The State of Western Australia v Trousdale
[2016] WASC 265
•4 AUGUST 2016
THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA -v- TROUSDALE [2016] WASC 265
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2016] WASC 265 | |
| Case No: | INS:334/2015 | 27 JULY, 2 & 4 AUGUST 2016 | |
| Coram: | FIANNACA J | 4/08/16 | |
| 15 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application granted | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA JARYD PATRICK TROUSDALE |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Application for witness to give evidence at trial via video link as special witness Evidence to be given within court precincts Alternative application under s 121 Evidence Act 1906 (WA) Turns on its own facts |
Legislation: | Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 106R, s 121 |
Case References: | Nil |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CRIMINAL
- Applicant
AND
JARYD PATRICK TROUSDALE
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Application for witness to give evidence at trial via video link as special witness - Evidence to be given within court precincts - Alternative application under s 121 Evidence Act 1906 (WA)- Turns on its own facts
Legislation:
Evidence Act 1906 (WA), s 106R, s 121
Result:
Application granted
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Mr J S Goold
Respondent : Ms A S Lee
Solicitors:
Applicant : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)
Respondent : Perrella Legal
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Nil
- FIANNACA J:
(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 4 August 2016 and has been edited from the transcript.)
Introduction
1 These are my reasons for granting an application that a witness in the trial of Jaryd Patrick Trousdale, to be held in Bunbury commencing Monday, 8 August 2016, give his evidence by video link from the prison where that witness is serving a sentence of imprisonment.
2 I made the order on 4 August 2016. At that time, I gave brief reasons and said I would publish full reasons in due course.
The application
3 Jaryd Patrick Trousdale (the accused) is charged on indictment in the Supreme Court at Bunbury with one count of making a threat with intent to gain a benefit for another, one count of criminal damage and one count of armed robbery. He has pleaded not guilty and the charges are to proceed to a trial commencing Monday, 8 August 2016, in Bunbury.
4 The first two counts arise from an incident alleged to have occurred on 27 November 2014 at Carey Park, and the third count is alleged to have occurred on 19 December 2014, again at Carey Park.
5 The complainant in the first two counts is Matthew Joseph Cook. He is to be called by the State to give evidence about the incident giving rise to those charges. While he is not the only witness in respect of that incident, it is fair to say he is one of two crucial witnesses in the State's case on the first two counts. He is currently a prisoner in a regional prison some distance from Bunbury.
6 The State has applied to have Mr Cook declared a special witness under s 106R of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA) (the Act), and for an order that his evidence be given by video link from the regional prison where he is currently located, together with other incidental orders. The basis of the application is that, if Mr Cook is to give his evidence at the Bunbury courthouse, where the trial is to be held, he will need to be transferred to the Bunbury Regional Prison, and he fears that he may be assaulted or subjected to intimidation at that prison if that occurs, and he will be so adversely affected psychologically, because of that fear, that he will not be able to give his evidence satisfactorily. He has previously been assaulted in prison. He believes that occurred because he is to give evidence against the accused in this trial. He also claims that he has been threatened by other prisoners (not the accused) to make an affidavit recanting his statement.
7 The application for the order that the evidence be taken by video link from a location remote from the Bunbury courthouse purports to rely on s 106R(4)(c), s 106R(4a) and s 121 of the Act. In my opinion, s 106R creates a separate and distinct procedure, by which video link facilities may be used, from that created by s 121. While both provisions are remedial in nature, they address different issues, with different consequences.
Legislative provisions
8 Section 106R of the Act is headed 'Special witnesses, measures to assist'. It provides, relevantly, as follows:
(1) A judge of a court may make an order -
(a) declaring that a person who is giving, or is to give, evidence in any proceeding in that court is a special witness; and
(b) directing that one or more of the arrangements referred to in subsection (4) are to be made for the giving of that evidence; and
(c) providing for any incidental or related matter.
(2) An order may be made under subsection (1) on application by a party to a proceeding, on notice to the other parties, or of the court's own motion.
(3) The grounds on which an order may be made are that if the person is not treated as a special witness he or she would, in the court's opinion -
…
(b) be likely -
(i) to suffer severe emotional trauma; or
(ii) to be so intimidated or distressed as to be unable to give evidence or to give evidence satisfactorily,
by reason of age, cultural background, relationship to any party to the proceeding, the nature of the subject-matter of the evidence, or any other factor that the court considers relevant.
