R v Wilon
[2024] NSWDC 417
•19 June 2024
|
New South Wales |
Case Name: | R v Wilon |
Medium Neutral Citation: | [2024] NSWDC 417 |
Hearing Date(s): | 17 June 2024 |
Date of Orders: | 19 June 2024 |
Decision Date: | 19 June 2024 |
Jurisdiction: | Criminal |
Before: | D Barrow SC DCJ |
Decision: | See [63] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - Fitness inquiry - Fitness to be tried |
Legislation Cited: | Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (NSW) |
Category: | Principal judgment |
Parties: | Rex (Crown) |
Representation: | F/W: |
File Number(s): | 2024/00058626; 2022/00290851 |
Publication Restriction: | Statutory non-publication order re identity of the child and the mother in the first set of the proceedings and each complainant in the second set of proceedings. |
JUDGMENT
The accused faces criminal prosecution in two separate proceedings.
The first set of proceedings relate to charges alleged to have been committed at Porters Retreat, a rural location between Oberon and Goulburn, between 1 July 1987 and 31 December 1987:
(a)Accessory after the fact to the murder of a child, namely TC, contrary to s 349 of the Crimes Act 1900
and in the alternative:
(b)Improperly interfering with a dead human body contrary to s 81C(b) of the Crimes Act 1900.
The second set of proceedings involves alleged sexual and physical assaults upon four complainants at various locations, together with a single firearms charge.
There are 23 counts on the indictment and the offending is alleged to have occurred on various dates between 1 March 1987 and 31 December 2007.
Material relevant to the issue of fitness
The accused was born on 22 April 1951. He is currently 73 years of age.
On the hearing the Crown provided the Court with a bundle of documents that included:
the Indictments and Crown case statements for both sets of proceedings;
two reports from Lisa Zipparo, forensic psychologist and neuropsychologist, dated 15 January 2024 and 13 May 2024, and,
relevant extracts of the Mental Health and Cognitive Impairment Forensic Provisions Act 2020 (the Act).
On behalf of the accused, the following material was tendered:
the reports of Dr Peter Ashkar, clinical neuropsychologist, dated 13 June 2023, 26 July 2023, 24 October 2023 and 6 June 2024;
the reports of Professor Bruce Brew, dated 13 November 2023 and 6 June 2023, and,
the affidavit of Jackie Wilon, the accused’s spouse, dated 23 May 2024.
There are statutory non-publication orders in place regarding the name of the child and the mother in the first set of the proceedings and the names of each complainant in the second set of proceedings.
The alleged offences
A short summary of the prosecution case in each set of proceedings appears in the helpful written submissions of the Crown.
In the first set of proceedings, the Crown alleges that the accused was a self-proclaimed religious leader living in a rural property located near Oberon, NSW. He resided there with some followers, included amongst those was a woman, EC, and her two‑year‑old daughter, TC.
The accused allegedly encouraged his followers to discipline their children. TC’s mother beat TC repeatedly for failing to sweep a path correctly. The mother of the child used a black irrigation pipe to repeatedly strike her daughter, resulting in her death.
The accused assisted the mother of TC to dispose of the child’s body in circumstances where he had propagated a manifesto directing parents to physically chastise their children and knowing that the mother of the child had implemented that manifesto, resulting in her beating TC to death.
The accused thereafter directed his followers to assist in preparations to bury TC. The preparations included gathering implements and identifying an appropriate burial site. When the mother of TC indicated that she did not want anyone to subsequently dig up the child’s body, the accused allegedly assisted and carried out a cremation. The accused thereafter gave false accounts in relation to TC, including advising people TC had been adopted. He also disallowed any discussion by his followers as to what had occurred to TC.
In the second set of proceedings, the accused is alleged to have physically and sexually assaulted two of his followers, EP and SB, who resided with him at the rural property.
The accused is also alleged to have sexually assaulted a 16-year-old male known to him via the complainant’s parents who lived in the local area.
The accused is also alleged to have sexually assaulted a 14‑year‑old girl, also known to him via the complainant’s parents who lived in the local area. The accused had used a ruse of taking photographs of her for future modelling work.
History of the proceedings
The accused was charged with the first set of proceedings on 16 November 2021. He was charged with the second set of proceedings on 29 September 2022.
The accused is currently on bail in relation to both sets of charges.
