The State of Western Australia v Mutton
[2023] WADC 126
•1 NOVEMBER 2023
JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL
LOCATION: PERTH
CITATION: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- MUTTON [2023] WADC 126
CORAM: PRIOR DCJ
HEARD: 4 AUGUST 2023
DELIVERED : 1 NOVEMBER 2023
FILE NO/S: IND 1164 of 2022
BETWEEN: THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
AND
BAILEY COOPER MUTTON
Catchwords:
Sentencing - Trial of issues - Unlawful grievous bodily harm - Whether the offender kicked the victim leading up to the offence - Whether the offender was acting in self-defence - Extent of the assault - Prosecution required to prove aggravating factors beyond reasonable doubt and offender required to prove mitigating factors on the balance of probabilities
Legislation:
Criminal Code (WA)
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 15
Result:
Prosecution has proved aggravating factors for sentencing
Offender has failed to prove mitigating factors for sentencing
Representation:
Counsel:
| Applicant | : | Ms I J Hamilton |
| Accused | : | Ms K Kumar |
Solicitors:
| Applicant | : | Director of Public Prosecutions |
| Accused | : | Kaminni Kumar |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Langridge v The Queen (1996) 17 WAR 346
Marker v The Queen (2002) 135 A Crim R 55
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
Zoneff v The Queen [2000] HCA 28; (2000) 200 CLR 234
PRIOR DCJ:
Introduction
On 28 March 2023 Bailey Cooper Mutton pleaded guilty and was convicted of an offence that on 17 July 2021 he unlawfully did grievous bodily harm (the offence) to Steven Tony Hedge (the victim).
At the sentencing hearing before me on 28 March 2023 it became apparent that there were two key factual matters in dispute between the parties which could impact on the sentence imposed on Mr Mutton.
The offence took place inside Hungry Jacks in Wanneroo on the afternoon of Saturday 17 July 2021 when Mr Mutton struck the victim forcefully with his right knee to his head. Some of this behaviour was captured on CCTV footage inside Hungry Jacks Wanneroo.
The first factual dispute arose in relation to par 9 of the amended statement of material facts dated 16 November 2022. This is Exhibit 1. The paragraph reads:
Mutton, who had caught up to Graham‑Wren and the complainant, then kicked the complainant to his upper body.
This behaviour is alleged to have occurred some minutes before the victim, Mr Mutton and Mr Graham‑Wren (the co-offender), went inside Hungry Jacks in Wanneroo. This behaviour is not the subject of the actual offence Mr Mutton was convicted of. The State relies on this behaviour as being aggravating behaviour by Mr Mutton towards the victim before he committed the offence. Mr Mutton denies kicking the victim at this time and location.
As this aggravating fact is in dispute, the State must prove this fact beyond reasonable doubt.[1]
[1] Langridge v The Queen (1996) 17 WAR 346; R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270 [25].
The second factual dispute is in relation to how and why Mr Mutton made physical contact with the victim when he committed the offence inside Hungry Jacks in Wanneroo.
The State's position in relation to these facts in dispute is set out in pars 12, 13 and 16 of Exhibit 1, the amended statement of material facts dated 16 November 2022 excluding par 19.
Mr Mutton's position in relation to these facts in dispute is set out in pars 6(d) and 7 of Exhibit 2, the defence sentencing submissions dated 27 March 2023.
As these facts in dispute are mitigating, making the factual circumstances of Mr Mutton's offending behaviour less serious, Mr Mutton must prove these facts on the balance of probabilities.[2]
[2] Marker v The Queen (2002) 135 A Crim R 55 [9], [22] and [23].
The factual dispute in relation to Mr Mutton's direct offending behaviour relates to whether he was acting in self‑defence or anticipatory self-defence but his physical acts towards the victim were such that he went too far to rely on this defence under the Criminal Code (WA) ('excessive self‑defence'). The State submits that Mr Mutton's behaviour was a deliberate act of violence delivered at a time when the victim was in a vulnerable position.
