Smith and Australian Federal Police (Freedom of Information)
[2016] AATA 531
•25 July 2016
Smith and Australian Federal Police (Freedom of Information) [2016] AATA 531 (25 July 2016)
Division
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION DIVISION
File number
2014/5635
Matthew Smith
APPLICANT
And
Australian Federal Police
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal Dr James Popple, Senior Member Date 25 July 2016 Place Canberra The substituted decision of the Australian Federal Police on 4 February 2015, as altered on 11 July 2016, is affirmed.
................[sgd]........................................................
James Popple, Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION — request for access to documents — whether disclosure would, or could reasonably be expected to, prejudice the maintenance or enforcement of lawful methods for the protection of public safety — whether disclosure would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information — whether disclosure would be contrary to the public interest — whether disclosure would disclose information irrelevant to request — whether all reasonable steps taken to find documents — decision under review affirmed.
LEGISLATION
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, ss 26(1)(b), 42D(1), (4)
Freedom of Information Act 1982, ss 3, 3A, 4(1), 11A(5), 11B(3), 15, 15AC(3), (5), 22, 24A(1), 31B, 37(2)(c), 47F, 54L, 54W(b), 54Y, 58(2), 58A, 61(1)(b), 64(1A), 93A
Legislation Act 2003, s 8
Privacy Act 1988, s 6(1)
CASES
Dreyfus and Secretary, Attorney-General’s Department [2015] AATA 962
Francis and Department of Defence (2012) 59 AAR 35
Prinn and Department of Defence [2016] AATA 445
Rovere and Secretary, Department of Education and Training [2015] AATA 462
Secretary, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and Wood [2015] AATA 945
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, Guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under s 93A of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (October 2014)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Dr James Popple, Senior Member
25 July 2016
Summary
I affirm the decision of the Australian Federal Police (the AFP) to refuse the applicant access to the documents he requested under the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (the FOI Act).
One page of the documents requested is exempt under s 37(2)(c) of the FOI Act because its disclosure could reasonably be expected to prejudice the maintenance or enforcement of lawful methods for the protection of public safety. Other pages are conditionally exempt under s 47F of the FOI Act (because their disclosure would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information) and access to those documents would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.
The AFP took all reasonable steps to find documents falling within the scope of the applicant’s FOI request. And the AFP complied with s 22 of the FOI Act when it provided the applicant with copies of documents he requested, modified by the deletion of information that was irrelevant to his request.
Background
On 13 December 2013, Mr Matthew Smith applied to the AFP under s 15 of the FOI Act for access to the following:
Any document, email or correspondence that has been created, sent or received by Supt Geoff Sundin in relation my attempts to redeploy and transfer to from Cairns Aviation to Geraldton Protection as part of project Macer.
Any document, email or correspondence that has been created, sent or received by OIC Marlene Stevens in relation my attempts to redeploy and transfer to from Cairns to Geraldton Protection as part of project Macer. Including emails between OIC Marlene Stevens, PSO Steven Foster and ex PSO Neryl Beer.
Any document, email or correspondence that has been created, sent or received by PSO/Cont Steven Foster in relation to his attempts to redeploy and transfer to from Cairns to Geraldton Protection as part of project Macer.
Any document, email or correspondence that has been created, sent or received by Kelly Connolly, OIC Marlene Stevens and Supt Geoff Sundin in which my name, part name or my role as CPSU Delegate has been mentioned.
On 20 March 2014, under s 15AC(5) of the FOI Act, the Information Commissioner allowed further time (until 30 April 2014) for the AFP to deal with Mr Smith’s FOI request. The AFP did not make a decision on the request within that time so, because of s 15AC(3), the AFP was deemed to have refused Mr Smith access to the documents that he requested.
On 30 April 2014, Mr Smith applied to the Information Commissioner under s 54L of the FOI Act for IC review of the AFP’s deemed decision. An IC review is a review of an IC reviewable decision undertaken by the Information Commissioner under Part VII of the FOI Act.[1]
[1] FOI Act, s 54G.
On 9 October 2014, the AFP made a decision on Mr Smith’s FOI request. Because of s 54Y of the FOI Act, that decision became the decision under IC review.
