The State of Western Australia v Byrnes
[2022] WADC 104
•28 NOVEMBER 2022
JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL
LOCATION: PERTH
CITATION: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- BYRNES [2022] WADC 104
CORAM: RUSSELL DCJ
HEARD: 4 - 5 OCTOBER 2022
DELIVERED : 28 NOVEMBER 2022
FILE NO/S: IND 2169 of 2020
BETWEEN: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
AND
BROCK RICHARD BYRNES
AND
JANELLE MARIE AUGIMERI
Catchwords:
Sentencing - Trial of issues - Deprivation of liberty - Whether aggravating circumstance - Whether weapon used during offence - Duration of deprivation of liberty - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
State succeeded in proving issue in dispute as aggravating circumstance
Representation:
Counsel:
| The State of Western Australia | : | Mr E A McClintock |
| First Named Accused | : | Mr P Dixon |
| Second Named Accused | : | Ms K E Turtley-Chappel |
Solicitors:
| The State of Western Australia | : | State Director of Public Prosecutions |
| First Named Accused | : | Paul Dixon Barrister & Solicitor |
| Second Named Accused | : | Legal Pathways |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Law v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 193
R v Lobban [2001] SASC 392; (2001) 80 SASR 550
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
RUSSELL DCJ:
Introduction
Brock Richard Byrnes and Janelle Marie Augimeri were each charged, together with Rebecca Pamela Tuffin, as co-offenders on IND 2169 of 2020 that, on or about 27 March 2020 at Northbridge, they:
(a)on count 1, unlawfully detained Kimberley Brooke Anderson, contrary to s 333 of the Criminal Code; and
(b)on count 2, stole from Kimberley Brooke Anderson a suitcase the property of Kimberley Brooke Anderson, contrary to s 378 of the Criminal Code.
Mr Byrnes entered pleas of guilty to both charges on the indictment on 16 May 2022.
Ms Augimeri entered pleas of guilty to both charges on the indictment on 17 May 2022.
Ms Tuffin was also convicted of both offences in May 2022. She entered a plea of guilty to the stealing offence in count 2 on the first day of her trial on 19 May 2022. Ms Tuffin pleaded not guilty to the deprivation of liberty charge in count 1 and was convicted of that offence on 25 May 2022 after trial before a jury. Her Honour Judge Petrusa was the trial judge.
There were disputed issues of fact for the purpose of sentence in relation to Mr Byrnes and Ms Augimeri, and the matter was listed for a trial of the issues. I heard the trial of issues on 4 and 5 October 2022.
For the reasons that follow, the facts I find for the purpose of sentence in relation to the disputed issues of fact are:
1.An axe was produced by Mr Byrnes within minutes of Ms Augimeri first arriving at the apartment at 7.47 pm on 27 March 2020, and remained present until shortly after Ms Tuffin first arrived at the apartment at 8.27 pm, for a period of up to one hour.
2.The duration of Ms Anderson's deprivation of liberty was at least five hours, from about the time Ms Augimeri first arrived at the apartment at 7.47 pm on 27 March 2020, until at least the time Mr Byrnes and Ms Augimeri last left the apartment at 12.58 am on 28 March 2020.
The facts relied upon by the State
The facts relied upon by the State are those set out in the amended statement of material facts dated 28 September 2022, which were read out by counsel for the State at the trial of the issues. I incorporate those facts into these reasons without repeating them in full.
The facts set out in the amended statement of material facts are largely accepted by both Mr Byrnes and Ms Augimeri. The factual issues in dispute for the purpose of sentence are set out in the following section of these reasons.
Mr Byrnes accepts that in respect of count 1, the offence of deprivation of liberty, he was the principal offender by his conduct and actions which included striking Ms Anderson and that his conduct and actions would have communicated to Ms Anderson that she was not free to leave the apartment for a period of time.
In respect of his liability for the stealing offence in count 2, the basis upon which Mr Byrnes entered his plea was under s 7C of the Criminal Code. That is that his presence and detention of Ms Anderson would have aided Ms Tuffin to steal Ms Anderson's property.
Ms Augimeri entered her pleas in relation to both counts 1 and 2 on the basis that she was criminally liable for the offending under s 7C of the Criminal Code by aiding Mr Byrnes in relation to the deprivation of liberty in count 1, and aiding Ms Tuffin in the offence of stealing Ms Anderson's property in count 2.
The State takes no issue with the basis of Mr Byrnes' and Ms Augimeri's criminal liability, as stated above.
Disputed issues of fact
Mr Byrnes' and Ms Augimeri's pleas of guilty necessarily involve admissions by each of them of the elements of the offences the subject of each charge.
By the end of the trial of issues, the issues of fact that remained in dispute that bear on sentence and to be determined were:
1.Whether an axe was produced and was present during Ms Anderson's detention.
2.If I find that an axe was present, for how long?
3.The duration of Ms Anderson's deprivation of liberty.
Counsel for the State conceded that, on the evidence adduced in the trial of issues, the State could not maintain that the axe remained a threat throughout the period of Ms Anderson's detention, as asserted in the amended statement of material facts.
Rather, the State contended that the axe was produced shortly after Ms Augimeri arrived at the apartment and it remained present until shortly after Ms Tuffin arrived. The State submitted that, based on Ms Anderson's evidence and the times recorded in the CCTV footage, the axe was produced by Mr Byrnes shortly after Ms Augimeri arrived at the apartment at 7.47 pm and remained present until shortly after Ms Tuffin arrived at the apartment at about 8.30 pm, and which the State accepted would not have been later than 9.00 pm.
The State contends that the offence in count 1 of deprivation of liberty commenced shortly after Ms Augimeri arrived at the apartment at 7.47 pm on 27 March 2020 and continued until Mr Byrnes and Ms Augimeri left the apartment at approximately 12.58 am on 28 March 2020.
Principles applicable to the trial of issues
The principles relating to the basis upon which a sentencing judge must impose sentence where the offender pleads guilty were set out by the Court of Appeal in Law v The State of Western Australia [2009] WASCA 193 [26] - [34]. Those principles include the following.
As held in R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270 [25]:
1.If the prosecution seeks to have a sentencing judge take a matter into account as an aggravating circumstance, it will be for the prosecution to bring that matter to the judge's attention and, if necessary, call evidence about it.
2.The prosecution must prove an aggravating circumstance beyond reasonable doubt.
