R v Cooper

4 March 2017

1. At about 9.30am on Saturday, 4 March, a taxi driver dropped off the equipment to the deceased's unit as arranged. It was collected from the driver by the offender.
2. Later that morning, the offender sent a text message to two mobile phone services asking someone to bring him some "buep" (buprenorphine) because he was sick. In the early afternoon he sent text messages to his mother asking for cigarettes and some meat the following day if the deceased gave him her last $50 so he could get a "shot". He was going to stay and look after her because she needed his help "round the clock" and she would be "fucked" without him.
3. At some stage during that day the deceased again attended Bankstown Hospital, complaining of shortness of breath. She discharged herself at her own risk the same day. That night the offender sent a lengthy message to Mr Barker. Among other things, he said that the deceased was very sick, she was having trouble breathing and was crying in pain. He had given her two valiums and was about to massage her legs. He said that he had warrants out for his arrest, but he did not want to leave her because it could be the last time he saw her alive. A doctor had given her 12 to 18 months to live, but she would deteriorate sooner if she didn't take her medication. He added that he was going to do his best to "stay out" until he had to bury her, and that she wanted to be buried in Sydney. He asked Mr Barker to promise that if anything happened to him, he would look after her and make sure she was buried in Sydney.
4. Mr Barker did not respond to this message. Later that night the offender sent another message to Mr Barker saying that he loved the deceased "for the world" and was going to miss her "when she goes". A little later, he posted a message on Facebook to the effect that his "wife" needed him to do things for her as she could not. She hated not being able to do so, which is why he was there because "I love her even though she stresses me out".
5. Still later that night, the offender sent several text messages to unknown recipients seeking "something" or "a point" or "some buep" to keep him awake so that he could sit up with her, keep an eye on her, and rub her legs. Late that night he posted a message on Facebook that she was back to sleep after the two valiums, that her leg had stopped twitching, and that he hated seeing her in pain.