The first set of charges were to have been heard in the Supreme Court. By the time of the first arraignment on 7 July 2023, the accused had suffered his first stroke and was in hospital. On 4 August 2023, the question of his fitness to be tried was raised. On 9 February 2024, the Crown withdrew the matter from the Supreme Court with an intention to present an ex officio indictment against the accused in the District Court proceedings. That happened on 16 February 2024.
Regarding the second set of proceedings, those matters were first mentioned in the District Court on 14 July 2023. At that time the accused was still in hospital following the stroke. The Court was informed that a question had arisen regarding the accused’s fitness because of the stroke he had sustained on 18 June 2023.
On 16 February 2024, both sets of matters were listed for a fitness hearing on 17 June 2024.
The accused's health condition
A number of reports were obtained by the parties. Reports were obtained from Dr Ashkar, a forensic psychologist and clinical neuropsychologist; Professor Brew, a neurologist; and Ms Zipparo, a clinical neuropsychologist. An affidavit from the accused’s spouse was tendered without objection and without the requirement for cross-examination.
Ms Wilon deposed that she’d been married to the accused since 1 January 1998 and continued to live with him at Porters Retreat in NSW. The accused first suffered a stroke in February 2017. He was in hospital at the time, being treated for pneumonia. Following that stroke, he remained in hospital undergoing rehabilitation until 26 April 2017. Ms Wilon told the Court about the various and quite pronounced changes she had observed in the accused’s memory, physical abilities and demeanour at that time.
Ms Wilon also documented other quite significant health conditions suffered by the accused, including an unspecified autoimmune disorder requiring the administration of high doses of the steroid prednisone, severe aortic stenosis, lung disease, Cushing Syndrome and insulin dependent diabetes.
On 28 April 2023, the accused was located unresponsive in bed by a neighbour. He was transferred to hospital. Ms Wilon understood the accused had lapsed into a coma after becoming hypoglycaemic. On 18 or 19 June 2023 the accused suffered another stroke.
Ms Wilon documented the further physical consequences of this incident. On 20 June 2023, he was again admitted to hospital and after brain imaging, a diagnosis was made by Dr Jeffrey Yu, at Westmead Hospital, that he had sustained a further stroke. Ms Wilon detailed that thereafter the accused’s symptoms were more pronounced than they had previously been. The symptoms included increasing difficulty in finding words to express himself, memory issues, the misuse of words, repetitious asking of the same questions and uncertainty as to what time or day it was. On 12 July 2023, the accused was transferred to the Bathurst Hospital for rehabilitation.
Ms Wilon temporarily moved to Bathurst and visited the accused every day from 9am until 7pm. She observed numerous new or more pronounced symptoms that included an inability to use the right words or sentences to communicate, an inability to read, incontinence, an inability to walk or shower without assistance, slurred speech that consisted of a raspy whisper, an inability to identify objects, an inability to use particular words or find a particular word, strange memory recall and short-term memory problems, repetitious conversation and confusion as to who she was. The accused was discharged home on 28 August 2023 under her care. In her affidavit Ms Wilon describes the numerous medical appointments that followed, culminating in a further attendance at the Bathurst Base Hospital on 26 January 2024 when a catheter was inserted to assist the accused.
The accused was transferred to the Oberon Hospital Multifunction Centre on 6 February 2024 and stayed there until 8 March 2024. Ms Wilon concluded her affidavit, at paragraph 58, with a long series of observations about the accused. In essence, he has become physically incapable of caring for himself, cannot walk or dress himself, toilet himself or tend to personal grooming or hygiene, he rarely initiates conversation and displays an impaired memory, he cannot express what is occurring to him and struggles to answer questions. He cannot make decisions and is completely reliant upon her for most activities. Some of his behaviours are now infantile, and he has no interest in the outside world or people outside his home.
He appears to have very limited memories of the past, an inability to comply with simple instructions, and an increasingly obsessive focus on minor issues. His vocabulary has reduced to mostly singular words with rare moments of lucidity and periods when he physically freezes. He has, a lack of energy, a loss of appetite and weight, incontinence and tremors, mostly at night.
Dr Ashkar first assessed the accused via Zoom conferencing on 14 February 2023. He had access to New South Wales Health records and a collateral history from Ms Wilon. He obtained a very limited account of the events relevant to the proceedings from the accused, together with a limited developmental and psychosocial history.