3.If the offender seeks to have the sentencing judge take a matter into account as a mitigating circumstance, it will be for the offender to bring that matter to the judge's attention and, if necessary, call evidence about it.
4.The offender must prove a mitigating circumstance on the balance of probabilities.
5.It will only be necessary for the prosecution or the offender to call evidence about an aggravating or mitigating circumstance, as the case may be, if the asserted matter is controverted by the other party or if the sentencing judge is not prepared to act on the assertion, even though not controverted by the other party.
If a sentencing judge is not persuaded of the existence of a particular fact, the absence of that fact does not prove the converse fact, adverse to or in favour of the offender, as the case may be. Where the sentencing judge is not persuaded of the existence of a fact, that fact does not exist for the purposes of sentencing: R v Lobban [2001] SASC 392; (2001) 80 SASR 550.
Relevantly, in this trial of the issues, the State seeks to prove as an aggravating circumstance that an axe was produced and was present during Ms Anderson's detention. As noted above, the State contends an axe was present from shortly after 7.47 pm and remained present until shortly after 8.30 pm, which the State accepted would not have been later than 9.00 pm. The other factual issue to be resolved is the duration of Ms Anderson's deprivation of liberty. The State accepts that it bears the onus of proving those disputed facts beyond reasonable doubt.
The evidence
Evidence relied upon by the State
The State tendered and relied on the contents of the State brief (brief) and incorporated those into the amended statement of material facts read in at the beginning of the trial of issues. The State also played and tendered discs containing:
1.CCTV footage from the apartment in Newcastle Street, Northbridge where Ms Anderson was detained (exhibit 1).
2.Edited video record of interview of Mr Byrnes conducted on 27 April 2020 (exhibit 2).
In relation to the CCTV footage, the State referred me to the CCTV timeline included at brief page 39, which it relied on as an aid as to the time at which Mr Byrnes, Ms Augimeri, Ms Tuffin, Ms Anderson and others are depicted in the CCTV footage arriving at and leaving Ms Anderson's apartment on 27 and 28 March 2020.
Though neither defence counsel took issue with the times stated in the CCTV timeline, I have referred to it as an aid only, and I have directed myself that it is the CCTV footage that is the evidence, not what is stated in the timeline.
The State adduced oral evidence from the victim, Kimberley Brooke Anderson, which I refer to in further detail below.
Counsel for the State drew to my attention that there was some uncertainty in relation to where certain items, including what was described as a tomahawk, were located during the search of Ms Tuffin's car at the time of her arrest. The State referred me to the recording of the search of Ms Tuffin's car, to the photographs at brief pages 54, 56, and 57 and to the property receipt log at brief pages 51 and 52. The property receipt log (at page 52) refers to item 7, described as 'New Zealand passport in name of Kimberley Anderson' and item 10, described as 'Tomahawk in sheath', both recorded as being located in item 11, 'Pink Guess suitcase'.
Counsel for the State read in part of the evidence given by Detective Michael Valastro during the trial of Ms Tuffin in relation to that search, with the agreement of defence counsel. I do not set out that evidence in these reasons. The evidence as read in appears at pages 629 - 631 of the transcript of the trial of issues, and a copy of the extracts of the transcript of the trial of Ms Tuffin were marked for identification as MFI-A in the trial of issues.
Detective Valastro was the investigating officer who conducted the search of Ms Tuffin's car and the two suitcases located in it - the pink Guess suitcase and a black suitcase. The State confirmed that as the evidence is equivocal about whether the items referred to in Detective Valastro's evidence were located inside the pink suitcase or in the open black suitcase in the rear of Ms Tuffin's car pictured at brief pages 56, 57 and 58, the State does not submit those items were located inside the pink suitcase.
Evidence of Kimberley Brooke Anderson
I do not repeat all of Ms Anderson's evidence. Relevantly, her evidence about the events of 27 and 28 March 2020, and the matters in issue was as follows:
1.Ms Anderson is 34 years old. In March 2020, she was 31 years old and worked as an escort and sex worker. She usually received bookings by text or email. She met with clients for the purpose of carrying out bookings at short term accommodation that she worked out of in or near the city.
2.As at March 2020, Ms Anderson had not been in Perth long, just two or three months. She came to know and worked with Rebecca Tuffin, who she described as also being an escort and sex worker.
3.She said that Ms Tuffin hired a car for her so that they could work in Bunbury together. In the days before 27 March 2020, after Ms Anderson had returned from Bunbury, she arranged to meet Ms Tuffin to return the car to Ms Tuffin so that she could return it to the hire company. Ms Tuffin did not turn up and the car was towed from Adelaide Terrace outside the Ibis hotel.
4.Ms Anderson said she found the towing company that had towed the car and she paid for it to be released. After she got the hire car back from the towing company, it was in her possession for another day or so and then went missing. She called the towing company to check it had not been towed again. They said it had not. She did not know, at that stage, what had happened to the car.
5.On Friday, 27 March 2020, she received an enquiry by text message from a new prospective client who referred to himself as Greg. She made arrangements to meet Greg at an apartment that she was using for work in Newcastle Street, Northbridge. She initially met him late morning. He was inside the apartment with her for no more than half an hour. They had a discussion. She said he did not have enough money to go through with the booking and left.
6.The man who had identified himself as Greg contacted Ms Anderson again by text message later in the day saying that he had a friend that he wanted to refer to her to make a booking for a sexual encounter. The man who had referred to himself as Greg came back to see Ms Anderson with a friend sometime in the afternoon on 27 March 2020. Ms Anderson could not remember the other man's name. She said she met the two men downstairs and then took them both up to the apartment. She had not met either of the men before that day.
7.She said the other man seemed nervous. Not long after the two men were in the apartment, the other man said he had forgotten his wallet and left the apartment, leaving Ms Anderson alone in the apartment with the man she then knew as Greg. She later identified the man who had called himself Greg as Brock (Mr Byrnes).
8.After about 10 minutes, the other man came back with 'a girl', who Ms Anderson later identified as Janelle (Ms Augimeri). Ms Anderson said she realised something was wrong. She was not expecting 'the girl' (Ms Augimeri) to be coming into the apartment and no mention had been made of her coming. Ms Anderson asked what she was doing there and she said things started to get frantic. She said she started to wonder what was happening and did not feel safe.
