Satora and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Compensation)
[2025] ARTA 711
•3 June 2025
Satora and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Compensation) [2025] ARTA 711 (3 June 2025)
Applicant:Henry Satora
Respondent: Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission
Tribunal Number: 2023/5291
Tribunal:Senior Member D Thomae
Place:Brisbane
Date:3 June 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
................................[SGD]...........................
Statement made on 03 June 2025 at 4:27pm
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – claim for major depressive disorder - decision under review affirmed.
Legislation
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988 (Cth)
Cases
Beezley v Repatriation Commission [2015] FCAFC 165
Booth and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Compensation) [2022] AATA 4183
Comcare v Mooi [1996] FCA 1587
Comcare v Sahu-Khan [2007] FCA 15
Dekker and Australian Postal Corporation [2018] AATA 682
De Tarle v Comcare [2022] FCA 175
DXVN and Telstra Corporation Limited (Compensation) [2018] AATA 2152
Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission v May (2016) 257 CLR 468
Perich and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2018] AATA 963
Pollock v Wellington (1996) 15 WAR 370
Rodriguez v Telstra Corporation [2002] FCA 30Vivian and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission [2005] AATA 875
Wiegand v Comcare [2002] FCA 1464
Secondary Materials
Statement of Principles concerning post-traumatic stress disorder (Balance of Probabilities) No. 98 of 2022.
Statement of Reasons
INTRODUCTION
On 21 July 2023, the applicant, Mr Satora, made an application for review[1] to the General Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT)[2] of the decision by the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (the Commission) to affirm the determination denying liability under s 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988 (DRCA) for ‘major depressive disorder with severe anxious distress, bruxism and erectile dysfunction’.
[1] Exhibit R1.
[2] On 14 October 2024, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), proceedings in the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are to be continued and finalised by the Tribunal. Anything done in relation to the proceeding before 14 October 2024 is taken to have been done by the Tribunal.
Mr Satora did not give evidence at the hearing. Dr Shaikh, a psychiatrist and, Dr Penzhorn, a psychiatrist, gave evidence at the hearing. Mr Satora was represented by Mr Gallagher from the Returned Services League (RSL). Ms Cains, of McInnes Wilson, represented the Commission.
The Tribunal admitted into evidence the exhibits which are listed in the annexure to these reasons.
BACKGROUND
Mr Satora was born in 1958 and is now aged 67 years old.
Mr Satora served in the Australian Army (Army) for 18 months between March 1976 and November 1977 as a private in the Royal Australian Army Ordnance Corps (RAAOC).
On 16 April 2021, Mr Satora made a claim for ‘major depressive disorder with severe anxious distress, bruxism and erectile dysfunction’ (the Claim).[3]
[3] Exhibit R2.
By a determination dated 30 November 2022, the Commission denied liability for Mr Satora’s claim for ‘major depressive disorder with severe anxious distress, bruxism and erectile dysfunction’ (the Claimed Conditions). [4]
[4] Exhibit R3.
On 1 December 2022, Mr Satora’s representative submitted a request for reconsideration.[5]
[5] Exhibit R5.
On 13 July 2023, the Commission affirmed the decision which is now under review before the Tribunal (the Reviewable Decision). [6]
[6]Exhibit R5.
ISSUES
Mr Satora’s representative told the Tribunal at the hearing that the claimed conditions of bruxism and erectile dysfunction were not being advanced as they were sequala injuries to the claimed mental health injuries and liability first needed to be established for Mr Satora’s mental health injuries.
The correct diagnosis of Mr Satora’s mental health conditions related to his service in the Army, if any, is a key issue to be determined by the Tribunal as he has variously been diagnosed by psychiatrists from his time in the Army and since with ‘inadequate type personality disorder, anxiety state, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depressive disorder with severe anxious distress, adjustment disorder and, autism spectrum disorder (ASD)’.
The Commission expressly told the Tribunal that it is not relying on a s 53(1)(a) of the DRCA defence for the 43 years between the end of Mr Satora’s service (1977) and the Claim (2021).
The remaining issue for the Tribunal to determine is primarily whether Mr Satora’s service in the Army made, depending on the date of clinical onset, a ‘material’ or ‘significant’ contribution to Mr Satora’s mental health diagnosis.
The Commission framed the issues before the Tribunal as whether Mr Satora:
(a)Suffered an ailment, or an aggravation of an ailment, for the purposes of s 4(1) of the DRCA and what is the date of onset.
(b)If Mr Satora sustained the claimed conditions, for the purpose of s 7(4) of the DRCA, on or after 13 April 2007, whether Mr Satora’s service in the Australian Army contributed to the ailment to a significant degree, so as to constitute a ‘disease’ for the purposes of s 5B of the DRCA.
(c)Is subject to any exclusions under the DRCA that prevent liability from being accepted.
(d)Is entitled to compensation pursuant to s 14 of the DRCA.
LEGISLATIVE SCHEME
The DRCA relevantly provides:
4 Interpretation
(1) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears:
aggravation includes acceleration or recurrence.
ailment means any physical or mental ailment, disorder, defect or morbid condition (whether of sudden onset or gradual development).
5A Definition of injury
(1) In this Act:
injury means:
(a) a disease suffered by an employee; or
(b) an injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee, that is a physical or mental injury arising out of, or in the course of, the employee’s employment; or
(c) an aggravation of a physical or mental injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee (whether or not that injury arose out of, or in the course of, the employee’s employment), that is an aggravation that arose out of, or in the course of, that employment;
but does not include a disease, injury or aggravation suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of the employee’s employment.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) and without limiting that subsection, reasonable administrative action is taken to include the following:
(a) a reasonable appraisal of the employee’s performance;
(b) a reasonable counselling action (whether formal or informal) taken in respect of the employee’s employment;
(c) a reasonable suspension action in respect of the employee’s employment;
(d) a reasonable disciplinary action (whether formal or informal) taken in respect of the employee’s employment;
(e) anything reasonable done in connection with an action mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d);
(f) anything reasonable done in connection with the employee’s failure to obtain a promotion, reclassification, transfer or benefit, or to retain a benefit, in connection with his or her employment.
5B Definition of disease
(1) In this Act:
disease means:
(a) an ailment suffered by an employee; or
(b) an aggravation of such an ailment;
that was contributed to, to a significant degree, by the employee’s employment by the Commonwealth or a licensee.
(2) In determining whether an ailment or aggravation was contributed to, to a significant degree, by an employee’s employment by the Commonwealth or a licensee, the following matters may be taken into account:
(a) the duration of the employment;
(b) the nature of, and particular tasks involved in, the employment;
(c) any predisposition of the employee to the ailment or aggravation;
(d) any activities of the employee not related to the employment;
(e) any other matters affecting the employee’s health.
This subsection does not limit the matters that may be taken into account.
(3) In this Act:
significant degree means a degree that is substantially more than material.
14 Compensation for injuries
(1) Subject to this Part, the Commonwealth is liable to pay compensation in accordance with this Act in respect of an injury suffered by an employee if the injury results in death, incapacity for work, or impairment.
(2)Compensation is not payable in respect of an injury that is intentionally self‑inflicted.
(3)Compensation is not payable in respect of an injury that is caused by the serious and wilful misconduct of the employee but is not intentionally self‑inflicted, unless the injury results in death, or serious and permanent impairment.
EVIDENCE
Mr Satora
Mr Satora did not give evidence at the hearing as Mr Gallagher told the Tribunal Mr Satora’s fragile mental health would be exacerbated by doing so. The Tribunal is left with Mr Satora’s statements to be reconciled with the service records and other documents that are in evidence. In the circumstances, the Tribunal has decided to put Mr Satora’s written evidence verbatim below.
Mr Satora in a written statement, dated 30 October 2023, states[7]:
[7] Exhibit A3.
Kapooka
When I marched into Kapooka on approximately 10/03/1976 I was 17 years old, the youngest and one of the smaller people in my Platoon. The slurs, insults, and abuse started when I returned to Kapooka after the birth of my son Daniel, who was born on 23/04/76. I was given leave mid-training to see him and my then girlfriend, Daniel’s mother.
After returning to Kapooka, I remember some of the other recruits believed I should have been back squadded as I missed a week of training, but the week was duties week that I believe was primarily ground maintenance and other camp duties which didn’t affect my training, so I remained with my platoon.
At first, I was just being ostracized by a small core group of 4 or 5 recruits because of this decision, but it soon became deliberate acts to affect my staying in the platoon. I recall it starting with things like my brass and boots being tarnished, scratched, or damaged immediately before parade times, my bed being disturbed just enough to give the appearance of not being made correctly and my locker being disturbed and left untidy and out of order. All these things led to basic disciplinary action being taken against me such as extra duties.
Not that big a deal till this point but it soon became violent. I remember things such as my meal tray being pushed off the table over me in the mess hall which is a problem when at times you have a very short time to eat and report for training and have to return to lines to change caused me to be late, not something the training staff looked at favourably. Also being pushed out of line in the mess hall and being forced to the back of the line and last to eat limited my time to prepare. I had been bullied on several occasions and told to drop out and apply for discharge or I would find myself having an “accident” on the range.
On another occasion, I was pushed from behind so hard during a swim training day that I lost my footing and slipped on the wet concrete surface landing flat on my back. There were several incidents of a similar nature toward the end of basic training, so many in fact that I was called into the Platoon Commanders office, I cannot recall his name, but I remember he was a Second Lieutenant. He questioned me on why I had “dropped the ball” and why I had applied for discharge and suggested that I should not complete the upcoming platoon challenge as that would result in my failing my training and thus being discharged. I recall him questioning me a day or so later after completing this challenge as to why I completed it.
I think it might have been about this time, during a sports afternoon that we were playing soccer under the supervision of our training staff that I was attacked, being kicked in the head so hard while I was on the ground that I spent 3 days unconscious in the base hospital. As a direct result of this assault, I have suffered from crippling headaches that affected the remainder of my working life making it impossible for me to hold a job for any meaningful amount of time. These headaches persist to this day though I have learnt how to manage them they still can render me bedridden for a time.
I remember at corps allocation being recommended for Infantry which I was happy about but the group that had been targeting me were also going into Infantry and some were making threatening gestures toward me for what lies in store, so, fearing this I was forced to swap my placement with a recruit who had been unhappy with his allocation to Ordnance corp.
Albury/Wodonga
Ordnance Corps training at Albury Wodonga was uneventful as I made a couple of friends there, but I do remember the relief of being away from my abusers and having a bit of a laugh learning to play Aussie Rules, that was my first experience with the game, and I thought the guys were playing a practical joke on me and making the rules up as they went.
Ingleburn
Then came my first posting to Ingleburn the CMF recruit training base for Sydney. I tried to advance my training there by qualifying for my driver’s licences up to heavy rigid and making some inquiries into necessary training for a promotion to Corporal, which was considered desirable as it was recruit training and even a Lance Corporal was enough to set the regulars apart from the trainee’s.
I remember getting on so well with the Sergeant in charge of transport that I had hoped to get either a corps transfer or detachment to his section as my experience in my placement was quite different.
This did not happen, so I continued to serve in my post under Staff Sergeant Lehn. This man tormented me, and mentally tortured me over some time, to the point that I would lay in bed at night planning to kill him. I was a plaything to him, he needlessly targeted not only me but my wife also, whom he had never even met, with disgusting remarks, comments, and allegations. I have no idea why he targeted me, but he was clearly unstable at best if not a total nut job in need of professional help.
I have spent the last 45 years suffering and trying all I can to forget him and put behind me the things he did, the things he said and the things he claimed he was plotting against me, not to mention the things that transpired as a direct result of his actions. I have no doubt that as the young naive boy I was, that I became his greatest source of entertainment.
Looking back if I knew then what I know now, if I could have seen my future and seen a chance of changing it, of saving my twins, I would have done it. After this man (I use this term very loosely) heard that my wife was pregnant with twins his comments became unbearable and vulgar. The remainder of my time there was a blur all I recall is trying to get away from him and doing whatever it took to keep my family safe.
To give you some insight into his taunts on one of these occasions I recall him saying he would arrange for me to do a weekend guard duty so he could go and sexually assault my wife all weekend when I replied that he was a sick animal as she was pregnant with twins he looked to the corporal next to him and said “we must have got one each last time” and then he laughed about it.
