AAA v BBB [2024] VCC 1107

1. In accordance with His Honour Justice Dixon's judgment, a preliminary hearing was held on 8 July 2024 to determine whether there has been legal, factual or discretionary error by His Honour Magistrate Foster such as to enliven the appellate jurisdiction of this Court to hear the matter de novo.
2. AAA and Victoria Police were represented by counsel at the appeal. BBB represented herself and attended via video-link but did not make any oral submissions.
3. Counsel for Victoria Police made submissions which he said might "coalesce" with the interests of BBB. Shortly after the hearing concluded, BBB sought and was granted leave to file and serve brief written submissions. In those submissions, she objected to material in AAA's first affidavit on the basis that it was irrelevant and/or false. She also objected to admission of AAA's second affidavit. She submitted that the proceeding before the Magistrate was conducted fairly in all respects and that the appeal ought to be dismissed.
4. Some of the matters ventilated in oral submission by AAA's counsel went beyond the confines of the written material filed and exchanged with Victoria Police and BBB in accordance with Judge Pillay's orders.
5. In addition, AAA filed a second affidavit addressing the materials contained in Sinea Dodd's affidavit and sought leave to rely on same at the appeal hearing. Counsel for Victoria Police did not object to this additional material filed by AAA.

Preliminary Issue 1 - Standing of Victoria Police

1. AAA objected to the participation of Victoria Police in the appeal.
2. It was submitted on behalf of AAA that because Victoria Police did not make the extension application, had sought to withdraw from the proceeding, and did not attend the contested hearing in the Magistrates' Court on 4 December 2020, it had no standing to participate in the preliminary hearing.
3. Counsel for Victoria Police submitted that as Victoria Police had applied for the original FVIO (granted on 31 July 2015), it became a "party" as defined in section 4 of the Act and remained a "party" to an application under section 108 of the Act to vary, revoke or extend a FVIO. Victoria Police participated in the County Court appeal proceeding (which was determined on 26 August 2021), acted as contradictor before the Supreme Court in the judicial review proceeding, and was refused leave by this Court on 20 September 2023 to withdraw from the proceeding as a party or to be excused from further participation in the proceeding.
4. I ruled in favour of Victoria Police, largely for the reasons advanced by Victoria Police.

Preliminary Issue 2 - Objections to evidence sought to be relied upon by the parties

1. It was common ground that, due to some technical malfunction, there is no transcript available for the second morning of the contested hearing (3 December 2020). However, it is clear from the transcript of the afternoon session of the first day,[10] 2 December 2020, that after BBB had given her evidence in chief, AAA's counsel sought and was granted time to obtain and peruse BBB's affidavit and exhibits before proceeding to cross-examine her. It was agreed that Leading Senior Constable Paul Angove would give evidence that afternoon, and that AAA's counsel would commence cross-examination of BBB the following morning. It is also clear from the transcript that when the hearing resumed in the afternoon of 3 December 2020, AAA's counsel continued to cross-examine BBB.[11]
2. Victoria Police objected to the tender of Exhibits C and E to the first affidavit of AAA on the basis that they are irrelevant to the question of whether there was a legal, factual or discretionary error by the presiding magistrate because Victoria Police did not participate in the contested hearing on 2 - 4 December 2020.
3. In light of the recording malfunction, AAA's counsel suggested that the part of cross-examination of BBB not transcribed is likely to have related to the matters contained in Exhibits C and E, as well as the history of allegations made by BBB against AAA, and the events leading up to the Magistrates' Court hearing.
4. In the absence of transcript, I consider that it is inappropriate to speculate as to what references were made, if any, to Exhibits C and E during the course of the cross-examination of BBB before the learned Magistrate on the morning of 3 December 2020. Even assuming that some mention of these Exhibits and the matters contained in them was made in the cross-examination of BBB at the hearing on that morning, I note that none of the Grounds of Appeal alleged error by the learned Magistrate relate to consideration or otherwise of these Exhibits by the learned Magistrate. I do not consider that Exhibits C and E are relevant for the purposes of this preliminary hearing.