In these reasons, I will adopt the shorthand of referring to a document that contains, but is not wholly comprised of, exempt matter[2] as partly exempt. Strictly speaking, under s 31B of the FOI Act, the whole document is exempt if one of the exemptions in Division 2 of Part IV applies; or if one of the conditional exemptions in Division 3 of Part IV applies and access to the document would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest.[3] However, s 22 provides for an FOI applicant to be given access to an edited copy of a partly exempt document, modified by the deletion of the exempt matter. Section 22 also provides for an FOI applicant to be given access to an edited copy a document modified by the deletion of information that is irrelevant to their request. I will adopt the shorthand of referring to documents as being wholly irrelevant[4] or partly irrelevant where they are wholly or partly comprised of irrelevant information.
[2] Section 4(1) of the FOI Act provides that “exempt matter means matter the inclusion of which in a document causes the document to be an exempt document”.
[3] See also the definitions of “conditionally exempt” and “exempt document” in s 4(1).
[4] A document that is wholly irrelevant will be outside the scope of an FOI request: see [31] below.
The AFP’s decision on 9 October was that, of the documents that it had found that fell within the scope of Mr Smith’s FOI request, some were partly exempt and some were partly irrelevant.
On 24 October 2014, the Information Commissioner decided, under s 54W(b), not to undertake an IC review on the basis that the interests of the administration of the FOI Act made it desirable that the IC reviewable decision be considered by the Tribunal.
On that same day, Mr Smith applied to the Tribunal, under s 57A(1)(b) of the FOI Act, for review of the IC reviewable decision.
On 5 January 2015, the Tribunal[5] remitted the reviewable decision to the AFP for reconsideration.[6] On 4 February 2015, the AFP set aside its earlier decision and made a new decision in substitution for that earlier decision. Because of s 42D(4) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the AAT Act), this review became a review of that substituted decision.
[5] Hack DP.
[6] See AAT Act, s 42D(1).
In the months that followed, even up until 8 July 2016, the AFP provided Mr Smith with further documents. On 11 July 2016 (at the hearing), the AFP altered its substituted decision of 4 February 2015, with the consent of Mr Smith and the Tribunal, pursuant to s 26(1)(b) of the AAT Act. The decision was altered to take into account the further documents that had been provided administratively.
Decision under review
The decision under review is the AFP’s substituted decision on 4 February 2015, as altered on 11 July 2016, not to grant Mr Smith access to all of the documents that he requested.
Documents in dispute
Mr Smith has been granted access to some documents; and edited copies of other documents, modified by the deletion of exempt and irrelevant matter. There are 38 pages of documents that remain in dispute in this review (the documents). They are extracts from the handwritten diaries of two AFP officers: Sergeant Marlene Stevens and Sergeant Kelly Connelly. The AFP says that:
·1 page of the documents[7] is partly exempt (because of s 37(2)(c) of the FOI Act) and also partly irrelevant;
·6 pages[8] are partly exempt (because of s 47F) and also partly irrelevant;
·30 pages[9] are partly irrelevant; and
·1 page[10] is wholly irrelevant.[11]
The AFP voluntarily produced to the Tribunal an unedited copy of the documents.[12] I have examined them.
[7] Page 782, as numbered by the AFP.
[8] Pages 907, 913–916 and 918.
[9] Pages 775, 776, 779, 783, 785, 786, 788, 789, 793, 794, 797, 798, 801–803, 805–808, 810, 812, 813, 818, 906, 908–911, 917 and 919.
[10] Page 912.
[11] See [31] below.
[12] See FOI Act, s 64(1A).
Mr Smith says that the AFP has not taken all reasonable steps to find other documents within the scope of his FOI request.
Issues
The issues in this review are:
·Is one page of the documents exempt because of s 37(2)(c) of the FOI Act? That depends on whether disclosure of that page would, or could reasonably be expected to, prejudice the maintenance or enforcement of lawful methods for the protection of public safety.
·Are some of the pages exempt because of s 47F? That depends on:
owhether those pages are conditionally exempt under s 47F (that is, whether their disclosure would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about any person); and
oif they are conditionally exempt, whether access to those pages would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest (s 11A(5)).
