Legal Research
Cases
Talukder v Dunbar

Talukder v Dunbar

Case [2009] ACTSC 42 16 April 2009

Type to search within this case.

SHAMSUDDIN TALUKDER v JARRYD DUNBAR
[2009] ACTSC 42 (16 April 2009)

CRIMINAL LAW – assault – domestic violence – sentencing – non-conviction order – s 17 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)

CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – admissibility of evidence – s 4(2) Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)

CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – relevant considerations – s 33 Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) – reasons for decision – use of victim impact statements

JUDICIAL REVIEW – refusal to adjourn to receive further evidence – denial of natural justice

Crimes (Sentencing Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), ss 19B, 26, 556A
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) ss 4(1), 4(2), 190
Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA), s 6
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 15
Sentencing Act (NT), s 104
Sentencing Act 1997 (Tas), s 81
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 17, 17(3)(a)-(c), 17(4), 33, 33(1)(o), 33(1)(r), 36(3)(c), 35(1)(b), 55(3)(r)
Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT), s 214(4)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 19B, 19B(1)(b)(i)-(iii)

Weinberg M, “The Consequences of Failure to Object to Inadmissible Evidence in Criminal Cases” (1978) 11 MULR 408
Ashworth A “Victim Impact Statements and Sentencing” [1993] Crim LR 498
Chalmers J, Duff P and Leverick F “Victim Impact Statements: Can Work, Do Work (For Those Who Bother to Make Them)” [2007] Crim LR 360
Flatman G and Bogaric M, “The Victim and the Prosecutor: the Relevance of Victims in Prosecution Decision Making” (2001) 6 Deakin L Rev 238

Yassin v Williams [2007] WASC 8
R v Bourchas (2002) 133 A Crim R 413
R v Reid [1999] NSWCCA 258
R v Meier (unreported, NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Dowd and Hidden JJ, 21 May 1996)
R v Storey [1998] 1 VR 359
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
R v Capobianco [1978] 20 ACTR 29
R v Bell [2005] ACTSC 123
Hamilton v Littlejohn [2006] TASSC 109
Bennett v Coombs [2007] TASSC 53
Sullivan v Department of Transport (1978) 20 ALR 323
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Ozakca and Anor (2006) 68 NSWLR 325
Cropper v Smith (1884) 26 Ch D 700
Cross v Police [2001] SASC 47
Acuthan v Coates (1986) 6 NSWLR 472
Mifsud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725
Szewczuk v Police [2001] SASC 223
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Carpenter v Purcell [2008] ACTSC 34
Kent v Arley [2007] ACTSC 66
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Baffsky (2001) 122 A Crim R 568
Lumby v Cooper [2008] ACTSC 53

ON APPEAL FROM THE ACT MAGISTRATES COURT

No. SCA 112 of 2008

Judge: Refshauge J
Supreme Court of the ACT

Date: 16 April 2009

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )
  )          No. SCA 112 of 2008
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )

ON APPEAL FROM THE ACT MAGISTRATES COURT

BETWEEN:SHAMSUDDIN TALUKDER
Appellant

AND:JARRYD DUNBAR
Respondent

ORDER

Judge:  Refshauge J
Date:  16 April 2009
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be allowed.

The sentence of the Learned Magistrate imposed on 19 November…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Talukder v Dunbar

Details

AGLC: Talukder v Dunbar [2009] ACTSC 42
Case: [2009] ACTSC 42
Decision Date: 16 April 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Talukder v Dunbar involved a sentencing matter where Talukder, the defendant, appealed against the decision of the lower court. Talukder was charged with assault related to domestic violence. The dispute centred on the appropriateness of the sentence imposed and the admissibility of certain evidence presented during the sentencing process. The Australian Capital Territory Court of Appeal was tasked with reviewing the lower court's decision and the legal framework applied.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the lower court erred in its application of the relevant statutory provisions, specifically sections 17, 33, and 4(2) of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) and the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). The court had to determine if the lower court appropriately considered the evidence, including victim impact statements, and whether the decision-making process adhered to the principles of natural justice. Additionally, the court considered whether the refusal to adjourn to receive further evidence was justified.

In its reasoning, the court found that the lower court did not properly consider the evidence in line with the statutory requirements. The court held that the sentencing judge failed to sufficiently address the factors mandated by section 33 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), particularly the need to consider the impact on the victim. The court also determined that the evidence presented, including victim impact statements, was relevant and should have been considered. Moreover, the refusal to adjourn to receive further evidence was seen as a breach of natural justice principles. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and remitted the matter back to the lower court for re-sentencing.