Ground 1 - Defective and therefore invalid Extension Application being in the name of Victoria Police

1. Submissions in relation to Grounds 1 and 2 were founded on the parties' respective affidavits.
2. In written submissions, counsel for AAA asserted that the extension application relied upon by BBB was defective and invalid because in fact it was "in the name of Victoria Police" and not in BBB's name. This, it was submitted, is at odds with BBB having applied for the extension; with the efforts of Victoria Police to withdraw from the proceeding; and their absence from the contested hearing on 2 - 4 December 2020. On this basis, it was submitted that the extension order made on 4 December 2020 was "both procedurally improper and legally untenable".[12]
3. In oral submissions, without notice to BBB or Victoria Police, counsel for AAA submitted that this error renders the extension application void ab initio. If this ground is made out, counsel for AAA submitted that the hearing need go no further, as the FVIO will have lapsed, and it remains open for BBB to make fresh application for a FVIO.
4. Counsel for Victoria Police disputed both these conclusions and took the court through the extension application form completed by BBB on 1 August 2019:[13]

The 'Magistrates' Court Family Violence Protection Act 2008 Ap. For Extension (FV)' form completed on 1 August 2019 in case number F11731231 is in the name of 'BBB'[14] and states 'My full name is BBB' before the reasons for the application are provided:

HAVE THE ORDER EXTENDED. I STILL FEAR FOR MY SAFETY DUE TO THE RESP'S UNSTABLE BEHAVIOUR, SWEARING, SHOUTING AND TYHREATS ON MOST OCCASIONS WHEN I HAVE TO SEE HIM WHEN HE IS TO SPEND TIME WITH OUR DAUGHTER DURING THE DAY AT A PUBLIC PLACE. THE RESPONDENT'S ANGER TOWARDS ME IS SIGNIFICANT AND NOTICABLE IN PUBLIC. HE HAS KEYS TO THE HOUSE

AND I FEAR FOR MY SAFETY THAT HE WILL COME BACK TO THE HOUSE AND ASSAULT ME IN FRONT OF OUT (sic) DAUGHTER. HE HAS MADE VERY SERIOUS ALLEGATIONS AND THREATS OVER TIME. HE IS UNSTABLE ANMD IS PHYSICALLY STRONG BEING 6FT TALL AND A BLACK BELT KARATE INSTRUCTOR. I AM AFRAID OF HIM AND NEED THE PROTECTION OF AN IVO.

Does the Affected Person consent to the application being made?

Does the Affected Person consent to the application being made?

1. I have carefully perused the transcripts of the hearing and of the learned Magistrate's decision. There is no mention in any transcript of an objection taken by AAA to the validity of the extension application brought by BBB. On this basis alone, I would be minded to reject Ground 1.
2. However, in the event that I would be wrong to do so, I have closely examined the extension application dated 1 August 2019 I am satisfied from a plain reading of the face of the document that: BBB was the person applying for the extension; and BBB gave her reasons for applying for the extension. The second page of the application makes it clear that the original application (for the FVIO) was made by Sergeant Evans, which is correct, and that the extension application was to be served upon Sergeant Evans as a respondent to "this" application, that is, the extension application.
3. I note that the term "party" is defined in section 4 of the Act as including: (a) the affected family member or protected person for the proceeding, "whether or not the person is the applicant for the proceeding"; and (b) if the affected family member or protected person is not the applicant for the proceeding, the applicant; and (c) the respondent for the proceeding or the respondent who is the subject of an order made in the proceeding.
4. I note that section 106 of the Act gives the court power to extend a Final FVIO. I note that section 108 of the Act prescribes the parties who can validly apply for such an extension order. Section 108(1)(a) states that a party to the proceeding in which an order was made may apply for an extension of the order.
5. I consider that there is no defect in the extension application by BBB. I reject this ground of appeal.

Ground 2 - Defective and therefore invalid order being made in the name of Victoria Police

1. This ground also relies on a submission on behalf of AAA that the extension application is invalid because Victoria Police is named in it even though Victoria Police did not apply for the extension.
2. Victoria Police submitted that AAA had wrongly founded its submission on an 'extract' of the order, rather than a copy of the actual order dated 4 December 2020. It was submitted that a correct reading of the order made on 4 December 2020 was to the effect that Sergeant Evans was applicant for the original FVIO, while BBB was the applicant for the extension of that FVIO.