5 March 2017

1. In the small hours of Sunday, 5 March, by a text message and two Facebook posts, the offender again stated his need to keep awake to care for the deceased, adding that what he needed was some ice. Later in the morning he sent a text message to his mother asking, among other things, that she try to obtain some buep from another person and bring it to him.
2. A little later, the offender sent a message to Shiara Green telling her that the deceased was really sick, that she could not put up with the pain anymore, and that she woke up crying for her mother and "Wal", her other son, both of whom were deceased. He added that she wanted him to get her some heroin "so she can put herself to sleep", and that he agreed with her and was going to get it for her. He thought that if he did not, she would get it herself from a person who lived nearby. He stated that he did not know what to do anymore and that "she wants to go with her mum and Wal". He suggested to Shiara that she ring up to hear the deceased's voice "for the last time" because he was going to "get the heroin soon for her so she could put herself to sleep for good…." In the message he also expressed what was said to be her wishes for her funeral.
3. Shortly thereafter, he sent a message to his mother asking if she could spare $50 because the deceased "wants me to buy her some heroin so she can put herself to sleep…." He added that she could not put up with the pain anymore, that she woke up crying to her mother and Wal to come and get her, that it upset him watching her go through the pain, and that her putting herself to sleep would be "for the best". He asked his mother to approach another person to obtain "good heroin" because he would need only one cap to put her to sleep.
4. He sent messages to the same effect about the deceased's wishes to Shiara Green, Ms Hull and an unidentified person whom he referred to as "cuz". He posted on Facebook a message saying that he did not know what to do and felt helpless.
5. At about 8.30am he sent a message to an unknown recipient asking that person to "make me a good one" because the deceased needed enough to kill the pain, adding that he would also appreciate some because he was "hanging out". He sent a further message to Shiara Green asking her to ring him "asap" so that she could speak to the deceased.
6. At this stage of the narrative I shall sometimes quote passages from the offender's messages. In doing so, I shall correct obvious spelling errors and include some punctuation.
7. Over a period of some minutes around 9am, he sent a series of messages to his mother saying that he was about to give the deceased a shot of heroin, hoping that it was "good gear" and would put her to sleep "for good". He said that as much as she stressed him out, he loved her and was going to miss her. He said that she wanted the heroin, that he could not handle watching her in pain, and that he was doing the right thing. He added, "I don't care if I get jailed for it. I'm doing the right thing". A few minutes later he sent a further text to the unknown recipient asking for a "good one".
8. At about 10am Shiara Green tried to phone the offender and the deceased but the calls were not answered. He sent a message shortly thereafter to Ms Green that he had missed her call and that he would get the deceased to ring her back. A little later he sent another message saying that the deceased had just had a shot of heroin, that he had given her just enough to take the pain away, and that he would get her to ring back when she woke up. He added that the deceased said that she loved Shiara, that she should take care of herself, and that she would be "right" because he would take care of her.
9. At about 11.15am Ms Kelly Chatfield rang the offender, asking what was going on and what the messages were about. When she asked to speak to the deceased, the offender said that he had just given her "five lines of heroin just to ease the pain", and that she was asleep. Asked about medication for the pain, the offender said that she had been on morphine tablets in hospital but that they wouldn't give her any to come home with. Ms Chatfield asked him to tell the deceased that she had called and to pass on her love, and the offender said that they would come around to see her when they could get a car.
10. After 11.15am the offender sent a series of messages to his mother, the effect of which was that he had given the deceased a shot of heroin but it was not enough to "drop her" and she was still breathing. He would have to wait until the following Wednesday to buy two further caps, and if that was not enough he would buy more until she had "o.d". He added that it was best for her because if he got "picked up" she would have nobody to look after her.
11. In the early afternoon the offender sent a message to Shiara Green saying that she should not worry about the deceased, that he would take the best care he could of her and that he loved her. He added that if anything did happen to her he would ring Shiara straight away and that the deceased loved her "with all her heart". He later sent a further message to Shiara saying that the deceased was "breathing heavy" and hadn't moved out of position all day, but that she was still alive and he would make sure that she rang Shiara when she woke up. He also posted a message on Facebook about the deceased's continuing health problems and his administration of medication to her and her waking in the morning crying that she wished her mother and son would come and get her.
12. In the later afternoon he sent a lengthy message to Ms Chatfield. He revealed that the deceased had had enough of living in pain and wanted him to buy heroin to put her to sleep that morning. He described having given her "20 lines" at 11am, which had put her into a deep sleep, but she was still alive because he could hear her breathing. He added that he would make another attempt next week when he could obtain more heroin after getting paid. He also texted, "I don't care if people say I killed her or if I got to do jail over giving her heroin. I'd rather do that than see her in pain every day and night. She's suffering badly and no-one gives a fuck about her…." He also texted that he was "all she's got", but that he could not stay there and look after her. He asked Ms Chatfield for a "big favour", that they could come to her place because it would be safer for him. If anything happened at least he would know that she would be alright there, otherwise she was going to end her life "next Wednesday".
13. In the early evening he posted further messages on Facebook about the deceased's condition, saying that she had been up all night in severe pain and that he had given her something that morning to help her to sleep. He also sent a message to Shiara Green to say that the deceased was not yet awake but he would get her to ring as soon as she did wake up.
14. A little after 7pm he sent a lengthy message to a person whose name was saved in his phone as "Retta". In that message he recounted what had occurred, including the fact that he had administered heroin to the deceased but that she was still alive. He added that he supported her "100%", and did not care if he was jailed for giving her heroin. He again conveyed the deceased's wishes for her funeral, adding that she would be dead the following Wednesday when he was able to obtain sufficient heroin. He reiterated his love for her, and enquired whether he was doing the right thing by "giving her a big shot of heroin to put her to sleep for good". He forwarded the same message to another person saved in his phone as "Emmanual".
15. It was about 3pm that day when Ms Hull saw the message which the offender had sent in the morning. She reported the matter to police, and at about 7.35pm police attended the deceased's unit. The offender was seen to leave the unit via the rear door, jump over a balcony and run away. Police chased him but he evaded them. Entry was forced into the unit and a crime scene was established.
16. About an hour later ambulance officers arrived at the unit. When they examined the deceased it was clear that she had died. At a post-mortem examination on Tuesday, 7 March 2017, a forensic pathologist determined the cause of death to be acute opiate (heroin) toxicity.
17. At the scene, crime scene officers had located a small resealable bag which contained traces of heroin. The deceased's phone was located. An examination of it revealed no relevant messages relating to her situation after her last discharge from hospital on 4 March.

