R v Lynch

Criminal history

1. To understand the seriousness of the offence it is necessary to consider the offender's criminal history, much of which is directly relevant to the commission of this offence. At the age of 21 he was convicted of wilful and obscene exposure committed on 15 February 2014. For that he received the benefit of s 10 and was placed on a bond to be of good behaviour for three months. It is likely that that was the result of urinating in public.
2. On 18 April 2015 at the age of 22 he committed the offence of possessing or attempting to possess a prescribed restricted substance. That may have been Xanax. He was again afforded the benefit of s 10, but on that occasion the bond was for a period of 12 months. However, that sentence was imposed on 30 July 2015, but the offender breached it by another offence on 10 July 2016. He was then called up for the offence of 18 April 2015 and fined $250. The offence of 10 July 2016 was possession of a prohibited drug. For that offence he was fined $600.
3. On 16 May 2017 the offender committed two offences of possessing a prohibited drug. For each of those offences he was fined $500. On 18 May 2017, two days later, the offender was found to be driving with an illicit drug in his blood or breath. The drug was methylamphetamine. 18 May 2017 was a Thursday. The offender was pulled over in Jannali for a random breath and drug test. He passed the random breath test, but the random drug test proved positive for methamphetamine. The test at the police station was positive for methamphetamine and analysis carried out in the laboratory was also positive for methamphetamine. The offender was fined $600 for this offence and disqualified from driving for six months.
4. On 26 May 2017, eight days later, at the age of 24, the offender committed offences of deemed supply of illicit drugs, dealing with property reasonably thought to have been illegally obtained, possession of a prohibited weapon, which was a taser, and possession of three lots of prohibited drugs. Eventually, for those offences the offender was to be incarcerated. However, he was given bail.
5. On 27 August 2017, some three months later, he committed the offence of driving with a high range prescribed concentration of alcohol in his blood or breath. The circumstances of that offence are of considerable moment in the current offence. 27 August 2017 was a Sunday. At about 7.10pm on that day the offender was driving a silver Holden Commodore sedan westbound in the middle of three westbound lanes on the Kingsway at Miranda. The offender told me that the incident to which I am about to refer occurred near the intersection of the Kingsway and Kareena Road. Kareena Road is the border between Miranda and Caringbah and on the corner of the Kingsway and Kareena Road on the Caringbah side is the Sutherland Hospital. At the time the offender was driving west, Ms Roslyn Hewley was driving a grey Toyota RAV4 eastbound in the middle of the three eastbound lanes of the Kingsway. The offender started to swerve to the left and lost control of his vehicle. In an effort to correct that, he swerved back to the right, but that resulted in his crossing over the median strip and crossing into the eastbound lanes of the Kingsway and colliding with Ms Hewley's vehicle. Police and ambulance were called and attended shortly after that. Both the ambulance station and the police station are nearby. The offender was trapped in his vehicle and had to be cut free. Once freed from his vehicle he was taken by ambulance to the St George Hospital.
6. Police remained at the scene and spoke with Ms Hewley. Fortunately she was not injured. Police observed approximately 18 metres of skid marks on the westbound side of the Kingsway where the offender had swerved before colliding with the median strip and then travelling onto the eastbound side of the Kingsway. The offender does not appear to have been gravely injured, as he was discharged from the St George Hospital at 11.45pm. A blood sample was taken from him at the hospital. The blood alcohol reading was 0.165, that is in the high range. For that offence the offender was ordered to perform 150 hours of community service and was disqualified for a period of five years. That sentence was imposed on 22 March 2018, which is when the five-year disqualification period commenced. However, in the interim, the offender's licence was suspended by the police.
7. When the offender committed this offence, not only was he driving whilst disqualified but he also was at conditional liberty. The offender was on bail when he committed on the offences on 26 May 2017. The commission of a serious criminal offence while at conditional liberty is an aggravating factor.
8. On 12 July this year, the offender appeared before my colleague, Mahoney DCJ and was sentenced to two years and six months' imprisonment commencing on 12 January 2019. His Honour fixed a non-parole period of one year and three months that expires on 11 April 2020. That sentence was for the offences of 26 May 2017.
9. Relevant to the current offence is the driving with illicit substance in his system on 18 May 2017 and driving with the high range PCA level on 27 August 2017 as well as his drug offences, which show a pattern of drug ingestion since at least 18 April 2015.