Dr Ashkar conducted a neuropsychological assessment and concluded that he had no concerns about the accused’s fitness to plead and to stand trial at that point. He noted that the assessment suggested the accused had a degree of difficulty retrieving information. The robustness of the accused’s cognitive functioning and the strength of his learning and memory demonstrated on the assessment meant that his reported lack of memory for the alleged offences made little neuropsychological sense, particularly in view of his reported memory for events surrounding the alleged offences.
Dr Ashkar considered that while there may have been a psychological component to the reported lack of memory for the alleged offending, on balance and in the absence of psychological trauma, this was unlikely.
Dr Ashkar reviewed the case again following the accused’s stroke on 20 June 2023. He had available to him a letter from the neurologist Dr Yu and a history of observations conveyed to him regarding what Ms Wilon had observed, consistent with the material outlined above. Dr Ashkar considered it was clear the accused had suffered a major stroke on 20 June 2023. At this point, Dr Ashkar considered the accused was in the early stages of recovery and did not have the capacity to engage in formal neuropsychological assessment of his fitness to plead or to stand trial.
Dr Ashkar expected the accused would achieve close to maximum spontaneous recovery at three months post-stroke and to plateau in his recovery at six months post-stroke. Assessment of the accused’s fitness was recommended to occur at one or other of those time points depending upon his progress.
In his third report dated 24 October 2023, Dr Ashkar noted he had assessed the accused via Zoom telephone conferencing on 28 September 2023. He had available to him the New South Wales Police statement of facts, the Crown case statement and relevant health records.
After reviewing the nature of the alleged offending and the information regarding the stroke on 20 June 2023, Dr Ashkar took a further collateral history from Ms Wilon and interviewed the accused. Dr Ashkar then turned to the criteria for fitness set out in s 36 of the Act. In paragraph 13 of his report he wrote:
“Mr Wilon conveyed no knowledge of his charges. He denied having any knowledge of EC and her baby [TC] or of any of the other people named as victims in the alleged offences excepting SF who he told me was a neighbour and a friend. He told me he’d lived at Porters Retreat with his wife, Jackie, for a long time, more than 20 years, and lived there today, but it was unclear if he’d ever lived there with other people. ‘Don’t know. Maybe. Not sure’.
On more specific questioning about his charges, he told me he was never violent with anyone and provided no response when asked if he had ever engaged in sexual activity with any of the complainants. When asked about his solicitor and their role, he told me, “Don’t have a solicitor.” When I asked him why he did not have a solicitor, he responded, “I don’t need one.” When I asked him why he did not need a solicitor, he replied that he did not need to go to court.”
Dr Ashkar then carried out a neuropsychological assessment. He made behavioural observations and noted that the accused presented physically and cognitively as a frail and vulnerable man. The results from the psychometric testing were consistent with the underlying neuropathology of the stroke. The impairments in his cognition reported during the acute and subacute stages of his stroke on balance appeared largely valid. Dr Ashkar then detailed his assessment of the accused’s cognitive function. In expressing his opinion, Dr Ashkar repeated that the accused presented as a physically frail man with widespread cognitive impairments in areas of information, processing language and memory.
Dr Ashkar was sceptical whether the accused had a complete absence of knowledge of his charges, the people involved and his legal circumstances, something he considered to be implausible. Despite this, Dr Ashkar had observed dramatic stroke-related declines in the accused’s cognition, with marked impairments in information processing, language and memory. He considered the accused lacked the cognitive resources to be able to instruct his solicitor, process and retain information as it unfolds during the course of the trials, and otherwise assist in his defence. He considered the accused lacked capacity to stand trial if he was to plead not guilty to the charges.
Dr Ashkar noted that this assessment was taking place only three months after the stroke and there was the potential for further recovery over the following 12 months. Despite this, the severity of the accused’s cognitive impairments, his advancing age and medical comorbidities meant that he was not confident there would be a sufficient functional recovery to support the conclusion that the accused was fit to stand trial at any time in the future. Dr Ashkar’s opinion was that the only way to test this unequivocally would be to repeat the assessment of cognitive fitness 12 months after the stroke event.
