Nicholls and Repatriation Commission
[2008] AATA 183
•4 March 2008
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION 2008 AATA 183
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL No 2007/3656
| VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION | ||
| Re | ROBERT NICHOLLS | |
Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal
Mr RG Kenny, Member
Date 4 March 2008
Place Brisbane
Decision
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes its decision that:
(i) in accordance with s 70 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, depressive disorder and alcohol abuse are defence-caused conditions;
(ii) the applicant is entitled to receive a pension for incapacity associated with those conditions from and including 16 March 2006; and
(iii) the matter of assessment of that incapacity is remitted to the Repatriation Commission.
MEMBER
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – Veterans’ Entitlements - disability pension – defence service with Royal Australian Navy – application of Statements of Principles – appropriate diagnosis of psychiatric conditions ––depressive disorder and alcohol abuse diagnosed – conditions attributable to defence service – decision set aside – assessment remitted to Repatriation Commission.
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 5, 14, 68, 70, 120, 120B,198B
Repatriation Commission v Smith (1987) 15 FLR 327
Keeley v Repatriation Commission (2000) 60 ALD 401
Re Robertson and Repatriation Commission (1998) 50 ALD 668
Repatriation Commission and Cornelius [2002] FCA 750
Lees v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCAFC 398 (2002) 125 FCR 331
Youngnickel v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 1691
REASONS FOR DECISION
| 4 March 2008 | Mr RG Kenny, Member |
Background
Robert Nicholls served in the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) from 23 August 1969 until 23 December 1994. On 19 August 2004, he lodged a claim with the Repatriation Commission, in accordance with s 14 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act), for a disability pension for “anxiety” and “substance abuse”. He contended that these were related to his RAN service. On 2 March 2006, the Repatriation Commission determined that his claim was answered by diagnoses of post traumatic stress disorder, dysthymic disorder and alcohol dependence but also determined that those conditions were not related to his RAN service. The Veterans’ Review Board (the Board), on 18 May 2007, varied the diagnoses to panic disorder, major depressive disorder and alcohol abuse and affirmed the decision in relation to causation. Mr Nicholls now seeks review of the decision, as varied by the Board, by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal).
Service and Standard of Proof
His relevant service with the RAN is a period of defence service which, in accordance with s 68 of the Act, commenced on 7 December 1972 and continued until his discharge.
The standard of proof for determining diagnostic matters and issues of causation for defence service is set out in s 120(4) of the Act which requires that such matters be determined to the Tribunal’s reasonable satisfaction. This imports the civil standard of proof so that matters must be determined on the balance the probabilities[1]. The application of that provision is affected by the terms of s 120B of the Act. This provides that, where a relevant Statement of Principles has been published by the Repatriation Medical Authority (RMA), a decision-maker may be reasonably satisfied that a condition is defence-caused only if the Statement of Principles upholds the contention that the condition is, on the balance the probabilities, connected with that service.
[1] Repatriation Commission v Smith (1987) 15 FLR 327 at 335
Relevant Legislation and Statements of Principles
Subsection 70(1) of the Act provides that, where a member of the Forces is incapacitated from a defence-caused injury or disease, the Commonwealth is liable to pay pension to the member by way of compensation for incapacity associated with that injury or disease. The term “disease” is defined in s 5(1) of the Act to mean any physical or mental ailment, disorder, defect or morbid condition. I am satisfied that the term extends to psychiatric conditions from which Mr Nicholls suffers. Subsection 70(5) of the Act sets out criteria of causation. Accordingly, the disease is taken, in so far as relevant to Mr Harding’s submissions in this matter, to be defence-caused if it arose out of, or was attributable to, any defence service of Mr Nicholls.
A function of the RMA is to determine Statements of Principles. Subsection 196B(3) of the Act provides that, if the RMA is of the view on the sound medical-scientific evidence available to it that it is more probable than not that a particular kind of disease can be related to defence service, it must determine a Statement of Principles in respect of that kind of disease setting out the factors that must exist and which of those factors must be related to service rendered by a person before it can be said that, on the balance of probabilities, a disease of that kind is connected with the circumstances of that service. The RMA has done this for panic disorder with Instrument No. 10 of 1999 (as amended) and for alcohol abuse with Instrument No. 77 of 1998. For major depressive disorder, the RMA published Instrument No. 58 of 1998 and then repealed and replaced that with Instrument No. 18 of 2007. The matter of depressive disorder is to be considered, initially, under the latter Instrument but, in the event that its requirements are not met, it is then to be considered under the repealed Instrument[2].