Arrest of the offender

1. The offender returned to the unit in the morning of Monday, 6 March 2017, where he was arrested. Before being formally interviewed, a police officer told him that the deceased was dead when she was found at the unit. He placed his head in his hands and began crying. He was told by police that it looked as if she had been dead for two hours while he was still at the unit, to which he replied, "I didn't know".
2. In a recorded interview the offender said that he had run from police because he thought they were there to execute a warrant. Explaining his actions on 5 March, he said that the deceased had been in severe pain and asked him to get some heroin. He told her he would ring an ambulance but she said that she wanted heroin "to do meself in" because she could not take the pain anymore. He agreed to get the heroin, obtained it, and gave it to her. He said that he bought "1 point" of heroin at around 11 o'clock, went inside the unit and mixed it up.
3. He made it plain that it was he who had injected the heroin. He was turning over in his mind whether he should do so or ring an ambulance. He said, "Are you sure you want it baby?" She said, "Yes, yes" and got angry with him. She was angry with him because he wouldn't hurry up and give it to her. In no uncertain terms she told him to hurry up and that she was in pain. He gave her 20 mls because "she wanted it…." "She wanted to go to sleep permanently. She had enough of the pain, she couldn't take no more". She did not want him to ring an ambulance.
4. He told police that he thought it would "just relax her and take away the pain…, not hurt her, not kill her". He admitted that he would usually only have 20 mls of heroin but that the deceased was not a heroin user. She would usually inject herself with ice and did not use other drugs.
5. He was asked about the text messages which he sent on 5 March, including the message to Ms Hull, which were revealed when police examined his phone. He said, "Yeah, I didn't know what to do". He had said that she wanted to go to sleep permanently, and he didn't know what to do anymore. When asked in particular about his message to Ms Hull, he said that the deceased had made it clear that she wanted to go with Wal and mum and wanted to go with them "today".
6. He also told police that he did not think to call an ambulance after injecting the deceased with the heroin because he thought she was "just asleep with the pain, well, just took it away, cause she was, she wasn't twitchin' or anything anymore. She wasn't angry anymore". In relation to his message to his mother in the early afternoon of 5 March to the effect that he had given the deceased a shot of heroin but it was not enough to "drop her", he told police that the deceased wanted to "drop" and that this meant "o.d". He said that he did not intend giving her enough heroin for her to die. She wanted it because she was in severe pain, and he was just going to buy some more to give her to keep.
7. He said that after he gave the deceased the heroin, she lay down and just relaxed. He cuddled her for a couple of hours. He had a sleep himself because he knew that she would be up all that night with pain. He said that during the afternoon she was breathing and that there was a pulse when he put his hand on her neck to check it.