In his last report dated 6 June 2024, Dr Ashkar had available to him the report of Lisa Zipparo, clinical neuropsychologist and Professor Brew, neurologist. He noted that Ms Zipparo had recently conducted a follow-up assessment of the accused on 13 May 2024, almost 12 months after the stroke, and noted her opinion that the accused was not fit to plead to the charges or stand trial because of his:
“Currently observed communication deficits, in addition to the previously observed impairments of memory inattention and given the observed deteriorating nature of his condition, considered it was unlikely that he would become fit in the next 12 months.”
Dr Ashkar also noted the opinion of Professor Brew, who in his report dated 6 June 2024, had concluded there was very little expectation that the accused’s condition would improve in the foreseeable future. Dr Ashkar agreed with these conclusions.
Professor Brew first provided a report on 13 November 2021. He’d been provided with an extensive medical history of the accused following his stroke on 20 June 2023. After meeting and assessing the accused via a Zoom teleconference call on 18 October 2023, Professor Brew concluded:
“Because of his condition, I do not consider he is able to instruct his solicitor, nor is he able to be tried. I state this because, whilst he can follow three-step commands, anything more complicated is unable to be performed. Further, whilst he can speak, he can give only single-word responses. The nature of the multiple infarcts that he has sustained would be expected to cause severe deficits. He has infarcts involving both sides of the brain, particularly the thalamus, which is associated with language disturbance. Additionally, his disabilities are worsened by his chronic lung disease and insulin-dependent diabetes.
I do not consider that Mr Wilon will improve, even though his strokes have been recent. I state this because of the multiplicity of the strokes and the fact that they are bilateral. Furthermore, Mr Wilon already had mild memory impairment from his stroke in February 2017 on the background of significant vascular risk factors, namely diabetes and severe aortic stenosis. Thus, he had experienced vascular cognitive impairment from 2017. This usually slowly worsens and may precipitously worsen in the context of further strokes.”
Professor Brew provided a supplementary report on 6 June 2024. He had available to him the affidavit of Ms Wilon, dated 23 May 2024, and the report of Ms Zipparo, dated 13 May 2024. With this updated information, Professor Brew noted that the accused’s health was declining, he noted that Ms Zipparo considered the accused was unfit to stand trial and that it was not likely he will become fit in the next 12 months. Professor Brew expressed the opinion that he did not consider that the accused would ever be fit to stand trial, either in 12 months or at any time in the future.
Ms Zipparo provided two reports dated 15 January 2024 and 13 May 2024. She had conducted an audio-visual link interview with the accused on 15 December 2023 with the assistance of his spouse. As is the case with the other two experts, Ms Zipparo was briefed with a variety of documents relevant to the accused’s medical conditions and the criminal proceedings. She was also provided with the reports of Dr Ashkar dated 24 October 2023 and Professor Brew dated 13 November 2023. Ms Zipparo noted that:
“It was not possible to ascertain if the accused understood the purpose of the meeting. He did not acknowledge or display an understanding of the current Court proceedings and appeared quite pleasantly confused.”
The interview took place over about two hours. A limited family, social, education and employment history was obtained. The accused did not report any significant mental health history and was unable to provide any significant information about his medical condition. That information was provided by his spouse. An assessment of the accused’s fitness to stand trial occurred, with Ms Zipparo writing in her report:
“When asked about his understanding of the current charges, Mr Wilon said he had no recollection of talking to police and had no recall of the matters when they were briefly described to him. Mr Wilon said he did not recall any of the people nominated in the indictments and looked to his wife and asked, ‘Are they people from the past?’ And, ‘Are they nice people?’ Mr Wilon was able to provide a basic description of some of the roles in the Court, for example, stating that, ‘The judge decides if you’re telling the truth,’ and the jury ‘are people who decide if you’re telling the truth.’ He was able to recall that he had a solicitor in the past, ‘He was a man,’ but he could not recall his name and could not articulate his role.”
Ms Zipparo then conducted a document review and administered a neuropsychological assessment. In expressing her clinical opinion, Ms Zipparo noted the accused was previously a person with good intellectual capacities; however, after his stroke in June 2023, imaging showed damage to his brain’s left internal capsule and adjacent lentiform nucleus, thalamus and the left occipital lobe. Mr Wilon’s reported right-side haemianopia and haemiparesis were consistent with the observed areas of brain damage.