1. I am satisfied on a plain reading of the order made on 4 December 2020 that "this order" refers to the order extending the previous extension order, which was itself an extension of the original order applied for by Sergeant Evans of Victoria Police made by the Melbourne Magistrates' Court on 31 July 2015. That is, the document correctly states that Sergeant Evans applied for the order (being the original order made by the Melbourne Magistrates' Court on 31 July 2015). It is clear from the document that 'this order' and 'the order' are deliberate references to two different orders and corresponding applications.
2. This ground fails.

1. The third ground of appeal concerns legal errors leading to a denial of procedural fairness in relation to two matters.

(1) Permitting BBB to rely on documents served on AAA at the start of the hearing without offering adjournment to AAA's counsel to permit consideration of the documents prior to cross-examination of BBB

1. On the first day of the contested hearing, BBB proposed to introduce an unsworn affidavit of 9 pages dated 29 November 2020 (with exhibits totalling 108 pages) which had not previously been provided to AAA.[16] It is clear from the transcript of the hearing that counsel for AAA (Mr Allen) and BBB (Ms Whitelaw) discussed outside the hearing the best way for BBB to give her evidence, and proposed to the learned Magistrate that BBB be sworn, adopt her further affidavit, and give further oral evidence where appropriate.
2. The learned Magistrate was prepared to be "guided by the parties"[17] in this regard, and confirmed with AAA's counsel that this was to be the procedure by asking him, at page five, line twenty-nine to page six, line three of the transcript:

"Mr Allen, are you prepared if BBB ultimately adopts these documents, once you see them of course, and adopts them, swears that they're true and correct, that that material, which I can obviously just take as a witness statement, can then be adopted as her evidence in chief?"

1. Mr Allen noted that AAA also had affidavits that he would rely on, and that he may also give "some oral evidence in the usual course".[18]
2. Examination of the transcript reveals that the learned Magistrate was at pains to ensure that he received all the material upon which each party proposed to rely.[19]
3. Before me, AAA's counsel submitted that the decision of the Magistrate to allow BBB's documents to be entered into evidence was made without the opportunity for AAA or his counsel to review them, and without offering the chance for an adjournment. It was submitted that this decision undermined the fairness of the trial process by denying AAA the opportunity to contest the evidence against him thoroughly.
4. Victoria Police submitted that the learned Magistrate did give AAA's counsel the time to consider the tendered materials by proceeding to another witness and delaying cross-examination of BBB until the second morning of the hearing.

1. Upon review of the transcript of the hearing, it is clear that by the time BBB had completed her evidence in chief, AAA's counsel had not yet received all of her material, whether for technical or other reasons.[20] It was BBB's counsel who suggested that a police witness be interposed, to give AAA's counsel time to review the material before cross-examination. The learned Magistrate canvassed that possibility with AAA's counsel, who gratefully accepted the offer.[21] The learned Magistrate then indicated his intention to interpose the police witness, saying: "So Mr Allen will reserve his right to cross-examine BBB commencing tomorrow morning, after ensuring he's reviewed that material".[22]
2. I note that neither counsel for AAA, nor AAA himself, objected to this course of action, or applied for an adjournment of the proceedings so that this review of the materials could take place.
3. This limb of Ground 3 fails.

(2) Insisting that counsel represent the parties for the entire case, rather than just for cross-examination of AAA and BBB respectively

1. It was submitted on behalf of AAA that he had intended to run his own case, relying on the court-ordered legal aid funded barrister for the purposes of cross-examination only, but that he was not permitted to do so by the Magistrate,[23] and that this deprived him of the opportunity to prepare his case properly and to properly answer the case brought by BBB. The written submissions included a number of transcript references.[24]
2. Victoria Police conceded this ground of appeal on the basis that the learned Magistrate directed that that counsel represent the parties for the entirety of the proceedings and therefore AAA and BBB were subsequently prevented from making submissions.