9.Ms Anderson could not remember the exact words spoken but said that there were accusations coming at her from Mr Byrnes and Ms Augimeri, and questions were barked at her about the car. She said that the female (Ms Augimeri) said 'Where's the car?'. She said she did not think that Ms Tuffin's name was mentioned but she put it together that they were asking about the hire car that Ms Tuffin had hired for her. When asked how she would describe the atmosphere in the apartment after the female entered it, Ms Anderson said 'It felt volatile. It was loud'. She said she tried to use her phone to call or notify the person who was there with her before or alert someone. She said the friend that came with Mr Byrnes freaked out saying that she had called the police.
10.Ms Anderson initially said that she thought the other man left at that point. Later in her evidence, she said that he was there when an axe or axes were brought out.
11.She said she did not know if the call was made. The man she now knows to be Mr Byrnes told her to sit down and shut up and hit her in the face. She initially said that he hit her in the face with his fist, then said she was struggling with the order of events, then that there was an axe, then she said he had two axes in a black bag.
12.When asked where he hit her, she said 'on my mouth with like the back of his hand but with the axe in his hand, not with the axe itself, with his hand.' She gestured to show the rear of her hand below her knuckles and above her wrist connecting with her mouth. She did not know which hand the axe was in but said it was in the hand that struck her. When asked if any part of the axe made contact with her, Ms Anderson said she was not sure, maybe the handle but it felt like the back of his hand not the sharp part of the axe.
13.When asked to describe the axe she said it was like a household gardening axe, roughly 30 cm in length with a wooden handle. She said she thought there may have been red on the not sharp part of the middle or the head, but she was not 100% sure. When asked where she saw red, she said the shaft. When asked if it was on the back of the handle she said, 'No, on the metal'.
14.She said that at the point at which she first observed the axe she was anxious, scared, frantic. When asked if she said there were two axes, she said 'I think so, yes'. When asked where that was she said 'I think it was with the friend, the other male. I think they had got one each'.
15.Ms Anderson was asked how long it was between seeing the axe for the first time and when Mr Byrnes struck her. She said not long, maybe no more than a couple of minutes.
16.When asked how long it was from the time the female entered the apartment to when she first saw the axe, Ms Anderson said she thought it was shortly after she arrived. She said at the time Mr Byrnes had the axe and struck her she thinks he said 'sit down and shut up'. He hit her, so she was shocked and had to sit down and shut up. She said the other man left shortly after Ms Augimeri arrived, after the axes came out or things escalated. She could not remember exactly, but thought the other man said something like 'She's called the cops' and he left.
17.She said that either Mr Byrnes or Ms Augimeri told her to wipe her phone and then took it off her. She said that her phone was wiped. She could not remember if they did it or made her do it.
18.She heard Mr Byrnes and Ms Augimeri speaking between themselves saying something like 'How far away is Bec?'. She said that Ms Tuffin arrived shortly after that, within an hour or about an hour after when Ms Anderson first saw the axe. During that time Mr Byrnes and Ms Augimeri asked her about the car. She said she told them about it being towed and getting it out and that it had gone again and she did not know what had happened to it. She said she got the keys to show them she had the keys but the car was missing. She said that Mr Byrnes and Ms Augimeri let Ms Tuffin into the apartment. When Ms Tuffin arrived, the mood was hostile. Ms Tuffin yelled angrily at Ms Anderson.
19.When asked about the axe and whether she saw it again over the hour or so before Ms Tuffin arrived, Ms Anderson said she thinks that Mr Byrnes still had it in his hand for some time, but at some point, either when Ms Tuffin arrived or shortly after, she did not recall seeing it. When asked if she saw the axe at all after Ms Tuffin had been in the apartment, Ms Anderson said 'I can't remember'. Later in her evidence, she said that she believed that Mr Byrnes still had the axe in his hand for a small amount of time after Ms Tuffin arrived. She did not see the axe again after Ms Tuffin left the apartment.
20.Ms Anderson also gave evidence about Ms Tuffin going through her things and showing items to Mr Byrnes and Ms Augimeri.
21.Ms Anderson was shown photographs at pages 18, 19 and 20 of the brief which she described as showing damage to cushions, the arm of the sofa and a blind. She said that Ms Tuffin caused the damage by slashing each of those things with a knife. She said that Mr Byrnes and Ms Augimeri were present when Ms Tuffin did the damage.
22.Ms Anderson described the apartment. She said it was not a big apartment, there was a small dining table, one couch, it was maybe 4 metres long. She said that, once inside the entrance way and the lounge, you can see the kitchen where the dining table is. She said it was all one open area and not that big.
23.She could not remember the exact words but Mr Byrnes, Ms Augimeri and Ms Tuffin spoke about Ms Anderson owing a debt to Ms Tuffin because of the car and to Ms Anderson working under Mr Byrnes' and Ms Augimeri's supervision to pay it off. She said she could not remember seeing the axe when that discussion was happening. She could not remember if she saw it when Ms Tuffin was going through her possessions.
24.Ms Anderson said that while she was sitting on the floor in the lounge, Ms Tuffin came up to her and punched and kicked her. Ms Anderson put her hands over her head to protect her face and head. She said Ms Tuffin was throwing punches and it felt like kicks as well and she dug her fingernails into the back of Ms Anderson's head. She said that Mr Byrnes defused the situation. He told Ms Tuffin to stop or told her that was enough, something along those lines. Ms Tuffin then backed off.
25.Ms Anderson said that Ms Tuffin mentioned wanting to cut Ms Anderson's face and burn her hair and Mr Byrnes said something like 'You can't. She can't work. She won't be able to work in that state', or something along those lines. Ms Tuffin calmed down and stopped. Ms Anderson said that while this was happening Ms Augimeri was in the lounge watching.
26.Ms Anderson said that Ms Tuffin was in the apartment for a couple of hours and her assault on Ms Anderson was closer to her arriving than leaving.
27.When Ms Tuffin left the apartment, she took Ms Anderson's suitcase which she had put some of Ms Anderson's possessions in and left with them. In cross‑examination, Ms Anderson identified the pink suitcase in Ms Tuffin's car, in the photograph at brief page 54, as hers. When Ms Tuffin left, Mr Byrnes and Ms Augimeri stayed at the apartment for at least two or three hours longer. She said that before Ms Tuffin left she heard a discussion between Ms Tuffin, Mr Byrnes and Ms Augimeri about someone coming to the apartment so they could leave and that person would stay and watch her.