The final order of the court was that the appeal be allowed, and the case was remitted to the lower court for re-sentencing in light of the court's findings. This decision underscores the importance of thorough consideration of statutory requirements and the principles of natural justice in sentencing proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal be allowed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Talukder v Dunbar [2009] ACTSC 42

Most Recent Citation

Travini v Starczewski [2009] ACTSC 123

Cases citing this decision · 26 of 26 shown

Police v Margaret Smith (a pseudonym)
[2025] ACTMC 7

…n (2013) 249 CLR 571 Hoskins v R [2021] NSWCCA 169 R v Irwin [2019] NSWCCA 133 Lupton v R [2024] NSWCCA 29 Lloyd v The Queen [2022] NSWCCA 18 Talukder v Dunbar (2009) 194 A Crim R 545 Dungay v R [2020] NSWCCA 209 IS v R [2017] NSWCCA 116 R v Henry [1999] 46 NSWLR 346 Hayek v R [2016] NSWCCA 126 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010…
R v Shepherd (No 2)
[2022] ACTSC 248 Para 1

…ce Act , however, does not leave the Court in an evidentiary vacuum. It has been held that the common law of evidence then applies: Talukder v Dunbar [2009] ACTSC 42; 194 A Crim R 545 at 549; [19].…
R v Peric (No 3)
[2022] ACTSC 387

…2020] ACTSC 375 R v Peric [2022] ACTSC 385 R v Ridley [2014] ACTSC 382 R v Smith [2020] ACTSC 277 Shaw v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 58 Talukder v Dunbar [2009] ACTSC 42; 194 A Crim R 545…
In the matter of an application for bail by Slobodan Novakovic (a.k.a. Daniel Noland) (No 2)
[2022] ACTSC 73 Para 1

…This is similar to the position in sentencing hearings which was described in Talukder v Dunbar [2009] ACTSC 42; 194 A Crim R 545 at 549-550; [19]-[25]. As there described, however, any challenge to that evidence by the other party must then be addressed, such as by more traditional evidence, possibly oral sworn e…
R v Peric
[2022] ACTSC 385 Para 1

…ds to the possibility of psychological damage and risks creating offenders out of those children who witness such violence: Talukder v Dunbar [2009] ACTSC 42 at [32].…
R v Bonfield
[2021] ACTSC 362 Para 1

…ibed family violence in R v Bell [2005] ACTSC 123 at [30], it is “a pernicious and evil phenomenon”. It is, as was explained in Talukder v Dunbar [2009] ACTSC 42; 194 A Crim R 545 at 551; [32], more serious when committed in in the presence of children. In those circumstances, it has ongoing effects where children…
Louise Hawke v Thomas Smith (a pseudonym); Louise Hawke v Alexander Brown (a pseudonym); Louise Hawke v Montgomery White; Louise Hawke v Jaxson Kirkwood; Louise Hawke v Emmanuel Umunakwe; Louise Hawke v Samuel West..
[2021] ACTMC 13

…cutor or the Magistrate, the court will ordinarily accept that the asserted facts are proved without the necessity of formal proof: Talukder v Dunbar [2009] ACTSC 42; (2009) 194 A Crim R 545 at [24].…
R v Elson
[2020] ACTSC 264 Para 1

…017] ACTSC 247 at [32]. This includes psychological damage and the risk of creating offenders out of children who witness violence: Talukder v Dunbar [2009] ACTSC 42 at [32]. This is particularly pertinent in the present case, as the offender reported to the pre-sentence report author that he witnessed significant…
Valencic v Jordan
[2017] ACTSC 120 Para 1

…Counsel referred me to the case of Talukder v Dunbar [2009] ACTSC 42; 194 A Crim R 545 in which Refshauge J said about the material before a court in a sentencing hearing:…
Beniamini v Craig
[2017] ACTSC 30 Para 1

…he need for the offender to know the reasons for the sentence imposed: Goundar v Goddard [2010] ACTSC 56; 240 FLR 176 at 183; [41]; Talukder v Dunbar [2009] ACTSC 42; 194 A Crim R 545 at 556; [60].…
Poole v Edwards
[2016] ACTSC 159 Para 1

…t, unless particularly relevant, distinguish between the sworn evidence and the submissions which, not inappropriately, included factual matters. See Talukder v Dunbar (2009) 194 A Crim R 545 at 549-50; [22]-[25].…
Mearns v Neill
[2016] ACTSC 36