[2] Keeley v Repatriation Commission (2000) 60 ALD 401 at 415, 422.
The description of the required causal nexus between a disease and service in s196B of the Act differs from that which is used in s 70 of the Act. The former refers to a condition being related to service and that term is used in the Statements of Principles. As set out above, s 70 of the Act uses a variety of descriptions. Nevertheless, there is no conflict between the provisions because of s 196B(14) of the Act. This provides that a factor causing, or contributing to, an injury, disease or death is related to service rendered by a person if, among other bases, it arose out of, or was attributable to, that service.
Contentions
Mr Harding submitted that Mr Nicholls developed depressive disorder and alcohol abuse as a result of a clinical procedure performed in 1977 whilst he was serving on HMAS Derwent in New Zealand waters prior to the vessel’s return to Australia. Mr Nicholls suffered from haemorrhoids and, as he was experiencing pain from that condition, he attended the Derwent’s sick bay. There, he was subjected to the surgical removal of his haemorrhoids by a Leading Medic in a procedure which took Mr Nicholls by surprise, which he had not consented to and which caused him excruciating pain at the time and continuing discomfort for many days. Mr Harding submitted that the incident involved Mr Nicholls in experiencing a category 1A stressor, as defined in Instrument No 18 of 2007 for depressive disorder or, alternatively, a severe psychosocial stressor, as defined in Instrument No 59 of 1998 and that depressive disorder developed in him within the clinical onset time-frames required by those Statements of Principles.
Mr Harding also submitted that the incident involved Mr Nicholls in experiencing a severe stressor, as defined in Instrument No 77 of 1998 for alcohol abuse and that the condition developed in him within the clinical onset time-frame required by that Statement of Principles. Alternatively, Mr Harding submitted that Mr Nicholls’ alcohol abuse developed as a consequence of his depressive disorder.
Mr Williams submitted that there were significant inconsistencies in the evidence provided by Mr Nicholls in relation to the haemorrhoid incident and to his alcohol consumption patterns such as to raise concerns about the veracity of his evidence. He submitted that the incident did not meet the requirements of a category 1A stressor, a psychosocial stressor or a severe stressor as those terms are defined in the respective Statements of Principles. On that basis, he submitted that neither depressive disorder nor alcohol abuse were related to Mr Nicholls’ defence service.
Evidence
Mr Nicholls
10. Mr Nicholls gave the following evidence. His duties in the RAN were of a clerical nature. His first ranking was Ordinary Writer and, when he left the RAN, he had attained the rank of Chief Petty Officer. In December 1977, with the rank of Able Writer, he was serving on HMAS Derwent when she undertook a short trip to New Zealand. During a period of shore leave, he experienced the appearance of haemorrhoids which caused him a great deal of pain. On returning to the Derwent which then began her return voyage to Australia, he attended the sick bay where he consulted a Leading Medic. After an examination by the medic, Mr Nicholls was asked by him to lean across a table, with his trousers removed and his back to the medic. Mr Nicholls was advised by him that “this might hurt”. The medic then proceeded to remove the haemorrhoids with a surgical knife. The pain Mr Nicholls experienced was excruciating and so intense that his knuckles turned white as he squeezed the sides of the table which he was holding. Bleeding resulted and he was provided with padding and told to apply it to the area for the next few days.
11. The procedure was undertaken without any form of anaesthetic. Mr Nicholls was not advised that the procedure would be undertaken. He was not given the opportunity to consent to it. He was in a state of extreme distress because of the intensity of the pain and the shock of what had occurred. These feelings lasted for about 24 hours although the pain continued at a lower-level for a week or more. He could not recall how long the procedure took but believed that there had been more than one incision. When asked why he did not request the medic to cease the procedure, he said that he was outranked by him, felt stressed and wanted it all to be finished. He did not return to the sick bay because of the trauma he had experienced there. One of the long-term effects of the incident was a reluctance to undertake any further treatments for the condition for many years.