28.She said after Ms Tuffin left, another man who she had not seen before, arrived at the apartment. When Mr Byrnes and Ms Augimeri left the apartment, they left Ms Anderson there with that man. She said she understood that he was there to supervise her to make sure she did not leave because they were coming back in the morning.
29.Before Mr Byrnes and Ms Augimeri left, Mr Byrnes asked Ms Anderson to go with him. She went out of the apartment with him and she said that he gave her a small amount of money. She thinks it was $50 or $60, it was under $100 but she cannot remember and he said something to her like 'Show him a good time', referring to the man who had just arrived. She understood that to mean to have sex with him or do a booking with him, a sexual encounter.
30.After she was alone in the apartment with the other man, they spoke a little bit. She had sex with him. It was not sexual assault. She said she earned his trust. She did what she believed to be the best way to get out. After some time, the man left the apartment to go to the service station to get drinks as there was nothing to drink in the apartment. After he had left the apartment, she grabbed some things and left.
31.Ms Anderson identified the people depicted on stills of the CCTV footage as:
(a)Mr Byrnes (in the images at brief page 25);
(b)herself (at brief page 26);
(c)Ms Augimeri (at brief page 27);
(d)herself and Mr Byrnes (at brief page 29);
(e)the man who initially came to the apartment with Mr Byrnes (at brief page 30);
(f)Ms Tuffin (at brief page 31);
(g)Ms Anderson and Mr Byrnes (at brief page 32); and
(h)the man who came later in the evening and then left to go to the service station (at brief page 33).
32.In cross-examination by counsel for Mr Byrnes, Ms Anderson was asked about her drug use around the period 27 March 2020. She said that around that time she used methylamphetamine, GHB and alcohol. She said that GHB was anti-anxiety and would induce her appetite and level out the effects of methylamphetamine. She said that it did not make her drowsy as she used it in miniscule amounts. She described methylamphetamine as an upper that keeps you awake and suppresses your appetite. She accepted that if you use a lot of methylamphetamine and you are not eating and sleeping it can distort your thinking patterns. She said she did not have a specific memory about what her drug use was on 27 March 2020.
33.It was suggested to Ms Anderson that there were inconsistencies in her evidence about there being an axe and the events surrounding that. It was suggested that her evidence at Ms Tuffin's trial in May 2022 was that when she used her phone, the second man noticed, freaked out and said 'She's calling the police I think' or 'She's using her phone' and he took off pretty quickly. She agreed that, in her evidence in May 2022 at Ms Tuffin's trial, the order of events she gave was that she became frantic, she was loud and screamed, saw axes and then got hit.
34.She said she could not trust her recollection in May 2022 as much as she could her statement closer to the event. She said she was struggling with the exact sequence of things when she became distressed. She said she was doing her best to try to recall. She denied she was frantic or her thoughts were distorted because she had been using drugs. She said it was the environment she was in. She was in danger.
35.Ms Anderson was challenged as to why she tried to call the person she had been with before rather than the police. She said she thought that was the quickest thing to do, to dial the last number in her recent calls, the person she had just been with her having pizza and who knew her location. She was trying to do it low key.
36.She accepted that, when she gave her statement to police in March 2020, she said only Mr Byrnes had an axe. She did not mention two axes. She also accepted that in her evidence in May 2022 (at Ms Tuffin's trial), when asked if she saw a second axe, she said she thought she saw two axes and did not know what the movements of the second axe were. She then said she did not know if Mr Byrnes had the second axe in his hand or if the other guy had it 'or took it with'.
37.When it was put to Ms Anderson that in her evidence during the trial of issues, she said 'The second axe, I think was with the other male. I think they had one each', she said she could have got that wrong. She said 'I know there was at least one'.
38.It was suggested to Ms Anderson that her memory about the axe was a faulty memory and that there was no axe or axes on that day. Ms Anderson said she did not believe that to be true. She said she did not believe she was in immediate danger until she saw the weapon - until the axe came out. She said it was not until the axe came out she realised that having a discussion about it was not an option. She said if there was no axe she would not have felt the escalation of the danger. She said that she knows the presence of one axe to be accurate. It is the second that she is not clear on. Later in her evidence, she said she believed she was wrong about the second axe.
39.When asked about conversations she had with Mr Byrnes that night, she said she could not remember exact words. She said she would have to remind herself from what she said in her statement and that she was 'struggling even putting herself back in that traumatic event. I'm just trying to help you to get some clarity but just feel a bit confused'.
40.In cross-examination by counsel for Ms Augimeri, Ms Anderson agreed she had made two statements to police, one on 29 or 30 March 2020 and another one in May 2022. She said that the information in her statement she gave to police in March 2020 was much more accurate than her memory now. She said she would rely on what she said in her March 2020 statement for the particulars and the sequence and a more accurate timeline.
41.When asked about being struck to the face by Mr Byrnes shortly after Ms Augimeri arrived, Ms Anderson said 'I know there was at least one axe'. She agreed that her earlier evidence was that the axe that Mr Byrnes was holding had a wooden handle. When asked to describe the axe, she said similar to what she sees on a Bunnings ad. She said it looked new and appeared to be a normal household axe.
42.She was asked if she owned an axe at that time, for protection. She said no, not at all. She was asked if Ms Tuffin had an axe or if she ever saw Ms Tuffin with an axe in her belongings. Ms Anderson said no.
43.It was suggested to Ms Anderson that Mr Byrnes never had an axe in his hand at any time. Ms Anderson said that of all the parts, she very clearly remembers being hit and how she was hit, with him holding the axe. She said 'I know for a fact that happened. That is untrue what you are saying'. She was asked if she could be mistaken as to what he was holding, if anything. Ms Anderson responded 'No, I believe it to definitely be an axe'.
44.As to the time between when Ms Augimeri arrived and Ms Tuffin arrived in the apartment, Ms Anderson agreed it was about an hour.
45.In re-examination, Ms Anderson said there was at least one axe in the apartment on that night from after Ms Augimeri arrived in the apartment. When asked who had that axe, she said Mr Byrnes.
Mr Byrnes' video record of interview
In the edited video record of interview of Mr Byrnes conducted on 27 April 2020, Mr Byrnes was asked about the events the subject of the charges subsequently brought against him.
