any family violence order that applies to the child or a member of the child’s family.
There has been evidence of violence restraining orders and I do not wish to make any further comment.
(Page 20)
Whether it would be preferable to make the order that would be least likely to lead to the institution of further proceedings in relation to
the child
At the commencement of these proceedings the applicant indicated that if he was unhappy with my decision he would take the matter on appeal. I have no confidence in the applicant accepting my decision in this regard and it is likely that there will be further proceedings. The fact of the matter is that should the applicant continue with his course of conduct the only avenue left to the respondent would be to prevent the applicant from having contact with his children.
31 On balance, having regard to the evidence and to the factors which I must take into account and in particular –
.the children have resided with their mother since their birth
. the mother is in tune with their needs
.I have no cause for concern as to the mother’s parenting of the children
as against the uncertainty should the children reside with their father, it is appropriate that these children continue to reside with their mother. This is clearly not a case where there should be a joint order for the long term care, welfare and development of these children. The parties are unable to agree on matters in relation to their children and accordingly I propose ordering that the respondent will have the sole responsibility for the children’s day to day and long term care, welfare and development.
Contact
32 Hopefully, the applicant will have regard to my comments and my judgment and hopefully his attitude to the respondent in the presence of the children will change and he will facilitate a good relationship between the children and their mother. If he does not, it may well result in orders being made that his contact with the children will be supervised or even denied.
33 It is appropriate that the applicant does have contact and it is appropriate that he has contact over the Christmas period and mid - term school holidays, as well as telephone contact. I propose bringing the matter back before me on 12 April 2005 in order to fix further contact.
(Page 21)
I certify that the preceding [33] paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for
judgment delivered by this Honourable Court
Associate
0
0
0