…249 CLR 600 Proud v Sladic [2014] ACTCA 26 R v Ang [2014] ACTCA 17 R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270 Roseby v Harman [2014] ACTSC 125 Talukder v Dunbar [2009] ACTSC 42 The Queen v CV [2013] ACTCA 22 Tuckey v Ede [2010] ACTSC 95…
Preston v Carnall
[2015] ACTSC 325 Para 1

…The circumstances where refusal of an adjournment may vitiate proceedings has been considered in Talukder v Dunbar (2009) 194 A Crim R 545 at 552-5; [38]-[48]. The circumstances that justified appellate intervention there were quite different from the situation here. There was no denial of natural justice involved here as…
Hall v Pendelton
[2015] ACTSC 205 Para 1

…enged by the prosecutor or the Magistrate, the court will ordinarily accept that the asserted facts are proved without the necessity of formal proof: Talukder v Dunbar (2009) 194 A Crim R 545 at [24].…
Ede v Hyde
[2014] ACTSC 305 Para 1

…In relation to the failure to offer an adjournment, counsel for Mr Ede sought to rely on Talukder v Dunbar [2009] ACTSC 42, in which Refshauge J upheld an appeal against a refusal to make a s 17 order. However, that decision depended on a finding that the Magistrate had erred in refusing the defendant a brief adjo…
Smorhun v Devine
[2014] ACTSC 208

…130 Lumby v Cooper [2008] ACTSC 53 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59 R v Wanganeen [2010] SASC 237 Seears v Norman [2013] ACTSC 7 Talukder v Dunbar [2009] ACTSC 42 The Queen v Colin Booth [2004] ACTCA 21 The Queen v TW (2011) 6 ACTLR 18…
Hambrook v Duke
[2014] ACTSC 203 Para 1

…As I pointed out in Talukder v Dunbar (2009) 194 A Crim R 545 at 549; [20], assertions of fact made “from the bar table” become evidence admitted unless there is a challenge to them. Accordingly, there was evidence on which the learned Sentencing Magistrate was able to rely which permitted him to make the finding he did.…
Byrne v Mingay
[2014] ACTSC 126 Para 1

…pressly articulated to the learned Magistrate his challenge to the assertion. He did not accept it. That brings into play the approach I described in Talukder v Dunbar (2009) 194 A Crim R 545 at 549-50; [20]-[23]. That approach was not adopted by the prosecution at sentence and so the mother’s assertion remained just that,…
Woodlee v Callaghan
[2013] ACTSC 60 Para 17

…mmon in the Magistrates Court on a plea of guilty to such matters, given orally from the bar table by the appellant’s lawyer. See Talukder v Dunbar [2009] ACTSC 42 (at [17]-[25]). ... Neither the Learned Magistrate nor the prosecution took any exception to these details being given from the bar table, nor indicate…
Snowden v Clark
[2012] ACTSC 90 Para 1

…I note that the case which was referred to by counsel for the appellant, Talukder v Dunbar [2009] ACTSC 42 ( Talukder ) is of little assistance in determining whether the sentence imposed by her Honour is outside the appropriate range with respect to offences of this nature. Whilst a non-conviction order pursuant…
Garoup Bol Guak Dhol v Jane Glenda MacKenzie
[2011] ACTSC 193 Para 1

…Mr Dhol’s counsel referred to what I said in Talukder v Dunbar (2009) 194 A Crim R 545 (at 549-50; [22] to [25]) as follows:…
Butler v Vickers
[2011] ACTSC 134 Para 1

…That is not the correct position. I addressed this in Talukder v Dunbar (2009) 194 A Crim R 545 (at 548-50); [16] to [25]). In particular, I referred to what had been said by Winneke, Brooking and Hayne JJA and Southwell AJA in R v Storey [1998] 1 VR 359 (at 371) as follows:…
Elson v Ayton
[2010] ACTSC 70 Para 1

…As I noted in Talukder v Dunbar (2009) 194 A Crim R 545 (at [32]), such assaults in the presence of children are rightly to be regarded as serious. See also R v McKay [2003] NSWCCA 32.…
Goundar v Goddard
[2010] ACTSC 56 Para 1

…The respondent also noted that in a busy Magistrates Court, detailed reasons are not expected. I did note in Talukder v Dunbar [2009] ACTSC 42 (at [60]) that, nevertheless, the offender is entitled to know the reasons for the sentence imposed.…
Apolevski v Kinnane
[2010] ACTSC 43 Para 1