(4) The arrangements that may be made under this section are -
(a) that the person have near to him or her a person, approved by the court, who may provide him or her with support;
…
(c) in any proceeding for an offence, that an arrangement of the kind described in section 106N(2) or (4) is to be made.
(4a) Where an arrangement under subsection (4)(c) is directed to be made, section 106N applies, with any necessary changes, as if the special witness were an affected child.
9 Section 106N of the Act concerns procedures for child witnesses. By s 106R(4)(c), the arrangements described in s 106N(2) may be utilised in the case of a special witness who is an adult. Section 106N(2) provides that, where the necessary facilities and equipment are available, one of the arrangements that can be made is that
[the witness] is to give evidence outside the courtroom but within the court precincts, and the evidence is to be transmitted to the courtroom by means of video link as defined in section 120. (emphasis added)
10 Section 121 provides, relevantly, as follows:
(1) Subject to this section, a WA court may, on its own initiative or on the application of a party to a proceeding in or before the court, direct that in that proceeding evidence be taken or a submission be received by video link or audio link from a person at a place, whether in or outside this State, that is outside the courtroom or other place where the court is sitting.
(2) The court shall not make such a direction unless satisfied the video link or audio link is available or can reasonably be made available.
(2a) The court shall not make such a direction if satisfied the direction is not in the interests of justice.
(3) For the purposes of taking evidence or receiving a submission by video link or audio link from a place in this State in accordance with such a direction, the place shall be taken to be part of the court.
(4) For the purposes of taking evidence or receiving a submission by video link or audio link from a place in a participating jurisdiction, the court may exercise in that place any of its powers that the court is permitted, under the law of the jurisdiction, to exercise in that place.
11 It can be seen that the discretion in s 121 to direct that evidence be taken by video link is not dependent on a declaration or satisfaction that the witness meets any particular criteria. Provided a video link facility can be readily made available, the only specified criterion affecting the making of a direction is that such a direction 'is not in the interests of justice', in which case the court is prohibited from making the direction. If a direction is appropriate, there is no restriction on the place from which the evidence may be received outside the courtroom. Indeed, it can be from outside the jurisdiction. ('Participating jurisdiction' is defined in s 120.) This contrasts with the provisions of s 106N, which allows the evidence to be given outside the courtroom, but within the court precincts.
12 While 'court precincts' is not defined in the Act, the term is usually understood to mean the area within a court building or within the boundaries of the area immediately associated with the building.1 The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'precinct (usually precincts)' to mean 'the area within the walls or perceived boundaries of a particular building or place'. The Macquarie Dictionary provides, relevantly, the following definitions: 1. A place or space of definite or understood limits; 2. (often plural) an enclosing boundary or limit; 3. (often plural) a walled or otherwise bounded or limited space within which a building or place is situated ... ; 4. (plural) the parts or regions immediately about any place; the environs ... ; 5. The ground immediately surrounding a church, temple, or the like.
13 Having regard to the context and purpose of s 106N, there is no reason to suppose that the description 'court precincts' was intended to have anything other than its ordinary meaning. Had it been intended to incorporate the arrangements in s 121, it is reasonable to expect that specific reference would have been made to that section. In my opinion, the limitation incorporated by the words 'but within the court precincts' in s 106N(2) excludes the use of a video link from another town or region as an arrangement that can be put in place for the taking of evidence from a person declared to be a special witness under s 106R.
Reliance on s 106R and s 106N of the Evidence Act
14 The purpose of the provisions of s 106R is to provide a measure of protection to a witness who would not be able to give evidence satisfactorily or at all if required to do so without that protection. Mr Cook's fears outlined above could come within the criterion of 'any other factor' in s 106R(3)(b) of the Act. However, s 106R(1)(b), in combination with s 106R(4), limits the remedies available to overcome the impediment to the witness giving satisfactory evidence. To the extent that video link is available as an option under s 106N(2), the remedy is limited by the requirement that the witness give their evidence within the court precincts. It would appear to be a measure primarily intended to deal with a situation where the presence of the accused or the environment and public nature of the courtroom would have an adverse psychological impact on the witness. By its nature, the potential cause, as identified, of any intimidation or distress likely to be suffered by Mr Cook, for the purposes of s 106R(3)(b)(ii), is of a different kind, and one that, in my view, cannot be addressed by the measures available under s 106R(4) in combination with s 106N(2). It can only be addressed by logistical measures that would avoid his placement in the Bunbury Regional Prison. The arrangements for the transport and placement of prisoners who are to give evidence, pending their appearance in court, is a matter for the executive arm of government. They are not matters about which the court can make any order.