12. Mr Nicholls gave evidence of his alcohol consumption. He did not consume alcohol before he joined the Navy at 18 years of age. He then began to drink alcohol but was usually a light and irregular drinker. He described himself as not being able to handle alcohol consumption very well and recalled a trip on HMAS Torrens when the vessel stopped in Gove. He and other sailors went to the local hotel and he consumed more than he would normally do. He got quite drunk. His condition caused delay in the ship’s departure and for this he was given punishment. He described this as a “wake-up call” and, thereafter, returned to his low level of consumption. These events occurred before the haemorrhoid incident.
13. Mr Nicholls’ evidence was that he increased his consumption after the haemorrhoid incident. He felt that he underwent a change in his personality. Previously, he had been the “life of the party” and this changed in that he became withdrawn and did not seek the company of other people. He also had trouble sleeping after the haemorrhoid incident and found that alcohol assisted him in that regard. He was posted to HMAS Cresswell in 1978 where his alcohol consumption continued to increase. He was rostered for bar duties in the Junior Sailors’ Mess where he had ready access to alcohol. This enabled him to drink during the day. He would also remain behind after the completion of his duty and consume alcohol on his own. He was consuming alcohol heavily within three months of the haemorrhoid incident.
14. Mr Nicholls was married in January 1978 and he and his wife took up married quarters in Nowra in April of that year. There, he continued with his heavy drinking and he began to experience panic attacks.
15. Mr Nicholls was referred to an alcohol consumption questionnaire which was completed in 2004. There, he is described as commencing to consume alcohol in 1973 and as increasing his consumption levels substantially after he injured his knee and because of the pain and frustration associated with that injury. In evidence, he agreed that he had signed the document but denied that it had been completed by him or that he was aware of its contents. He said that, in 2004, he had been referred to a particular veterans’ advocacy service which he engaged to assist him in making a claim under the Act. He understood that the advocate was experienced in that field and said that the advocate, in effect, completed the questionnaire responses largely on his own and that he signed the document in deference to the experience of the advocate. He said that, shortly after, he abandoned that advocate because he was not satisfied with aspects of his service. He said that the content of the questionnaire was incorrect about his alcohol consumption which increased in the manner described above after the haemorrhoid incident.
16. Mr Nicholls was also referred to a statement he completed concerning the haemorrhoid incident. It declares that the incident occurred whilst he was serving on HMAS Vampire in transit from New Zealand to Australia in 1982. He said that this was an error and that the incident had occurred in 1977 on the Derwent. At that time of completing the document, he recalled similar voyages on the two vessels and inadvertently referred to the later one. Subsequently, on considering the circumstances surrounding the incident, he recalled that the sick bay in which he was treated was on the Derwent rather than that on the Vampire. He described the sick bays as being different and, in particular, as being located in different parts of the respective vessels.
Mrs Kaye Nicholls
17. Mrs Nicholls met her husband in approximately August 1975. They were engaged to marry a year later and married in January 1978. She described him as being very outgoing and fun to be around prior to his return to Australia around Christmas 1977. At that time, he described to her the haemorrhoid incident. Although married, she and her husband did not commence living together until April 1978 as they were in the RAN with different postings until that time. She recalled a visit to him prior to April 1978 and became aware that he was drinking heavily whereas, previously, he had been a very occasional consumer of alcohol. They attended a Mess function and he became intoxicated. She said that this was the first time that she had seen that happen in the 2½ years that she had known him. After they began to live together, she realized that he was consuming alcohol on a daily basis. She recalled times when he would stay on the base rather than drive home and other times when she would collect him because he was intoxicated. She described this pattern as being present from May 1978 onwards.
18. Mrs Nicholls described Mr Nicholls as having a deep phobia about treatment for his haemorrhoids. She described an occasion when they were in the United States of America when he was suffering terribly from haemorrhoids but refused to seek treatment. Eventually, she arranged for a doctor to attend him at the hotel where they were staying. She also said that this phobia rendered him unwilling to undergo prostate testing because he feared the nature of the rectal examination involved.