1. I have carefully perused the transcript of the hearing and I reject the concession made by Victoria Police in this regard. I consider that this ground fails, for the reasons set out below.
2. Shortly after the commencement of the hearing, on the afternoon of 2 December 2020, counsel for AAA and BBB indicated to the learned Magistrate that they had had extensive discussions that morning about how they proposed to conduct the proceeding. It is clear from the discussion between counsel and the Magistrate at pages 3 to 6 of the transcript that, notwithstanding guidance both counsel received from the Bar Council that "we should only be conducting cross-examination",[25] AAA's counsel indicated that both parties were in the same position, that is, legally aided, and had agreed that it would be expeditious for BBB to be sworn to adopt her affidavit and to give some oral evidence to explain the documents exhibited to her affidavit. AAA's counsel indicated that AAA also relied on affidavits and may "give some oral evidence in the usual course".[26]
3. The hearing was then conducted by counsel. AAA interrupted the discussion between his counsel and the learned Magistrate twice at page 10 lines 27-31 to clarify the materials to be relied upon by AAA at the hearing. Shortly thereafter, BBB interrupted the discussion to clarify materials she relied on,[27] and the Magistrate said to BBB:

"Ms Whitelaw, I'm sure, is across the material and that's why we have barristers and counsel and solicitors appearing. So at the moment, you're the applicant but both parties will need to appreciate that the lawyers have the conduct of the matter. They can't just keep jumping in. If you've got an issue, we can stand the matter down and you can have a discussion with your barrister or solicitor offline."[28]

1. A few minutes later, after some discussion between counsel and the learned Magistrate concerning which documents would be relied upon at the hearing, the learned Magistrate stood the matter down for 10 minutes to enable the parties to liaise with their clients concerning the documents which had or had not been provided to the court.[29]
2. There follows examination in chief of BBB, conducted by her counsel. Upon completion of examination in chief, counsel for AAA indicated that he had not yet received a copy of BBB's recent affidavit and exhibits.[30] At that point, BBB's counsel offered to interpose another witness, Mr Paul Angove, of Victoria Police, to give AAA's counsel time to receive BBB's material and consider it overnight before commencing cross-examination of BBB. The Magistrate adopted that course of action. Prior to adjourning at the end of the afternoon, His Honour indicated that the court would provide to AAA's counsel all of the documents sitting on the court file.[31]
3. During cross-examination of BBB, AAA's counsel was invited by His Honour to obtain his client's instructions as to whether the alleged snatching by BBB of AAA's mobile phone was captured in the 30-minute long security footage from McDonald's and whether it was proposed to show and tender the video. The matter was stood down and AAA's counsel returned after a short adjournment to indicate: "We don't propose to show the video to the court and tender that into evidence".[32]
4. When sworn in at the hearing, AAA said he was a solicitor.[33]
5. When cross-examined by BBB's counsel, AAA agreed with the Magistrate that he had conferred with his counsel about playing the video concerning the custody handover of their daughter at Balwyn McDonalds on 30 September 2016, and AAA had agreed with him that the video not be shown.[34] When questioned by the Magistrate, AAA then said that he had agreed to this course "given the technical difficulties and everything else, you know, in everyone's interest to move this matter along".[35] He then agreed with the Magistrate that there was "relevant information" in the video, and said that he was "more than happy to play the video".[36] The footage was only 4 minutes long, commencing at 17.04 and was played on the morning of 4 December 2020 during cross-examination of AAA.[37] At the time of the footage, and after it, AAA and BBB were exchanging text messages and taking photos of each other.
6. Towards the end of re-examination of AAA by his counsel, His Honour said to AAA:

"Just wait there, AAA, you can...answer the questions once you get asked questions. You're not your representative, Mr Allen is. Do you understand that?"[38]

"I couldn't, sorry, I got ...I couldn't quite hear what was being said, Your Honour".[39]

1. Shortly thereafter, AAA was excused. Neither counsel sought to make legal submissions. AAA did not intervene to request leave to make legal submissions.
2. On the transcript available, there was no direction by the Magistrate to the effect that AAA and BBB had to be legally represented throughout the hearing. There is no occasion during the hearing when AAA intervened to indicate to the Magistrate that he wished to represent himself. Nor was this suggested in the written submissions for this appeal.
3. AAA is a lawyer of some 20 years' standing, familiar with court proceedings in the Magistrates' Court and Family Court of Australia as well as in the areas in which his firm operated.
4. At all times during the hearing he was free to tell his counsel and/or His Honour that he wished to represent himself and to dismiss his counsel. He did not do so. He did not intervene when his counsel and the Magistrate discussed the broader involvement of counsel in the hearing (rather than limiting them to cross-examination of each other's clients). Nor did he seek to intervene at the conclusion of the hearing to request to make legal submissions.
5. For these reasons, this ground fails.