Reliance solely on s 121 of the Evidence Act
15 The State's reliance on the combined effect of s 106R and s 121 of the Act was misconceived. However, as the application depended on s 121 for the use of a video link from a remote location, I considered that it was open to the court to make an order under s 121, independently of any reliance on s 106R, if such an order was appropriate, having regard to the provisions of s 121. That section allows the court to make such an order of its own initiative, but, in this case, once the difficulty with the application of s 106R was identified during argument, the State sought to rely on s 121 on an independent basis, and counsel for the accused was able to address the application on that basis.
16 The discretion to allow evidence to be taken by video link from a remote location is essentially at large. It is only constrained by the criterion that if the court is satisfied it is not in the interests of justice to allow the evidence to be taken by video link, then it must not allow the evidence to be taken in that way. The exercise of discretion in this case requires a consideration of the State's case, the issues that are likely to arise in Mr Cook's evidence, and the reasons why Mr Cook should not be required to give his evidence in person.
The State's case
17 In essence, the State's case is that the accused went to Mr Cook's house to take possession of Mr Cook's vehicles as payment for a drug debt owed by Mr Cook to a woman named Rikki Reeves. He had with him transfer papers for the vehicles. The accused was known to Mr Cook. When he knocked on the door and identified himself, Mr Cook opened the main door, but not the security screen door. The accused demanded that Mr Cook sign over his vehicles. When Mr Cook refused to do so, the accused took out a knife and stabbed at the mesh of the security door. He managed to open the security door, but Mr Cook closed the main door and said he was calling the police. The accused then made threats to Mr Cook about consequences if police were called. Soon after, when he had moved away from the door, and Mr Cook opened it and stepped outside, the accused is alleged to have thrown a bottle at the front bedroom window, causing the bottle to shatter and the window to break. The accused continued to make threats to Mr Cook before leaving.
Basis of the application
18 The application is supported by two affidavits of Mr Goold, the prosecutor having conduct of the prosecution at the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (WA). The first affidavit, dated 6 July 2016, attaches an Assessment for Special Witness Status prepared by Ms Sue Tevake, a social worker with the Victim Support and Child Witness Service, which is a government agency whose role includes support for alleged victims of crime who are to give evidence at trial. Mr Goold's second affidavit, dated 28 July 2016, attaches an email exchange with senior officers with the Department of Corrective Services concerning the available measures for bringing Mr Cook to Bunbury to give evidence at the trial.
19 The basis of the application is that, if Mr Cook is required to give evidence in the courtroom in Bunbury, he would suffer severe emotional trauma or be so intimidated or distressed as to be unable to give evidence or to give evidence satisfactorily. The State relies on information provided by Mr Cook to Ms Tevake, and Ms Tevake's assessment of Mr Cook. Mr Cook told Ms Tevake that he had been assaulted three times while in prison, twice at Bunbury Regional Prison and once at Albany Regional Prison. Mr Cook alleged that the first of the assaults was committed by the accused in Bunbury Regional Prison in April 2015. He expressed the belief to Ms Tevake that the subsequent assaults committed against him were at the behest of the accused. He also said that he had been threatened by other inmates that he would be harmed if he did not sign an affidavit stating that the allegations against the accused were untrue. Again, he believed the threats were made at the behest of the accused. The accused denies that he had anything to do with the assaults committed by others or any threats of the kind described by Mr Cook.
Assessment of the evidence
20 Because of the short time frame within which the application was made and had to be heard, there was no opportunity for the accused to provide an affidavit. In the circumstances, I was prepared to accept that, if required to give evidence, the accused would give evidence in terms of his instructions to his counsel. Those instructions were that there had been an altercation between the accused and Mr Cook in April 2015 in Bunbury Regional Prison, but it had nothing to do with the allegations the subject of the trial. It was initiated by Mr Cook and neither of them was injured. They subsequently took part in mediation at the end of which they reconciled, shook hands and hugged. The accused claims that the two of them had remained on amicable terms after that.