The paragraphs of Mr Mutton's sentencing submissions state the following:
6…
(d)The offence Mr Mutton is being sentenced for then takes place inside Hungry Jacks and immediately after the co-offender and the victim are again at each other on the floor. Mr Mutton explains why he struck the victim in the head, and that it was that the victim was using Mr Mutton's body to pull himself up. Having anticipated further violence being a witness to how the victim was already acting up to this point, Mr Mutton reacted to stop him ((para 10 page 2 PSR; para 13 Psychological Report). However, he accepts he acted disproportionately to the threat before him and accepts responsibility for what has then followed.
…
(f)The injury itself was indirectly caused by Mr Mutton's strike. It is not indicative of the level of force used.
(7)The act of covering his face up with a t-shirt should be taken with a pinch of salt. It is clear that what was occurring was evolving and escalating quickly, that it is quite possible, that Mr Mutton has done that because he did not want to be associated with what might occur or chasing the victim, but also wanted to be there to protect his mate should the need have arisen. Indeed, these are the instructions and it is not an implausible explanation.
The trial of issues was listed before me on 4 August 2023.
Both parties accept Mr Mutton covered his face with the co‑offender's t-shirt before he entered Hungry Jacks in Wanneroo. There is a general dispute as to why Mr Mutton did this.
On the evidence before me, there is no dispute both Mr Mutton and the victim were intoxicated by alcohol at the time of the offence.
Witnesses
At the trial before me, the State called three witnesses. Steven Bruce Harold Sivewright, Ms B and Tim Furber. Mr Sivewright did not see the offence which occurred inside Hungry Jacks in Wanneroo. Ms B and Mr Furber were working inside Hungry Jacks in Wanneroo when the offence occurred.
The State relied upon CCTV footage inside Hungry Jacks in Wanneroo and enhanced CCTV footage outside on Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo. The State also relied upon what Mr Mutton said in his record of interview with police officers at Joondalup Police Station on 17 July 2021 which commenced at 10.15 pm.
Mr Mutton gave evidence before me in relation to the lead up to his offending behaviour and the factual matters in dispute.
Steven Sivewright
On Saturday 17 July 2021, Steven Sivewright took his mother to a pharmacy in Wanneroo. He was standing at the northeast corner of Conlan Avenue and Wanneroo Road when he heard an argument coming down Hastings Street. He said he then crossed Wanneroo Road and stood on the northwest corner of Hastings Street and Wanneroo Road.
Mr Sivewright indicated where he was standing as marked on Exhibit 3 when he observed three young men who were about 50 ‑ 60 m away from him. He saw one man cross the road and a second man followed him (the 2nd man). The 2nd man took his shirt off and threw it on the ground. He then started to hit the other man who was trying to get away (the 1st man).
A third man came up and picked up the 2nd man's shirt and wrapped it around his head (the 3rd man). The 3rd man then threw a kick and a punch at the 1st man who was trying to cover himself up. Mr Sivewright said he was unsure if the kick or punch connected.
The 1st man who had been attacked then ran towards Hungry Jacks with the two other men pursuing him into Hungry Jacks. When he got into Hungry Jacks the 1st man tried to fend off the other men with a wet sign bollard.
Mr Sivewright said he had an obstructed view of what he described in his evidence. He said he made his observations from the other side of Wanneroo Road.
In cross‑examination Mr Sivewright said he did not accept that the 3rd man might have been trying to break up a fight between the other two men.
Ms B
Ms B is 17 years old and was an employee at Hungry Jacks Wanneroo. She gave evidence that on 17 July 2021 she was working behind the counter at Hungry Jacks. She said while she was working, a guy ran into the Hungry Jacks and yelled out 'call the police'. The man was distressed and out of breath.
Ms B said two other men then came into Hungry Jacks and started physically abusing the 1st man she saw. One of the two other men had his face covered.
She said the 1st man she saw then picked up a wet floor sign to protect himself. One of the other men then tried to hit that man and may have got a couple of hits in.
Ms B gave evidence that the 1st man went to the ground, but she is not sure how. One of the other two men was then on top of the 1st man. He then got off. The guy with his face covered then went to kick the man on the ground in the face area. She saw his leg move backwards in a kicking motion and she looked away. She heard the contact and then a bang as the man on the ground's head hit the counter.
The man standing stood around for 10 seconds. He then looked around and left.
Ms B said the man on the ground then stood up. He was patting the back of his head.
She saw blood and gave him some napkins. Her manager then went to his assistance.