·Would disclosure of some of the pages disclose information that would reasonably be regarded as irrelevant to Mr Smith’s FOI request (s 22)?
·Has the AFP taken all reasonable steps to find documents within the scope of Mr Smith’s FOI request (s 24A), or should the Tribunal require the AFP to conduct further searches (s 58A)?
Because of s 61(1)(b) of the FOI Act, the AFP has the onus of establishing that its decision was justified.
Maintenance or enforcement of lawful methods for the protection of public safety (s 37(2)(c))
The AFP says that one page of the documents[13] is exempt under s 37(2)(c) of the FOI Act. Section 37 relevantly provides:
[13] Page 782.
37 Documents affecting enforcement of law and protection of public safety
…
(2)A document is an exempt document if its disclosure under this Act would, or could reasonably be expected to:
…
(c) prejudice the maintenance or enforcement of lawful methods for the protection of public safety.
…
The AFP says—and I have confirmed—that it has redacted from that page details of staffing levels at a location. Mr Smith does not contest the application of s 37(2)(c) to information of that sort.
I think that disclosing the information that the AFP has redacted from that page could reasonably be expected to prejudice the maintenance or enforcement of lawful methods for the protection of public safety. That page is exempt under s 37(2)(c).
Personal privacy (s 47F)
The AFP says that six pages of the documents[14] are exempt under s 47F of the FOI Act. Section 47F relevantly provides:
[14] Pages 907, 913–916 and 918.
47F Public interest conditional exemptions—personal privacy
General rule
(1)A document is conditionally exempt if its disclosure under this Act would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about any person (including a deceased person).
(2)In determining whether the disclosure of the document would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information, an agency or Minister must have regard to the following matters:
(a) the extent to which the information is well known;
(b) whether the person to whom the information relates is known to be (or to have been) associated with the matters dealt with in the document;
(c) the availability of the information from publicly accessible sources;
(d) any other matters that the agency or Minister considers relevant.
Section 4(1) of the FOI Act provides that “personal information has the same meaning as in the Privacy Act 1988”. Section 6(1) of the Privacy Act provides that:
personal information means information or an opinion about an identified individual, or an individual who is reasonably identifiable:
(a) whether the information or opinion is true or not; and
(b) whether the information or opinion is recorded in a material form or not.
The AFP says that it has redacted from those six pages the personal information of third parties, relating to workplace disputes or incidents. Mr Smith does not contest the application of s 47F to information of that sort.
Having examined those six pages, I accept that the AFP has accurately characterised the personal information that it has redacted from those pages. I think that disclosing that redacted information would involve the unreasonable disclosure of personal information about those third parties. Those six pages are conditionally exempt under s 47F.
The Australian Information Commissioner has issued guidelines (the FOI Guidelines) under s 93A(1) of the FOI Act. Section 93A(2) provides that “regard must be had” to the FOI Guidelines for the purposes of performing a function, or exercising a power, under the FOI Act. The FOI Guidelines are not binding, but decision makers, including this Tribunal, should apply the FOI Guidelines unless there are cogent reasons to the contrary.[15]
[15] See Dreyfus and Secretary, Attorney-General’s Department [2015] AATA 962 at [33] per Bennett J; Francis and Department of Defence (2012) 59 AAR 35 at 39–40 [18] per Jarvis DP; Rovere and Secretary, Department of Education and Training [2015] AATA 462 at [12]. But see also Secretary, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet and Wood [2015] AATA 945 at [23]–[27] and Prinn and Department of Defence [2016] AATA 445 at [46]–[57] in which Forgie DP takes a different view. She says that, because the FOI Guidelines are not legislative instruments (s 93A(3)), “they cannot have any effect in determining or altering the content of the law and cannot have any direct or indirect effect on a right or obligation under the FOI Act” (Prinn at [48]). I respectfully disagree that this follows from the definition of “legislative instrument” in s 8 of the Legislation Act 2003: s 8(6)(a) means that the FOI Guidelines are not legislative instruments, notwithstanding s 8(4)(b). Applying the FOI Guidelines in “determining particular cases or particular circumstances in which the law … is to apply” is entirely consistent with the FOI Guidelines not being legislative instruments: see Legislation Act, s 8(4)(b)(i). And I do not think that applying the FOI Guidelines in this way when deciding how best to perform a function, or exercise a power, under the FOI Act means that the FOI Guidelines are determining or altering the content of the law. Respectfully, I also do not share Forgie DP’s concern about applying the FOI Guidelines when reviewing a decision made by the Information Commissioner (Prinn at [57]). But, in any event, that issue does not arise in this review (see [10] above).