Subjective case

1. Affidavits of the offender, his mother, Gloria Jean Merritt, and his only surviving sibling, Loretta Cooper, were read. I also received reports of two well known forensic psychiatrists, Dr Olav Nielssen and Dr Jeremy O'Dea. The following summary of the offender's background is derived from that material.
2. The offender is now 46 years old. He has a lengthy, but somewhat sporadic, criminal history. It comprises a variety of offences but, most significantly, a number of entries for domestic violence. These comprise offences of common assault, and one of malicious wounding, together with offences of malicious damage. All were dealt with in the Local Court, some by non-custodial orders and others by terms of full time imprisonment. Most of these, apparently, arose from his relationship with Ms Hull.
3. The offender, an Aboriginal man, has a disturbed background. He was born in Gilgandra, the eldest of four siblings. His father is deceased. He was an alcoholic and died of a heroin overdose. Two of his siblings have died: a brother, who was killed in a car accident, and a sister, after an overdose of drugs and alcohol.
4. While he was still of primary school age, his parents separated. His father had generally been a good provider, but the problem was his abuse of alcohol and philandering. His father kept visiting his mother and was violent towards her in the presence of the children. She herself started drinking heavily and developed what she described as a "serious problem". She decided to move the children out of this situation.
5. She arranged for them to live with an aunt and uncle, the father's sister and her husband, on a mission at Quambone. At this time the offender was about 8 or 9 years old. For the next few years she had little contact with the children. She moved to Sydney in the mid-1980s.
6. For the offender and his siblings life with the aunt and uncle was not easy. Neither the aunt nor uncle drank, but they were physically violent towards the children, particularly the offender. He was regularly punched and beaten with jug cords and sticks. On one occasion, when he came home drunk, his uncle knocked him out. His father would come to visit them from time to time, but he offender told him nothing about this.
7. He had attended primary school while living with his aunt and uncle but had problems with learning and his behaviour. He came under the influence of other children, some of them older, who had been drinking and sniffing petrol from an early age. He began to sniff petrol when he was about 8 or 9 years old, and had begun drinking at the age of 10. His aunt and uncle did not approve of this and, as he put it, would "flog me for it".
8. He went to high school in Coonamble, but when he was in year 7 he came under the control of the Department of Community Services and went to live in an Aboriginal run hostel in Newcastle. He was there for about 12 months. The petrol sniffing stopped but he continued drinking.
9. He and his siblings then moved in with their father in Molong. There, when he was about 14 years old, he was expelled from school for punching a teacher.
10. Following this, he and his siblings moved to Sydney, and re-established contact with their mother. They lived alternately with her and with another aunt, her sister. By this time his mother had reduced her drinking. He obtained some unskilled work. At the age of 18 he moved to Dubbo and subsequently to Orange, where he remained, on and off, until he was about 28 years old. While in Dubbo he worked as a farmhand but he had no regular work in Orange or upon his return to Sydney.
11. In Dubbo he met Ms Hull, with whom he maintained a relationship which saw the birth of seven children. They are now aged from their late teens into their twenties. After they parted he appears to have lost contact with the children except for one daughter, with whom he has recently made contact.
12. He began using heroin at the age of 16 and maintained the abuse of that drug. He moderated his drinking in his mid-20s, describing heroin thereafter as his "main habit". However, he had regular access to methylamphetamine and also used buprenorphine. In about 2012 he completed a rehabilitation course near Cowra. He considered that it helped at the time but it did not put an end to his pattern of abuse.
13. The offender has a history of mental illness. In his affidavit he deposed to the onset of paranoid delusions in 2003, signs of which were observed by his sister Loretta and his mother. The reports of Dr Nielssen record the diagnosis and treatment of schizophrenia from at least 2009. This included several admissions to hospital and community treatment orders. He was not always compliant with treatment. Over a period leading up to the offence he was subject to a regime of medication administered by fortnightly injections. However, at the time of the offence he had been unmedicated for over a month. Dr Nielssen's report records that the last injection he received was on 30 January 2017.
14. To both doctors the offender maintained his account that he had administered the heroin to the deceased at her request, and that his intention was to relieve her pain, not to kill her. To Dr Nielssen he also described hearing voices saying "not to do it … to do it …", although he was less clear about that aspect in his account to Dr O'Dea.
15. Both Dr Nielssen and Dr O'Dea confirmed the diagnosis of chronic schizophrenia and also, in the light of the offender's history of drug and alcohol abuse, substance use disorder.
16. In the first of two reports Dr Nielssen concluded that the offender had available to him the defence of substantial impairment by abnormality of mind under s 23A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). He considered him to be suffering at the relevant time from positive and negative symptoms of his schizophrenia, leading to an abnormal state of mind likely to have affected his perception of events and his ability to judge right from wrong. Dr O'Dea arrived at a similar conclusion.
17. Of course, substantial impairment by abnormality of mind is a partial defence to murder which, if it were established, would mean that the offender was guilty of manslaughter rather than murder. By his plea of guilty he has abandoned that defence. Nevertheless, his mental illness remains relevant to sentence.
18. Dr Nielssen's second report was provided after the plea of guilty had been entered. The doctor noted that schizophrenia is now recognised as a neurodegenerative disorder "affecting the frontal and temporal lobes of the brain, which are important in social judgment, emotional regulation, planning and impulse control". He described it as "a disabling illness, because of the effect of the neurological changes arising from the condition on the capacity for logical thinking and rational decision making". He believed that the offender's mental illness had "a substantial effect on his offending behaviour, because of the literal and inflexible thinking associated with the illness, and because of the effect of hallucinated voices he reported around that time on his decision making". He added that there was "also a strong association between schizophrenia and substance abuse, both as a cause and as an effect of the illness, which is at least partly due to the neurological substrate of the condition".
19. On 7 March 2017, the day after he was interviewed by police, the offender was seen by a psychiatrist, Dr Matthew Hearps, in custody who concluded that he was not then displaying acute psychotic symptoms. I do not consider this to be at odds with Dr Nielssen's opinion which, as I understand it, rests upon the continuing neurological effects of schizophrenia.
20. In his affidavit, the offender deposed that he was still feeling mentally unwell when he came into custody, but has improved since resuming injected medication. He has been trying hard to stop using drugs but has found it difficult and has continued to use buprenorphine "in the yard". He wants to undertake drug and alcohol rehabilitation but at present is on the waiting list for a program.
21. In his affidavit, the offender expressed what I accept to be genuine remorse for his crime, accepting responsibility for it. He deposed that, although he believed that he was doing the right thing at the time, it was wrong and he should have called an ambulance. He expressed regret for having used illicit drugs at the relevant time and having gone off his medication. He acknowledged the serious effect his crime has had on the deceased's family. He also expressed his remorse to his mother and to Dr Nielssen.
22. It is common ground that his plea of guilty, which was entered in the Local Court, entitles him to a 25 per cent reduction of the sentence which would otherwise have been appropriate.