19. Mrs Nicholls said that, from 1978, her husband’s personality and general attitude to life changed significantly. She described him as being less patient and suffering moody periods which had not been a feature in his personality before 1978. She said that he showed sarcasm and reduced levels of affection towards her which he had not done prior to the haemorrhoid incident. With increasing frequency, they had arguments, usually about alcohol consumption, and there were times when she felt that she would not be able to stay in the relationship.
Dr Jonathon Hargreaves, psychiatrist
20. Dr Hargreaves saw Mr Nicholls on five occasions in 2006. In the notes that he took during consultations, Dr Hargreaves recorded that, following the haemorrhoid incident, Mr Nicholls developed panic attacks, intrusive memories about the incident and anxiety of a general nature with restlessness, sleep disturbance, irritability and headaches. He also noted that Mr Nicholls began to retreat socially, lost his comic interest and flair and became increasingly uncommunicative and easily offended by others. He avoided busy and crowded places and noisy social venues. He avoided being examined by doctors but was required to submit to this in 1987 and in 1994 for haemorrhoid procedures. Dr Hargreaves’ opinion was that, based on the information provided by Mr Nicholls, he developed a major depressive disorder as a result of the haemorrhoid incident and that its clinical onset was within a few months of that incident. He said that the lingering nature of Mr Nicholls’ depression, which is characterized by additional anxiety, appeared to follow the kind of pattern one would see after a severe traumatic event.
21. Dr Hargreaves also diagnosed alcohol abuse. His clinical notes were to the effect that Mr Nicholls began to consume alcohol on a social basis in 1973 but began to consume much more alcohol after the haemorrhoid incident. Dr Hargreaves’ opinion was that it was reasonable to connect Mr Nicholls’ alcohol abuse to the psychiatric problems which developed as a result of the haemorrhoid incident. Dr Hargreaves described problems which Mr Nicholls experienced because of his alcohol abuse. These included hangovers, exacerbation of depressed mood and then subsequently drinking in order to ease these moods. He placed increasing importance on alcohol in his lifestyle and prioritisation of this over other commitments. It resulted in significant social repercussions and social withdrawal as well as a tendency to consume alcohol by himself. His relationship with both friends and his wife suffered because of the condition.
Dr Alan Freed, psychiatrist
22. Dr Freed saw Mr Nicholls on one occasion in 2004. In evidence was a report completed by him on 18 November 2004. He diagnosed post traumatic stress disorder, dysthymia and alcohol dependence. These diagnoses were not contended by Mr Harding or by Mr Williams. Dr Freed’s report contains references which appear to be inconsistent with each other. He describes the haemorrhoid incident as outlined above and described Mr Nicholls as having “screamed out” and feeling as if he was “passing out” but also as not remembering his feelings. He referred to temporary relief from pain and also to Mr Nicholls becoming “visibly upset” as he detailed the incident. Dr Freed was not called as a witness and no explanation or clarification was obtained in relation to his report. Dr Freed attributed Mr Nicholls’ post traumatic stress disorder to the haemorrhoid incident but gave no opinion of the cause of the other conditions he diagnosed or their clinical onset.
Issues for Determination
23. The first issue for the Tribunal is the determination of the appropriate diagnoses for the conditions claimed by Mr Nicholls. The second issue is whether any such diagnosed conditions are related to, in the sense noted above, Mr Nicholls’ defence service
Diagnosis of Conditions
24. It is not disputed by Mr Williams, and I am satisfied on the basis of the medical evidence, that part of Mr Nicholls’ claim is answered by a diagnosis of alcohol abuse and a diagnosis of major depressive disorder. In that regard, I have adopted the opinion given by Dr Hargreaves who, unlike Dr Freed, had the advantage of seeing Mr Nicholls on several occasions. His reports are detailed, are more recent than that of Dr Freed and were also confirmed by him in his oral evidence. Despite that, I have not accepted his diagnosis of panic disorder. The diagnostic criteria for panic disorder, are listed in the Statement of Principles in the following way:
Panic disorder
For the purposes of this Statement of Principles, “panic disorder”, means a psychiatric condition characterised by the following diagnostic criteria:
(A) the person has experienced both:(1) recurrent unexpected panic attacks; and
(2) (i) has experienced at least four panic attacks in four weeks, or
(ii) in the case of fewer panic attacks, at least one of the panic attacks has been followed by 30 days (or more) of one (or more) of the following:
(a) persistent concern about having additional panic attacks; or
(b) worry about the implications of the panic attack or its consequences; or
(c) a significant change in behaviour related to the panic attacks; where
(B) the panic attacks can occur in the presence or absence of agoraphobia; and
(C) the panic attacks are not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance or a general medical condition; and
(D) the panic attacks are not better accounted for by another mental disorder, such as social phobia, specific phobia, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post traumatic stress disorder, or separation anxiety disorder, attracting ICD-9-CM code 300.01 or 300.21.
