R v KMW & RJB [2002] VSC 93

Supreme Court of Victoria|2002-03-15|Before: COLDREY, J.

You have each pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Stuart Peter Alford at Belmont on 9 February 2001 and I must now sentence you.

At the time of the commission of this offence, you, KW, were 14 years old and you, RB were aged 16. You were both living at the Belmont flat of K's mother, Mrs CW. Also residing there was the deceased, Stuart Alford.

According to the depositional materials, Stuart Alford had been living spasmodically with Mrs W since 1993. In March 1989, MW who was your father, K, and also the father of your sister Nicola, had left the family. At this time your family was residing in Adelaide.

It is apparent from the various witness statements that Stuart Alford had an alcohol and drug problem and that when affected by alcohol, he would assault your mother. Initially these assaults occurred monthly. One was of sufficient severity to break your mother's cheek bone.

While in Adelaide, your mother obtained two intervention orders against Stuart Alford, but as was to become a pattern, she resumed her relationship with him.

In her statement, your elder sister Nicola, recounts the family moving to King Island, when Stuart Alford obtained a job at the local meat works. She describes frequent arguments over money and frequent assaults on your mother by the deceased, including one where he dragged your mother out of the family car by the hair. At the time your mother was pregnant with your half-brother Shannon. On another occasion, Nicola was punched when she tried to protect your mother from an assault.

In 1995, the family travelled to Burnie, Tasmania, which was the deceased's home town. According to your mother, this was to evade the attentions of welfare organisations and the police.

During the ensuing year, the deceased's assaults on your mother became more frequent and severe. Once again she had her cheek bone broken, but she dropped assault charges so that the deceased would not go to gaol. Intervention orders were obtained and subsequently breached.

In November 1995, Shannon was born. Nicola describes running away from the Burnie home at the age of 13, approaching the welfare organisations and thereafter spending time in foster homes. She declined to rejoin the family unit, when in 1996, because of what CW describes as problems with welfare and police, the family returned to Adelaide. There the assaults continued.

In 1998 the family moved to Geelong. Stuart Alford's drinking increased. He was now spending his waking hours drinking. He consumed up to five litres of cask wine, either Riesling or Moselle, daily. The fact of this level of consumption gained support from the extraordinarily high post-mortem blood alcohol reading of the deceased, being .4, or more than eight times the legal limit. He had already acquired a series of drink/driving convictions.

The deceased was also on medication for epilepsy, but would consume whatever pills he could obtain.

There was a period in 1998 and 1999 when Nicola rejoined the family in Geelong. It appears about this time the deceased was subject to an intervention order. Nonetheless while at the family premises, he assaulted Nicola. Convictions were recorded in March 1999 for both intentionally causing injury and breach of an intervention order. The deceased had several other convictions for breaching intervention orders in the 1998/1999 period.

By this time, the assaults were occurring weekly. Mrs CW's statement records that during the period in Geelong, the couple split up on about twelve occasions. In December 2001 there was an occasion when the deceased punched Mrs W in the head and dragged her through rose bushes at the front of the Belmont flat. The police were called, and whilst Mrs W ordered the deceased from the premises, she did not press charges against him.

During his absence, the deceased, having endeavoured to kill himself by slashing his wrists, sought to return to the family unit. Your mother acceded to his entreaties to return to the flat and by mid-January he had done so.

It should be said that there were periods of non-violence and Mr Alford exhibited friendliness to those around him. This history is not recounted for the purposes of denigrating Mr Alford. Indeed, I am conscious that he is unable to tell his side of the story. Nonetheless, he was obviously a man beset by alcohol induced problems and even the broadest outline of the domestic situation is illustrative of the traumatic atmosphere which you, KW, were frequently confronted.

It seems that up until 9 February, the day Stuart Alford met his death, you had not been physically attacked by the deceased, although you were the subject of his verbal abuse.

On that date, you, RB, were a temporary resident at the Belmont flat and had been so for seven to ten days. Your parents marriage had failed when you were aged four. From then until you were seven, you resided with your mother in Queensland. Thereafter, you lived with your father in Geelong. He re-married, you had a step-mother between the ages of eight and 14. I am instructed that that relationship never developed into a loving one. Essentially you lacked the love and companionship of a mother. You became friendly with KW at Geelong High School and thereafter, you saw in Mrs CW, all the maternal warmth and friendship which you had been deprived and for which you longed.