Guideline judgment

1. R v Whyte [2002] NSWCCA 343;(2002) 55 NSWLR 252 is a guideline judgment for offences contrary to s 52A of the Crimes Act 1900. At [204] Spigelman CJ said this: "A frequently recurring case of an offence under s 52A has the following characteristics. (i) Young offender. (ii) Of good character with no or limited prior convictions. (iii) Death or permanent injury to a single person. (iv) The victim is a stranger. (v) No or limited injury to the driver or the driver's intimates. (vi) Genuine remorse. (vii) Plea of guilty of limited utilitarian value."
2. At the time of this offence, the offender was 26 years old. He is still 26 years old. He can be categorised as a young offender. However, the offender was not of prior good character with limited prior convictions. He has had two convictions which are entirely relevant to the current offence and a history of drug offending, which is relevant to the drugs that were in his system at the time of the collision that led to Mr Brock's death. Clearly there was a death of a single person. Clearly Mr Brock was a stranger to the offender. The offender himself, however, was injured and that injury could be categorised as substantial. His passenger, Mr Matthew McDonald also injured a couple of ribs and sustained bruising. Indeed, the offender told me that his passenger fractured a couple of his ribs. However, there is no medical evidence concerning that before me. In this case, there is genuine remorse and I shall describe that later. There is a plea of guilty here, but the plea may have been a recognition of the inevitable.
3. At [214] the Chief Justice said this: "The guideline this Court should give pursuant to s 37A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 with respect to the typical case identified above is: A custodial sentence will usually be appropriate unless the offender has a low level of moral culpability, as in the case of momentary inattention or misjudgment." This is not such a case. There is no dispute by the offender that a custodial sentence is called for.
4. At [216] and [217] his Honour set out a number of aggravating factors. They are these: 1. Extent and nature of the injuries inflicted; 2. Number of people put at risk; 3. Degree of speed; 4. Degree of intoxication or of substance abuse; 5. Erratic driving; 6. Competitive driving or showing off; 7. The length of the journey during which others were exposed to risk; 8. Ignoring of warnings; 9. Escaping police pursuit; 10. Degree of sleep deprivation; and 11. Failing to stop.
5. The first consideration is otiose in the present case because there was the death of one person, Mr Brock. The next question is the number of people put at risk. The offender had stayed with a friend somewhere in the Sutherland Shire on the preceding evening. He gave this history to Ms Jenny Howell, a psychologist, who interviewed him on 26 November 2019 by AVL: "On the day before the accident occurred, Mr Lynch had been arguing with his girlfriend and had left the home following the argument. At some time during that day Mr Lynch said that he used ice and taken Xanax tablets. He stayed at his friend's house overnight before shopping at Miranda Fair and said a decision was made to go to another friend's house at Padstow. The accident occurred on the way to his friend's home". The offender told me in his oral evidence today that he called at the house of another friend at Engadine at the commencement of this journey but that friend was not at home and hence he came to the place where the accident occurred.
6. I again point out that it was a Saturday afternoon during school holidays in suburban Sydney. To get from Miranda Fair to Engadine the offender would have had to have travelled along one of the two major east-west arteries of the Sutherland Shire, the Kingsway or President Avenue. He would then have followed the Princess Highway south to Engadine and from Engadine he would have turned on to the Heathcote Road, a road that runs between the Princess Highway, between Engadine and Heathcote, to Liverpool and intersects with the M5 before crossing the George's River. From the Heathcote Road he turned north onto the New Illawarra Road. New Illawarra Road runs up to Menai where at a crossroad one goes straight ahead on to Alfords Point Road which crosses the George's River at the Alfords Point Bridge, and the road then goes into Padstow. However, that road continues on and eventually meets up with Parramatta Road and the M4. In other words, New Illawarra Road is a major arterial road as is the Heathcote Road, as is the Princess Highway. The number of persons who may have been exposed to the offender's erratic driving is unknown but it would not have been small.
7. The journey which the offender had undertaken prior to the collision had lasted for a half hour and probably would have gone on for at least a further quarter of an hour before he reached Padstow. The number of people who may have been exposed to the risk offered by the offender driving in his state was substantial.
8. Speed does not appear to have been a relevant factor in this collision. Clearly the offender's drug ingestion on the previous day contributed to the offence. Learned counsel for the offender was kind enough to include in his written submissions this: "Rebound effects are the transient return of symptoms for which a medication has been prescribed (eg, insomnia or anxiety), and withdrawal effects are the development of new symptoms characteristic of abrupt cessation of the medication, such as muscle spasms, delirium or seizures following discontinuation of high-dosage benzodiazepine. Alprazolam (Xanax) is a sedative, typically prescribed to treat anxiety. It is submitted that the Pharmacologist's opinion that the offender's ability to drive was affected by the rebound effect (specifically sedation) following with the withdrawal of 'ice' use with the additive effect of alprazolam". Learned counsel cited a medical text book for the medical material contained in that submission. I am happy to accept it. It is clear however from the agreed facts that the offender was driving under the influence of the rebound sedation of both methylamphetamine withdrawal with the added effects of the Xanax such that his driving would have been impaired.
9. Here, as a result of probably that impairment, there was erratic driving. There is now suggestion however of competitive driving or the ignoring of warnings or the escaping of police pursuit or of sleep deprivation or of failing to stop after the collision. There was however a lengthy journey undertaken to the time of the collision and a further length of journey to be completed after the collision had it not occurred, which I have considered when discussing the number of people put at risk.
10. At [229] the Chief Justice stated this: "Where the offender's moral culpability is high, a full time custodial head sentence of less than three years (in the case of death) and two years (in the case of grievous bodily harm) would not generally be appropriate". By "moral culpability" the Chief Justice was referring to the aggravating factors to which I have referred.
11. There is the usual dichotomy of submissions. The offender, through his counsel, submits that the current offence was in the low range of objective serious. The contrary submission has been made by the Crown. In my view this current offence is in the midrange of objective seriousness for an offence pursuant to s 52A(1)(c).