25. Mr Harding conceded that there was no evidence which supported a finding that Mr Nicholls experienced at least four panic attacks in four weeks or that at least one of the panic attacks has been followed by 30 days or more of one of the phenomena referred to in paras 2(a), (b) or (c) of those criteria. Mr Nicholls described no more than three attacks in any four week period and concerns, worries and behavioural changes which lasted no more than a short time after any such attack. On the basis of the evidence given by Mr Nicholls, I am reasonably satisfied that Mr Harding’s concession was properly made. Accordingly, I am reasonably satisfied that a diagnosis of panic disorder is not made out and that any such condition can not be related to Mr Nicholl’s service in the manner required under the Act and the Statement of Principles
Statements of Principles
26. The factors in the Statements of Principles for major depressive disorder and alcohol abuse relevant to Mr Nicholls’ claim and relied upon by Mr Harding, with their respective definitions, read:
depressive disorder
Instrument No 18 of 2007
(a) experiencing a category 1A stressor within the two years before the clinical onset of depressive disorder.
a category 1A stressor means one or more of the following severe traumatic events:
(a) experiencing a life-threatening event;
(b) being subject to a serious physical attack or assault including rape and sexual molestation; or(c) being threatened with a weapon, being held captive, being kidnapped, or being tortured.
Instrument No 58 of 1998
(a) experiencing a severe psychosocial stressor or stressors within the one year immediately before the clinical onset of depressive disorder.
a severe psychosocial stressor means an identifiable occurrence that evokes feelings of substantial distress in an individual, for example, being shot at, death or serious injury of a close friend or relative, assault (including sexual assault), severe illness or injury, experiencing a loss such as divorce or separation, loss of employment, major financial problems or legal problems;
alcohol abuse
(a) suffering from a psychiatric disorder at the time of the clinical onset of alcohol abuse; or
(b) experiencing a severe stressor within the one year immediately before the clinical onset of alcohol abuse
experiencing a severe stressor means, the person experienced, witnessed or was confronted with, an event or events that involved actual or threat of death or serious injury, or a threat to the person’s or other people’s physical integrity, which event or events might evoke intense fear, helplessness or horror;
In the setting of service in the Defence Forces, or other service where the Veterans’ Entitlements Act applies, events that qualify as severe stressors include:
(i) threat of serious injury or death; or
(ii) engagement with the enemy; or
(iii) witnessing casualties or participation in or observation of casualty clearance, atrocities or abusive violence;…
psychiatric disorder means any Axis 1 or 2 disorder of mental health attracting a diagnosis under DSM IV.
Relationship with Defence Service
27. There have been inconsistencies in descriptions given by Mr Nicholls concerning his alcohol consumption patterns and the haemorrhoid incident. In particular, there is the alcohol questionnaire completed in 2004 and the reference to HMAS Vampire as a vessel on which the haemorrhoid incident occurred several years after 1977. I am satisfied with the explanations he gave in relation to those matters. I reach that position in the context of his evidence taken as a whole. He gave this in a straightforward and convincing manner, without embellishment, and, at times, in a manner which was against his interests. That was the case in relation to panic disorder. Also, his evidence in relation to his alcohol consumption patterns and the timing of the haemorrhoid incident was corroborated in material particulars by the evidence of Mrs Nicholls. Along with Mr Nicholls, she impressed me as a witness of truth. I am satisfied that the haemorrhoid incident occurred in the manner described by Mr Nicholls in his evidence. In that regard, I note that neither Dr Freed nor Dr Hargreaves expressed doubt about the incident having occurred in that way. The issue then is whether that incident is sufficient to satisfy the causative factors in the Statements of Principles.