21 In my view, where there may be a dispute about factual matters that form the basis of an assessment of the kind made by Ms Tevake, as there appeared to be in this case, it is preferable for the evidence in support of such matters to be direct evidence in an affidavit from the witness who asserts the matters. Otherwise, the court may be left in the position of not being able to give any significant weight to allegations made by the witness the subject of the application. That is not to say that the court should be called on to conduct a trial of the issues that may be raised by such evidence, and to make findings about the credibility of the witness. In some respects, such an approach may be calculated to frustrate the point of the application, which is to minimise the trauma to a witness that may affect their ability to give evidence satisfactorily. However, in my view, greater weight can be given to factual allegations if they are made directly in an affidavit by the affected person.
22 In the present case, I took the view that a compromise approach would enable the matter to be dealt with without the need for oral evidence or further affidavit evidence to be given. Counsel accepted that approach.
23 In relation to two of the assaults referred to by Mr Cook (not the one involving the accused), prison records concerning the incidents and the medical treatment received by Mr Cook were annexed to Mr Goold's first affidavit. An incident report was generated in relation to an alleged assault on Mr Cook at Bunbury Regional Prison on 1 May 2015. As a result of the assault, Mr Cook sustained a swollen nose and a loose front tooth, and he was unable to chew. On 3 June 2015, Mr Cook was assessed by Dr Paul Salmon and was found to have suffered a fractured nose.
24 On 18 May 2015, Mr Cook was moved to Albany Regional Prison. A further incident report was generated, this time in relation to the alleged assault on Mr Cook at Albany Regional Prison on 27 July 2015. The report states Mr Cook suffered a slight cut to his lower lip and some facial redness.
25 On 5 January 2016, Mr Cook was moved to the prison where he is currently held.
26 So, it can be seen that there is independent evidence that Mr Cook provided information about the last two assaults around the time they are alleged to have been committed and supporting the fact that he had injuries at that time consistent with the alleged assaults.
27 Mr Cook indicated to Ms Tevake that his belief that he was being intimidated into withdrawing as a witness, and his fears of further assaults, were partly due to the nature of the alleged offending that is the subject of the first two counts in the indictment. As I outlined above, the allegation is that the accused made threats to Mr Cook, first with the intention of having him transfer his vehicles to Ms Reeves and then in response to Mr Cook saying he would call the police. However, Mr Cook's concerns arose mainly from the assaults he has suffered and the threats made to him in prison.
28 In the circumstances, I am prepared to accept that there was a physical altercation between Mr Cook and the accused in Bunbury Prison. I make no finding about the cause or who initiated it, but it demonstrates enmity between the two after the accused was charged with the present offences, notwithstanding the accused's claim that the matter was settled after mediation. I also accept that Mr Cook was subsequently assaulted on two occasions in which he suffered injuries. Ultimately, the actual motivation of the assailants may not correlate with Mr Cook's belief, but it is his belief that matters for the purposes of the application. As was noted by Ms Tevake:
Whether all of Mr Cook's beliefs about Mr Trousdale and his influence over other prison inmates are accurate, cannot be determined by this assessment. What is evident is that Mr Cook has actually been assaulted 3 times in prison and that Mr Trousdale was one of the assailants and that he and his associates in Bunbury and Albany Prison are the clear source of anxiety and distress for Mr Cook ... So much so, that return to Bunbury prison is likely to cause Mr Cook more trauma and compromise his ability to give evidence.
29 Allowing for the qualification I discussed above concerning the altercation between Mr Cook and the respondent in prison, I accept that the accused and other prisoners in Bunbury Prison and Albany Prison are the source of anxiety and distress for Mr Cook. Ms Tevake described the anxiety reported to her by Mr Cook as follows:
Mr Cook reports a high level of anxiety as the trial nears. He has difficulty falling asleep and once asleep will wake several times during the night in an agitated state, with his heart 'going flat out'. He finds himself becoming increasingly tense as time moves on...
He tells me dreads the arrival of new prisoners to the [the prison where he is presently held] in case anyone is from Bunbury and he is further intimidated and threatened.