In cross‑examination, Ms B identified herself in the CCTV footage inside Hungry Jacks Wanneroo which is Exhibit 4. She stated this location is where she made all her observations the subject of her evidence.
When she saw the 3rd man with the 1st man, the 1st man was on the ground. She then saw the 3rd man make a motion with his leg and heard a bang with the counter. She described the motion as a swinging of his leg. She was not sure if he moved his leg upwards, she did not see any connection with the 1st man but said she heard the connection.
Tim Furber
Tim Furber is 25 years old. On the afternoon of 17 July 2021, Mr Furber said he was working in the office at Hungry Jacks with Roger Bright. He said he was standing at his desk when he heard a commotion.
Mr Furber said he walked to the front counter and heard someone say something like call the police. He saw a man, then two other men follow him into Hungry Jacks about five seconds after he saw the 1st man. One of these two men was shirtless.
The 1st man he saw, and the shirtless man then had a tussle and ended up on the ground. The 3rd man had something covering his face.
The shirtless man tried to hit the 1st man. The 1st man ended up on the floor. Mr Furber then said he saw the 3rd man with his face covered kick the guy on the floor.
Mr Furber said he did not see this clearly, but stepped towards the man on the floor and swung his body as if to kick.
Mr Furber said where he was observing this at the front counter at Hungry Jacks, he could not see where he kicked him.
He then saw the 2nd and 3rd men leave. The 1st man then stood up, he had blood running from his head and a big gash. Mr Furber put pressure on his head.
Mr Furber identified himself in Exhibit 4 which is CCTV footage from inside Hungry Jacks Wanneroo.
In cross‑examination Mr Furber said the 3rd man swung his body as if to kick the 1st man's upper body. He said he could not see what the 1st man on the ground was doing with his hands at that time.
Record of interview of accused
The State played the DVD of the recorded interview of Mr Mutton with police officers at Joondalup Police Station at 10.15 pm on 17 July 2021. This is Exhibit 5. I have been also provided with a transcript of the record of interview.
In the interview Mr Mutton admits he was significantly intoxicated when the incident, the subject of the offence occurred. He had been drinking 101 Wild Turkey with his friend, the co‑offender, at the co‑offender's house at an address in Hastings Street for over two to three hours.
Mr Mutton said the victim was very intoxicated. The co‑offender had asked the victim to leave and the victim had refused and threatened them. The victim assaulted Mr Mutton's partner Hannah after she arrived at the co‑offender's house by pushing her over the mailbox. Mr Mutton stated that he checked on Hannah while the victim and the co‑offender went off up Hastings Road. When he looked up from checking on Hannah, he saw the two men involved in a scuffle near the vacant lot behind Hungry Jacks, and he said both of them were throwing punches. When he saw that Hannah was okay, he said he pursued the two other men up the road because he had a feeling something was going to happen.
In relation to what happened at Hungry Jacks in his record of interview, on a number of occasions, Mr Mutton told the interviewing police officers he could not recall being there or could not give much detail of what happened.
In the police record of interview Mr Mutton said the following:[3]
[3] Police record of interview, ts 9.
MUTTON: Like, he's just assaulted my partner and he's not going to run off down the street without something, you know what I mean, like - um, I can't really, like, honestly, I can't recall, like, what happened after that. It was just, like, you know, it was just one of them things, it was just, like, I can't recall, you know, it's just fucking ‑ I think we were all a bit intoxicated, you know, but like, um, yeah.
DET FC/CON LOWDEN: yeah.
MUTTON: I just wanted to contain the situation, I didn't want him to, like, get away, or, like, run away, you know, like in - yeah, stuff like that, so yeah, but pursued - pursued the person, you know, like.
And later on:[4]
[4] Police record of interview, ts 23 - ts 24.
DET FC/CON LOWDEN: So what made you follow Rob?
MUTTON: Fear of what was going to happen, like, you know.
DET FC/CON LOWDEN: Yeah.
MUTTON: Just - just genuine, like, you know, wanted to stop whoever that dude was, you know, like, citizen's arrest type shit, you know.
DET FC/CON LOWDEN: Yeah.
MUTTON: Fuck, eye for an eye.
DET FC/CON LOWDEN: Yeah. And what - what do you mean by an eye for an eye?