During this period, there were conflicts with your father, principally over disciplinary matters and you would leave home for various intervals and stay with the W family.

There was considerable confusion and conflict in the evidence of the events of 9 February. I have endeavoured to piece together a picture of what occurred from the various accounts. I am conscious however, that it is incomplete.

On that morning Stuart Alford started yelling at you, KW, criticising your behaviour on the previous evening, when you had had an argument with your mother about the lateness of your arrival home. You told the police that this had been sorted out between you and your mother by the next morning, but there was an exchange of words with the deceased, after which you went to your bedroom. Stuart Alford followed you in there. He pushed you onto the bed, sat on top of you and put his hands around your throat. When you said "don't," he responded "shut up or I'll splatter your nose across your face." You described yourself, to the interviewing police, as being angry and you said "well do it then." Stuart Alford then punched you in the mouth. Apart from the physical effect of the blow, it caused you to apologise to him and he got off you and left the room.

Mrs W heard the yelling and according to her statement, noticed you, RB, standing nearby her, shaking. Shortly thereafter Stuart Alford left the premises, having obtained money from Mrs W to purchase more wine.

You, KW, had a swollen bottom lip and scratch marks on your neck. These were subsequently noted by Dr Mathew Ryan, a forensic medical officer, who examined you. He was of the opinion that these injuries were consistent with an assault upon you.

When you confirmed to your mother that these injuries had been caused by Stuart Alford, she offered to ring the police. You declined the offer, fearing it would antagonise him further. Thereafter you and RB left the premises to pay the rent for Mrs W.

I should mention that Mrs W suffered from agoraphobia and required assistance to leave the flat. Consequently you would attend to a number of the necessary domestic transactions on her behalf. While on this errand, flowers were purchased for her. Upon their presentation, the deceased complained that no flowers were bought for him, although perhaps in a bid to placate him, you had written on the card "For Mum and Stuart."

The balance of the day was spent by you both cleaning K's bedroom, before going out to the house of a friend for dinner, about six p.m. You returned home some time after 7.30 p.m. Meanwhile, according to Mrs W, the deceased was questioning her as to whether she was intending to contact the police about the morning assault. She describes him as becoming verbally aggressive towards her.

Although, as I have said, there was a level of confusion as to what happened thereafter, it is clear that both of you and Mrs W, feared that Stuart Alford was on the way to becoming violent.

Mrs W was distressed and the decision was taken to leave the house and wait in the grounds of the nearby Belmont Primary School. This is probably some time after 9 p.m.

The level of fear may be gauged by the fact that despite her agoraphobia, Mrs W regarded it as necessary to leave the flat.

Over a period of hours, each of you took it in turns to go and see if Stuart Alford had calmed down. According to you, RB, it was on one of these occasions that young Shannon was removed from the premises, there being a concern for his safety, because the deceased had left a gas ring burning on the stove.

Mrs W deposed to the boy saying "Pa just punched me in the back," and to observing a red mark there. On another occasion you obtained some warmer garments for Mrs W and Shannon.

It seems that your plan was to re-enter the premises once the deceased had fallen into a drunken sleep. In the meantime he was drinking in the laundry of the flat, to the accompaniment of music from a ghetto-blaster.

On yet another occasion, according to the version of you, KW, you, RB, armed yourself with a hockey stick that was lying in the back yard and went as far as the front steps of the premises. There you were confronted by the deceased who said words to the effect, you hit me with that and I'll do something to you. You dropped the hockey stick and ran from the premises.

One neighbour, Rachel Selleck, heard a very frightened female screaming "let me out," and a male voice saying "stay here." She estimated that this occurred about 11.30 p.m.

Another neighbour, Emma Botheras, heard a female screaming about midnight.

I should add that according to various statements, the deceased had spoken on a number of occasions of being involved in the murder of his step-father and the rape and murder of the step-father's thirteen year old daughter. These events were said to have occurred in Tasmania. There is no evidence to suggest that this claim was true, but it also played upon your minds.

The interviews you each gave to the police include elements of confusion, retrospective bravado and a desire to protect each other. Not surprisingly, they are permeated by youthful immaturity.