This was far from a joking matter to me as my wife had suffered abuse as a child whilst in foster care, and I simply was too young and too naive to navigate this type of unnecessary, unwarranted, and continuous onslaught. My wife was also left panicked to hear about these threats and as a result, did not want to be left alone.
I had again applied for discharge being almost coached and encouraged in the process by Staff Sergeant Lehn, till I received posting orders which I could not accept due to the delicate condition of my wife, not wanting to change her doctor or Hospital if possible.
Leaving her in our married quarter alone was not an option either, due to the actions and remarks made by Staff Lehn. To stay in our married quarter and travel approximately 2.5 to 3 hours daily was not practical, to move was dangerous, and as my then posting was only minutes away from home I was left with no option but to apply for retention with my unit, till after the birth of our twins, which I did twice, being rejected both times.
With this dilemma, and no one to advise me, no offer or opportunity to seek counsel, and the abuses continuing, I did the only thing I could see as logical which was to take the risk of moving my wife and son to my family home with the support of my father, mother and sister. Though this meant further to travel at least there was someone there with my wife if she needed help quickly. But with this change and increased pressure I soon went AWOL to be with my wife and help her where possible, and more so to be away from the attacks.
With all the stress of what was happening and hiding from authorities, it became too much, and she went into labour late one evening, we rushed her to the hospital, but the labour could not be stopped, and the twins were born at 27 weeks. Jason our son died the next day surviving just 27 hours, Cassandra, our daughter was transferred to Sydney Royal Women’s Hospital and died after 5 days and 18 hours. A few days later they were cremated together at Rookwood Cemetery and a short time after that I returned to base after surrendering at my local police station.
Upon my return, I was charged and sentenced to 7 days detention at Holsworthy Military Correction Establishment. No offer of grief counselling, no offer of assistance for my wife, not even a “sorry for your loss” or any word of comfort except this one thing I remember, my C.O. giving me his advice “People die every day you need to get over it” I regret to this day not spitting in his face.
After my week’s detention, when I returned home, I found that my wife, who could not cope with the loss without me being there, had returned to her family home with her mother, leaving our firstborn son in the care of my mother, so my life as a solo father had begun. We tried to reconcile a couple of times unsuccessfully. As a result of this marriage ending, being unable to cope with our loss, I have had to deal with the added ongoing pain of my son blaming me for his not having a natural mother and a subsequent terrible childhood in his memory. Something he took with him into adulthood, we have not spoken since 2009.
No counselling, no duty of care, no sign of compassion just more orders and being expected to perform my duties or else. I hated anything and everything in a uniform, I questioned anyone who thought they had the right to tell me what to do. I had followed orders and towed the line to the point of the death of our babies and the dissolution of my marriage. I became so angry and violent at this time that I could not be trusted in public and found myself getting in trouble with the police constantly and getting more than one beating from them. There were times over the next several years that I would deliberately get into fights knowing that I did not stand a chance, knowing I was going to get a beating.
Randwick
After being released from Holsworthy I was transferred to 2 Med and Dent supply battalion in Randwick. A total joke, putting me in a pharmaceutical warehouse in my condition and in my state of mind. They obviously did not think that through. It was at this time that I first attempted suicide which failed with a bout of vomiting and a stay in hospital.
Trying to juggle being a sole parent and a soldier was impossible if I was 1 minute late for a parade I would be fined every dollar that was left of my pay after paying for fuel to just get there at all, and now I had no choice but to stay with my family because of my son, I needed their help and so I was forced to travel to work every day which in those days took over 2 hours each way. Just trying to stay out of trouble I constantly borrowed money for fuel from my eldest sister and brother-in-law. This happened so often that they went out of their way to surprise me with a motorbike as a gift so I could get to work on time with lower fuel costs. I had an amazing family till I burnt that bridge with my problems.
All I remember from my posting at 2 Med & Dent was being stoned and thinking it was all a joke, the whole army thing was a joke, just a whole lot of demigods who thought they had some God-given right to do to me whatever they wanted whenever they wanted at my expense. At this posting there was only one stand-out incident that took place on an evening when I was on guard duty, the duty officer who was rostered on this weekend was the Mess Sergeant. I cannot remember his name, but I do remember the curry chicken, and that I liked being rostered on with him, we got on really well and both loved chess. On this night, there was an event on at the Officer's Mess and a WRAAC private who I believe may have been camp admin staff came to us seeking protection and a taxi to get her home.
While she was waiting in our care the camp Commanding Officer came in obviously intoxicated and making inappropriate advances toward this WRAAC private. This ended in a scuffle between him and me in the ladies' toilet after he followed her into a cubicle. This required the MPs to attend, and the C.O. being taken to sleep it off. The following Monday morning I was called into the CO’s office where he showed me a communication regarding my advancement to private “P” To which he said, “I don’t think you are very proficient do you?” I do remember laughing at him. It was only a matter of days later that I was referred to a psychiatrist and following this consultation I was soon discharged.
I remember my service was plagued with hospital stays and visits to the RAP due to my persistent headaches and stress-related issues but yet again there was no help, no duty of care, no diagnosis of the obvious mental health issues, in the eyes of my superiors I was nothing more than a troublemaker best gotten rid of.
If it is of any help, I would be happy to look through whatever files it takes to help me better remember names and dates, I am happy to meet face-to-face with any of these people mentioned here in particular Staff Sergeant Lehn and my CO from Ingleburn. After my service had ended, I worked in so many different jobs, most only ever lasted a few weeks, one I do know lasted over a year as I can remember it was the one and only time in my life, that I had four weeks paid holiday.
Because of my headaches, stress, and violent nature, I was forced to work as a subcontractor doing multiple short stints with various companies not accumulating holidays or long service or even superannuation for that matter. I have had two holidays in my life two weeks in New Zealand twenty-something years ago, and an eight-day South Pacific cruise which I took recently due to work-related injuries I had that left me unable to return to work and forced my early retirement.
My whole life experience has been one of trying to cope with what happened to me in the Army by burying the memory of it in ridiculous work hours, many times throughout my life being called a workaholic. Learning to cope with headaches and living on painkillers. Now without work, I have lost my one coping mechanism and sleep has become a thing of the past.
I have had several attempts of suicide in the years soon after leaving the Army, once being saved by a flatmate who found me lifeless at home after a party, another time I was spared by a misfire.
Now I can honestly say that I owe my life to my wife whom I met 2 years after leaving the army, not 10 minutes after my misfire incident.
My Army records clearly show that on 29/09/1977 I was diagnosed by Dr Grady, an Army Psychiatrist as suffering from:
“Inadequate Personality,” and
“Anxiety State.”
These diagnoses directly contributed to my discharge from the Army and provide some explanation for my less-than-ideal performance as a soldier.
The conditions that were diagnosed in the Army, were not treated, or properly explained to me at my discharge.
In conclusion, my current mental health state, and my mental health since discharge from the Army is directly related to my Army service.
On 3 April 2024, Mr Satora provided a statutory declaration that states:[8]
[8] Exhibit A1.
1. At the appointment, I was left feeling as though he was only concerned about confirming my identity and photo ID.
2. The total amount of time he spent with me was less than ten minutes, and a considerable portion of that time he spent reading other incomplete medical reports regarding a car accident I had in 2014.
3. He refers to Drs reports from GP's regarding my mental health conditions being the result of the 2014 accident.
4. The Doctor/s who treated me at the time were not aware of the underlying mental health condition that led to my medical discharge from the Army. I do not recall being asked, nor did I disclose my mental health history.
5. The treatment I sought in 2014 was for pain management because of a severe whiplash injury. This is why I was unable to work for some time.
6. The excessive work hours that were commented on were my primary coping mechanism for my mental health from the time I was discharged from the military. The contemporary diagnosis of my discharge health condition is Major Depressive Disorder with Severe Anxious Distress which is not acknowledged in the report.
7. Dr Shaikh did not consider the statutory declarations made by my sister about my mental health before my military service and post-military service which noted the obvious changes she witnessed in me.
8. Also, the statutory declaration made by my wife regarding the challenges I constantly faced throughout my life being the result of my military service and the gross mistreatment I suffered at the hands of my superior officers after the death of my twins was not given due weight.
9. The report fails to give due weight to the report of my treating Psychiatrist Dr Penzhorn who has treated me since 2022.
10. The report goes to great lengths to attribute by current mental health to post-2014 because I cannot provide proof of medical treatment.
11. At the time of my service, I was 17 years old, I was a young and very naive farm boy. My life experience was of "get over it and man up". My parents were the product of post-World War II Europe. My superiors in the Army in particular Sergeant Lehn and Lieutenant Colonel Chipman were old-school Regular Army and Vietnam War veterans. They displayed little sympathy for me or my situation.
12. Sergeant Lehn was nothing but a workplace bully who bastardized me.
13. The notion that I would have even known or let alone sought medical help for anything was slim at best.
14. I was not aware that this type of assistance from DVA was even available to me, post discharge advice on compensation in the late 1970's was nonexistent. Some years after leaving the army my "now wife" Debbie, suggested that I should seek professional help. It was an expense that I could not afford!
15. The only help I did accept was through the church group we became involved with as this was both free and confidential. It was the one place I felt safe. I do believe this helped.
16. I only became aware of possible assistance from DVA in the late 2000's through my daughter-in-law. She identified that I may not see it in myself it was obvious that I did require professional help. She later researched on my behalf and found that contacting an advocate would start me on the path of receiving this help. I believe this first contact happened some years later around 2020-21.
17. My entire post-military work history was marked by very long working hours normally upwards of sixty hours per week and constantly changing jobs. This was my way of coping with the constant thoughts of "life is too hard and it's just not worth it".
18. I can't recall holding any job beyond 6 months with one exception due to my inability to submit to any type of authority figure including employers, and from dealing with constant headaches I suffered because of an injury I sustained in the army.
19. I have relied on keeping busy, through work to keep my sanity.
20. I remain convinced that my current mental health was caused or aggravated by my Army service and that I still suffer the effects of major depressive disorder and severe and anxious distress.
21. Dr Sheik's report is paper-based, he did not ask me any questions about the origins of my claimed mental health condition.
22. I intend to seek a supplementary report from my treating Psychiatrist that addresses matters raised in Dr Sheik's report.
On 6 December 2024, Mr Satora provided a supplementary statutory declaration that states:[9]
[9] Exhibit A2.
Relating to my treatment during Army service.
Kapooka
When I marched into Kapooka on approximately 10/03/19761 was 17 years old, the youngest and one of the smaller people in my Platoon. The slurs, insults, and abuse started when I returned to Kapooka after the birth of my son Daniel, who was born on 23/04/76. I was given leave mid-training to see him and my then-girlfriend, Daniel's mother.
After returning to Kapooka, I remember some of the other recruits believed I should have been back squadded as I missed a week of training, but the week was duties week that I believe was primarily ground maintenance and other camp duties which didn't affect my training, so I remained with my platoon. At first, I was just being ostracized by a small core group of 4 or 5 recruits because of this decision, but it soon became deliberate acts to affect my staying in the platoon. I recall it starting with things like my brass and boots being tarnished, scratched, or damaged immediately before parade times, my bed being disturbed just enough to give the appearance of not being made correctly and my locker being disturbed and left untidy and out of order. All these things led to basic disciplinary action being taken against me such as extra duties. Not that big a deal till this point but it soon became violent. I remember things such as my meal tray being pushed off the table over me in the mess hall which is a problem when at times you have a very short time to eat and report for training and have to return to lines to change caused me to be late, not something the training staff looked at favourably.
Also being pushed out of line in the mess hall and being forced to the back of the line and last to eat limited my time to prepare. I had been bullied on several occasions and told to drop out and apply for discharge or I would find myself having an "accident" on the range. On another occasion, I was pushed from behind so hard during a swim training day that I lost my footing and slipped on the wet concrete surface landing flat on my back.
There were several incidents of a similar nature toward the end of basic training, so many in fact that I was called into the Platoon Commanders office, I cannot recall his name, but I remember he was a Second Lieutenant. He questioned me on why I had "dropped the ball" and why I had applied for discharge and suggested that I should not complete the upcoming platoon challenge as that would result in my failing my training and thus being discharged. I recall him questioning me a day or so later after completing this challenge as to why I completed it.
I think it might have been about this time, during a sports afternoon that we were playing soccer under the supervision of our training staff that I was attacked, being kicked in the head so hard while I was on the ground that I spent 3 days unconscious in the base hospital. As a direct result of this assault, I have suffered from crippling headaches that affected the remainder of my working life making it impossible for me to hold a job for any meaningful amount of time.