The video record of interview of Mr Byrnes has been edited by agreement between the State and Mr Byrnes. I direct myself that the editing of an electronic record of interview is a routine procedure of the court and I must not and do not draw any adverse inference from the use of that routine procedure.
I also direct myself that what Mr Byrnes said in his interview is part of the evidence that I am to consider in the case against him, but nothing that was said in that interview can be used for or against Ms Augimeri.
I do not repeat everything that was said during Mr Byrnes' video record of interview. A summary of some of his evidence about what happened in Ms Anderson's apartment and in relation to text messages sent and received by him on and after 27 March 2020 is as follows:
1.Mr Byrnes said that he only went to meet Ms Anderson 'basically to score'. When asked how he got hold of Ms Anderson's number, Mr Byrnes said through Dave Sommerville. He said he got her number the day before 'to get some gear' and 'possibly to get a root' for a couple of his mates.
2.He said he initially met Ms Anderson at about 3.00 pm on 27 March 2020, then he went back at 7.00 pm with a mate who 'wanted to consider getting into her'.
3.He said that both of his mates had sex with Ms Anderson for money. He said he chipped in for the second one later in the evening.
4.Mr Byrnes said that Ms Anderson said to bring his partner, Ms Augimeri, up to the apartment. He said there was no drama there and they were getting along. He said, in effect, that when Ms Tuffin came it got awkward. Ms Tuffin and Ms Anderson were arguing over a vehicle.
5.When Mr Byrnes was asked how Ms Tuffin knew to come up or why she came up to the apartment and whether he contacted Ms Tuffin, Mr Byrnes said no, Ms Tuffin rang Ms Anderson.
6.He was asked about the argument between Ms Anderson and Ms Tuffin. Mr Byrnes said it was pretty hectic. There was violence 'on next bar'. Ms Tuffin smacked Ms Anderson around a few times. He said it was aggressive and there were some hits, hair grabbing, knees to the head and a couple of punches by Ms Tuffin to Ms Anderson. He said he was trying to split it up, trying to protect Ms Anderson. When asked who was there when this happened, Mr Byrnes said he was and also Ms Augimeri, Ms Tuffin and Ms Anderson. He said it was 'before the other two boys rocked up later on'.
7.When asked about and shown messages on his phone between him, Ms Tuffin and Ms Augimeri he said they were not his messages. He said he had been hacked. It was not him in the messages. He was not involved.
Evidence relied upon by Mr Byrnes
Mr Byrnes gave evidence on his own behalf at the trial of issues. He also called Nathan Brent Robson to give oral evidence. Mr Robson gave his evidence by video link, which I direct myself is a routine procedure of this court and from which I must not and do not draw any adverse inference against Mr Byrnes, or Ms Augimeri.
Evidence of Brock Richard Byrnes
I do not repeat all of Mr Byrnes' evidence. Relevantly, his evidence about the events of 27 and 28 March 2020, and the matters in issue was as follows:
1.During the day on 27 March 2020, Mr Byrnes had spoken to Ms Tuffin, who he worked as security for. Ms Tuffin told him about the car and said to him that she had been calling Ms Anderson and she was not answering her phone. Mr Byrnes volunteered to find out whether Ms Anderson had the car.
2.Ms Tuffin gave him Ms Anderson's phone number. Later that same day, 27 March 2020, Mr Byrnes contacted Ms Anderson and arranged to meet up with her. He said he picked her up in East Perth and drove with her to the apartment at Newcastle Street in Northbridge. He went in and, having found out she did not have the car, he made an excuse that he was in a relationship and was getting cold feet. He left the apartment.
3.He told Ms Tuffin the car was not there. She asked him to go back and find out more. He contacted Ms Anderson again later on 27 March 2020 saying he had a friend he wanted to refer to her to make a booking with her. He said that Ms Anderson agreed. He picked up his friend, Nathan Robson, and he and Mr Robson went to Ms Anderson's apartment in Newcastle Street.
4.He said that Ms Anderson met them. She came from a side door and the three of them went upstairs to her apartment. Mr Robson said he had left his wallet in the car. He left and then came back into the apartment with Ms Augimeri.
5.Mr Byrnes said that Ms Anderson was startled when Ms Augimeri came in. He said as soon as Ms Augimeri came in, they started asking Ms Anderson about the car. They said 'Look, this is why we are here. This hire car has gone missing. You had last had it in your possession. We need to get it back and get it resolved because Bec was obviously concerned about it'.
6.He said it started to get heated immediately by Ms Augimeri being there. He said all their voices went up and he was pacing around the unit stating they wanted the car back, going 'Look, Kim, we just want the car back'. He said Ms Anderson started yelling. He was concerned the neighbours would hear the yelling. He said that Nathan then said she had used her phone to call or text someone.
7.Mr Byrnes said he then walked over to Ms Anderson and said (calmly, not yelling) 'Who the fuck did you just text?' and struck her in the face. He said he was sitting next to her on the couch. He said he got her to show him who she had texted and he did a backhander. He motioned by swinging his right arm outwards and explained that he was sitting next to her on her left and his right hand 'went bang and hit her', indicating that the back of his hand near his wrist made contact with her.
8.Mr Byrnes was asked if he had anything in his hand. He said no, he did not. He was asked if he had an axe. He said no, he did not. He said he did not see anyone with an axe on that occasion. He was asked if his friend, Nathan, had an axe, to which he said no, he did not. Mr Byrnes was asked if he had an axe in his black laptop bag. He said he did not.
9.He was asked what happened after he had given Ms Anderson the backhander. He said 'Well, she was then in fear and I could sense it, for obvious reasons, you know. I've just hit her, and so, she became compliant straight away'. He said he was messaging Ms Tuffin and asking her what she wanted to do. He was in constant communication with Ms Tuffin while he was in the apartment.
10.He said they had to wait for Ms Tuffin to finish with a client for her to come to the apartment. He said they waited for probably 90 minutes, during which time he said Ms Anderson was compliant, sitting on the couch and he was sort of interrogating her about what she had done with the car. She would not tell them anything. She did not say anything about what was going on with the car.