Section 11A(5) of the FOI Act provides that, if a document is conditionally exempt, it must be disclosed “unless (in the circumstances) access to the document at that time would, on balance, be contrary to the public interest”. As the FOI Guidelines point out, “[t]he pro-disclosure principle declared in the objects of the FOI Act is given specific effect in the public interest test, as the test is weighted towards disclosure”.[16]
[16] Office of the Australian Information Commissioner, Guidelines issued by the Australian Information Commissioner under s 93A of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (October 2014) at [6.12]. The objects of the FOI Act are set out in ss 3 and 3A.
However, none of the factors favouring access set out in s 11B(3) of the FOI Act applies in this review, except that access to the information would promote the objects of the FOI Act by increasing scrutiny of Government’s activities.[17] And none of the further factors favouring access listed in the FOI Guidelines applies.[18] I think that access could reasonably be expected to prejudice the protection of the right to privacy of the third parties whose personal information has been redacted, which is a factor against disclosure.[19] On balance, I think that access to the six pages would be contrary to the public interest.
[17] See ss 11B(3)(a) and 3(2)(b).
[18] FOI Guidelines at [6.25].
[19] See FOI Guidelines at [6.29], paragraph (a).
It follows that the six pages from which the AFP redacted personal information are exempt under s 47F of the FOI Act.
Information irrelevant to Mr Smith’s FOI request (s 22)
The AFP has redacted information from all 38 pages of the documents[20] on the basis that that information is irrelevant to Mr Smith’s FOI request. Section 22 of the FOI Act relevantly provides:
[20] Pages 775, 776, 779, 782, 783, 785, 786, 788, 789, 793, 794, 797, 798, 801–803, 805–808, 810, 812, 813, 818, 906, 907–919.
22 Access to edited copies with exempt or irrelevant matter deleted
Scope
(1)This section applies if:
(a) an agency or Minister decides:
…
(ii)that to give access to a document would disclose information that would reasonably be regarded as irrelevant to the request for access; and
(b) it is possible for the agency or Minister to prepare a copy (an edited copy) of the document, modified by deletions, ensuring that:
…
(ii)the edited copy would not disclose any information that would reasonably be regarded as irrelevant to the request; and
(c) it is reasonably practicable for the agency or Minister to prepare the edited copy, having regard to:
(i)the nature and extent of the modification; and
(ii)the resources available to modify the document; …
…
Access to edited copy
(2)The agency or Minister must:
(a) prepare the edited copy as mentioned in paragraph (1)(b); and
(b) give the applicant access to the edited copy.
The documents are extracts from the official diary of Ms Stevens (then a sergeant, since retired) and a diary of Sergeant Connelly. Some of the information that the AFP has redacted from Ms Stevens’s diary concerns a Mr Smith which the AFP says is not the applicant but an individual with the same surname. It is not clear on the face of the documents that these references are to a different person. However, Ms Stevens gave evidence that the redacted references were not to the applicant. I accept Ms Stevens as a witness of truth. It follows that these references are to a person other than the applicant, and are not relevant to his FOI request. Having examined the documents, I think it sufficiently clear that the other information that the AFP has redacted on the basis that it is irrelevant to Mr Smith’s FOI request is indeed irrelevant to the request.
This is also true of one page[21] from which the AFP has redacted all of the information. If a page like this—wholly irrelevant—is thought of as a document, then it is a document falling entirely outside the scope of the FOI request. An agency is not required to provide an FOI applicant with a redacted copy of such a document. At the hearing, the AFP explained that it provided Mr Smith with a redacted copy of this page because he had expressly asked for diary notes for the dates covered on the page.
[21] Page 912.