Victim impact statement

1. A victim impact statement by the daughter of the deceased, Lisa Green, was read to the court by Ms Colleen Harrison, a witness assistance officer with the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The statement is a moving expression of the love which Ms Green, her siblings and the whole of the extended family had for the deceased, and the depth of grief they feel at her untimely death. The statement also is testament to the serious and enduring effect this tragedy has had upon their lives, especially Ms Green's surviving brother and her daughter. During the sentence proceedings I expressed my deepest sympathy to the family in their loss, and I do so again now.
2. In determining the appropriate sentence for the offender I must have regard to a variety of considerations, some pointing in different directions, and I am well aware that nothing this Court can do could ever assuage the family's pain.

Sentencing issues

1. The offender's plea of guilty to murder was entered on the following basis, agreed on by the parties: 1. He injected the deceased with a lethal dose of heroin intending to cause her death. 2. Although suffering from an underlying condition, he was not so substantially impaired as to justify liability for murder being reduced to manslaughter. 3. He acted as he did because he believed that the deceased wished to die: 1. because of something she actually said; and/or 2. because he drew that conclusion as a result of his own mental processes.
2. As to that third proposition, counsel for the offender, Mr Wilson, submitted that I would find that the deceased did tell him that she wished to die by a heroin overdose. His fall-back position was that this was the offender's understanding, although he may have misunderstood something that she had said to him. The Crown prosecutor argued that I could not make a positive finding that she asked him to end her life. At most, as he put it in oral argument, it may be that he "reflected on something she said or a hint that she gave or it may be that she actually did say that and he acted upon it," but I could not make a choice between those alternatives.
3. He added that if I were to approach the matter on the basis of proposition (3)(b), that the offender concluded that she wished to die as a result of his own mental processes, this would involve giving greater weight to the fact that he was suffering from a mental illness at the time. He argued that it really could not be known in what combination these factors came into play. He also relied upon the fact that examination of the deceased's phone did not disclose any communication by her to anyone else at the relevant time.
4. I understand the force of the Crown prosecutor's arguments. Nevertheless, as Mr Wilson argued, the accused's account of the deceased telling him that she wanted him to get heroin to "put herself to sleep for good", so that she could be with "her mum and Wal", has the ring of truth about it. On balance, I am satisfied that she did say something to that effect and that the offender's account in this respect is not the result of misapprehension or a delusional process arising from his mental illness. The bearing of that illness is primarily upon his capacity for exercising judgment and rational decision making.
5. As noted above, it is common ground that the offender intended to kill the deceased. Among the factors put forward by the Crown prosecutor for the purpose of assessing the objective gravity of the offence, he referred to the fact that it involved the use of a weapon, a syringe, that it occurred in a domestic context, and that it disclosed a degree of planning. However, these were inherent characteristics of the offence which are not susceptible to being isolated and considered as aggravating factors bearing upon its objective gravity. In the circumstances, the syringe could hardly be described as a weapon. Equally, while it is true to say that the offence occurred in a domestic context, it could not be seen as an act of domestic violence.
6. I accept Mr Wilson's submission that this was a mercy killing. The text messages and Facebook posts over the two fateful days depict a deeply conflicted man in a state of emotional turmoil. I have no doubt that, despite the turbulent nature of their relationship, he did indeed love the deceased. He made an agonising decision. It involves no denial of the gravity of the intentional taking of a human life to acknowledge that, in the eyes of the offender, what he did was an act of love. Of course, he should have called an ambulance and arranged further treatment for the deceased even if, as he told the police, she did not want him to do so. That said, he would been entitled to question the utility of that course given the history of her numerous admissions to hospital which do not appear to have given her any enduring relief from her conditions.