…As I explained in Talukder v Dunbar [2009] ACTSC 42, facts are, especially in a busy Magistrates Court, usually given in sentencing by submissions from counsel at the Bar Table or in documents such as the Pre-Sentence Report. That is not only permissible, but inevitable.…
Travini v Starczewski
[2009] ACTSC 123 Para 1

…mmon in the Magistrates Court on a plea of guilty to such matters, given orally from the bar table by the appellant’s lawyer. See Talukder v Dunbar [2009] ACTSC 42 (at [17]-[25]).…

View all 26 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 27 of 27 shown

Lumby v Cooper
[2008] ACTSC 53 Para 1

…cally requires a court to consider whether a conviction would cause particular hardship on the offender. Thus, as Penfold J set out in Lumby v Cooper [2008] ACTSC 53, a court can consider the significance of a conviction on employment or employment prospects, even though none of the matters set out in s 17(3) are…
Carpenter v Purcell
[2008] ACTSC 34 Para 1

…s made by the sentencer, a court will not intervene if the correction of the error cannot affect the sentence then to be imposed: Carpenter v Purcell [2008] ACTSC 34 at [11].…
Kent v Arley
[2007] ACTSC 66 Para 1

…account of a person’s status as an immigrant and the possibility of deportation when considering sentence. See, for a recent example, Kent v Arley [2007] ACTSC 66 at [8]-[10].…
Bennett v Coombs
[2007] TASSC 53 Para 1

…His Honour repeated these remarks in Bennett v Coombs [2007] TASSC 53.…
Yassin v Williams
[2007] WASC 8 Para 3

…t. While not every list in the Magistrates Court is as congested as those described in the footnote to the judgment of Blaxell J in Yassin v Williams [2007] WASC 8 at [31]-[34], the work of a busy court such as the ACT Magistrates Court could not be completed were this not the usual way of proceeding.…
DPP v Ozakca
[2006] NSWSC 1425 Para 1

…As Rothman J commented on this passage in Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Ozakca and Anor (2006) 68 NSWLR 325 at 328:…
Hamilton v Littlejohn
[2006] TASSC 109 Para 1

…eless, there are occasions when it is appropriate to do so. In this regard, I gratefully adopt what was said by Underwood CJ in Hamilton v Littlejohn [2006] TASSC 109 at [17]-[22]:…
R v Bell
[2005] ACTSC 123 Para 1

…emale, a domestic violence assault, committed in front of the children. Such offences are rightly regarded as serious. As Higgins CJ said in R v Bell [2005] ACTSC 123 at [30]-[31]:…
Commissioner of Taxation v Baffsky
[2001] NSWCCA 332 Para 1

…1914 (Cth), the Commonwealth non-conviction sentence regime, s 17 of the Sentencing Act does not require the two-stage process that was described in Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Baffsky (2001) 122 A Crim R 568.…
Cross v Police
[2001] SASC 47 Para 1

…Thus, in Cross v Police [2001] SASC 47, Olsson J noted (at [21]):…
R v Olbrich
[1999] HCA 54 Para 1

…the offence and circumstances of aggravation, and the defence to prove matters of mitigation on the balance of probabilities: R v Storey; R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270. That only means that matters which are asserted by either party need to be proven by strictly admissible evidence or to that standard of proof in a…
R v Reid
[1999] NSWCCA 258 Para 1

…on to it. This accords with the general approach that in relation to evidence, not admissible means “not admissible over objection”: R v Reid [1999] NSWCCA 258 at [5]. As Gleeson CJ said in R v Meier (unreported, NSWCCA, Gleeson CJ, Dowd and Hidden JJ, 21 May 1996) at 19: “ Indeed, as a practical matter, much of the…
Queensland v JL holdings Pty Ltd
[1997] HCA 1

…ly embarrassed position and attempting to stave off proceedings for the sequestration of his estate. Second, in Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 189 CLR 146, Dawson, Gaudron and McHugh JJ, said at 154: It may be said at once that in the passage which we have cited from Sali v SPC Ltd [relating to case managem…
Sali v SPC Ltd
[1993] HCA 47

…iscretion to grant or refuse an adjournment, were stated in these terms by Brennan J (as he then was), Deane and McHugh JJ, in Sali v SPC Ltd (1993) 116 ALR 625 at 628-629: In Maxwell v Keun [1928] 1 KB 645, at 650, 657, 658, the English Court of Appeal held that, although an appellate court will be slow to interfere…
Bloch v Bloch
[1981] HCA 56