The information that the AFP redacted from all 38 pages was information irrelevant to Mr Smith’s FOI request. The AFP complied with s 22 of the FOI Act when it provided him with copies of the documents modified by the deletion of this irrelevant information.
Giving access to irrelevant information
The FOI Act does not limit an agency’s power to give access to a document, including an exempt document: once an agency has decided that a document is exempt, it has the discretion to give access to the document unless there is some legal restraint on access being given.[22] Because of s 58(2), the Tribunal cannot decide to give access to an exempt document. But the same is not true of a document that contains irrelevant material. It is open to me—as it was open to the AFP—to decide that Mr Smith be given access to copies of the documents with the irrelevant material included.
[22] See s 3A. For example, a secrecy provision in another Act may apply to restrict access to a document.
The AFP says that I should not give Mr Smith access to the irrelevant information. It says that it has not considered whether any exemptions under the FOI Act might apply to the irrelevant information. The AFP points out that the FOI Guidelines support the use of s 22 in these circumstances because:
An agency may not have to consider whether the deleted information is exempt or if a third party should be consulted, and can more quickly reach a decision to provide access to the non-exempt information, and perhaps at a lower access charge. An applicant who disagrees that information deleted from a document is irrelevant to the request can make a fresh FOI request, as an alternative to seeking internal or IC review of the agency’s decision.[23]
I accept that further analysis (by the AFP or by me) of the irrelevant information might reveal that some of the irrelevant information is exempt material. Because of s 22(1)(c) (quoted above),[24] s 22 applies only if it is reasonably practicable to prepare an edited copy for the applicant. I do not think it is reasonably practicable (for the AFP or for me) to conduct a further analysis of information that (because it is irrelevant information) is information that Mr Smith did not request.
[23] FOI Guidelines at [3.86].
[24] See [29] above.
Giving access to relevant information in documents not in dispute
During the hearing it emerged that some information redacted from documents on the basis that it is irrelevant, is actually relevant to Mr Smith’s claim. This information is contained in documents that are not in dispute in this review.
Some of the diary entries in the documents, and in documents not in dispute, span more than one page for a given day: part of a diary entry might appear on a different (later) page than the page on which the date heading was written. In some cases, Mr Smith has been given access to a page which contains part of a diary entry but not given access to the (earlier) page on which the date of that diary entry was written. The AFP has since advised Mr Smith of the dates of each diary entry for which he was not given access to the date heading.
The AFP was in error when it decided that those date headings were irrelevant to Mr Smith’s FOI request. The date of a diary entry is clearly relevant to all of that entry, whether or not that entry continues over several pages. Nonetheless, I do not think that I should decide that Mr Smith should be given access to copies of the pages with the missing date headings, wholly redacted apart from those headings. This would be practicable, but I do not think it would be reasonably practicable[25] given that the AFP has already separately provided Mr Smith with all of the (relevant) information that each of those pages contains: the date that applies to the diary entry on a later page.
[25] See s 22(1)(c), quoted at [29] above.
Adequacy of search (ss 24A and 58A)
Section 24A(1) of the FOI Act provides that:
24A Requests may be refused if documents cannot be found, do not exist or have not been received
Document lost or non-existent
(1)An agency or Minister may refuse a request for access to a document if:
(a) all reasonable steps have been taken to find the document; and
(b) the agency or Minister is satisfied that the document:
(i)is in the agency’s or Minister’s possession but cannot be found; or
(ii)does not exist.
The FOI Guidelines explain that:
The Act is silent on what constitutes “all reasonable steps”. Agencies should undertake a reasonable search on a flexible and common sense interpretation of the terms of the request. What constitutes a reasonable search will depend on the circumstances of each request and will be influenced by the normal business practices in the agency’s operating environment.[26]
[26] FOI Guidelines at [3.81].
Section 58A provides that, if access to a document is refused under s 24A or access to a document is purportedly given but not actually given, the Tribunal may require an agency to conduct further searches for the document.
Mr Smith says that the AFP has other documents which are within the scope of his FOI request, and that the AFP has not taken all reasonable steps to find those documents or has found them but has not given him access to them.