The Crown does not contest the assertion, in your interview, RB, that being frightened of Stuart Alford, you armed yourself with a knife which you took from the kitchen, prior to an eventual endeavour to talk to him. At this stage he was on his mattress which was situated in the lounge room of the flat. You sat on an adjacent couch. At some point Stuart Alford grabbed your face and kissed you. You responded by stabbing him and fleeing from the premises. You met KW, who had apparently been watching through a window and both of you re-entered the premises. At some time shortly thereafter, you, KW, also stabbed Stuart Alford.

On the version of events given by each of you, at some stage you were both struck by the deceased with the hockey stick. Blunt trauma, consistent with this occurrence was found on examination by Dr Mathew Ryan to the bridge of your nose, KW and to your scalp, RB.

Ultimately, however, each of you in turn struck a number of blows to the deceased's body with the hockey stick.

Dr Matthew Lynch, a pathologist, observed lacerations to the back of the head and face of the deceased. They were consistent with between seven to 16 blows with the hockey stick. The injuries included broken teeth and fractured nose and jaw. There were also bruises to the deceased's arms consistent with defensive injuries. This suggests an element of frenzy in your attack.

However, it was the two stab wounds to the left front chest that caused the death of Stuart Alford. These damaged the left lung and branches of the pulmonary artery and vein. Dr Lynch expressed the view that these wounds were not immediately fatal and that survival time could have been for minutes to half an hour.

Although the sequence of events is unclear, Mrs W describes both of you returning to the Primary School, screaming hysterically and crying. You were both saying words to the effect, we stabbed him. You, RB, were yelling out "He was trying to kiss me, he grabbed my face."

It would seem that shortly afterwards, you both returned to the flat, where an attempt was made to obtain medical assistance. You, KW, telephoned the police and emergency services. That call, which was recorded, reveals you to be extremely upset and distraught. In the course of the call you recount being struck by the deceased and of stabbing him in the chest and striking him to the head with the hockey stick. The conversation contains assertions that you think that you and your friend may have killed the deceased and that you did not mean to do it.

It seems however, that Stuart Alford was still alive at this stage and you were eventually put in contact with the Melbourne Ambulance Service. Acting on relayed instructions, you obtained a towel and applied pressure to the area of the deceased's wound. Unfortunately this action proved to be futile.

One of the first police officers who attended the scene, Senior Constable Robert Beckingham, heard distraught females pleading for someone to wake up. He observed what he described as a scene of a struggle in the lounge room and noted that Stuart Alford was apparently dead.

Mr Leckie, on behalf of the Crown, very fairly accepted your pleas of guilty on the basis that your actions disclosed the offence of unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter. Although you clearly intended to hurt Stuart Alford, the Crown accepted that you did not specifically intend to kill or cause really serious bodily injury to Stuart Alford.

However, the acts of stabbing which caused the death of Stuart Alford, were unlawful and a reasonable person in your position would have realised that by your acts, you were exposing him to an appreciable risk of death or serious bodily injury.

The offence of manslaughter is a serious one and the courts must be seen to uphold the sanctity of human life. However, the sentences imposed for this crime vary widely, according to the circumstances of the offence and the personal circumstances of the offender.

I have outlined the background of this fatal evening in some detail. It indicates the difficulty family environment which you, KW, had experienced for many years and in which you, RB, having become emotionally attached to the W family, became embroiled.

On this evening you were both faced with a traumatic situation and one which has caused the family to temporarily flee from what should have been the safety of their home. Perhaps wiser heads would have sought police assistance rather than attempt to personally solve this domestic problem.

But you were both young, frightened and confused about what to do to resolve the situation with which you were confronted. That fear was mixed with some anger at what the deceased had previously done to Mrs W, as well as his conduct towards her that night, and what he had done to you, KW, that morning, and to you, RB, that evening.

Whilst there may be some element of self-defence in your actions, RB, they were, are your counsel Mr Morrissey conceded, too excessive to constitute lawful self-defence.

Nonetheless the combination of circumstances that I have outlined, served to some extent, to reduce the moral culpability of each of you for this offence.

The overriding factor which I must and do take into account, is your youth. The law is quite clear that the youth of a first offender, as you both are, should be a primary consideration for a sentencing court and in such circumstances, rehabilitation will usually be the most significant factor in any sentence imposed.

As has been pointed out, rehabilitation benefits not just the offender, but the community as well.