These headaches persist to this day though I have learnt how to manage them they still can render me bedridden for a time. I remember at corps allocation being recommended for Infantry which I was happy about but the group that had been targeting me were also going into Infantry and some were making threatening gestures toward me for what lies in store, so, fearing this I was forced to swap my placement with a recruit who had been unhappy with his allocation to Ordnance corp.
Albury/Wodonga
Ordnance Corps training at Albury Wodonga was uneventful as I made a couple of friends there, but I do remember the relief of being away from my abusers and having a bit of a laugh learning to play Aussie Rules, that was my first experience with the game, and I thought the guys were playing a practical joke on me and making the rules up as they went.
lngleburn
Then came my first posting to lngleburn the CMF recruit training base for Sydney. I tried to advance my training there by qualifying for my driver's licences up to heavy rigid and making some inquiries into necessary training for a promotion to Corporal, which was considered desirable as it was recruit training and even a Lance Corporal was enough to set the regulars apart from the trainees.
I remember getting on so well with the Sergeant in charge of transport that I had hoped to get either a corps transfer or detachment to his section as my experience in my placement was quite different.
This did not happen, so I continued to serve in my post under Staff Sergeant Lehn. This man tormented me, and mentally tortured me over some time, to the point that I would lay in bed at night planning to kill him. I was a plaything to him, he needlessly targeted not only me but my wife also, whom he had never even met, with disgusting remarks, comments, and allegations. I have no idea why he targeted me, but he was clearly unstable at best if not a total nut job in need of professional help.
I have spent the last 45 years suffering and trying all I can to forget him and put behind me the things he did, the things he said and the things he claimed he was plotting against me, not to mention the things that transpired as a direct result of his actions. I have no doubt that as the young naive boy I was, that I became his greatest source of entertainment.
Looking back if I knew then what I know now, if I could have seen my future and seen a chance of changing it, of saving my twins, I would have done it. After this man (I use this term very loosely) heard that my wife was pregnant with twins his comments became unbearable and vulgar. The remainder of my time there was a blur all I recall is trying to get away from him and doing whatever it took to keep my family safe.
To give you some insight into his taunts on one of these occasions I recall him saying he would arrange for me to do a weekend guard duty so he could go and sexually assault my wife all weekend when I replied that he was a sick animal as she was pregnant with twins he looked to the corporal next to him and said "we must have got one each last time" and then he laughed about it. This was far from a joking matter to me as my wife had suffered abuse as a child whilst in foster care, and I simply was too young and too naive to navigate this type of unnecessary, unwarranted, and continuous onslaught. My wife was also left panicked to hear about these threats and as a result, did not want to be left alone.
I had again applied for discharge being almost coached and encouraged in the process by Staff Sergeant Lehn, till I received posting orders which I could not accept due to the delicate condition of my wife, not wanting to change her doctor or Hospital if possible. Leaving her in our married quarter alone was not an option either, due to the actions and remarks made by Staff Lehn.
To stay in our married quarter and travel approximately 2.5 to 3 hours daily was not practical, to move was dangerous, and as my then posting was only minutes away from home I was left with no option but to apply for retention with my unit, till after the birth of our twins, which I did twice, being rejected both times.
With this dilemma, and no one to advise me, no offer or opportunity to seek counsel, and the abuses continuing, I did the only thing I could see as logical which was to take the risk of moving my wife and son to my family home with the support of my father, mother and sister. Though this meant further to travel at least there was someone there with my wife if she needed help quickly. But with this change and increased pressure I soon went AWOL to be with my wife and help her where possible, and more so to be away from the attacks.
With all the stress of what was happening and hiding from authorities, it became too much, and she went into labour late one evening, we rushed her to the hospital, but the labour could not be stopped, and the twins were born at 27 weeks. Jason our son died the next day surviving just 27 hours, Cassandra, our daughter was transferred to Sydney Royal Women's Hospital and died after 5 days and 18 hours. A few days later they were cremated together at Rookwood Cemetery and a short time after that I returned to base after surrendering at my local police station.
Upon my return, I was charged and sentenced to 7 days detention at Holsworthy Military Correction Establishment. No offer of grief counselling, no offer of assistance for my wife, not even a "sorry for your loss" or any word of comfort except this one thing I remember, my C.O. giving me his advice "People die every day you need to get over it" I regret to this day not spitting in his face. After my week's detention, when I returned home, I found that my wife, who could not cope with the loss without me being there, had returned to her family home with her mother, leaving our firstborn son in the care of my mother, so my life as a solo father had begun. We tried to reconcile a couple of times unsuccessfully. As a result of this marriage ending, being unable to cope with our loss, I have had to deal with the added ongoing pain of my son blaming me for his not having a natural mother and a subsequent terrible childhood in his memory. Something he took with him into adulthood, we have not spoken since 2009.
No counselling, no duty of care, no sign of compassion just more orders and being expected to perform my duties or else. I hated anything and everything in a uniform, I questioned anyone who thought they had the right to tell me what to do. I had followed orders and towed the line to the point of the death of our babies and the dissolution of my marriage. I became so angry and violent at this time that I could not be trusted in public and found myself getting in trouble with the police constantly and getting more than one beating from them. There were times over the next several years that I would deliberately get into fights knowing that I did not stand a chance, knowing I was going to get a beating.
Randwick
After being released from Holsworthy I was transferred to 2 Med and Dent supply battalion in Randwick. A total joke, putting me in a pharmaceutical warehouse in my condition and in my state of mind. They obviously did not think that through. It was at this time that I first attempted suicide which failed with a bout of vomiting and a stay in hospital. Trying to juggle being a sole parent and a soldier was impossible if I was 1 minute late for a parade I would be fined every dollar that was left of my pay after paying for fuel to just get there at all, and now I had no choice but to stay with my family because of my son, I needed their help and so I was forced to travel to work every day which in those days took over 2 hours each way. Just trying to stay out of trouble I constantly borrowed money for fuel from my eldest sister and brother-in-law. This happened so often that they went out of their way to surprise me with a motorbike as a gift so I could get to work on time with lower fuel costs. I had an amazing family till I burnt that bridge with my problems.
All I remember from my posting at 2 Med & Dent was being stoned and thinking it was all a joke, the whole army thing was a joke, just a whole lot of demigods who thought they had some God-given right to do to me whatever they wanted whenever they wanted at my expense. At this posting there was only one standout incident that took place on an evening when I was on guard duty, the duty officer who was rostered on this weekend was the Mess Sergeant. I cannot remember his name, but I do remember the curry chicken, and that I liked being rostered on with him, we got on really well and both loved chess. On this night, there was an event on at the Officer Mess and a WRAAC private who I believe may have been camp admin staff came to us seeking protection and a taxi to get her home.
While she was waiting in our care the camp Commanding Officer came in obviously intoxicated and making inappropriate advances toward this WRAAC private. This ended in a scuffle between him and me in the ladies toilet after he followed her into a cubicle. This required the MPs to attend, and the C.O. being taken to sleep it off. The following Monday morning I was called into the CO's office where he showed me a communication regarding my advancement to private "P" To which he said, "I don't think you are very proficient do you?" I do remember laughing at him. It was only a matter of days later that I was referred to a psychiatrist and following this consultation I was soon discharged.
I remember my service was plagued with hospital stays and visits to the RAP due to my persistent headaches and stress-related issues but yet again there was no help, no duty of care, no diagnosis of the obvious mental health issues, in the eyes of my superiors I was nothing more than a troublemaker best gotten rid of.
If it is of any help, I would be happy to look through whatever files it takes to help me better remember names and dates, I am happy to meet face-to-face with any of these people mentioned here in particular Staff Sergeant Lehn and my CO from lngleburn.
After my service had ended, I worked in so many different jobs, most only ever lasted a few weeks, one I do know lasted over a year as I can remember it was the one and only time in my life, that I had four weeks paid holiday. Because of my headaches, stress, and violent nature, I was forced to work as a subcontractor doing multiple short stints with various companies not accumulating holidays or long service or even superannuation for that matter. I have had two holidays in my life two weeks in New Zealand twenty-something years ago, and an eight-day South Pacific cruise which I took recently due to work-related injuries I had that left me unable to return to work and forced my early retirement.
My whole life experience has been one of trying to cope with what happened to me in the Army by burying the memory of it in ridiculous work hours, many times throughout my life being called a workaholic. Learning to cope with headaches and living on painkillers. Now without work, I have lost my one coping mechanism and sleep has become a thing of the past.
I have had several attempts of suicide in the years soon after leaving the Army, once being saved by a flatmate who found me lifeless at home after a party, another time I was spared by a misfire.
Now I can honestly say that I owe my life to my wife whom I met 2 years after leaving the army, not 10 minutes after my misfire incident. My Army records clearly show that on 29/09/1977 I was diagnosed by Dr Grady, an Army Psychiatrist as suffering from:
"Inadequate Personality," and
"Anxiety State."
These diagnoses directly contributed to my discharge from the Army and provide some explanation for my less-than-ideal performance as a soldier.
The conditions that were diagnosed in the Army, were not treated, or properly explained to me at my discharge.
In conclusion, my current mental health state, and my mental health since discharge from the Army is directly related to my Army service.
A statutory declaration by Mrs Debbie Satora, dated 10 December 2022, was tendered, describing her knowledge of her husband, Mr Satora, from 1979. It relevantly states, ‘I know he suffers terribly from his time in the army, the abuses he experienced and the loss of his twins, he feels deeply responsible for his son who was raised without his biological mother.’[10]
[10] Exhibit A4.
A statutory declaration by Lucy Okulicz, dated 12 December 2022, the sister of Mr Satora, states:[11]
As his sister there are many changes I noticed during his short time in the army, though I am not aware of actual events, as he is a reasonably private type of person, something obviously took place and I was very much aware of the changes in him.
I recall him being home for a week in the middle of his basic training and how proud he was but that seemed to change dramatically by the completion of his training. He became distant and aggressive which was very out of character. Then when his wife delivered twin babies prematurely resulting in the death of both babies, I remember him holding the army responsible. He then took time away without permission to help his wife and to grieve when he returned of his own volition, he was put in a military prison at a time he should have been put into counselling to help them both cope with this loss.
When he returned from prison, he found that his wife had left him and their son. He then faced his new life caring for their first-born son as a sole parent with the only help coming from myself and our mother.
[11] Exhibit A5.
Chronology from Service Records
Mr Satora’s service records show:
(a)On 14 January 1976, in Mr Satora’s psychological file, it is recorded:[12]
[12] Exhibit R6, pp234-235.
SOCIAL: Pregnant 16 yr old g/f in welfare home
FINANCE: No debts on HP
MOTIV: Wants steady job
COMMENT: Av weight and build – neatly turned out – good trg potential but he’s never used it. Mobile job record – minor delinquency currently under court review. Independent, self reliant type from fringe area. Army might give him a welcome break if he’s clean ref civ record.
(b)On 10 March 1976, Mr Satora commenced his recruit training at Kapooka.[13]
[13] Ibid, p240.
(c)On 8 May 1976, an ‘in-patient case sheet’ states ‘KO’d at soccer’[14].
[14] Exhibit R8, p162.
(d)On 11 May 1976, an ‘in patient summary’ states:[15]
[15] Exhibit R6, p160.
HISTORY Head injury at Soccer on 5/5/76.
EXAMINATION No CNS abnormality
DIAGNOSIS Head Injury
TREATMENT & COURSE Kept in for overnight obs. Satisfactory.
DATE OF DISCHARGE 6/5/76.
DISPOSAL RTU
DAYS IN HOSPITAL 2
(e)On 26 May 1976, Mr Satora on his ‘corps trainee – posting preference’ states ‘My fiancé and child are at present settled in Sydney in a house owned by my parents left to us for the next 6 months during there absence. I don’t want to move them because of our new born child is to young (4 weeks old)’[16].
[16] Exhibit R7, p315.
(f)On 25 June 1976, Mr Satora’s ‘regimental record of service’ records he completed his initial employment training as a storeman technical.[17]
[17] Ibid, p267.
(g)On 28 June 1976, Mr Satora was posted to 2 Training Group (2 TRG GP), at Ingleburn, NSW.[18]
[18] Ibid, p240.
(h)On 4 September 1976, Mr Satora was recorded on his ‘record of service’ as being married.[19]
[19] Ibid, p248.