Although the accused was found to have reasonably intact receptive and expressive language, he showed severe impairments of cognitive functioning which represented a significant decline from his performance in February 2023. He displayed impaired attention, verbal memory and learning, and impaired retrieval of longer-term autobiographical memories and general knowledge. His impairments of attention could be explained by the damage to his thalamic region.
Ms Zipparo observed that while it is unusual to see the degree of retrograde amnesia post-stroke displayed by Mr Wilon, it is possible that the observed left thalamic damage has resulted in the necessary damage to the mammillothalamic tract to cause the observed retrograde amnesia. Ms Zipparo considered that the accused demonstrated a basic understanding of the Court’s concepts and personnel. He was able to follow instructions and was able to make an attempt to answer questions, although his speech content was noted to be somewhat impoverished and repetitive. His capacity to reason with language was reduced, but not in the impaired range.
However, Mr Wilon denied any knowledge of the charges or the people involved, showing a general retrograde amnesia for most people and events of the past. His presentation at the assessment suggested he was not fit for trial and not fit to plead, given the observed impairment of attention and short and long-term memory. Ms Zipparo noted that because of the accused’s significant visual and physical deficits, it had not been possible to perform tests of effort, and thus she was unable to comment on the veracity and reliability of his performance. She suggested that he be reassessed in three months’ time as a useful strategy for observing the consistency of his presentation, which would then permit some assessment of the veracity of his current presentation.
On 13 May 2024, Ms Zipparo provided a further report following a further AVL assessment of the accused on that day. Ms Zipparo had been provided with extensive background information again, including all the material relevant to the stroke suffered by the accused in 2017 and 2023. Once again, it was not possible for Ms Zipparo to ascertain if the accused understood the purpose of the meeting as he did not acknowledge any understanding of the current Court proceedings and was unable to effectively communicate any responses. Ms Zipparo noted the accused’s appearance had deteriorated since December 2023,
“He appeared as an overweight older gentleman who had a visibly swollen face, a ruddy complexion and dishevelled hair. His expression was fixed and mask-like except for the occasional smile. He had a nasal cannula and was lying in a supported supine position. In our previous meeting, he had appeared smiling and happy and was charming, and able to engage in some to-and-fro conversation, albeit with limited content.
At our most recent meeting, Mr Wilon did not appear orientated to time and space. He was unable to focus on the screen and could be seen turning his gaze in random directions. He had previously been able to vocalise basic responses to questions, but at the current meeting, was no longer able to vocalise; at best able to provide the occasional unintelligible whisper. He attempted to use hand gestures to respond to some questions but was unable to effectively communicate.”
After receiving an updated collateral history from the accused’s spouse and reviewing her earlier opinion, Ms Zipparo expressed the view that in the five months since her earlier assessment the accused’s health appeared to have deteriorated significantly, with him no longer able to effectively communicate and having become completely reliant upon his wife for all aspects of daily functioning. Based on the earlier assessment and the current observed communication deficits, Ms Zipparo expressed the opinion that the accused was not fit to plead to the charges and was not fit for trial as he “will be unable to follow the course of the proceedings, to communicate a defence or to instruct his legal representative.” Ms Zipparo also concluded that it was unlikely he would become fit in the next 12 months.
Legislation
The question of an accused person’s fitness to be tried is to be determined by a judge alone, s 44.1 of the Act. The onus of proof in an inquiry as to an accused’s fitness does not rest on any particular party to the proceedings, s 44.4. The proceedings are not to be conducted in an adversarial manner, s 44.3. The standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities, s 38.
Section 5 of the Act defines a cognitive impairment:
5 Cognitive impairment
(1) For the purposes of this Act, a person has a cognitive impairment if—
(a) the person has an ongoing impairment in adaptive functioning, and
(b) the person has an ongoing impairment in comprehension, reason, judgment, learning or memory, and
(c) the impairments result from damage to or dysfunction, developmental delay or deterioration of the person’s brain or mind that may arise from a condition set out in subsection (2) or for other reasons.
(2) A cognitive impairment may arise from any of the following conditions but may also arise for other reasons—
(a) intellectual disability,
(b) borderline intellectual functioning,
(c) dementia,
(d) an acquired brain injury,
(e) drug or alcohol related brain damage, including foetal alcohol spectrum disorder,
(f) autism spectrum disorder.