11.Mr Byrnes said that when Ms Tuffin arrived the atmosphere changed. He said Ms Tuffin came in just going off and he could see from her demeanour that she was very angry at Ms Anderson. Ms Anderson was sitting on the ground. He was sitting in front of her. Ms Tuffin came up behind Ms Anderson and he thinks Ms Tuffin grabbed Ms Anderson's hair, and she was 'dropping knees and punches in'. Mr Byrnes did not physically jump in but told Ms Tuffin to calm down and said, to her 'Look, this isn't going to get the car back'. Ms Tuffin then stopped assaulting Ms Anderson.
12.Mr Byrnes said that Ms Tuffin then went into the bedroom saying she was looking for the keys and for some of her stuff that was missing. She came out of the bedroom into the main open kitchen and lounge area with luggage. Ms Tuffin left the apartment with the luggage.
13.Mr Byrnes was asked about the suggestion that he and Ms Augimeri arranged for someone to come to the apartment to watch over Ms Anderson for the night. He said that was not the purpose he arranged his friend to come over. He said it was so Ms Anderson could raise some money to try and work towards getting the car back. She had had a bad night. It was to get her started again because that was her line of work.
14.Mr Byrnes said that before he and Ms Augimeri left the apartment, he gave Ms Anderson $150 because he felt sorry for her. He said when his friend got there he did not have the full amount so Mr Byrnes took Ms Anderson to his car which was parked on a street off Newcastle Street. He said to Ms Anderson 'Look, my friend might want to see you tonight, so he's got some money, but here's the rest of it for your fee'. Mr Byrnes and Ms Augimeri then left the apartment, leaving his friend there with Ms Anderson.
15.Mr Byrnes was asked if he was telling the police the complete truth in his interview on 27 April 2020. He said no, he was not. When asked what he was lying about, Mr Byrnes said that he had said in the messages to Ms Tuffin that he would catch her again and blacken her eyes. He said he said that just to appease Ms Tuffin because she gave him work and he wanted to continue that relationship as he and Ms Augimeri did not have an income.
16.When asked why he told lies in the interview, he said he was trying to be deceitful and not be culpable for the charges that he has now pleaded guilty to.
17.He accepted that he was the person that had been described as being him in the CCTV footage that was played, and that the footage recorded:
(a)Mr Byrnes arriving at the apartment with Ms Anderson at about 2.37 pm;
(b)Mr Byrnes leaving via the lift at 2.46 pm;
(c)Mr Byrnes returning to the apartment with Ms Augimeri at 2.55 pm and him going into the apartment while Ms Augimeri remained in the hallway;
(d)Mr Byrnes with Ms Anderson and Mr Robson exiting the lift and walking to the apartment at 7.31 pm;
(e)the same man wearing a black hoodie that he identified as Mr Robson getting into the lift at 7.36 pm;
(f)Mr Robson returning to the apartment with Ms Augimeri at 7.47 pm;
(g)Mr Robson leaving the apartment at 7.58 pm;
(h)Mr Byrnes leaving via the lift with a phone held to his ear at 8.25 pm and returning with Ms Tuffin, at 8.27 pm. Mr Byrnes said Ms Tuffin called him and he walked down with the swipe card to let her in to the apartment;
(i)Mr Byrnes leaving via the lift at 9.02 pm and returning at 9.12 pm. He said he went to look for food but did not get any;
(j)Mr Byrnes leaving the apartment with Ms Tuffin at 11.27 pm, with Ms Tuffin pulling a suitcase;
(k)Mr Byrnes returning at 11.30 pm with a man in a black hat, who he identified as the friend who came to see Ms Anderson;
(l)Mr Byrnes leaving the apartment with Ms Augimeri at 11.39 pm;
(m)Mr Byrnes returning to the apartment at 12.18 am;
(n)Mr Byrnes leaving the apartment at 12.24 am and returning again at 12.32 am;
(o)Mr Byrnes leaving at 12.34 am and returning a minute later with Ms Augimeri. He could not recall what he was doing then;
(p)Mr Byrnes leaving the apartment with Ms Anderson at 12.50 am and returning with her at 12.54 am. Mr Byrnes said that was when he took Ms Anderson to his car and gave her $150 because his friend did not have enough money to book Ms Anderson; and
(q)Mr Byrnes and Ms Augimeri leaving the apartment at 12.58 am. He said that was when they left for the night and did not return. They left their friend with Ms Anderson in the apartment.
18.In cross-examination by counsel for Ms Augimeri, Mr Byrnes said he had worked in security for escorts and sex workers on and off for about 20 years. He said he had come across sex workers who carried weapons to protect themselves. He had worked for Ms Tuffin for about four months. It was not every night she worked. He was asked if he had ever seen Ms Tuffin in possession of an axe. He said he could not say he had.
19.Mr Byrnes agreed that things escalated quite quickly after Ms Augimeri arrived at the apartment in Newcastle Street on 27 March 2020.
20.In cross-examination by counsel for the State, Mr Byrnes was asked about his interview with police. He agreed that he lied to the police about the purpose of his visit to Ms Anderson on the afternoon of 27 March 2020 because he wanted to distance himself from what he knew he had done and he wanted to avoid the consequences that would follow.
21.He also agreed that when he went to meet Ms Anderson in the afternoon he did not use his own name. He said he used an alias. He accepted that he did that to conceal from Ms Anderson what he was actually doing.
22.Mr Byrnes agreed that when he spoke to police he was giving them the impression that the first time he became aware about the vehicle issue was when he was inside the apartment, and that he said to police that Ms Anderson stole Ms Tuffin's car she had hired. It was suggested to him that was an attempt to deflect his involvement. Mr Byrnes replied 'Yeah. Absolutely it was'. He did not accept that he lured Ms Anderson into a trap.
23.He accepted that when he told police in his interview that he got Ms Anderson's number from Dave Sommerville that was another lie to deflect from what he had done. He said 'Yes, of course'. He also accepted that he was not just giving lies that were deflecting, but he was also trying to add a bit of flesh on the bone so that his story looked even better. He said 'Well, I was making it up on the fly'.
24.Mr Byrnes accepted that he was under the influence of methylamphetamine and that he was behaving erratically that day, and referred to himself in the CCTV footage as boxing at shadows.
25.When it was put to him that there was in fact an explicit plan that they would go to the apartment and detain or hold Ms Anderson pending Ms Tuffin's arrival, he said 'Yes, that's true. Yes'. He said he detained her and that is why he has pleaded guilty.