(i)On 16 November 1976, Mr Satora applied for a reallocation to the Royal Australian Corps of Transport as a driver.[20] His Commanding Officer, Lieutenant Colonel Chipman, did not recommend the reallocation on the basis ‘not recommended for inter corps transfer, however consideration could well be given to an intra corps transfer to a large RAAOC unit where member would be working with soldiers of his own age and outlook’.
[20] Ibid, p320.
(j)On 4 March 1977, Mr Satora’s ‘regimental record of service’ records that he was found to fail to appear at place of parade and punished with 2 days confined to barracks.[21]
[21] Ibid, p277.
(k)On 4 March 1977, Mr Satora applied for discharge stating:[22]
[22] Ibid, p328.
On my present pay I can not afford to keep my wife and child whereas I can afford to with the job that has been offered to me as a civilian. My wife is pregnant and being Army I can’t afford the time to help her due to the hours I work and time which I have to put into my uniforms etc.
(l)On 10 March 1977, Mr Satora was recorded on his ‘record of service’ as being ‘AWOL’ from 1330 10 March 1977 to 0945 24 March 1977.[23]
[23] Ibid, p248.
(m)On 25 March 1977, Mr Satora was recorded on his ‘record of service’ as ‘penalty’ for detention for 168 hours (7 days).[24]
[24] Ibid, p248.
(n)On 25 March 1977, a ‘medical attendance’ record states ‘fit for detention’.[25]
[25] Ibid, p205.
(o)On 25 March 1977, Mr Satora was recorded on his ‘record of service’ as being ‘warned’ for discharge by his Commanding Officer at 2 TRG GP unless he improved.[26]
[26] Ibid, p248.
(p)On 5 April 1977, a ‘welfare in confidence’ report raised in response to an application for discharge by Mr Satora states:[27]
[27] Ibid, pp323-325.
1. PTE Satora was interviewed at 1 MCE where he was currently serving 168 hours detention.
2. PTE Satora is 19 years old and completed 12 months of a 6 year enlistment.
3. The member’s wife is 17 years old, with a baby boy 11½ months and is at present 4½ months pregnant.
4. The member appears to have a personality clash with his immediate supervisor SSGT R. LEHN and also has developed a feeling of animosity towards his unit.
5. He alleges that he has submitted several applications for reposting, reallocation and discharge and that as far as he knew they were all placed in the rubbish bin.
6. With regard to the offer of civilian employment, PTE Satora has no documentary evidence, but whilst AWOL, he was employed by Riverstone Meat Works.
7. The member’s wife, when interviewed, stated that she has some problems associated with their married quarter at Villawood, they have taken them up with housing, but nothing seemed to be done toward fixing them up. She appears to be well adjusted event though quite young, but seems to miss her husband when he is required to work week-ends, which occurs more often at 2 Trg Gp than with units because of its role.
8. There are insufficient valid reasons to recommend a discharge for the member on compassionate grounds, however in view of the barrier of hostility that appears to exist between PTE Satora and his present unit, consideration should be given to reposting the member to another unit in 2MD, not necessarily as Cadre Staff as I feel the member is not mature enough to be employed in this field.
…
Pte Satora’s financial situation would improve as a civilian if, and only if, he can obtain rent-free accommodation. This is most unlikely in the immediate future. The civil job he has been offered involves night work. From a domestic point of view, this could well produce more problems than it would solve.
(q)On 7 April 1977, Mr Satora’s ‘regimental record of service’ records that he was found to ‘neglect to the prejudice’ and was punished with 7 days confined to barracks.[28]
[28] Ibid, p277.
(r)On 13 April 1977, a letter from ‘Riverstone Meat Co. Pty Ltd’ states:[29]
[29] Ibid, p326.
On the 24th March, 1977, Mr. Satora notified this office that he was absent without leave from Military Service and was seeking a discharge from the Army because of financial hardship, and asked if there was any employment available to him if he secured a discharge.
(s)On 21 April 1977, Mr Satora submitted a ‘redress of wrongs’ to the Commanding Officer of 2 Trg Gp in respect to the award of 7 days confinement to barracks because he was ‘wronged by being told on the Tuesday that I was on a charge of AWOL and the appearing on a different charge some three days later’ and ‘I have also been wronged by being charged in the first place because I was genuinely ill and did as I was told to do per medium of my wife.’[30]
[30] Ibid, p435.
(t)On 27 April 1977, the ‘acting assistant commander’ of 2 TRG GP, wrote to Mr Satora, stating:[31]
[31] Ibid, p433-434.
Reference: A. Your letter of 21 Apr 77
1. I have investigated the allegation made in your letter, and that that the sequence of events was as follow:
a. At about 0900 hrs Wed 6 Apr 77, your wife rang the unit and spoke to Cpl Marsh and informed him you were ill. After consulting Ssgt Lehn, Cpl Marsh told her that if you were absent from work due to illness, you would need a doctor’s certificate to prove it. While some consideration was given to obtaining an Army vehicle to pick you up and bring you to an Army doctor, this did not prove possible.
b. As shown in your doctor’s certificate, you then took yourself off to Dr Miknius in Rooty Hill on Wed 6 Apr 77, and were given a chit for two days off work due to bronchitis.
c. At 0900 hrs Thu 7 Apr 77, as nothing further had been heard by the unit since your wife’s phone call of the preceding day, you were marked in the roll books as being AWOL.
d. At about 1900 hrs Thu 7 Apr 77, your wife phoned Cpl Marsh at his home and informed him of the two days off work you had been given by the doctor. As the unit was not working over the Easter Holiday weekend, Cpl Marsh told her that you were to report for work at 0830 hrs Tue 12 Apr 77, bringing your doctor’s certificate.
2. As you had been marked AWOL in the unit roll books on the morning of 7 Apr 77, you were also marked AWOL for the period 8-11 Apr inclusive, as you did not appear at work until the morning of 12 Apr 77. When you did appear for work you were then told that you would be charged as AWOL.
3. During the initial pre-trial investigation to determine the exact nature and scope of your offence, find witnesses, etc, it became apparent that you had, if not been AWOL, at least failed to comply with the provisions of 2 Trg Gp Routine Order No 56/77.
4. Therefore, on 15 Apr 77, after the preliminary investigation had been carried out, you appeared before your OC on two charges: one of being Absent Without Leave; and one of Neglecting to Obey Unit Routine Orders.
5. You were found “Not Guilty” of the charge of being AWOL, and in consequence the unit roll books have been adjusted, and you have not forfeited any pay or allowances.
6. You were found “Guilty” of the second charge and for good and sufficient reasons…
7. I find that you HAVE NOT been wronged in any way. In fact, it is my considered opinion that your OC, in only awarding you a punishment of Seven Days Confinement to Barracks, has, in the light of your past record, been remarkably lenient towards you.
(u)On 3 May 1977, Mr Satora’s application for discharge was not approved and he was to be reposted to the Sydney area.[32]
[32] Ibid, p421.
(v)On 16 May 1977, Mr Satora applied for leave without pay from 27 May 1977 to 27 November 1977, stating:
If I were granted LWOP I would be able to care for our child during the day as I will be working night shift at Riverstone Meat Co and during the night there will be a relative to help my wife cear (sic) for our child as she has been directed by her doctor to rest as much as possible or she could loose the children at birth as they will be premature if she does not rest more.
(w)He attached to his application for leave a letter from a Dr Ralph Forman stating:[33]
[33] Ibid, pp418-420.
This is to certify that Mrs Satora has a twin pregnancy due on 7.9.77. It would be to her advantage if her husband could help her during the remainer of her pregnancy.
(x)On 20 May 1977, Mr Satora applied for retention at 2 TRG GP, stating:[34]
[34] Ibid, p340.
1. My reasons for not wanting a posting to 232 Sup Coy are as follows:
a.Travelling would be increased from 40 miles per day to 70 miles per day. This will also increase travelling time from 15 minutes to 1½ hours.
b.Having spoken at length to my wife about this we have decided that we will not move to a married quarter as we intend obtaining a permanent home as we feel strongly that our children should be brought up in a stable environment.
c.My wife is expected to give birth to Twins in eight weeks time and I feel I should be as close to her as possible should she suddenly go into labour. I will be needed to care for our 14 months old son.
(y)On 25 May 1977, Mr Satora’s application for retention was rejected.[35]
[35] Ibid, p349.
(z)On 31 May 1977, Mr Satora’s twins die prematurely.[36]
[36] This date was agreed by the parties.
(aa)On 7 June 1977, Mr Satora was posted to 232 Supply Company.[37]
[37] Ibid, p240.
(bb)From 7 June to 16 June 1977, Mr Satora was on approved ‘ARL’ leave.[38]
[38] Ibid, p496.
(cc)From 17 to 20 June 1977, Mr Satora was on approved ‘stand-down’ leave for working on weekends.[39]
[39] Ibid, p468.
(dd)From 21 to 27 June 1977, Mr Satora was on approved leave without pay.[40]
[40] Ibid, p467.
(ee)From 25 to 26 July 1977, Mr Satora was on approved ‘ARL’ leave.[41]
[41] Ibid, p496.
(ff)On 9 August 1977, an ‘in patient summary’ states:[42]
[42] Exhibit R6, p123.
Member was admitted on 4 Aug 77 with a history of having had a ? blackout 24 hrs prior to admission. Member states that whilst riding his motor bike on the way to work he pulled up at the traffic lights, felt dizzy and fell over. Does not specifically remember if he was unconscious. Recalls hitting the ground, getting up and mounting his bike and riding off subsequently. Member states that he has been having recurrent headaches for the last two months.
…
Member has had a lot of financial and emotional problems. 2 months previous his wife gave birth to premature twins which were dead on delivery. 5 months previously his parents had separated. Member has financial worries over his house. He has been in his new posting for the last five weeks and worries about his capability of coping with a new job. Member states that 12 months previously he had a head injury at soccer following which he had amnesia and was unconscious.
(gg)On 19 August 1977, a ‘patient referral and report’ states:[43]
[43] Ibid, p141.
Clinical Notes
c/o headache behind eyes. Feels tired and run down. Occasional dizzy feelings. Has been recently in 2 MH investigated blackout. Rides 27-30 miles to and from work each day. Has a lot of financial and emotional problems. ? Reposting.
Specialist Diagnosis
1 Personality Disorder (Inadequate Type)
2 Anxiety State
He has 18 months service. He has “one persistent headache” and is “always tired”. He says he is totally disillusioned with Army life – it is not really the distance he has to travel to work, but he despises his duties, resents special evening and weekend requirements and does not get on with army personnel. Also he believes he could earn much more outside.
Background: 4/4 siblings. Very poor relationship with parents, particularly
fathermother. Disliked school. Chequered working career with much evidence of recurrent problems in interpersonal relationships.Marriage: Disagreements over death of the twins, but I do not think this is a main factor in his maladjustment. His wife hates the Army.
Diagnosis: Inadequate Personality & Anxiety State. Recommend S7, Administrative Discharge.
(hh)On 25 August 1977, an ‘in-patient case sheet’ states ‘is worrying about his wife she is still bleeding 3/12 postpartum (twins)’.[44]
[44] Ibid, p136.
(ii)On 26 August 1977, an ‘in patient summary’ states ‘He has been previously been investigated in this hospital for the same blackouts with no abnormality detected. He has seen Dr Grady the Psychiatrist who recommended him S7 Admin Discharge’.[45]
[45] Ibid, p132.
(jj)From 29 August to 5 September 1977, Mr Satora was on approved ‘ARL’ leave.[46]
[46] Exhibit R7, p496.
(kk)On 20 September 1977, a ‘patient referral and report’ states:[47]
[47] Exhibit R6, p150.
He is complaining that there is a lot of hostility directed at him at work, that his headaches and complaints are considered excuses for getting out of duties and that he has been on the verge of objecting to [unreadable] attitudes [unreadable] and violently.
…
He is here today to request relief from duties till his discharge (hopefully) comes through.
I am of the belief the man is trying to manipulate and quite blatantly. His symptoms are not accompanied by signs (eg no tremor, sweating, tachycardia etc) and are not in my opinion justify the request.
(ll)On 22 September 1977, a ‘report on case referred for psychiatric examination’ by Mr Satora’s Commanding Officer, Lieutenant Colonel Sutton, states:[48]
[48] Ibid, p147.
Nature of present duties: Storeman technical in Medical and Dental Equipment Depot.
Efficiency and response to training: Below average as a soldier. Has not responded to training. Shows very little interest.