MUTTON:Well, you put hands on my woman, you're a fully grown man, you're yelling out gun gestures, yelling out shit at my missus, yelling out shit at me, won't leave the house, we've been hospitable, shouted you a few drinks, given you smokes, you name it, what - what more you want me to do - - -
DET FC/CON LOWDEN: Yeah.
MUTTON: - - - fucking shake for you, like, piss off.
DET FC/CON LOWDEN: Yeah.
MUTTON: I've seen people get a lot worse for a lot less, like you know what I mean? Put your hands on a woman, someone's going to do something.
DET FC/CON LOWDEN: Yeah.
MUTTON:Whether it be the boyfriend, the dad, the brother, the uncle, you name it, like, you've got a partner, you've got a daughter, someone puts a finger on them, like, you know, fuck the justice system, like, you know what I mean. I can't - I don't - I don't know how long it's going to take for you to get there. Don't know how where the fuck the cunt's going to be, don't know his name, never met him before, don't know him from a bar of soap.
And further:[5]
MUTTON: Bro, I said, like a citizen's arrest, as in like, you know what I mean. The motherfucker just put hands on my woman - - -
DET SGT ROBINSON: Yeah.
MUTTON: I'm not going to sit there and go, triple zero, hey can I have the police? Don't know his name, don't know him from a bar of soap, my mate's just run up the fucking street with him, like, you know, like citizen's arrest. I intervened.
DET FC/CON LOWDEN: So, you said that you intervened. How did you intervene?
MUTTON: I can't recall.
[5] Police record of interview, ts 26.
These comments by Mr Mutton in his police record of interview indicate to me what his real intention was when he followed the victim after he left the co‑offender's house.
CCTV footage Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo
The State relies on enhanced CCTV footage of two men running along a footpath next to shops on Wanneroo Road on 17 July 2021 who were following the victim. One man has his face covered, the other following him has no shirt on. This is Exhibit 6.
The State submits the man with his face covered in the CCTV footage is Mr Mutton. Mr Mutton accepted this was him in his evidence.
The accused - Bailey Mutton
Mr Mutton gave evidence that he arrived at the co‑offender's house around 12 midday to 12.30 pm. The two of them then drank alcohol sitting on the front porch.
The victim came from the house next door and the co‑offender invited him in for a drink. Over the course of two to three hours, Mr Mutton described the victim becoming obnoxious, intoxicated and aggressive. Mr Mutton said the victim was making offensive comments. Mr Mutton said that he asked the co‑offender to ask the victim to leave.
Mr Mutton gave evidence that his partner, Hannah arrived about one hour later. The victim was asked to leave multiple times. He also tried to take some unopened alcoholic drinks.
Mr Mutton said when Hannah approached the victim below the porch and told him to leave, he pushed her to the chest and shoulder area. She fell over a mailbox and Mr Mutton went to her aid. The victim then left making threats as he left.
Mr Mutton said the co‑offender followed the victim and he saw them scuffle at the vacant block near Hungry Jacks. Both threw punches which landed on the other person.
Mr Mutton in his evidence said he pursued the victim as he felt something was going to happen. He thought his friend would get hurt. He said he ran up to break up the scuffle.
Mr Mutton said the victim and the co‑offender split up and they both ran off. He said he definitely did not punch or kick the victim. He said he put the co‑offender's shirt around his head and pursued the victim. He saw the victim go inside Hungry Jacks.
Mr Mutton gave evidence that he thought the incident was finished or done when the victim went into Hungry Jacks. He then said the co‑offender brushed past him and went straight into Hungry Jacks and he followed him in. Mr Mutton said he wanted some intervention as the victim had just assaulted his partner, Hannah.
Mr Mutton said he was first at the door of Hungry Jacks. He saw the victim pick up a 'wet floor' sign. The co‑offender then engaged with the victim. The victim tackled the co‑offender to the floor and he heard a thud when the co‑offender's head hit the floor. Mr Mutton said this caused him to get closer as he was worried about the co‑offender.
Mr Mutton said the victim was on top of the co‑offender and then they rolled over. There was a toss and turn and the co‑offender was the last person on top. The co‑offender tried to get up.
Mr Mutton said he felt the victim's hand grip around his left leg. Mr Mutton thought he would be tackled or dumped and in a snap reaction he made a jerking movement.