26.Mr Byrnes was shown the messages at brief page 63. Mr Byrnes accepted they were messages between him and Ms Tuffin, in which he said at 7.06 pm, 'I'll hold her'. He accepted that was roughly 30 minutes before he went into the apartment and that before he went into the apartment he had a specific plan to hold Ms Anderson until Ms Tuffin arrived. He said his plan to hold Ms Anderson was information he shared with Mr Robson and Ms Augimeri before they went into the apartment.
27.He agreed that after Ms Augimeri arrived in the apartment things escalated. It appeared to him that Ms Anderson became concerned then and that was when she tried to use her phone. That concerned him as he thought she might be getting someone to come to assist her, so he struck her. He accepted that by his words and actions, he conveyed intimidation to Ms Anderson.
28.Mr Byrnes denied that he produced an axe. He agreed that he was there to hold her in the apartment by intimidation. He said 'Yes, for sure, but not with an axe. I didn't have an axe … I was there with people. I didn't need an axe'. He said he made her compliant without an axe. 'It's enough in itself to have all this commotion going on and some guy you don't know asking you about a car'.
29.It was suggested to Mr Byrnes that he had arranged for the man with the black hat who came to the apartment after Ms Tuffin left, to essentially babysit Ms Anderson through the night. Mr Byrnes said no, he was there for Ms Anderson to have a job and that if he was there to babysit her, he did a bad job.
30.It was suggested to Mr Byrnes that when he is seen coming and going from the apartment that night just before 1.00 am, he had taken the key to the apartment before he left. Mr Byrnes said he did not have the key himself. He said he did not recall the key at all.
31.Mr Byrnes was shown the text messages at brief pages 90 - 99. He accepted that he lied to police in the interview when he claimed he was not the author of any of those messages, when in fact he was.
Evidence of Nathan Brent Robson
I do not repeat all of Mr Robson's evidence. Relevantly, his evidence about the matters in issue was as follows:
1.Mr Robson said he had known Mr Byrnes for 20 years.
2.On 27 March 2020, Mr Robson went with Mr Byrnes to a block of flats or units in Northbridge. When asked what the reason was for going there, Mr Robson said they went there to collect a car. When they got there, 'the lady' (who I take to be a reference to Ms Anderson) let them in and they went upstairs.
3.He said when they got upstairs an argument broke out between 'the lady' and Mr Byrnes about the car. Mr Robson said he saw Mr Byrnes punch 'the lady' and he (Mr Robson) left. When asked why he left, Mr Robson said he thought they were going there to pick up a car. He did not know that was going to happen.
4.Mr Robson was asked if he saw any axes on that day. He said no. He was asked if he saw Mr Byrnes with an axe. Mr Robson said 'No, not at all'.
5.When Mr Robson was asked if he had an axe himself and if he saw an axe at any stage on that day, he said no.
6.When asked if he saw anything in Mr Byrnes' hand at the apartment, at the flat or unit, he said probably just his phone I think. When asked if he saw anything else in Mr Byrnes' hand, Mr Robson said no, not that he could recall.
7.In cross-examination by counsel for Ms Augimeri, Mr Robson was asked whether he saw any weapons at all on that day. He said no, none at all.
8.In cross-examination by counsel for the State, Mr Robson was asked if there was anybody else in the apartment other than himself, Mr Byrnes, and the lady. He said that Mr Byrnes' wife or girlfriend was there too. When asked how she got into the apartment, Mr Robson said that he went down to get her, then they (he and Ms Augimeri) went back up and 'the lady' buzzed them in.
9.He said he saw Mr Byrnes hit 'the lady' and before that there was a conversation about a car. He said he left because his understanding was that he was there to pick up a car with Mr Byrnes, not to punch a woman in the mouth. He was asked if at any point the woman in the apartment appeared to be using her phone. He said not that he saw.
Ms Augimeri
Ms Augimeri did not give, adduce or call evidence. She was not obliged to and I draw no adverse inference against her from her election not to do so.
Assessment of the evidence and findings of fact on disputed issues
I have directed myself that I can accept some parts of a witness' evidence and reject other parts. I have also directed myself about matters that may affect my assessment of a witness' evidence. A witness may be honest but be mistaken and may not remember every detail of the matters they have given evidence about because of the circumstances they were in at the time, or the time that has passed between the events they gave evidence about and when they gave their evidence. A mistaken witness may be a convincing witness.
Was an axe produced and present?
For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt and find that an axe was produced and was present during part of the period of time Ms Anderson was deprived of her liberty.
Ms Anderson's evidence
Ms Anderson answered the questions asked of her openly and when she could not be certain about something, she said so. She was not evasive and was frank and candid, including about personal matters such as her work and drug use. She accepted that she may be mistaken about things. One of those things was whether there was one axe or two. As to her saying there were two axes, she said she thinks she got that wrong. I accept her evidence that after Ms Augimeri entered the apartment unexpectedly and she was confronted by Mr Byrnes and Ms Augimeri about the car, the environment and circumstances she was in were volatile and frantic. She was anxious and scared, and it was a traumatic experience for her.
There were also some inconsistencies in relation to her description of the axe. However, she consistently described it as looking new and that it appeared to be a normal household axe.
Though there were inconsistencies between what Ms Anderson said in her statement to police in March 2020, in the days following the event, and subsequently, including in her evidence during the trial of Ms Tuffin and the trial of issues, they are not inconsistencies which cause me to doubt Ms Anderson's credibility generally. I find that she was an honest witness and that she was doing her best to remember the details of a traumatic and frightening experience, which happened more than two years before she gave her evidence. It is not surprising that her evidence may have been confused or that she struggled to recall the details or sequence of events in those circumstances, and given the passage of time.
Ms Anderson was very clear in her evidence that there was at least one axe. When asked about being struck to the face by Mr Byrnes shortly after Ms Augimeri arrived, she said 'I know there was at least one axe'. When it was suggested that her memory about the axe was a faulty memory and that there was no axe or axes on that day, Ms Anderson did not accept that. She said that she knows the presence of one axe to be accurate. It is the second that she is not clear on. She did not believe she was in immediate danger until the axe came out. It was not until the axe came out that she realised that discussing it was not an option. She said if there was no axe, she would not have felt the escalation of the danger.
When it was suggested to Ms Anderson that Mr Byrnes did not have an axe in his hand at any time, Ms Anderson was emphatic that of all the parts, she very clearly remembers being hit and how she was hit, with Mr Byrnes holding the axe. She said she knew for a fact that happened and that she was not mistaken. She believed he was definitely holding an axe.