Mental outlook and personal habits: It not a happy personality. Seems to be introverted and disgruntled with his situation.
Behaviour in the unit: Does what he is asked to do but with little enthusiasm.
Opinion regarding retention or disposal: Would not consider retaining this soldier of benefit to either himself or the service.
(mm)From 6 to 23 October 1977, Mr Satora was on approved ‘ARL’ leave.[49]
(nn)On 26 October 1977, a medical board examination record for ‘discharge’ states ‘Dr Grady reported on 19.8.77 inter alia “inadequate personality and anxiety symptoms rec. sy “administrative discharge” with a diagnosis of ‘inadequate personality and anxiety state’ with a composite assessment of 10% for incapacity for ‘general labour market’.[50] The ‘discharge history questionnaire’ following states Mr Satora ‘has had several fainting attacks in last 7 mos’, ‘has had headaches in last 5 mos said to be due to tension’, ‘concussion 7 mos ago – football – no trouble now’ and ‘7 camp hosp for tx, 1 night’.[51]
(oo)On 7 November 1977, Mr Satora’s ‘service record’ states he fails to appear on parade and is fined $20.[52]
(pp)On 10 November 1977, Mr Satora’s ‘service record’ states he is discharged as being not suited to be a soldier.[53]
(qq)In November 1978, Mr Satora applied to the Army for re-enlistment, which was not approved.[54]
Medical Evidence
[49] Exhibit R7, p496.
[50] Exhibit R6, p117.
[51] Ibid.
[52] Exhibit R7, p249.
[53] Ibid, p249.
[54] Ibid, p478.
Doctor Shaikh
Dr Shaikh, a psychiatrist, provided a written report, dated 14 March 2024, that relevantly provides:[55]
[55] Exhibit R29.
(a)In the ‘history’ of the report, Dr Shaikh describes:
At Kapooka, in 1976, he experienced verbal abuse, threats of death/violence and regular bullying. He was exposed to slurs, insults and damage to personal property. He recalls spending multiple days unconscious in the base hospital, when he was kicked in the head during a soccer game.
During his period at Ingleburn in 1977, he reportedly was tormented and mentally tortured by a staff sergeant. This person made comments about sexually assaulting Mr Satora’s wife, which led him to feeling unsafe about his family. Mr Satora noted that his wife was pregnant with twins. He was not allowed time off to spend time with his wife. He eventually went AWOL. His children passed away shortly after birth. On his return, he was charged and sentenced to detention at Holsworthy Military Correction Establishment. His wife apparently blamed him and the relationship ended as she was unable to cope in his absence.
…
At Randwick in 1977, he attempted suicide by shooting himself, but the weapon misfired. There is documentary evidence about him remembering “being stoned” and “thinking being in the army is a joke”. He was then referred to a psychiatrist who stated that he should not be in the army – this led to a discharge.
…
Mr Satora was involved in a car accident in 2014. He apparently spent three months in bed. He required psychological assistance “I could not read or write”. He denies ongoing sequelae.
…
I note a report by Dr Varghese in October 2015, in relation to the motor vehicle accident of September 2014. Mr Satora was apparently uncertain if he was knocked out. There was an obvious impact from the accident on his emotional state. Dr Varghese noted fluctuations in mood, sleep disturbances, impact on concentration, low self-esteem, suicidal thought patterns, low appetite, and irritability. Mr Satora denied a past history of depression. …Dr Varghese diagnosed major depression of more than moderate intensity and recommended further treatment. I note that in this assessment, there was no discussion of ADF Service or its implications on Mr Satora’s mental health.
…
Mr Satora presents with somewhat of a complex history. He describes bullying and bastardisation in the Australian Defence Forces, when he served in the army between 1976 and 1977. He has brought about a claim of compensation, 45 years later.
From Mr Satora’s reports, his experiences at Kapooka and Ingleburn are likely to have led to a temporary level of emotional distress. It is difficult to justify an ongoing level of contribution from these events, over the course of his life of 45 years. Mr Satora was eventually discharged from the army after being deemed unfit to be in service.
Between 1980 and 2021, there is no discussion of psychiatric complaints, particularly in relation to his service. He was involved in a motor vehicle accident in 2014, which appears to have led to some psychiatric consequences.
Mr Satora has been capable of employment over decades, around metal work. He has been a sub-contractor and managed his own business. It would appear that about four years ago, in relation to his ongoing knee complaints and him requiring a knee replacement at that time, his employment ceased. There were also some issues with his son having injuries at that time. This potentially led to some financial stress and may have contributed to him seeking compensation from the index events.
He has a report from Dr John Gavilan, psychiatrist, diagnosing major depressive disorder with severe anxious distress, and with relationship to his time in ADF. Dr Gavilan's report does not discuss actual day-to-day symptomatology, and rather just mentions the DSM diagnostic criteria.
Mr Satora himself does discuss periods of low mood. He has anxiety in relation to the future. He reports some issues with sleep, but does not have consistent nightmares.
He generally maintains a self-care. He is engaging in church activities. He is able to get out and about. He travels without major issues. He shares a good relationship with his wife.
(b)Dr Shaikh diagnosis of Mr Satora is as follows:
Whilst I believe the index events may then have led to temporary emotional symptoms, it is not my opinion that Mr Satora has experienced an enduring mental health disorder as a result of his service. Clearly, his engagements with Staff Sergeant Lehn, were an issue, and recall of this leads to him being upset. In my opinion, however, this does not equate to a psychiatric disorder.
There is no evidence to suggest and justify consistent psychiatric symptomatology over the years. He has never been in receipt of consistent psychiatric treatment, or prescribed psychotropic medication for a period. It would appear that in recent years, post cessation of employment due to his knee injury, he has developed some ruminative thoughts and anxiety about his future.
…
As discussed above, Mr Satora may have developed temporary psychological distress as a result of his ill experiences at Kapooka and Ingleburn in 1976 and 1977.
In particular, the loss of his twins, and him being sentenced to detention at Holsworthy, alongside a subsequent relationship ending may have led to an adjustment disorder type phenomena. On the balance of probabilities, the relationship ending and the loss of his twins were the most significant contributors to his experienced emotional distress at that time. Him being charged and sentenced led to negative thought patterns about the army and further intensified his emotional distress. I note that his suicide attempt was not until 1979, at a time where he had already been discharged from the army, and had not been in the army for two years.
It is not my opinion that Mr Satora has an enduring mental health disorder secondary to his military employment.
5. Dr Penzhornin his report of 5 July 2023 diagnoses the Applicant with post traumatic stress disorder (‘PTSD’), with symptoms of Major Depressive Disorder. He has opined that the Applicant’s psychiatric symptoms were suppressed in the period since ceasing his military service due to his focus on occupational and gainful activities and says those symptoms have only come to the forefront due to his impending retirement.
(a) Do you agree with the opinion of Dr Penzhorn? Please explain why/why not.
I struggled to agree with the opinion of Dr Penzhorn. I struggled to see exposure to a specific criterion A event. Mr Satora has never described re-experiencing phenomena with consistence. For a diagnosis of PTSD, there requires an impairment in social and/or occupational functioning, and this does not clearly appear to be the case with Mr Satora, who has been capable of full-time employment over an extended period, and reasonable social engagements.
6. Dr Gavilan in his report of 26 October 2022 diagnoses a Major Depressive Disorder with severe anxious distress (in addition to bruxism and erectile dysfunction). He says that conditions became fully formed disorders around November 1978 and have not resolved of improved to any major degree to this day.
(a) Do you agree with the opinion of Dr Gavilam that the Applicant suffered from the effects of a ‘fully formed’ disorder from on or around November 1978? Please explain why/why not/
I am in strong disagreement with the opinion of Dr Gavilan, who does not justify the reasoning behind his diagnosis, and has simply provided the DSM diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder.
7. Please provide comment on the relevance of the diagnosis of ‘Inadequate Personal Disorder with anxious stress’ made at the time of the Applicant’s discharge from the ADF (service records) on any current diagnosed condition.
At the time of Mr Satora’s discharge, he had developed negative thought patterns about the army. His relationship with his then wife had ended. He had lost twins. I believe this may have prompted discussion of an inadequate personal disorder, but I note that this is not a specific psychiatric diagnosis.
8. Please provide comment on Dr Penzhorn’s opinion (report 5 July 2023) of a possible diagnosis of ADHD and Dr Simpton’s impression of traits of ASD (clinical notes 2 August 2022).
There is potential for some features of Mr Satora being on the autistic spectrum. There is possibly an association with ADHD type features. Mr Satora, however, did not have a history of significant disturbances in schooling. He has had an extended work career. I struggled to diagnose ADHD.
9. Has the applicant suffered from an identifiable psychiatric condition in the past? If so,
(a) What is your diagnosis of that condition?
(b) In your opinion when did the Applicant first suffer from the effects of that condition?
(c) Did the condition follow the expected pathway of recovery for this type of condition and, it did not, how and why did it differ from the expected pathway of recovery for this type of condition?
As discussed, Mr Satora may have experienced an adjustment disorder in 1977, post the loss of his twin and the relationship separation.
The detention at that time was potentially contributory. This condition, at present, follows the expected pathway of recovery.
…
On the balance of probabilities, it is my opinion that Mr Satora does not currently suffer a psychiatric condition, which was caused, contributed to, or aggravated by his employment in the Australian Defence Force as above.
Dr Shaikh provided a supplementary report dated 12 September 2024, that relevantly states:[56]
[56] Exhibit R31.
1. Does the report of Dr Penzhorn cause you to alter the views and opinions expressed in your report of 14 March 2024? If yes, please outline how your opinion has altered and provide an explanation as to the reasons for the change in your opinion.
From an overall perspective, my opinions do not majorly change from the ones expressed in my initial report. I have, however, commented below on modifications to my expressed opinion in terms of Criterion A for PTSD.
2. Dr Penzhorn diagnoses the Applicant as suffering from PTSD and he particularises how he reaches his conclusion under each of the DSM5 criterion.
In particular, we note Dr Penzhorn is of the opinion that the Applicant falls within Criterion A of the DSM5 in respect of his diagnosis due to experiencing threatened or actual physical assault and vicarious threats of sexual violence directed to his wife. Dr Penzhorn notes the Applicant describes his immediate superior (Sergeant Lehn) making explicit threats of sexual violence about his wife which he says the Applicant understood as real and imminent. He says he was subject to verbal and physical violence on at least one occasion and his occupational performance was increasingly affected. He had anxiety about his wife’s high-risk pregnancy and his efforts to see his wife were met with obstruction and his incarceration. He says his wife came to blame him for the death of the children. Dr Penzhorn states that the traumatic loss of his twin children were, from the Applicant’s perspective, intentional and homicidal. He genuinely held beliefs over a long period of time that Sergeant Lehn murdered his children.
Dr Penzhorn notes the Applicant’s recount of re-experiencing occurrences with everyday items, odours and scents and he experienced nightly nightmares. For many years after the events, he says there were explicit reminders and reexperiencing of the moments around the death of his children and the consequences for his life were common.
Can you please advise whether this history as detailed to Dr Penzhorn causes you to alter the views expressed at paragraph 5 of your report, that you do not consider the Applicant was exposed to a Criterion A event secondary to his military employment. Please explain why or why not.
I continue to struggle to agree with the opinion of Dr Penzhorn and accept that Mr Satora would meet criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD.
Posttraumatic stress disorder is a condition where exposure to trauma (criterion A) is followed by consistent re-experiencing of the traumatic event via flashbacks, nightmares, upsetting memories, and reactivity after traumatic reminders.
There is a requirement for avoidance behaviour, negative thought patterns and trauma related arousal in various forms (such as difficulty sleeping, difficulty concentrating, or hypervigilance). Criterion G of posttraumatic stress disorder states that symptoms should be sufficient to create distress or functional impairment in the social and/or occupational spectrum.
I have no doubt that Mr Satora had anxiety about his wife's high-risk pregnancy. His efforts to see his wife, as discussed by Dr Penzhorn may have been met with obstruction and his incarceration. The loss of his twin children was, without doubt, traumatic. In relation to the death of his children, he would meet criterion A, as death, particularly of a child would fall within a criterion A event descriptor. My understanding however is that the unfortunate loss of his twin children is likely to have eventuated, even in the absence of his service.