…occasions. (See, for example, Walker v Walker [1967] 1 WLR 327, at 330; Carryer v Kelly (1969) 90 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 566, at 569; Bloch v Bloch (1981) 55 ALJR 701, at 703; 37 ALR 55, at 558-9). Moreover, the judgment of Atkin LJ in Maxwell has also been taken to establish a further proposition: an adjournment which, if…
Sullivan v Department of Transport
[1978] FCA 48 Para 1

…s denied natural justice. In this, he relied on what was said by Deane J (with whom Fisher J relevantly agreed) in Sullivan v Department of Transport (1978) 20 ALR 323. At 343, his Honour said:…
Australian Coal and Shale Employees' Federation v The Commonwealth
[1953] HCA 25

…made in the exercise of the judicial discretion. It suffices to simply refer to Australian Coal and Shale Employees’ Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621 at 627 and House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499. With respect to the exercise of the discretion to grant or refuse an application for an adjournment, the New So…
House v R
[1936] HCA 40 Para 1

…nifestly excessive. That another sentence would be appropriate, even if it is one I would have imposed, cannot justify interference: House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 at 504-505; Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 at 671-2.…
Lowndes v The Queen
[1999] HCA 299 Para 1

…er sentence would be appropriate, even if it is one I would have imposed, cannot justify interference: House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 at 504-505; Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 at 671-2.…
[2001] SASC 223
[2001] SASC 223 Para 1

…Nevertheless, Lander J, in Szewczuk v Police [2001] SASC 223, set out helpfully what is to be expected in reasons for sentence. His Honour said (at [32]-[33]):…
[1977] 1 NZLR 630
[1977] 1 NZLR 630

…is not only “disappointed” but “disturbed” – to use the words which appear in the New Zealand case of Connell v Auckland City Council [1977] 1 NZLR 630 at 634. It tends to deny both the fact and the appearance of justice having been done. If it does, as in my opinion is the case here, then it will have worked a misc…
[1928] 1 KB 645
[1928] 1 KB 645

…stated in these terms by Brennan J (as he then was), Deane and McHugh JJ, in Sali v SPC Ltd (1993) 116 ALR 625 at 628-629: In Maxwell v Keun [1928] 1 KB 645, at 650, 657, 658, the English Court of Appeal held that, although an appellate court will be slow to interfere with the discretion of a trial judge to refus…
[1967] 1 WLR 327
[1967] 1 WLR 327

…roposition has since become firmly established and has been applied by appellate courts on many occasions. (See, for example, Walker v Walker [1967] 1 WLR 327, at 330; Carryer v Kelly (1969) 90 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 566, at 569; Bloch v Bloch (1981) 55 ALJR 701, at 703; 37 ALR 55, at 558-9). Moreover, the judgment of Atk…
[1968] 1 WLR 1478
[1968] 1 WLR 1478

…opportunity of properly presenting his case even though the party in question has not expressly sought an adjournment (see Priddle v Fisher & Sons [1968] 1 WLR 1478; [1968] 3 All ER 506). In this regard, however, it is important to remember that the relevant duty of the Tribunal is to ensure that a party is given a…
House v The King
63 WN 176 Para 1

…e sentence was manifestly excessive. That another sentence would be appropriate, even if it is one I would have imposed, cannot justify interference: House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 at 504-505; Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 at 671-2.…
Cropper v Smith
(1884) 26 ChD 701 Para 1

…Nevertheless, as Bowen LJ observed in Cropper v Smith (1884) 26 Ch D 700 at 710, “ [c]ourts do not exist for the sake of discipline .” It is in general undesirable that a litigant should be denied the opportunity of putting his or her case at its highest because of the failure of a lawyer representing them, if it can be…
Mifsud v Campbell
(1991) 21 NSWLR 725 Para 1

…Thus, as Samuels JA said in Mifsud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725 at 728:…

Legislation cited in this decision · 10

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
19B, 26, 556A 4 mentions (from Para 1)
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
190, 4(1), 4(2) 4 mentions (from Para 4)
Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)
17, 17(3)(a) 3 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
19B, 19B(1)(b)(i) 3 mentions (from Para 1)
Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT)
214(4) 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Crimes (Sentencing Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)
1 mention
Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988 (SA)
6 1 mention (from Para 1)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA)
15 1 mention (from Para 1)
Sentencing Act 1997 (TAS)
81 1 mention (from Para 1)