Depressive disorder
28. A category 1A stressor in the later Statements of Principles for depressive disorder is defined to mean “a severe traumatic event” and particularises a series of events which will qualify. As I read that definition, one of those particularised events must have occurred for a category 1A stressor to be established. The definition of a severe psychosocial stressor in the earlier Statement of Principles is in different terms. It requires an identifiable occurrence that evokes feelings of substantial distress. It then lists events which will qualify as severe psychosocial stressors. However, these are expressed to be merely examples of such identifiable occurrences. Assault is included in each of the Statements of Principles. While the later Instrument requires an assault, the earlier Instrument does not. Its focus is the identifiable occurrence which evokes feelings of substantial distress.
29. Regardless of whether or not the haemorrhoid incident constituted an assault upon the person of Mr Nicholls, I am reasonably satisfied that it was an identifiable occurrence equivalent to the examples given in the definition in the earlier Statement of Principles. I am reasonably satisfied that, in a subjective sense, Mr Nicholls experienced feelings of substantial distress and that, objectively, it would evoke such feelings in an ordinary person exposed to that occurrence[3]. The examples of identifiable occurrences contemplated by the term psychosocial stressor covers a wide range of events suggesting resultant feelings which extend over a time-frame and which thereby have a social dimension to them. On the evidence of Mr and Mrs Nicholls, I am reasonably satisfied that this requirement is also met. This means that the haemorrhoid incident satisfies the first part of the causal factor in Instrument No. 59 of 1998 for depressive disorder.
[3] White v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCR 633
30. The second component of the causal factor is that the clinical onset of depressive disorder must have occurred within one year of the haemorrhoid incident. The term clinical onset has not been defined by the RMA but the requirement will be met if symptoms have been described to a medical practitioner who is then able to state that the presence of those symptoms at a particular time indicates that the condition was present at that time[4]. All of the symptoms of the disease need to be shown within the relevant time-frame[5]. Dr Hargreaves outlined the symptoms described by Mr and Mrs Nicholls and expressed the opinion that depressive disorder developed within a few months of the haemorrhoid incident. While he conceded that he had no way of confirming the symptoms at that time, I have accepted their evidence in that regard. On the basis of Dr Hargreaves’ opinion, I am reasonably satisfied that depressive disorder had its clinical onset within the time-frame required by the Statement of Principles. Accordingly, Mr Nicholls’ depressive disorder is related to, in the sense of being attributable to, his defence service.
Alcohol abuse
[4] Re Robertson and Repatriation Commission (1998) 50 ALD 668 at 670 and Repatriation Commission and Cornelius [2002] FCA 750
[5] Lees v Repatriation Commission (2002) 125 FCR 331 and Youngnickel v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 1691
31. Although he consumed alcohol before the haemorrhoid incident occurred, I am reasonably satisfied that this was to a moderate degree and that the level of Mr Nicholls’ consumption increased subsequent to that incident. This developed into alcohol abuse and, as noted above, he was suffering from depressive disorder at that time. It is not disputed that this is an Axis 1 or 2 disorder of mental health attracting a diagnosis under DSM IV. Dr Hargreaves’ opinion was that Mr Nicholls’ alcohol abuse was connected with his psychiatric problems and, as depressive disorder is defence-caused, I am reasonably satisfied that alcohol abuse is also defence-caused in accordance with factor (a) of the Statement of Principles.
Decision
32. I am reasonably satisfied that Mr Nicholls suffers from depressive disorder and alcohol abuse and the decision under review is varied by substituting those diagnoses. I also determine that, in accordance with s 70 of the Act, depressive disorder and alcohol abuse are defence-caused conditions; that Mr Nicholls is entitled to receive a pension for incapacity associated with those conditions from and including 16 March 2006; and that the matter of assessment of that incapacity be remitted to the Repatriation Commission. The decision under review is set aside, accordingly.
I certify that the preceding 32 paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr RG Kenny, Member
Signed: ............................................................
E. Young, Research Associate
Date/s of Hearing 27 February 2008
Date of Decision 4 March 2008
Counsel for the Applicant Mr A Harding
Solicitor for the Applicant Terence O’Connor
Respondent Mr B Williams, departmental advocate
0
3
0