Mr Satora noted to me during the assessment that there were threats of death/violence and actual violence at Kapooka. I must confirm that I do not have further detail of descriptors of these threats, but from Mr Satora's accounts, if threatened death was considered, criterion A would be met. Similarly, at Ingleburn in around 1977, comments about sexually assaulting Mr Satora's wife would have met criterion A for PTSD.
I wish to clarify here that in relation to a specific criterion A event, I was unable to justify Mr Satora having consistent re-experiencing phenomena in the manner needed for a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder. For over 40 years after the index events, there was no formal discussion of psychiatric complaints in relation to service. Indeed, there were psychiatric consequences from the motor vehicle accident of 2014. Mr Satora underwent psychiatric assessments in relation to this, where trauma-based symptomatology was not disclosed. The absence of reporting of trauma-based symptomatology does not necessarily exclude their presence, but this does shed light that if such symptoms were present, they were unlikely to be clinically significant, and impairing social/occupational function, as needed to satisfy criterion G for PTSD.
I have opined in my report that in relation to his social functioning, Mr Satora is able to engage with church activities, meet new people, and has held interest in sports. He has travelled away. He is involved in his small but present friend circle.
In relation to his occupational functioning, he has been capable of employment over decades, including managing his own business.
I have not excluded the concept of delayed PTSD. I have, in practice and in medicolegal assessments, seen various individuals developing posttraumatic stress disorder of a delayed nature, decades after exposure to the traumatic event. In these situations, however, there is evidence to suggest a material level of trauma-based symptomatology, with some impairment in social and/or occupational functioning. If Mr Satora's psychiatric symptomatology over the decades was significant enough to lead to impairment in his social and occupational functioning, and significant enough to satisfy criterion G for PTSD, I would have expected some level of discussion in documents reflecting this, for example in the assessment and report of Dr Varghese in 2015. Mr Satora has, in the past, reported psychiatric distress secondary to stressors, such as the motor vehicle accident or family stressors, so he can report such issues.
In conclusion, I do not doubt Mr Satora would have developed temporary psychological distress as a result of his ill experiences whilst in service. It may also be that from time to time, a recall of events experienced would have led to emotional distress. Based on available information, I would not diagnose posttraumatic stress disorder.
3. In respect of the Applicant’s delayed presentation, the Applicant advised Dr Penzhorn that he had omitted his history and details of his military service to avoid the thoughts that would surface, because it might lead to a loss of control of his reactions. His extreme pre-occupation with work was the means in which he sought to avoid his PTSD symptoms. Dr Penzhorn notes the Applicant had come to psychiatric attention on two occasions when he ceased work – the first being at the time of his motor vehicle accident and the second when he was forced into early retirement, and on those occasions, Dr Penzhorn says that if it is accepted, he has PTSD, then disassociation sufficient to be confused with cognitive disturbances is inevitable in those circumstances. Can you please state whether you agree or disagree with this statement and provide reasoning for your opinion.
I understand the notions of Dr Penzhorn, but much is based on speculation. Because a diagnosis of PTSD is considered, the outlook on most details of history is modulated to suit this diagnosis. The opinion is on balance of possibilities, rather than probability.
I have commented above that for a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder, the symptoms should be sufficient to create a distress or functional impairment in the social and occupational spectrums. Mr Satora, for 40 years, did not report trauma-based symptomatology. These may have been present, but if they were, they were at a level not sufficient to impair significantly, social and/or occupational function. This was a time where he was capable of a full time (and more) employment, he was capable of travel away and has been capable of maintaining an extended relationship.
Further, in relation to omission of history relevant to service and psychiatric consequences, I see no reason why, if symptoms were of sufficient severity, Mr Satora would have not disclosed them to Dr Varghese in 2015. I understand that specific information was sought in relation to past history of mental health disturbances. I also understand that Mr Satora's wife attended the assessment and noted changes in Mr Satora's mental health after the accident, leading to social distancing, memory disturbances, and a depressed mood.
The tribunal must further consider that there are other psychiatric reports, including Dr John Gavilan, psychiatrist, who did not diagnose posttraumatic stress disorder.
Ms Leah Simpson, psychologist, has undertaken an extensive period of treatment, and documentation discusses depressive symptomatology. Diagnoses of depressive disorder, and even bipolar disorder were considered. Ms Simpson has also commented that whilst flashback like type phenomenon was discussed, she was not convinced they were flashbacks, and sounded like thoughts, memories, and hindsight. There are occasions where a diagnosis of PTSD was considered, but in relation to the loss of twins. Clearly, Mr Satora was not happy about events post the death of his twins where he was imprisoned and perceived a lack of empathy.
If it is deemed that the loss of his twins was secondary to his service, then a diagnosis of PTSD could be considered further. Reported sleep disturbances and night terrors could be deemed a phenomenon from this loss.
I would still think a complicated grief reaction or a persistent bereavement disorder would be a better descriptor. One would still struggle to explain the reasonable level of functioning for the better part of 40 years without a seeming impairment in social and occupational spectrum.
4. In your report of 14 March 2024, you state the Applicant may be described as currently suffering an Adjustment Disorder with depressed mood (page 12, paragraph 10). Do you remain of the view that psychiatric condition was not caused, contributed to or aggravated to a significant and/or material degree, by the Applicant’s employment with the Australian Defence Force?
As opined in my report, the diagnosis of adjustment disorder can be considered, but not, on the balance of probabilities, related to his employment in the Australian Defence Force. I have discussed the clinical course of the adjustment disorder, commencing in 2014, in the index report.
The death of his twins likely led to emotional distress and contributed to ongoing low grade distress over the years, akin to a complicated grief. Mr Satora being involved in litigation process is likely to influence the adjustment disorder, and lead to an increased level of emotional distress, which should stabilise post the case being settled.
5. Are there any other matters contained in Dr Penzhorn’s report that you would like to raise and/or clarify the opinions expressed in your report of 14 March 2024.
Dr Penzhorn’s opinion, being from a treating psychiatrist, is likely to have an inherent treatment bias. Dr Penzhorn has discussed this in his report. I have no doubt that Dr Penzhorn’s assessment was exhaustive and comprehensive, but Dr Penzhorn’s involvement with Mr Satora has only been in the past year, whilst Mr Satora has been involved in compensation proceedings.
In examination-in-chief, Dr Shaikh:
(a)Agreed that, if Mr Satora had been knocked out for a short period whilst playing soccer, was not unconscious at hospital and was discharged on day two of his admission, would not be a criterion A event for PTSD under the DSM.
(b)Considered that if the threats of sexual violence to Mr Satora’s wife were true, that might meet a criterion A stressor for PTSD, but went on to say that it is unlikely Mr Satora had the emotional distress usually associated with PTSD.
(c)Agreed that Mr Satora’s stated social leisure activities prior to his motor vehicle accident in 2014 were consistent with the assessment that after Mr Satora’s service and until 2014, there had not been any relevant or persistent symptoms of emotional distress.
(d)Agreed that his opinion remained that Mr Satora had an adjustment disorder at the end of his service in 1977 and he had commented on there being the presence of a grief reaction or persistent grief disorder that Mr Satora may have experienced at that time.
(e)Opined that diagnosis in 1977 of inadequate personality disorder is not a psychiatric condition and the reference to anxiety state likely refers to the presence of anxiety, which is obvious in light of the stressors.
(f)Opined that it cannot be stated that it is simply the perception of an event that would meet the criteria for PTSD.
(g)Agreed that, if Mr Satora’s recollection of the sequence of his AWOL and the death of his twins was not accurate, then it would not have been a criterion for PTSD.
(h)Opined that there was insufficient evidence to say that Mr Satora had ASD.
(i)Opined that there were insufficient symptoms to meet the criteria for generalised anxiety disorder in 1977.
Dr Shaikh in cross-examination was asked:
(a)If he accepted that Mr Satora had ASD, where would he place Mr Satora across a spectrum, to which Dr Shaikh answered at the lower end of the spectrum and said it is described as a disorder, but it is a developmental issue that commences early on in life and then may progress on to adulthood.
(b)If he agreed that there were occasions when significant events might trigger the re-emergence of suppressed PTSD symptoms, to which Dr Shaikh stated there was no evidence to suggest any level of suppressed symptoms or any level of symptomology.
(c)If the motor vehicle accident in 2014 could have brought to light the psychological trauma Mr Satora experienced in the Army, to which Dr Shaikh stated it was possible, but he would have expected discussions about previous symptoms in the reporting at that time.
(d)If he agreed that the diagnosis of anxiety state in 1977 was best described as anxiety disorder as provided in the statement of principles for anxiety disorder, to which Dr Shaikh disagreed because, in his opinion, symptoms of anxiety do not necessarily relate to a disorder, and he did not see any discussion of the symptoms of restlessness, irritability, muscle tension and sleep disturbances he would expect at that time.
Dr Penzhorn
Doctor Penzhorn, a psychiatrist, provided a letter, dated 5 July 2023, that relevantly states:[57]
[57] Exhibit A6.
Henry does have lowering of mood which has variable impact on his physiological symptoms of depression, such as sleep and appetite. However, the longer term background is salient for severe traumatic events occurring in the course of his military service. In summary, what occurred was that the lack of occupational flexibility in the military enforced a transfer to a new base. This occurred at a time when his wife was in the latter stages of pregnancy and the subsequent move coincided with labour, which had a tragic outcome when the twins she was expecting died shortly after birth. This tragedy was combined with earlier experiences, especially in induction and basic training. These could be described as hazing or bullying, but by modern standards, abuse may be a reasonable description. In spite of this, it is the circumstances around the loss of his newborn children that have imparted the greatest psychological injury.
Henry operated a strategy of active and aggressive suppression of the symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder since that time. There was profound avoidance behaviour with very few social connections outside of the family. Henry would commonly work seven days a week, and all day. He had difficulty managing mood states, and certain events and circumstances would lead to reactivation and intrusion symptoms. For example, being confronted by a person in uniform in a position of authority would give rise to behaviour that could really only be understood in the context of somebody reacting to past trauma. Henry has tended not to dwell on his emotional experience, and does not have command of the language to encapsulate this. The result was that important lifestyle decisions were made to prevent reactivation of trauma symptoms. In my opinion, panic or anxiety symptoms have often masqueraded as an expression of anxiety, physical sensations, disproportionate anger, or tension. Sleep disturbance has been severe, with usually only four hours of recognised sleep per night. He has also tended to have nightmares and intrusive recollection.
Henry does not have a history of mood elevation. There is also no perceptual disturbance, persecutory ideation or delusional beliefs.
…
Henry has not previously had any psychiatric interventions. He does remember taking an antidepressant on one occasion but had very unexpectedly severe adverse effects that left him in bed all day. He did not take another dose. This had been recommended to him before but Henry remains anxious, not only about adverse effects but also the very notion of psychiatric medication. He worries about the possibility that surrendering control to a medication could alter him in some way, or cause him to act on aggressive impulses that he usually suppresses effectively. Henry has engaged with a psychologist for several weeks leading up to my appointment with him. He has seen Dr John Gavilan in the past who completed assessments for DVA and concluded that his symptoms were due to major depressive disorder.
Henry does not have a history of illicit drug use or prescription medication misuse. He uses alcohol sparingly and only in certain situations, aside from heavier use as a younger man.
In terms of medical history, he has had good physical health until osteoarthritis required knee replacement on the right. Unfortunately, the surgical result was not ideal and even after revision he retains limitation on freedom of movement in that leg. He has had two head injuries with loss of consciousness, one occurring during military service and another in a motor vehicle accident. He has modest hypertension with left ventricular hypertrophy on a background of hypertension and hypercholesterolaemia. There is no history of seizures. He has tinnitus and sensorineural hearing loss.
Henry was born in Sydney. He is the youngest in a sibship of four. He has an older brother and two middle sisters. His two older siblings were maternal half siblings. His parents were Polish refugees, and his older sibling's father died shortly after arrival in Australia. As far as Henry is aware, his birth proceeded without any complications. Henry's father was a carpenter and his mother a machinist. He describes a happy childhood, in which he was frequently outdoors - hunting, fishing and keeping himself busy with various adventures. He described a good relationship with his parents individually. His father's alcohol use disorder led to increasingly aggressive behaviour, but he said this was mostly directed at other family members.
In school, Henry was not very focused on school work. He found it difficult to take an interest in hypothetical propositions. However, he was good at mathematics as he could see the utility in it. On occasions when he did make an effort, his school performance would significantly increase. Henry left school at age 15 and proceeded to an apprenticeship in boilermaking. He showed ability and commitment and indeed was very passionate about this line of work. At the age of 17, he and his friend simultaneously joined the military. He wanted to use his boilermaking skills in the engineering corps but this did not become available, and so instead he was employed as storeman.