Mr Mutton gave evidence that he then left Hungry Jacks immediately. As he walked past Hungry Jacks, he saw the victim stand up. He did not see any injuries to the victim.
Mr Mutton said that in his record of interview he lied to the police that he could not recall what had happened in Hungry Jacks as he had previous dealings with the police. The State submits Mr Mutton's lies in his record of interview should reflect on his credit alone.[6]
[6] Zoneff v The Queen [2000] HCA 28; (2000) 200 CLR 234.
In cross-examination Mr Mutton said that in the days leading up to the offence he had experienced financial difficulty. He had been using methylamphetamine and marijuana. He was stressed, depressed and not sleeping well.
On the afternoon of the offence Mr Mutton said he and the co‑offender drank a 750 ml bottle of 101 Wild Turkey mixed with Coca Cola. He was drinking a second bottle the co‑offender bought. He had not eaten in days.
Mr Mutton agreed he was intoxicated and said the victim was very intoxicated. He described the victim as being verbally offensive. He warned his partner about the victim when she arrived.
When questioned in cross-examination about his later involvement with the victim, he said he felt something might happen between the victim and the co‑offender. He denied wanting to join in or being motivated to take 'an eye for an eye'. He agreed he covered his face with the co‑offender's shirt. He said he did not want to be involved in the incident and wanted to make sure his friend was safe.
Mr Mutton said he considered the victim was an uncertain and unpredictable person.
Mr Mutton said when the co‑offender and the victim were involved in the scuffle before Hungry Jacks, they both threw punches at each other's faces. Mr Mutton denied joining in or kicking. He said the co‑offender left when he approached them. The victim then ran to Hungry Jacks. Mr Mutton said he pursued the victim but stopped when the victim went inside.
Mr Mutton said when there was a fight between the co‑offender and the victim inside Hungry Jacks, he was 2 m away from them watching. When he heard the co‑offender's head hit the ground, Mr Mutton said he stepped forward and the victim grabbed him. Mr Mutton said there was then a jolt or reflex reaction by him and referred to his experience in playing rugby. He said he feared for himself and his friend. He described his reaction as his reflexes kicking in to prevent himself from falling. He did not accept the victim was incapacitated at the time.
Mr Mutton in cross-examination denied booting the victim in the head, he described it as kneeing him in the head. He said in his mind, what he did was self-defence in the moment. He said he felt he had no option but to intervene.
Mr Mutton said he left Hungry Jacks at a fast-walking pace. He did not think anything would come of the incident. He denied he was trying to get the victim back for what he did to his partner. He denied being angry. Mr Mutton said he covered his face because he did not want to be involved and he said he did not intend to cause the victim harm.
Analysis of the evidence
I find the witnesses Messrs Sivewright and Furber and Ms B honest, credible and reliable witnesses. They are all independent eye witnesses who observed Mr Mutton's behaviour leading up to the offence and when the offence occurred. None of these witnesses were intoxicated.
All three of these witnesses were prepared to concede if they did not actually see things that were described to them by counsel. For example: Mr Sivewright did not see the 3rd man's kick and punch connect. This man could only have been Mr Mutton at this time. Ms B and Mr Furber only described the leg movement of the man towards the man on the ground in Hungry Jacks and they conceded they did not see any contact.
All of these three witnesses were generally consistent in their evidence‑in‑chief and cross-examination. They demonstrated a willingness to correct any errors they made in their evidence and conceded if they were unable to recall something.
I do not find Mr Mutton a credible or reliable witness for a combination of the following reasons:
1.Given Mr Mutton's admitted level of intoxication leading up to the offence, I do not consider his recollection of events reliable.
2.Mr Mutton agreed in his evidence he lied to the police in his interview about his recollection of the events in Hungry Jacks. His admitted lies directly affect his credibility. I do not accept his explanation for telling these lies, as he had 'no confidence in the police to just explain to them the full entirety of the situation'. Mr Mutton was prepared to give the police in his interview a detailed account of what happened before he entered Hungry Jacks but not what occurred inside Hungry Jacks.
3.What I have referred to in [47] in Mr Mutton's police record of interview is inconsistent with his explanation in his evidence for following the victim and then becoming physically involved with him.