Ground 4 - Erroneous assessment, interpretation and use of the evidence, and admission and use of irrelevant evidence

1. It was submitted on behalf of AAA that His Honour made the following errors:

(a) In assessing AAA's credibility, he partly relied on the judgment of the Family Court in Dobbs & Dobbs[40] which was on appeal at the time of his decision, and which was ultimately reversed on appeal;

(b) He misinterpreted the timestamp on the video footage of the changeover at McDonalds, and placed weight on this misinterpretation in casting doubt on AAA's veracity;

(c) His decision was one-sided in that it rested mainly on BBB's evidence and he gave no weight to AAA's evidence;

(d) He allowed SC Paul Angove to give evidence about what he concluded when in late 2016 he reviewed the video security footage from McDonalds in Balwyn and later relied on this when making his decision. Mr Angove's evidence was said to be irrelevant because His Honour viewed the video and was able to assess its contents himself.

1. Victoria Police submitted that His Honour did not make the errors alleged by AAA.

1. Having closely examined the transcript of the proceedings and His Honour's reasons for decision, I consider that this ground fails for the following reasons:
2. In relation to (a): The transcript reveals that His Honour formed his own assessment of AAA's credit, gave detailed reasons for "placing no weight whatsoever"[41] on the evidence of AAA, and merely used the words of Justice Hartnett to describe his own conclusions as to AAA's credit.
3. In relation to (b): During the hearing, His Honour raised the one hour discrepancy between the timestamp on the security camera footage and the text messages flowing between AAA and BBB around that time. AAA confirmed that the timestamp on the video security footage was out by an hour "because there must be an adjustment to the daylight savings".[42] No issue was taken with his evidence in this regard.
4. In His Honour's reasons, AAA's evidence as to the timestamp discrepancy is assumed to be correct: what His Honour focused on is what the video footage shows about the attempted changeover when compared with the text exchanges between AAA and BBB as to what was occurring at the time.
5. In relation to (c): AAA's submissions are general and do not refer to any transcript references in support of this ground.
6. In any event, a careful reading of the transcript reveals that His Honour was at pains during the course of the hearing to ensure that each party put all the relevant material before him, and that the matter was stood down on a number of occasions to ensure that the court and the parties had the relevant documents and that, where relevant, counsel confer with their client for instructions.
7. His Honour also took steps to ensure that AAA and BBB responded to the questions asked of them by opposing counsel and by His Honour.
8. His Honour's reasons for his decision indicate that he found BBB to be a "credible witness", whose evidence he accepted, whereas he found AAA to be "a very unsatisfactory witness in a number of respects."[43] His Honour focused on two aspects in which he found AAA to have been an unsatisfactory witness. The first concerned the handover at Balwyn McDonalds. Again, having accepted AAA's evidence that the timestamp on the video was an hour out, His Honour carefully considered the video material and the text messages exchanged between AAA and BBB before, during, and after the four minutes shown in the video. The second concerned the caveat still in existence on the former matrimonial home, which was defended by AAA on the basis of $9,000 alleged to still be owing on a $300,000 debt owed by AAA and BBB to AAA's mother. His Honour set out his findings in relation to those two matters.
9. There is no substance to this ground, and it fails.
10. In relation to (d): No objection was raised during the hearing to the evidence of SC Paul Angove. I note that under section 65(1) of the Act, the court may inform itself as it sees fit, despite any other rules of evidence to the contrary.
11. In any event, His Honour viewed the footage himself,[44] and in his reasons considered it in the context of the exchange of text messages between AAA and BBB before, during and after the footage. His Honour's observation that when viewing the footage, he could not see "any of the snatching of the phone that AAA alleges"[45] was open to him, but was merely one of the aspects of the handover on which His Honour commented.
12. This ground fails.

Ground 5 - Misapplication of the definition of 'Family Violence' and application of the wrong test