As mentioned above, there was a tragic outcome during his wife's second pregnancy. Subsequently, in the throws of grief, Henry was classified as absent without leave and was arrested. There ensued a painful administrative process which ultimately led to his discharge from the military, which I believe was then made on administrative grounds. This is despite, from his recollection at the time, a psychiatric assessment indicating that he was not medically fit.
…
In my opinion, Henry presents with posttraumatic stress disorder, the symptoms of which have been shaped and suppressed to a large extent by a focus on occupational and gainful activities. He also has symptoms of major depressive disorder although these are in the moderate range depending on circumstances.
I do wonder whether in terms of longitudinal background Henry may also have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. This is suggested by his school progress but also by the way in which he has attempted to cope with internal distress.
Regardless of the precise origin, his thought processes are vulnerable to distraction leading to difficulties with directed attention. Much of this may occur in response to internal stimuli related to PTSD. However, external distraction, particularly when this is likely to activate or reactivate trauma symptoms, is also significant.
(underlining added by Tribunal)
The events at the centre of Mr Satora’s claims about his Army service occurred over 40 years ago. There is no evidence of Mr Satora recounting his negative Army experience to any medical practitioners in the period between the end of his service in 1977 to the present claim to the Commission in 2021, including those Mr Satora consulted in response to his motor vehicle accident in 2014.
Mr Gallagher contends that Mr Satora’s Commanding Officer (CO) and his direct superior were ‘hardened veterans’ and Mr Satora’s narrative of his experiences at 2 TRG GP and the Kapooka are ‘credible and indicative of the Army culture in the late 1970s’.
Mr Gallagher cited Booth and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Compensation) (Booth) [2022] AATA 4183 in support of his contention that Mr Satora’s evidence as to his treatment at Kapooka and in the Army was credible. Booth was a case that was in respect to an applicant’s experience as a recruit at Kapooka in 1992. Ultimately the decision turned on the Tribunal preferring the evidence of the applicant, who gave evidence at the hearing, and was subject to cross-examination about specific incidents that occurred during training.
The Tribunal accepts the contention of Mr Gallagher that the Army of the 1970s was likely less empathetic to the individual needs of its soldiers than in its contemporary form. The Tribunal is not reasonably satisfied that the experiences of the applicant in Booth can be used as a credible analogous experience for Mr Satora.
The Tribunal accepts that Mr Satora was relatively young and immature when he joined the Army and may have been a marginal candidate for service as contended by Mr Gallagher. However, it was not uncommon, especially in the 1970s, for soldiers to join the Army as young as 15 as apprentices, and the Tribunal finds no breach of duty in the manner which the Army recruited Mr Satora, because nothing is disclosed in the enlistment documents that would fairly put the Army on notice of pre-existing circumstances or mental health conditions that should have been taken into account.
However, there is evidence that the Army took Mr Satora’s personal circumstances into account when deciding to post him to 2 TRG GP at Ingleburn in response to the posting preference submitted by Mr Satora. Even though that posting was likely not to be the most suitable for a soldier who had just completed his initial employment training, rather than a larger regular logistic unit with soldiers more likely to be around his age and experience.
Mr Satora’s negative evidence in respect to the CO of 2 TRG GP is difficult to reconcile with the service records, where Mr Satora’s performance is evaluated and decisions made consistent with the advice contained in the welfare report prepared during Mr Satora’s detention after his period of absence without leave (AWOL), namely, to post Mr Satora away from his direct superior and a unit that did not have the same out of normal hours demands of 2 TRG GP as a Citizen Military Force training establishment that often required the regular staff to work weekends and evenings.
The main focus of Mr Satora’s negative experience in the period of his service post Kapooka is with his ‘direct’ superior at 2 TRG GP. There is evidence in Mr Satora’s service records of Mr Satora’s complaints about his direct superior, but not to the details included in Mr Satora’s statements before the Tribunal, particularly the threats of sexual violence towards Mr Satora’s wife.
The documentation in Mr Satora’s service records discloses that he felt confident to raise complaints about his perception of treatment in Army on at least 2 occasions and the complaints were treated seriously by Army and the results communicated to him.
The posting to Randwick in June 1977 is an example where Army considered his complaints about the treatment meted to him by his supervisor at 2 TRG GP and sought to move him to a location where he did not have to interact with that particular superior.
The Tribunal is reasonably satisfied that Mr Satora and his supervisor had a difficult interpersonal relationship that required Mr Satora to be posted to another unit to provide Mr Satora an opportunity to progress his service in the Army. That difficult relationship might have been one that could be categorised as bullying and harassment in a contemporary context.
The Tribunal is not reasonably satisfied that Mr Satora’s direct supervisor made the threats of sexual violence, because Mr Satora showed the confidence to complain about his superior during his service and, in particular, if they had been reported to the welfare officer preparing the welfare report whilst he was in detention, it is inherently unlikely details of threats of that nature (that likely in the context of the chronology had occurred prior to his detention) would not have been included and actioned.
The Tribunal takes into account the traumatic and tragic death of Mr Satora’s twins, along with the passage of the following 4 decades, in weighing the reliability of Mr Satora’s memory of the events of his Army service.
The Tribunal is reasonably satisfied the best evidence of Mr Satora’s service in the Army is the chronology of his service summarised above as a reliable and accurate chronology of facts, referable to contemporaneous documents from the detailed records of the Army.
The Tribunal is not reasonably satisfied that the following parts of Mr Satora’s account of his service in the Army can be relied upon by the Tribunal because:
(a)Mr Satora’s various accounts of being assaulted, knocked unconscious for 3 days and hospitalised whilst at Kapooka are contradicted by the contemporaneous medical records that show he was temporarily knocked unconscious whilst playing soccer and then held for observation in hospital overnight.
(b)There is no evidence before the Tribunal that supports Mr Satora’s assertion that he was assaulted and knocked unconscious at any time during his service.
(c)Mr Satora’s account of his period AWOL as a result of Army not providing him leave arising from the death of his twins is contradicted by the chronology contained in his service records because Mr Satora:
(i)Applied for discharge on 4 March 1977 citing financial reasons.
(ii) Went AWOL from 10 to 24 March 1977.
(iii)Was in military detention for 7 days from 25 March 1977.
(iv)Was confined to barracks for 7 days from 7 April 1977 for a military offence.
(v)States that the twins passed away on 31 May 1977.
(vi)Was given leave, including leave without pay, for the period 7 June to 26 July 1977.
(d)As stated above, the Tribunal is not reasonably satisfied that Mr Satora’s supervisor made the threats of sexual violence.
(e)The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Satora was posted to Randwick on 7 June 1977, but did not commence at his new posting locality until after 26 July 1977, which is inconsistent with Mr Satora’s assertions about his treatment by Army in the period after the death of his twins.
Diagnosis
The High Court in Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission v May (2016) 257 CLR 468 at [49] explained that the first task the Tribunal must undertake under the SRC Act is to consider the facts to determine if the employee is suffering a ‘disease’ or an ‘injury’.
On the last day of the hearing, the day after Dr Penzhorn gave his oral evidence, Dr Penzhorn provided a letter that Mr Gallagher sought leave to tender to the Tribunal disclosing a supplementary opinion that Mr Satora suffered ‘severe anxiety disorder’ from his service. The link to service was described as ‘aggravated ASD’ and ‘a psychiatric disorder characterised by severe anxiety, being either: PTSD…Generalised Anxiety Disorder’.
The Commission objected to the inclusion of the diagnosis of ‘aggravated ASD’ on the basis that it had prepared for the hearing in respect to the diagnosis of ASD but not that Mr Satora’s service in the Army had aggravated a pre-existing condition of ASD, referring to the requirements in s 5B of the DRCA.
The Tribunal ruled that the diagnosis of aggravated ASD was a new claim and as it had not been agitated prior to the last day of hearing it was not procedurally fair to be considered as part of the present application for review, and that part of the letter was struck out.[62]
[62] Exhibit A9.
Mr Gallagher contended that the Tribunal should have regard to the Repatriation Medical Authority statement of principles in respect to the various diagnoses made by Dr Penzhorn. Those statement of principles apply to the determination of liability for veterans under the Veterans’ Entitlement Act 1986 (Cth) and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (Cth).
Whilst Mr Satora is a veteran, consistent with the decision of Deputy President Muller in Vivian and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission [2005] AATA 875, the Tribunal is satisfied that statement of principles have no evidentiary basis in Mr Satora’s claim under the DRCA and gives them no consideration in determining the present application for review.
As to the preference the Tribunal should make between the opinion of Dr Shaikh as an ‘independent medical expert’ and Dr Penzhorn as a ‘treating physician’ as the respective parties press, the Tribunal notes the analysis of this tension in Perich and Secretary, Department of Social Services [2018] AATA 963, where Deputy President Boyle and Senior Member Evans stated at [44]:
Many reports are commissioned from assessors who do not treat the patient but are asked as part of the forensic process to provide an independent assessment of the patient. These are often called ‘third party reports’. The advantage of such reports is that they are generally commissioned from practitioners who are familiar with the needs and expectations of the litigation process. In addition, they are unaffected by contaminants such as therapeutic bias or treatment advocacy. However, their limitation is that they are commissioned for forensic purposes and, often, comparatively little time is spent by the assessor with the patient, meaning that the assessment is either somewhat superficial or heavily dependent upon patient self-report.
The Tribunal is guided by the decision of Pollock v Wellington (1996) 15 WAR 370 (Pollock), as Anderson J, at 3, states:
Before an expert medical opinion can be of any value the facts upon which it is founded must be proved by admissible evidence and the opinion must actually be founded upon those facts: see Ramsey v Watson [1961] HCA 65; (1961) 108 CLR 642; Trade Practices Commission v Arnotts Ltd (1990) 21 FCR 324; Parric v John Holland (Constructions) Pty Ltd [1985] HCA 58; (1985) 59 ALJR 844 at 845-846.
As with any other evidence, expert opinion must be comprehensible and the conclusions reached must be rationally based. A court ought not to act on an opinion, the basis for which is not explained by the witness expressing it: see Steffen v Ruban (1966) 84 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 264.
The guidance from Pollock is particularly persuasive in the present circumstances due to the importance of the factual findings made by the Tribunal that stand largely in contradiction to the history Mr Satora has provided of his experiences of his Army service to various doctors and their resulting opinions on diagnosis derived from Mr Satora’s self-reporting.
Further, in 2014, Mr Satora was involved in a motor vehicle accident and in the process of his claim for compensation he saw numerous specialists:
(a)In the history provided by Mr Satora to Dr Storor[63], Mr Satora told Dr Storor that ‘he had never previously suffered from depression, anxiety or any other psychiatric disorder. He had never seen a Psychologist, Psychiatrist or Counsellor before. He had never been diagnosed with any psychiatric disorder’. Dr Storor diagnosed Mr Satora as having ‘adjustment disorder with depressed mood, mild to moderate severity’ with no evidence of any pre-existing psychiatric condition.
(b)Dr Varghese, a psychiatrist, in an expert report dated 29 October 2015[64], recounts in the history ‘there is decrease in interests such as riding his motor bike…he used to enjoy fishing but lost complete interest in this’ and his diagnosis is major depression.
(c)Dr Todman, a neurologist, prepared a report dated 30 July 2015[65]. In the history, Dr Todman notes that Mr Satora ‘used to enjoy hunting and shooting and has had to discontinue this since the accident.’
(d)Dr Journeaux, an orthopaedic surgeon, prepared a report dated 13 October 2015[66], for Mr Satora’s claim from the motor vehicle accident where, in the history, he recounts ‘the claimant normally enjoys hunting, motorbike riding, clubbing and dancing and general socialising and all these activities have been severely curtailed by the motor vehicle accident.’
(e)Dr Cronje, a psychiatrist, in a letter dated 15 December 2015[67], states Mr Satora, ‘feels very struck at the moment and is very anxious about his future and financial affairs’ and makes a diagnosis of major depressive disorder.
[63] Exhibit R16.
[64] Exhibit R17.
[65] Exhibit R16.
[66] Exhibit R18.
[67] Exhibit R20.
Mr Satora in providing his history to all the specialists he sees as part of his motor vehicle claim makes no mention of any negative experience in his Army service or any mental illnesses or symptoms arising from that service.