4.I do not consider Mr Mutton's account of what he did and why he did things to the victim in Hungry Jacks is consistent with what is depicted in Exhibit 4. I cannot see the victim's arm grabbing Mr Mutton's leg 'in a hostile situation'. I do not accept the footage indicates Mr Mutton 'brushing the victim off his body with his knee'. I consider the evidence of Ms B and Mr Furber as to the interaction of the victim with Mr Mutton is more consistent with this CCTV footage from inside Hungry Jacks.
5.I consider Mr Mutton's explanation for covering his face with the co‑offender's shirt is implausible. It was not something he just did. This action of covering his face was not consistent with Mr Mutton not wanting to be involved with any violence and making sure his friend was safe, it was consistent with him not wanting to be identified when he made physical contact with the victim. This act of covering his face with the shirt is totally inconsistent with Mr Mutton's evidence generally that his prime concern for being involved with the victim was for his friend, the co‑offender's welfare.
6.I consider there is a significant inconsistency in Mr Mutton's evidence and his previous written statement as to hearing the co‑offender's head hit the floor during the scuffle with the victim inside Hungry Jacks. I do not accept Mr Mutton's explanation for the inconsistency that he did not think it was an important factor or the sound mattered.
I accept the evidence of Mr Sivewright as to Mr Mutton's interaction with the victim after he pursued him and before he entered Hungry Jacks. I find Mr Mutton aggressively punched and/or kicked towards the victim. I am unable to find if the blows connected but I find his acts towards the victim were unnecessary in the circumstances Mr Mutton found himself in at the time.
The prosecution on the evidence has satisfied me of this beyond reasonable doubt. These acts also indicate Mr Mutton's attitude and demeanour towards the victim when he entered Hungry Jacks.
I do not accept Mr Mutton's account of how and why he made contact with the victim inside Hungry Jacks, that it was a reflex action due to fear for his own safety. I consider his evidence is implausible. I am satisfied on the evidence of Ms B and Mr Furber that Mr Mutton kneed the victim to the head when it was unnecessary for him to do this and the victim was in a vulnerable position on the ground. I do not accept the victim was grabbing at Mr Mutton's leg. There was no reason for Mr Mutton to involve himself physically with the victim.
Mr Mutton has failed to satisfy me on the balance of probabilities that his action to the victim inside Hungry Jacks was motivated by self‑defence but excessive in its execution.
It is unnecessary for me to find whether Mr Mutton kneed or kicked the victim to the head. Neither of these two types of acts were warranted nor justified in the circumstances Mr Mutton found himself in with the victim inside Hungry Jacks. When Mr Mutton made contact with the victim, the victim was in a vulnerable position, lying on the floor of Hungry Jacks.
As a result of these findings, I will sentence Mr Mutton on the following factual basis:
1.The victim had been offensive, threatening and abusive towards Mr Mutton and the co-offender at the co-offender's house. He had also assaulted Mr Mutton's partner before the offence occurred.
2.Mr Mutton pursued the victim from the co-offender's house to exact vengeance for the victim assaulting his partner.
3.In the journey towards Hungry Jacks, Wanneroo, Mr Mutton assaulted the victim by punching and kicking the victim or threatening to do so with his actions.
4.Mr Mutton kneed the victim to the head inside Hungry Jacks, when the victim was in a vulnerable position and there was no lawful reason for Mr Mutton to engage in this act. It was a deliberate violent act by Mr Mutton towards the victim which was followed by Mr Mutton immediately leaving the Hungry Jacks. The victim had retreated to the Hungry Jacks in Wanneroo to obtain help.
5.The knee to the victim's head caused the victim's head to make contact with the counter of Hungry Jacks and the victim suffered a laceration to his head amounting to grievous bodily harm.
6.As accepted by the State, the grievous bodily harm suffered by the victim was not intentionally caused by Mr Mutton.
7.I find Mr Mutton's actions towards the victim inside Hungry Jacks were done in retribution for the victim's behaviour towards his partner.
8.When Mr Mutton physically interacted with the victim, both Mr Mutton and the victim were significantly intoxicated.
I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the District Court of Western Australia.
RR
Associate to Judge Prior
31 OCTOBER 2023
0
4
2