30 I note that Mr Cook indicated he did not think being placed in the protection unit at Bunbury Regional Prison would alleviate his anxiety and stress. Ms Tevake said:
Mr Cook takes no reassurance from the possibility of being held in a Protection Room at Bunbury Regional Prison for the duration of his requirement to attend the trial, due to what he sees as its proximity to the maximum security section and being able to hear what other prisoners say and the assumptions made about any prisoner held in Protection.
31 If I were satisfied that Mr Cook would be held in protection, I would not have considered those reasons expressed by him as providing a persuasive basis for allowing him to give his evidence from the prison where he is currently located. The fact he will be giving evidence in the trial is information that may well come to the notice of other prisoners, in any of the prisons, irrespective of whether he were held in protection. However, the email exchange attached to Mr Goold's second affidavit indicates that the 'Protection Wing is currently full so it would be difficult to accommodate Mr Cook at this time due to the constraints it would place on them'.2 The email exchange further indicates that Mr Cook would be placed in the general population of the maximum security unit at Bunbury Regional Prison if transferred there in order to give evidence at the trial. There is a pre-release unit (PRU), which is separate from the 'Medium Section' of the prison, which includes the maximum security wing; the PRU is within its own security perimeter. However, the email exchange also indicates that there is 'no capacity to place a prisoner requesting protection within the PRU'.3 Mr Cook has requested protection. The email indicates that, ideally, the PRU is where Mr Cook should be placed, but that cannot happen unless he waives his 'protected status'.
32 The information from the Department of Corrective Services was also to the effect that Mr Cook could not be transferred directly from the prison where he is presently located to the Bunbury Courthouse on a daily basis.4 While it may be that he would not be required for more than one day, the possibility that he would be and the uncertainty as to when he would be required during the day means that the option of transferring him to the court directly from the prison where he is currently held is practically not feasible.
Accused's submissions
33 The accused submitted, initially, that the State had not explored means by which Mr Cook might be brought to court without having to be transferred to Bunbury Regional Prison. However, Mr Goold's second affidavit addressed that issue, and I am satisfied that it is not a practical option.
34 The accused also submitted that it was difficult to objectively assess Mr Cook's fear of going to Bunbury Regional Prison, because, on his own admission to Ms Tevake, he had chosen not to take medication that might alleviate his symptoms of anxiety. However, in my view, in the absence of medical evidence, it is not appropriate for me to draw any conclusions about whether medications could overcome Mr Cook's fears and anxiety. It would be necessary, in any event, to consider what impact, if any, such medication might have on his capacity to give evidence. In any event, the material in Ms Tevake's report satisfies me that Mr Cook's fears and anxiety are real, and they are understandable in light of the violent incidents that have occurred in prison and the fact that he will be giving evidence as a prisoner.
35 Allowing Mr Cook to give evidence from his current location is an obvious measure to overcome his difficulty in giving evidence. The question is whether there is such a need for him to give evidence in person as to outweigh the reasons put forward for taking his evidence by video link. The accused submitted that he is a crucial witness in respect of counts 1 and 2 in the indictment, that his credibility will be in issue and that the best opportunity for a jury to be able to assess his credibility will be if he were to give evidence in the courtroom in the presence of the jury. It was submitted that the two dimensional presentation on a television monitor does not allow a jury the same opportunity to assess demeanour.
36 When asked to identify the issues in respect on which Mr Cook will be challenged, counsel for the respondent said that they are, essentially, whether threats were made to Mr Cook and whether the respondent threw the bottle in such a manner as would suggest he intended to break the window. The fact that the respondent went to Mr Cook's house and asked that he transfer his vehicles to Ms Reeves will not be in issue. The defence case is that Mr Cook had agreed previously to make that transfer. It will not be in dispute that the respondent stabbed the security screen door with a knife. The defence case is that he found the knife at the house and that he was intending to pin the transfer papers to the door. Finally, it will not be in dispute that the respondent threw the bottle and that it broke the window. The defence case is that the respondent threw the bottle at Mr Cook in response to Mr Cook throwing something at him, and that he did not intend to break the window.
37 It can be seen that the issues on which Mr Cook's credibility will be tested are relatively narrow in scope. Significant aspects of his evidence will not be challenged.