In this case, the evidence establishes the accused has suffered an acquired brain injury consequent to the series of strokes he has experienced. He has a cognitive impairment.
The test to determine an accused’s fitness is set out at s 36 of the Act.
36 Fitness test
(1) For the purposes of proceedings to which this Part applies, a person is taken to be unfit to be tried for an offence if the person, because the person has a mental health impairment or cognitive impairment, or both, or for another reason, cannot do one or more of the following—
(a) understand the offence the subject of the proceedings,
(b) plead to the charge,
(c) exercise the right to challenge jurors,
(d) understand generally the nature of the proceedings as an inquiry into whether the person committed the offence with which the person is charged,
(e) follow the course of the proceedings so as to understand what is going on in a general sense,
(f) understand the substantial effect of any evidence given against the person,
(g) make a defence or answer to the charge,
(h) instruct the person’s legal representative so as to mount a defence and provide the person’s version of the facts to that legal representative and to the court if necessary,
(i) decide what defence the person will rely on and make that decision known to the person’s legal representative and the court.
(2) This section does not limit the grounds on which a court may consider a person to be unfit to be tried for an offence.
In considering this issue, the Court is also required to take into account whether the trial process can be modified or assistance provided to facilitate the defendant’s understanding and effective participation in the trial, the likely length and complexity of the trial, whether the defendant is represented by an Australian legal practitioner or can obtain representation by an Australian legal practitioner.
It is noted that no suggestions were made by any of the three experts that there was any way in which the trial process could be modified or assistance provided to the accused to facilitate his understanding and effective participation in the trial. It is clear from their individual conclusions that there are no steps that could be taken that would achieve this.
Although the parties’ submissions did not provide a possible estimate of the length of the trials, it is noted that the first trial, involving a charge of being an accessory after the fact to murder, it would appear to most likely not involve an extensive amount of court time. The second trial involving multiple complainants and involving alleged offending from decades ago would appear to be a longer and more complex case. However, considering that issue, the accused would still be unfit even if the duration of both trials was extremely short. The same comment is made about legal representation. The accused is represented, however this doesn’t say anything about his fitness to stand trial.
Submissions
The Crown and the accused legal representatives made the same submission that the Court would be satisfied on the balance of probabilities based on the opinions of each of the experts referred to that the accused is not fit to be tried. This conclusion is based on the accused being unable to plead to the charge, follow the course of the proceedings so as to understand what is going on in a general sense, make a defence or answer to the charge, instruct his legal representative so as to amount a defence, provide his version of the facts to his legal representative and to the Court if necessary, and decide what defence he will rely on and make that decision known to his legal representative and the Court.
Conclusion
I accept that the accused is unfit for these reasons.
Similarly, both the Crown and the accused’s legal representatives draw the Court’s attention to s 47(1) of the Act, and the requirement that the Court determine whether, during the period of 12 months after the finding of unfitness, the accused may become fit to be tried or will not be fit to be tried for the offences. Like the finding of unfitness, the test is on the balance of probabilities. Again, the joint position of the parties, based upon the opinions of the three experts, is that the Court would be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the accused will not become fit to be tried during the 12‑month period following the determination that is presently unfit to be tried. I accept this submission. All the evidence is to this effect.
The consequence of this conclusion is that the proceedings are to occur pursuant to Div 3 of the Act. Prior to further steps occurring, s 53 of the Act requires that the Court obtain advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions as to whether or not further proceedings will be taken in respect of the offences.
Consistent with the submissions of both parties, I make the following orders:
(1)The accused is unfit to be tried, pursuant to s 36 of the Act.
(2)The accused will not become fit to be tried within the next 12 months, pursuant to s 47(1)(b) of the Act.
(3)The accused is to be dealt with pursuant to Div 3, s 48(1) of the Act.
(4)The matter is to be adjourned, pursuant to s 47(2)(b) of the Act, to 13 September 2024 to enable the Court to obtain advice from the Director of Public Prosecutions as to whether or not further proceedings will be taken by the Director in respect of the offences, pursuant to s 53 of the Act.
(5)The accused’s bail is continued to that date, pursuant to s 47(2)(c) of the Act.
**********
Amendments
30 October 2025 - Amended catchwords.
30 October 2025 - Amended [59] for typographical error.
0
0
1