1. It was submitted on behalf of AAA that His Honour concluded that 'family violence' under the Act had been committed based on three incidents: the alleged assault at Balwyn McDonalds' in September 2016; the lodgement of the caveat over the former matrimonial home; and the 'police shopping' by AAA to find a police station that would bring criminal proceedings against BBB for breaching the interim order. It was submitted that these incidents were merely "contentious interactions" and did not fall within the definition of 'family violence.'[46]
2. Even if these incidents do fall within the definition of 'family violence', it was submitted that the Magistrate did not make a proper evaluation of the prospect of family violence occurring in the future as required by section 106 of the Act.
3. Finally, it was submitted that, in using the wording of section 74 of the Act, instead of the wording in section 106 of the Act, the Magistrate applied the wrong test.
4. Victoria Police submitted that the conduct identified by the Magistrate falls with the definition of 'family violence' in the Act.
5. Victoria Police conceded that the wording used by the Magistrate at page 140 of the transcript from lines 27 to 31 was the language of section 74 of the Act (to be applied in making a final order) rather than the language of section 106 of the Act (to be applied in this case, where an extension of final order was sought by BBB). However, Victoria Police submitted that it was made clear in the immediately preceding sentences, and in his decision that His Honour had before him an extension application, and that BBB was seeking an "extension on a final basis".[47] In any event, it was submitted, adoption of the more stringent test of section 74 included satisfaction of the requirement in section 106, that is, the likelihood that without an order AAA would continue to commit family violence against the protected person. For this reason, it was submitted, even if section 106 had been specifically referred to by the Magistrate, when reading his reasons as a whole, the outcome of the decision would be no different.

1. I consider that this ground fails for the following reasons.
2. First, I am satisfied that the incidents referred to by the Magistrate fall within the broad definition of 'family violence' contained in sections 5-7 of the Act, which encompasses behaviour that is physically, emotionally, economically abusive; or is threatening or coercive or in any way controlling and causing the family member to feel fear for their safety or wellbeing or the safety and wellbeing of another person.
3. Second, I consider that throughout the hearing, and in his reasons for decision, the Magistrate made it clear that he was hearing an extension application, and that his reasons for making his decision encompass the matters required to be considered under section 106 of the Act.

Ground 6 - Excessive and unnecessary conditions of Intervention Order

1. AAA submitted that the Magistrate erred in exercising his discretion, both in extending the final order indefinitely, and in imposing the same conditions as before, "based on a flawed assessment of the situation."[48]
2. Victoria Police submitted that there was no application before the Magistrate by AAA to vary the order. There was no error in the exercise of the discretion to extend the order indefinitely in circumstances where the Magistrate heard submissions and then made his own findings.

1. It is clear that there was no application before the Magistrate for variation of the original order; all that was before him was the extension application. As is clear from page 142 of the transcript, counsel for each party made submissions as to the appropriate length of the extension. On behalf of BBB, it was submitted that the order should continue indefinitely. On behalf of AAA, it was submitted that an extension for a further three years would be sufficient to enable any criminal or Family Court matters to be finalised. The Magistrate explained his reasoning at pages 128 to 141 of the transcript. The Magistrate determined that the extension order was to be made until further order, or as he put it "It will essentially be indefinitely".[49]
2. I consider that there was no discretionary error in the decision to extend the original order indefinitely, or until further order.
3. This ground fails.

1. As none of the grounds of appeal has been made out, this Court's appellate jurisdiction to hear the matter de novo has not been enlivened. Accordingly, AAA's appeal is dismissed.

[1] AAA v BBB (County Court of Victoria, AP-20-1534, Judge Tran, 26 August 2021).

[2] AAA v County Court of Victoria & Ors [2023] VSC 13 [4] - [5].

[6] Dobbs v Dobbs [2020] FamCA 700.

[10] Transcript of Proceedings (T), BBB v AAA (Magistrates' Court of Victoria, F11731231, Magistrate Foster, 2-4 December 2020), pages 37-38.

[12] AAA's Submissions for Preliminary Hearing, dated 28 March 2024, 2 [10].

[13] Victoria Police's Submissions for Preliminary Hearing, dated 9 May 2024, 3 [8]-[9].

[23] Ibid page 3 line 13 to 15, page 4 line 25 to page 6 line 21.

[24] Ibid page 3 lines 13-15, page 6 lines 3-5, page 12 lines 7-14, page 125 line 9.

[25] Ibid page 3 lines 13-15, page 6 lines 3 to 15.

[27] Ibid page 11 lines 29-31, page 12 lines 1-6.

[40] [2020] FamCA 700.

[41] T above n 10, page 137 lines 24 to 31, page 138 lines 1 to 24.

[46] AAA Submissions, above n 12, 5 [25].

[47] T above n 10, page 140 lines 21-22.

[48] AAA Submissions, above n 12, 5 [28].

[49] T above n 10, page 143 lines 18-19.