Guidance as to the matters a court should take into account in sentencing persons of your age, is also provided by s.139 of the Children (Young Persons) Act (1989). I have regard to those factors.

Apart from your youth, there are matters personal to each of you which are relevant in determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed.

Before I mention those matters, I wish to say something briefly about Stuart Alford. He was only 35 years of age at the time of his tragic death. On the material before the court, he was a man who was disabled by the problems of alcoholism. When intoxicated, he could be unpredictable and violent. But he could also be pleasant, affectionate and caring.

In very brief Victim Impact Statements placed before this court, his mother and sister speak of the real sense of loss they each feel at his death. Indeed, Stuart Alford's death and the manner in which it occurred is something from which they will never fully recover.

KW, you have just turned 16 years of age. You were born in Stoke-on-Trent in England. You have an older sister, Nicola and also a half-brother Shannon. You were three years old when your parents came to Australia. They separated soon after and you have had no contact with your father for many years.

I have already touched on the dynamics of your family situation. The nomadic existence that your family life entailed, resulted in you attending seven primary schools in different States.

Mrs Margaret Wedding, a worker with St Vincent De Paul, whose evidence I found very impressive, has been involved with your family since you were eleven and Shannon two years of age. By this time your older sister, Nicola, had already left home and the family was living at the Billabong Caravan Park in the Geelong area. Your de facto step-father was unemployed.

Mrs Wedding assisted the family in obtaining the unit at Belmont. She described it as being kept spotlessly clean by your mother and also noted your mother's care and concern for you and your brother. Mrs Wedding also assisted in you gaining a place at Geelong High School and St Vincent De Paul provided the money for books and uniforms. You initially did well at school and at the beginning of Year 9, you were elected Deputy Class Captain.

Mrs Wedding regarded you as an intelligent person. She spoke of the possibility of St Vincent De Paul assisting you with a type of scholarship in the future. Mrs Wedding also emphasised the bond that exists between you and your mother and brother. She was very critical of the effect on the family unit of the drinking and associated conduct of the deceased. Indeed, she attributed the onset of your truancy, which occurred towards the end of the Year 2000, as a symptom of your concern for the daily well-being of your mother at the hands of the deceased.

It appears that during the year before this offence, you were regularly using marijuana and amphetamines. Ultimately you were required to repeat Year 9, but there being no place at the school, you were eventually enrolled at St Augustine's Catholic Secondary School.

You told Dr Teresa Flower, a psychiatrist who examined you in her role as Registrar in Psychiatry at the Adolescent Forensic Health Service that you had done well at that school, although the events of 2001 have effectively disrupted your education. One problem was your apparent inability, for various reasons, to comply with bail conditions which has resulted in your detention. Inclusive of today's date, you have been in custody for 198 days.

Dr Flower provided a written report and gave evidence on your plea. She regarded you as reasonably intelligent and stated that you do not suffer from any psychotic illness, although you are presently receiving treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder.

"KW is a 15 year old girl currently diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. This diagnosis relates partly to her offence and recollection of the offence which she experiences as traumatic, but also to the years spent living in a household characterised by repeated violent events. This violence was experienced by K as having no solution, for she perceived the family as unable to leave the perpetrator, partly because of her mother, the responsible adult, would or could not do so and partly because the family perceived the step-father as being able to find them wherever they went. K also lived in fear of her step-father killing all the family, a fear which she still re-lives. The instability of K's early years and her current uncertainty about what will happen to her, are factors which will perpetuate these symptoms. The absence of any strong parental role models in her life, has led K to assume responsibilities and to make decisions which are not rightly hers to make."

According to Dr Flower, you have been cooperative and engaged well with the health team at the Parkville Youth Residential Centre, where you are presently detained.

Dr Flower recommends continuing engagement with psychiatric services and drug and alcohol counselling as well as family counselling. It was also Dr Flower's view that further attendance at an educational institution would be beneficial to you. She stated that these ends could best be accomplished outside a Youth Training Centre setting. This would also have the effect of allaying your present anxiety about the welfare of your mother and brother.

The Unit Coordinator at Parkville, Ms Rhonda Coyne, deposed to your successful participation in a TAFE program of general adult education, designed to equip you with the equivalent of Year 10 standard. Ms Coyne spoke of your behaviour as being representative of a normal 15 year old in the community, but also remarked that you showed a maturity and capacity in many areas.