Neither Mr Byrnes nor Ms Augimeri have to prove anything. It is for the State to prove the disputed issues of fact beyond reasonable doubt. However, I do not find that Ms Anderson's thoughts were distorted because she had been using drugs, as was suggested to her by counsel for Mr Byrnes. She was clear in her evidence about that. Nor do I accept the submissions made on behalf of Ms Augimeri to the effect that Ms Anderson told police there was an axe because the axe in fact belonged to Ms Anderson and she was seeking to deflect from that. When she was asked if she had an axe or used one for protection, Ms Anderson was clear in her evidence that she did not, and I do not find it plausible, in the circumstances and considering the evidence as a whole, that Ms Anderson would have made up a story about Mr Byrnes having an axe when she spoke to police on 29 March 2022.
It was submitted that Ms Anderson's evidence to the effect that Mr Byrnes had the axe in his hand when he hit her without there being any contact with the axe was implausible. I reject that submission. Having regard to the way in which Ms Anderson described the blow, with Mr Byrnes' hand holding the axe and the size of the axe, it does not follow that the axe must have come into contact with Ms Anderson.
Mr Byrnes' evidence
I do not accept Mr Byrnes as a truthful witness, and I put his evidence to the effect that he did not have an axe to one side.
He has demonstrated that he is prepared to lie to deflect or minimise his involvement and to avoid the consequences of his actions. Mr Byrnes accepted in his evidence that he lied to the police about the purpose of his visit to Ms Anderson on the afternoon of 27 March 2020 for those reasons. When it was suggested to him that he was giving the police the impression that the first time he became aware about the issue with the car was when he was inside the apartment, he accepted that was 'absolutely' an attempt by him to deflect his involvement.
He played down his involvement in his interview with police, suggesting he had been given Ms Anderson's number by someone other than Ms Tuffin, and that he knew nothing about the car until he was inside the apartment. When asked how Ms Tuffin came to arrive at the apartment, he said that she had spoken to Ms Anderson on the phone herself, when he had contacted Ms Tuffin to let her know where they were.
When presented with the messages sent and received by him in his police interview, he was adamant he was not the author and said he had been hacked.
Having regard to Mr Byrnes' admissions that he is prepared to lie to deflect from or minimise his involvement, and the evidence as a whole, I do not accept his evidence that he did not have an axe. I prefer Ms Anderson's evidence.
Mr Robson's evidence
Though Mr Robson's evidence was to the effect that he did not see an axe at any time while he was in the apartment, I did not find his evidence on that issue to be compelling. I prefer the evidence of Ms Anderson as to the presence of an axe.
How long was the axe present for?
For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt and find that an axe was produced by Mr Byrnes within minutes of Ms Augimeri first arriving at the apartment at 7.47 pm and remained present until shortly after Ms Tuffin first arrived at the apartment at 8.27 pm. I find that the axe remained present for a period of up to one hour.
I accept Ms Anderson's evidence that she first saw an axe no more than a couple of minutes before Mr Byrnes struck her. I find that he struck her within a few minutes of Ms Augimeri and Mr Robson arriving at the apartment, which based on the CCTV footage was at 7.47 pm. I accept Ms Anderson's evidence that after Ms Augimeri arrived at the apartment, Mr Byrnes and Ms Augimeri confronted her about the hire car and things became volatile. Mr Byrnes told Ms Anderson to sit down and shut up and then he struck her in the face, while holding the axe in his hand.
Though there are differences between Ms Anderson's evidence and Mr Robson's evidence as to why he left, they both say he left after Mr Byrnes' struck Ms Anderson. The CCTV records Mr Robson leaving at 7.58 pm, 11 minutes after he and Ms Augimeri arrived at the apartment.
I also accept Ms Anderson's evidence to the effect that the last time she saw an axe was shortly after Ms Tuffin arrived at the apartment. The CCTV footage records Ms Tuffin first arriving at the apartment at 8.27 pm. Ms Anderson's evidence, which I accept, was that Ms Tuffin arrived within an hour after she first saw the axe and that Mr Byrnes still had the axe in his hand for a small amount of time after Ms Tuffin arrived. She did not see the axe again after Ms Tuffin left the apartment.
How long was Ms Anderson detained for?
I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt and find that the duration of Ms Anderson's deprivation of liberty was at least five hours, from about the time Ms Augimeri first arrived at the apartment at 7.47 pm on 27 March 2020, until at least the time Mr Byrnes and Ms Augimeri last left the apartment at 12.58 am on 28 March 2020.
Though, there were periods of time when Mr Byrnes and Ms Augimeri left the apartment between those times, I am satisfied on Ms Anderson's evidence, which I accept, that:
1.Ms Anderson was detained and was not free to leave the apartment between at least about 7.47 pm on 27 March 2020 and 12.58 am on 28 March 2020.
2.The CCTV footage records:
(a)Mr Byrnes and Ms Augimeri leaving the apartment together, for the last time while Ms Anderson was there, at 12.58 am;
(b)the man in the black hat, who had remained with Ms Anderson, leaving via the lift at 2.48 am; and
(c)Ms Anderson hurrying out of the emergency door (rather than via the lift) shortly after at 3.24 am.
3.Whilst I consider it likely that Ms Anderson did not feel she was free to leave until the other man left the apartment to go to the service station at about 2.48 am, I am not satisfied of that beyond reasonable doubt.
Conclusion as to findings of fact on the issues to be determined in the trial of issues
Having considered all of the evidence adduced in the trial of the issues, the facts I find on the disputed issues of fact for the purpose of sentence are as follows:
1.An axe was produced by Mr Byrnes within minutes of Ms Augimeri first arriving at the apartment at 7.47 pm on 27 March 2020 and remained present until shortly after Ms Tuffin first arrived at the apartment at 8.27 pm, for a period of up to one hour.
2.The duration of Ms Anderson's deprivation of liberty was at least five hours from about the time Ms Augimeri first arrived at the apartment at 7.47 pm on 27 March 2020, until at least the time Mr Byrnes and Ms Augimeri last left the apartment at 12.58 am on 28 March 2020.
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the District Court of Western Australia.
LDB
Associate to Judge Russell
28 NOVEMBER 2022
0
2
2