The evidence on diagnosis from the medical experts was:
(a)Dr Shaikh has consistently diagnosed Mr Satora with an adjustment disorder that was evident at the end of Mr Satora’s Army service, that resolved at some point after he left the Army with no present diagnosis of a mental disorder.
(b)Dr Penzhorn diagnosed Mr Satora with
(i)Firstly, with PTSD.
(i) Subsequently, with PTSD and ASD.
(iii)Lastly, with PTSD with delayed presentation, ASD and generalised anxiety disorder.
The Tribunal is reasonably satisfied that the correct diagnosis of Mr Satora’s condition is the disease ‘adjustment disorder’ during Mr Satora’s Army service, but certainly by the time of his discharge in 1977, that resolved sometime shortly after his discharge, because:
(a)Dr Penzhorn’s opinion that Mr Satora’s perception of his service in the Army was not factual and that Mr Satora ‘was not proceeding as a reasonable man’, whilst maintaining that his various diagnoses of Mr Satora were caused by Mr Satora’s Army service were irreconcilable.
(b)In forming his opinion of diagnosis, Dr Penzhorn did not alter or explain his opinion when a factual basis was put to him that the events as described by Mr Satora were not reliable, acting as an advocate of Mr Satora as his treating psychiatrist.
(c)The evidence supports the finding that Mr Satora did not display symptoms at any time consistent with Dr Penzhorn’s diagnosis of PTSD or generalised anxiety disorder in the period after Mr Satora’s discharge from the Army.
(d)Dr Penzhorn’s diagnosis of ASD, even if correct, is a developmental condition, that has no connection .
(e)Dr Penzhorn conceded that the evidence of Mr Satora’s social pursuits disclosed by him prior to the motor vehicle accident in 2014 were in contradiction to his understanding of Mr Satora’s functioning after discharge from the Army, but did not make any concession as to his opinion.
(f)Prior to the motor vehicle accident in 2014 there is no evidence that Mr Satora was treated for any mental health issues and that event caused him to be diagnosed with ‘major depressive disorder’ or ‘adjustment disorder with depressed mood’ with no prior history of any psychiatric illness.
(g)Dr Shaikh’s opinion of a diagnosis of Mr Satora as having an ‘adjustment disorder’ that has resolved is consistent with the factual findings of the Tribunal.
Was Mr Satora’s ‘adjustment disorder’ contributed to, to a ‘material’ or ‘significant’ degree, by his employment so as to constitute a ‘disease’?
The earliest Mr Satora sought treatment for a mental health condition arises on the evidence as a consequence of the motor vehicle accident in 2014. As such, pursuant to s 7(4) of the DRCA, the earliest possible date Mr Satora can be taken have sustained a mental health disease under the DRCA is 2014.
The definition of ‘injury’ under ss 5A(1) of the DRCA includes ‘a disease suffered by an employee’. Subsection 5B(1) of the DRCA defines ‘disease’ to mean either ‘an ailment suffered by an employee’ or ‘an aggravation of such an ailment’, that was ‘contributed to, to a significant degree, by the employee’s employment by the Commonwealth’.
The application of the term ‘contributed to a significant degree by the employee’s employment by the Commonwealth or a licensee’ in s 5B of the SRC Act, in the same terms as s 5B of the DRCA, was considered in Comcare v Power [2015] FCA 1502 by Katzmann J at [93]-[94]:[68]
There is no room for doubt that the purpose of the 2007 amendments was to strengthen the connection necessary between the employment and the contraction or aggravation of a disease. Including a definition of “significant” as “substantially more than material” makes this abundantly clear. In other words, it is insufficient that the contribution of the employment be “more than trivial”; it had to be substantially more than trivial. The Tribunal did not recognise this, despite its reference to the definition. The error the Tribunal made is similar to the one made by the Tribunal in Sahu-Khan. In a valiant attempt to save the decision Ms Robinson drew attention to the fact that Dr Lewin had said “certainly more than trivial”, but this was no more than an emphatic way of saying “more than trivial”. It did not satisfy the statutory test and the Tribunal was mistaken in thinking otherwise.
Moreover, the current test of contribution also requires an evaluative exercise to be undertaken. That is apparent both from the words used in subs (1) of s 5B and also the matters to which subs (2) draws attention. The Tribunal did not engage with any of them. Indeed, it did not mention subs (2) at all. While the chapeau to the subsection states that those matters “may” (not “shall”) be taken into account, a word which is generally permissive, properly construed it is at least arguable that in this context it is directory; in other words that “may” means “shall”: see Julius v Lord Bishop of Oxford (1880) 5 App Cas 214 at 222–223 (Earl Cairns LC); NorthAustralian Aboriginal Justice Agency Ltd v Northern Territory [2015] HCA 41 at [209] (Nettle and Gordon JJ). In the absence of argument on this question I refrain from expressing a concluded view. Nevertheless, there is nothing in the Tribunal’s reasons to indicate that it carried out the kind of evaluative exercise required by the statute.
[68] [2015] FCA 1502 at [93]-[94].
In deciding whether Mr Satora’s was contributed to a ‘significant degree’ (substantially more than material) by his service with the Army, the DRCA expressly provides by reference to s 5B(2) matters for the Tribunal to consider including the duration of his service; the nature of, and particular tasks involved in his service; any predisposition of the member to; and activities of the member not related to his service; and any other matters affecting the member’s health.
The list is non-exhaustive, and s 5B(2) specifically provides that the matters listed do ‘not limit the matters that may be taken into account’.
The Tribunal is not reasonably satisfied that Mr Satora’s Army service significantly contributed to Mr Satora’s condition of ‘adjustment disorder’ because:
(a)The most significant cause of Mr Satora’s condition of ‘adjustment disorder’ was the death of his twins and the end of his relationship with his then wife in 1977.
(b)Mr Satora’s experiences in the Army did contribute to Mr Satora’s feelings of anxiety and his ‘adjustment disorder’ but the factual findings of the Tribunal above are not supportive of a finding that they satisfied the requirements of s 5B of the DRCA.
(c)The Tribunal is reasonably satisfied because of the opinion of Dr Shaikh and Mr Satora’s own evidence of his personal circumstances and social functioning in the period before the motor vehicle accident in 2014, that Mr Satora’s condition of ‘adjustment disorder’ had resolved shortly after he discharged from the Army.
(d)Mr Satora’s relatively short service in the Army in the context of his complex personal, financial and family circumstances during his service does not weigh significantly to contributing to his condition of ‘adjustment disorder’.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
Date(s) of hearing: 3, 4 April 2024 Date final submissions received: 4 April 2025 Representation for the Applicant: Mr Gallagher, RSL Advocate Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms Cains, McInnes Wilson ANNEXURE
Schedule of Exhibits
Exhibit R1 Application for review, dated 21 July 2023 (T2)
Exhibit R2 Claim, dated 16 April 2021 (T5)
Exhibit R3 Initial Determination, dated 30 November 2022 (T10)
Exhibit R4 Request for review, dated 1 December 2022 (T11)
Exhibit R5 Reviewable Decision, dated 13 July 2023 (T13)
Exhibit R6
Applicant’s Service Medical Records (T14) Exhibit R7 Applicant’s Service Personnel Records (T16)
Exhibit R8 Applicant’s Psychological Records (T15)
Exhibit R9 Summonsed Records from Chevron After Hours Medical Centre – Patient Health Summary, dated 7 May 2024 (HB Vol 2 - 5.3 – Pages 284 – 285)
Exhibit R10 Summonsed Records from Toowoomba Medical and Dental – Complete Record, dated 9 November 2023 (HB Vol 3 - 5.11 – Pages 310 – 332)
Exhibit R11 Summonsed Records from Middle Ridge Family Practice – Summons to Produce Documents and Consultation Notes (HB Vol 3 - 5.8 – Pages 66 – 75)
Exhibit R12 Summonsed Records from Toowoomba Medical and Dental - Dr Andrew Whittaker’s Determination, dated 7 October 2010 (HB Vol 3 – 5.11 – Page 338)
Exhibit R13 Summonsed Records from Dr Catharina Van De Hoef, Dr Philip M. Yantsch and Dr Andrew West, dated 6 December 2013, 15 January 2012 and 1 December 2011 – Toowoomba Medical and Dental (HB Vol 3 – 5.11 - Page 326)
Exhibit R14 Summonsed Records from Middle Ridge Family Practice – Consultation Notes (HB Vol 3 – 5.8 – Pages 66-91) Exhibit R15 Summonsed Records from Renew Psychology – Case Notes (HB Vol 3 – 5.9 – Pages 218-222) Exhibit R16 Summonsed Records of Allianz Australia - Dr David Storor’s Medical Report on the Applicant, dated 31 July 2015 (HB Vol 2 – 5.1 – Pages 84-93)
Exhibit R17 Summonsed Records from Renew Psychology – Letter from Dr F T Varghese dated 29 October 2015 (HB Vol 3 – 5.9 – Pages 256)
Exhibit R18 Summonsed Records of Allianz Australia – Independent Medico-Legal Report from Dr Simon Journeaux, dated 13 October 2015 (HB Vol 2 – 5.1 – Pages 113 – 127)
Exhibit R19 Summonsed Records of Allianz Australia – Occupational Therapy Report from Zitek Consulting, dated 1 July 2016 (HB Vol 2 – 5.1 – Pages 158 – 176)
Exhibit R20 Summonsed Records from Toowoomba Medical and Dental – Letter from Dr Hardus Cronje, dated 15 December 2015 (HB Vol 3 – 5.11 – Page 346)
Exhibit R21 Summonsed Records from Renew Psychology – Letter from Dr Ashrath, dated 16 June 2017 (HB Vol 3 – 5.9 – Page 290)
Exhibit R22 Summonsed Records from Turbot Street Medical Centre – Assessment from Dr Sid O’Toole, dated 30 December 2020 (HB Vol 3 – 5.12 – Page 411-412)
Exhibit R23 DVA Session 9 (HB Vol 2 – Pages 334-335)
Exhibit R24 Medical Report of Dr John Gavilan, dated 26 October 2022 (Psychiatrist) (T9)
Exhibit R25 Summonsed Records from Dr John Gavilan - Dr John Gavilan’s Psychiatrist Statement, dated 6 April 2021 (HB Vol 2 – Pages 297-299)
Exhibit R26 Summonsed Records from Dr Leah Simpson - DVA Session 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 & Dr Vivian Cham’s Reports, dated 3 May 2022 and 24 July 2022 (HB Vol 2 – Pages 313-315, 324-325, 326-329, 330-331, 353-355, 356-357)
Exhibit R27 Briefing letter to Dr Wasim Shaikh, dated 6 February 2024 (HB Vol 1 - 4.1)
Exhibit R28 Letter to Dr Shaikh, dated 6 February 2024 (HB Vol 1 - 4.2)
Exhibit R29 Medical Report of Dr Wasim Shaikh, dated 14 March 2024 (HB Vol 1 - 4.3)
Exhibit R30 Letter to Dr Shaikh, dated 9 September 2024 (HB Vol 1 - 4.5)
Exhibit R31 Supplementary Medical Report of Dr Wasim Shaikh, dated 12 September 2024 (HB Vol 1 - 4.6)
Exhibit A1 Applicant’s statutory declaration, dated 3 April 2024 (HB Vol 1 2.3.1)
Exhibit A2 Applicant’s statutory declaration, dated 6 December 2024 (HB Vol 1 2.3.2)
Exhibit A3 Applicant’s statement, dated 30 October 2023 (HB Vol 1 3.1)
Exhibit A4 Statutory Declaration of Ms Debbie Satora (Applicant’s Partner), dated 10 December 2022 (T11.1)
Exhibit A5 Statutory Declaration of Ms Lucy Okilicz (Applicant’s Sister), dated 10 December 2022 (T11.2)
Exhibit A6 Medical Report of Dr Manfred Penzhorn, dated 5 July 2023 (T2.1)
Exhibit A7 Supplementary Report of Dr Manfred Penzhorn, Consultant Psychiatrist, dated 15 July 2024 (HB Vol 1 4.4)
Exhibit A8 Correspondence from Dr Manfred Penzhorn on the Applicant’s capacity to give evidence
Exhibit A9 Diagnosis Letter from Dr Manfred Penzhorn on the Applicant (Paragraph 1 Struck Out), dated 4 April 2024
0
11
0