This is not surprising given the role you had to play in family life, in such areas as rental payment and food purchasing because of the problem of your mother's agoraphobia.

Ms Coyne told the court of a transitional program for returning inmates to the community, to avoid the effects of institutionalisation, including the dulling of initiative, although Ms Coyne also said that she did not disagree with Dr Flower's opinion.

There is much to be said for a structured approach, although initially it requires sentencing you to a Youth Training Centre. However, insofar as it is designed to combat institutionalisation, it may be doubted that this is a problem given the relative brevity of the overall period that you have spent in detention.

Furthermore the Outreach program apparently operated by the Juvenile Justice Section of the Department of Human Services, has no accommodation facilities in Geelong.

A further witness, Ms Joanne Arthur of Baysa Youth Services, an organisation funded by the Department of Human Services and which deals with young people in difficulties from the Geelong area, told the court that you, K, had been involved in the program for 12 months. The organisation offered intensive support in the areas of accommodation, counselling, training and employment.

In essence, it was submitted by your counsel Mr Bourke, that the circumstances surrounding this killing were unusual. He stressed the significance of your youth. It was put that you have the capacity to succeed if given the opportunity and that assistance was available to you. It was further put by Mr Bourke that you were remorseful as your plea of guilty indicated. That you were intelligent and have no prior convictions whatsoever and consequently your prospects of rehabilitation are excellent.

Finally Mr Bourke argued that your rehabilitation could best be facilitated in a community setting.

I now turn to the matters personal to you, RB. You are presently 17 years old. You were born in Western Australia. You have an older step-brother, Robert, who resides in Sydney, which whom you have virtually no contact and a younger brother, Daniel, aged 15.

Your parents separated when you were three or four years old. Your mother apparently developed drug and alcohol problems which, on occasions, manifested themselves in random violence. From the age of four to seven, you lived with your mother in Queensland, where she had a series of partners. This was not a happy time for you. When you were eight years old, you re-joined your father, MB, in Geelong. He gave evidence on your plea.

Mr B was, for much of your life, in the Army. He was described by Mr Morrissey as a loving father, but one whose Army duties required him to be away frequently. When you were nine, your father re-married. It seems that your step-mother, who remained in your life until a divorce when you were 14, was a relatively effective disciplinarian but was incapable of providing you with the motherly love you craved.

For a brief period, apparently for about three months, when you were aged 15, you attempted a reconciliation with your mother in Queensland, but this did not work out.

At home in Geelong, there was conflict with your father, who did not approve of aspects of your adolescent behaviour. During this period, you were hanging about the Geelong Mall and experimenting with alcohol and marijuana.

After primary school, you attended Sacred Heart College in Newtown for two years. You were asked to leave and then attended Geelong High School at Year 9 level. You did not complete that year.

Mr Joblin, a forensic psychologist, who provided the court with a report, described you as being of average intelligence and exhibiting no evidence of psychiatric or psychological disturbance. He attributed your poor scholastic performance, (apparently you would constantly "play the clown") to a reaction to your difficulties at home.

More recently, during 2001, you have attended GATE, Geelong Adult Teaching Education, completing a course to Year 10 standard.

At Geelong High School, you became friendly with KW and as I previously indicated, being drawn to the warm and friendship of Mrs W, you would on occasions, leave home and stay with the W family. Such was the situation on this fatal night.

You also have no prior convictions and according to Mr Joblin, have expressed a degree of remorse for your role in Stuart Alford's death. You offered to plead guilty to manslaughter well before this trial and you spent 33 days in custody before obtaining bail.

As with KW, you are entitled to have your guilty plea taken into account in your favour.

Thereafter, you have set about demonstrating in a practical manner, your capacity for rehabilitation. Your father, with whom you continue to live, deposed to a dramatic change in your attitude. You are more responsible and less rebellious. You have ceased drinking. You get on well with your brother Daniel. You are endeavouring once again to establish a relationship, initially by telephone, with your mother.

Your father now describes you as a pleasure to be around. One factor in all this is apparently the stabilising effect of your ten month relationship with a young man named Josh Reid. I was told that you and Josh, your father and his mother, are able to sit down and discuss any day to day problems.