Determination of the issues on the application
38 I am satisfied on the basis of Ms Tevake's assessment that a special witness declaration would have been appropriate in respect of Mr Cook if that would have enabled appropriate measures to be put in place to overcome the anxiety and distress that would affect Mr Cook if he were required to give evidence in court. As I have said, such a declaration would not overcome the cause of Mr Cook's anxiety because he would still need to be transferred to Bunbury Regional Prison in order to give his evidence from within the court precincts. Nor do I consider it necessary to make orders for the other purposes the declaration was sought, namely to enable Mr Cook to have a support person sit with him while he gives his evidence and to enable his evidence to be recorded.
39 No reason has been advanced as to why Mr Cook needs a support person next to him. The issue is the impact on him of being placed in the Bunbury Regional Prison, rather than the impact of giving evidence at all or in the courtroom, which are the usual circumstances in which a support person may be required. Nor do I think it necessary to record his evidence electronically, notwithstanding the fact that, as a result of my ruling pursuant to s 121, it will be given by video link. He will be in the same category as any other witness who gives their evidence by video link from another jurisdiction as a matter of convenience. There is no statutory basis for having that evidence recorded.
40 Therefore, as I have already indicated, insofar as the application purported to combine the effect of s 106R and s 121 of the Act, it was misconceived. However, I have come to the conclusion that the application should be allowed under s 121 of the Act, which will allow Mr Cook to give his evidence outside the courtroom and outside the court precincts, with his evidence being transmitted to the courtroom by means of a video link from the prison where he is currently held.
41 I have had regard to the interests of justice in this case. The factors that were relied upon by the State in support of the special witness application have some bearing on the appropriateness of allowing the evidence to be taken by video link from the prison where he is currently held. I have had regard to the fact that he has concerns for his safety if he was to be transferred to and held at the Bunbury Regional Prison for the purposes of being brought to court to give evidence, and that the impact of those concerns is likely to affect his ability to give his evidence satisfactorily. There is a reasonable basis for those concerns if he is not placed in the protection unit.
42 The information before me at this stage indicates that there are no cells available in the protection unit. It may be that a cell will become available, but the court should not be relying on a contingency of that kind in making a decision based on the interests of justice. I am not satisfied at this stage that Mr Cook could be given appropriate protection if he were transferred to the Bunbury Regional Prison. As such a transfer would be necessary for him to be able to give his evidence in the courtroom, I am of the view that he should be allowed to give his evidence by video link from the prison where he is currently located.
43 In weighing the interests of justice, I have had regard to the fact that, according to the accused's submissions, the most significant issue in respect of which Mr Cook will be challenged is whether the respondent made a threat. It is not a case where the whole of his evidence will be under challenge.
44 Generally, the giving of evidence by video link is no longer regarded as an inferior means of giving evidence. A jury is still able to make an assessment of the witness's credibility. It has been said that the relevance of demeanour to the assessment of credibility and reliability can be overstated. That does not mean it does not still have relevance, but its impact upon the assessment has limitations. In my view, the need to have the witness before the jury for the purpose of the jury being able to make an assessment of his credibility and reliability is not such in this case as to weigh the interests of justice against the making of the order sought.
45 Finally, given the relatively limited nature of the issue that arises in respect of Mr Cook's evidence, I have also had regard to what would be the most efficient use of resources. It seems to me that, provided the video link facility from the prison where Mr Cook is located is adequate, and I have been assured at this stage that it is, then that is the most efficient use of resources. I do not consider that the interests of the accused will be prejudiced by the evidence being given by video link from that location.
46 Accordingly, I order that Matthew Joseph Cook give his evidence outside the courtroom and outside the court precincts and the evidence be transmitted to the courtroom by means of a video link from the prison where he is currently located.
1 For example, the High Court Of Australia Building And Precincts Directions For Regulating The Conduct Of Persons defines 'the precincts', in reference to the High Court building, to mean 'the area surrounding the building having the boundaries shown in Schedule A'.
2 Affidavit of Mr Goold, 26 July 2016, Annexure 'A', 2.
3 Affidavit of Mr Goold, 26 July 2016, Annexure 'A', 1.
4 Affidavit of Mr Goold, 26 July 2016, Annexure 'A', 3.
0
0
1