Mr Nathan Scudder is Coordinator of the AFP’s FOI team. Mr Warren Leyden is the Operations Officer for an area of the AFP called AFP Protection. Both Mr Scudder and Mr Leyden gave evidence about the searches that the AFP conducted in response to Mr Smith’s FOI request. I accept them both as witnesses of truth. They each explained searches that were conducted of the AFP’s records, both electronic and hardcopy. The AFP searched the e-mail accounts, including archived e-mails, of current and previous employees.
Following correspondence with Mr Smith, and conciliation conferences conducted by the Tribunal, the AFP made further searches for specific e-mails, of specific dates and with specific subject headings. At Mr Scudder’s request, Mr Leyden provided a list of four group e-mail accounts, and Mr Scudder arranged for searches of those e-mails. Also at Mr Scudder’s request, Mr Leyden conducted searches of copies of the minutes of meetings (within a specified period) of two specified AFP Protection committees (the minutes). Mr Scudder and Mr Leyden say, and I accept, that these searches did not produce any documents relevant to Mr Smith’s FOI request apart from those to which he has been given access or which are in dispute in this review.
Mr Smith has suggested that, because of the physical proximity of Mr Leyden’s workstation to the workstations of other AFP officers with whom Mr Smith has had dealings, Mr Leyden may have been subject to untoward influence when he conducted his search of AFP documents. Mr Leyden denies this. I accept that Mr Leyden conducted the searches properly. In any event, I note that Mr Leyden was involved in only some of the searching that the AFP conducted.
Mr Smith says that, based on his own knowledge of events involving him and other AFP officers, it is likely that he is mentioned in the minutes. Mr Leyden says that there is no mention of Mr Smith in the minutes. He also says that the meetings to which the minutes relate are conducted at a high, strategic level, and that individuals are rarely mentioned. I accept this evidence from Mr Leyden.
Mr Smith says that the list of group e-mail accounts that Mr Leyden provided to Mr Scudder was incomplete: that he should also have listed two further specified accounts. It is possible that a search of those extra two group e-mail accounts may have produced further documents within the scope of Mr Smith’s FOI request, but I think that unlikely. I have come to that view having regard to the broad scope of the e-mail searches that had already been conducted.
The AFP says that its searches were exhaustive, and only limited in response to consultation with Mr Smith. I think that the searches that the AFP conducted were reasonable steps taken to find documents subject to Mr Smith’s FOI request. I do not think that the fact that further documents were found, and provided to Mr Smith (some redacted) in the months that followed the AFP’s decision, is indicative of inadequacies in the AFP’s original searches. I think it is indicative of the AFP’s responsiveness to the further information Mr Smith provided about the documents he seeks.
The AFP took all reasonable steps to find documents falling within the scope of Mr Smith’s FOI request. I am satisfied that any other such documents cannot be found or do not exist (s 24A(1)). I should not require the AFP to conduct further searches (s 58A).
AFP’s processing of Mr Smith’s FOI request
Mr Smith points out that some of the documents to which the AFP has given him access are out of order and confusing. For example, as noted above,[27] the date of some diary entries is not clear on the face of those documents. The AFP concedes that some of those documents were provided out of order and without context. However, the AFP has provided further information to Mr Smith, intended to put those documents into context.
[27] See [35]–[37] above.
In any event, the order in which those documents were provided and the context (or lack of it) with which they were provided are not things that I can consider in this review. It is open to Mr Smith to complain to the Information Commissioner or the Ombudsman[28] about the AFP’s processing of his FOI request.
[28] See FOI Act, Part VIIB.
Conclusion
The documents that the AFP has identified as being exempt under s 37(2)(c) or s 47F of the FOI Act are exempt for those reasons. The information that the AFP has identified as being irrelevant to Mr Smith’s FOI request is irrelevant, and the AFP complied with s 22 when it provided him with copies of the documents modified by the deletion of that irrelevant information. The AFP took all reasonable steps to find documents falling within the scope of Mr Smith’s request, and should not be required to conduct any further searches.
I certify that the preceding 50 (fifty) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Popple ................[sgd]........................................................
Associate
Dated 25 July 2016
Date of hearing 11–12 July 2016 Applicant In person Counsel for the Respondent Ms Katherine Hooper Solicitors for the Respondent HWL Ebsworth, Lawyers
3
4
4