7. The Crown prosecutor submitted that the offence fell slightly above the mid-range of objective gravity. However, in the circumstances which I have outlined, I consider it to be in the low range. His moral culpability is low, whether the deceased did ask him to end her life or he was mistaken in his belief that that is what she wanted. That said, while allowing for the circumstances, my sentence must reflect the fact that the offender was in the presence of the deceased in breach of bail and an ADVO. In addition, the offences on the Form 1 must be taken into account.
8. In accordance with well established authority, the offender's mental illness bears upon the assessment of his moral culpability and reduces the need for the sentence to reflect considerations of denunciation and general deterrence. Specific deterrence remains of importance, particularly in the light of his history of non-compliance with treatment, carrying the risk of a relapse into criminal offending. That said, given his criminal history, I think it unlikely that that would involve very serious offences, particularly an offence as serious as that to which he now stands for sentence. This murder arose from a particular set of circumstances and I find it most improbable that he would reoffend in this way.
9. I take into account the offender's troubled background which, no doubt, is the source of his pattern of offending and substance abuse. Mr Wilson realistically accepted that I must be guarded as to his prospects of rehabilitation. It will hinge very much upon his long-term compliance with treatment for his mental illness and for his substance abuse, and the continuing support of his mother and his sister.
10. In this respect a promising sign, and a matter in any event to be taken to be taken into account in his favour, is his remorse and acceptance of responsibility for this crime. Apart from the expressions of remorse to which I have referred, it is demonstrated by his plea of guilty and his abandonment of a possible partial defence. It is also apparent from his admission to the police that it was he, not the deceased, who had administered the fatal injection. True it is that he had admitted as much in some of his text messages on the day in question, but it is highly unlikely that at the time he was speaking to the police he was conscious of the prospect of their being used as evidence against him.
11. Of course, to the police he maintained that he did not intend to kill the deceased but his plea of guilty, and the basis upon which was entered, convey that over the time which has since elapsed he has come to terms with the full measure of his criminality.
12. Mr Wilson submitted that I should find special circumstances warranting a departure from the statutory proportion between sentence and non-parole period. I do not propose to do so. The sentence I have determined will leave a substantial period of parole eligibility, and any lesser non-parole period would fail to reflect the offender's criminality.
13. Mr Wilson supplied me with a number of what were said to be comparable sentencing decisions, while acknowledging that they are of limited utility. Most of them, being first instance decisions and one decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal, are cases of manslaughter. It is not necessary to identify them. There were two murder sentences, both decisions of Barr J, but the circumstances of each of them are markedly different from the present case. These are R v Preuss (unreported, 26 August 1997) and R v Ritchie [2003] NSWSC 864. The combination of these decisions does not provide a yardstick for the sentencing decision which I must make.
14. Inherently serious as any offence of murder is, in all the circumstances I am satisfied that this offender is entitled to a significant measure of leniency. The appropriate starting point, before any reduction for the plea of guilty, is imprisonment for 18 years. A 25 per cent reduction in recognition of the utilitarian value of the offender's plea produces a term of 13 and a half years. I shall set a non-parole period (rounded down) of 10 years.

Sentence

1. Robert Ronald Cooper, for the murder of Donna Green, taking into account the offences on the Form 1, you are sentenced to a non-parole period of 10 years, commencing on 6 March 2017 and expiring on 5 March 2027 and a balance of term of 3 years and 6 months, commencing on 6 March 2027 and expiring on 5 September 2030. You will be eligible for release on parole on 6 March 2027.

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 19 August 2019