Ms Tracy Roger, a case worker with Protective Services in the Department of Human Services, gave evidence that you are presently subject to a supervision order operative until August 2002. Her role includes providing support for you and preserving and strengthening family relationships. She states that you have always been cooperative with her. Ms Roger has the capacity to arrange counselling support.

Additionally, since about September 2001, you have been working three to four days per week at a local general store. About two and a half years ago, you commenced by assisting the proprietor with ironing work. In a letter to the court, the proprietor stated that you now serve in the shop itself, apparently working well when left in charge.

Your past history together with your subsequent conduct suggests that your prospects of rehabilitation are excellent.

Although I do not minimise the seriousness of this offence, it was committed by you both in unusual and traumatic circumstances and under great stress. Your reactions were, to a considerable extent, governed by your youthful immaturity. You are now each a year older and as the material before me indicates, your prospects of rehabilitation are excellent.

I have concluded that the interests of you both and of the community generally, are best served by placing an emphasis on your rehabilitation, rather than on retribution or general deterrence. Further, I am persuaded that in pursuing this course, there is nothing to be gained by sentencing you to any further period of detention.

Accordingly I intend to give you the opportunity to re-establish your lives within the community.

I have carefully considered the spectrum of sentencing options open to me, ranging from a suspended sentence to probation. The option which I regard as most suitable in terms of duration and flexibility is provided by s.72 of the Sentencing Act (1991).

This means that following your conviction, the proceedings will be adjourned for a period which I fixed at three years, upon you each giving an undertaking to comply with the following conditions.

That you appear before the court if called on to do so during the period of the adjournment and if the court so specifies, at the time to which the further hearing is adjourned, that is three years from today's date.

That during the period of the adjournment you will be of good behaviour.

That you will observe any special conditions imposed by the court. I intend to impose some special conditions designed to assist both of you in the process of rehabilitation.

In your case, KW, I take up the suggestion of Dr Flower that you would benefit from family counselling and drug and alcohol counselling.

Additionally I accept Dr Flower's recommendation that you would be assisted by ongoing psychiatric help. Dr Flower also strongly advocates that you enrol in a school or TAFE course. Mrs Wedding has offered assistance from St Vincent De Paul, designed to facilitate your further education.

I do not think it appropriate to order you to continue our education, but I think it is very desirable for your future that you do so.

Overall I think the assistance to your rehabilitation may best be provided by Baysa Youth Services. Accordingly I propose to make it a special condition for any adjournment that you undertake family and drug counselling and obtain psychiatric assistance as directed by Baysa Youth Services.

If there are any problems with implementing this condition of the undertaking, I give leave to Baysa Youth Services to apply to this court for further guidance or direction.

In your case RB, you are currently subject to a supervision order and Ms Roger has told the court that in accordance with that order, she has referred you to a Youth Health Agency for counselling. I would propose that you attend any counselling as directed by the Protective Services Unit of the Department of Human Services during the adjournment period of three years.

That will not necessarily encompass the whole of that period, but the length of time involved will be a matter for Protective Services.

If you are each prepared to give the undertaking in the terms I have set out, you will be released. Are you prepared to give that undertaking?

HIS HONOUR: Mr Leckie I have some forms here for you to have a look at and the other members at the Bar table to look at. They are in the form I propose.

MR LECKIE: Yes, thank you, Your Honour. Does Your Honour propose that Miss W and Miss B be called forward to sign those?

HIS HONOUR: Yes, they will need to come forward and sign those. If you both come forward, you will need to sign these documents.

MR MORRISSEY: Your Honour, as that is being done, would Your Honour grant me leave to stand with Miss B just to ensure she understands what is being put?

HIS HONOUR: Yes you can both instruct your clients. Mr Leckie I should mention that whilst that is being done, I have signed the disposal order that was sought.

MS DOWLING: Your Honour may I be excused from the Bar table to make sure my client signs in the right place?

I have signed those undertakings, and witnessed your signatures there. No doubt your counsel will reinforce with you that if you break any of the conditions of the undertaking, you are then liable to come back to this court to be further dealt with for this offence. I am giving you each a chance to make something of your lives after this terrible and traumatic event. Do not let me down, and do not let down the many good people who have also come forward to support you in your endeavours to make something of your lives.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (117 paragraphs)

Parties