Offender's injuries

1. A matter, however, which may militate against the imposition of a heavy penalty is the injuries which the offender sustained. For his abdominal injury, surgery was practiced. There was found to be an active arterial bleed into his small intestine. Two areas of the small intestine were injured and needed to be repaired. A rectus sheath drain was inserted during the operation in case of bleeding but was removed on 8 January. Eventually the offender was able to have a normal diet. The initial surgery was practiced on 5 January 2019. Approximately 20 centimetres of the offender's small intestine needed to be excised. Clearly there was surgery on that day and also on 8 January 2091.
2. The offender was also found to have a fracture of the T12 vertebra. It is described thus in a CT report: "There is a flexion distraction-type injury to the T12 vertebra - involving the superior aspect of the vertebral body and extending through pedicles and articular processes. There is approximately 40% loss in anterior vertebral body height. There is mild widening of T11/12 interspinous distance. This is an unstable fracture and neuro surgical review is recommended." Surgery for that was practised on 6 January. There was a percutaneous pedicle screw fixation between the eleventh thoracic vertebral body and the first lumbar vertebral body. It is clear from the operative report that in addition to screws, straight rods were also used measuring 80 millimetres on the left side and 85 millimetres on the right side. The hardware inserted into the offender's back in that operation remains in situ.
3. The offender also suffered a fracture of his right calcaneus. It is described in the hospital records as a comminuted displaced tongue type calcaneal fracture. It was managed conservatively. The offender was required not to bear any weight on his right foot for six weeks after the event. When discharged from the St George Hospital on 12 January 2019 the offender, as I have already mentioned, was arrested and taken into custody. He spent the next six months in the hospital at the Long Bay Correctional Centre.
4. The offender told me, and was not cross-examined about it, that he still suffers symptoms in his right foot and is unable to run. He also tells me that he still suffers from back pain. Those are not insignificant injuries in a relatively young man and militate against the imposition of a heavy sentence. It is clear from Spark v R [2012] NSWCCA 140 and Wright v R [2013] NSWCCA 82 that any injury suffered by the offender must be shown to constitute serious loss or detriment such that it might amount to "extra curial punishment". Despite the submission of the Crown to the contrary, I accept that there is serious detriment flowing to the offender as a result of his self-inflicted injury, albeit that that self-infliction was not intended.

Personal circumstances

1. The offender's personal circumstances are promising, if I may use that expression, for the future. The offender grew up in the Sutherland Shire. He is the second eldest of four children, having an older sister and a younger sister and a younger brother. As a child the offender felt supported by his parents and described his mother as providing emotional support to him and his siblings.
2. His parents separated in 2006 when the offender was 13 years old. He went to live with his mother following upon the separation. His elder sister however went to live with her father. That break-up of the family affected the offender's relationship with his father and his older sister. He saw neither of them as often as he had in the past. The offender's mother subsequently formed a new relationship but the offender did not get on well with her new partner. That caused the offender to leave his mother's home. He appears to have lived either with his father or his elder sister or others since that time.
3. He attended Como West Primary School and then Jannali High School. He left school at the end of year nine following upon his parents' separation. The offender told the psychologist, Ms Howell, that he engaged in some disruptive behaviour in class and experienced difficulties maintaining attention at school. The matter is probably most succinctly summed up in a reference from the offender's elder sister, Stacey. In that she said this: "Justin and I are very close in age, we were side by side growing up, all of my childhood memories are with him, and are many of the fondest memories I hold so closely to my heart, until our parents separated in 2006, it was an extremely tumultuous time in our lives and by no means an excuse for his actions of the last few years, but I signify this time as the beginning of Justin's troubled times. We lost each other. We no longer lived together. I went with Dad and Justin stayed with Mum. We, our parents and we were young teenagers without each other anymore, without guidance or support. Unfortunately for us our parents didn't handle their divorce well and we heard and knew well and truly too much about it all than what children should."
4. In 2007 the offender left school at the end of year 9. He fortunately obtained an apprenticeship with Mr Brian Doyle, the proprietor of Doyle's Auto Marine Trimmers at 148 Taren Point Road, Taren Point. He confirmed that he employed the offender between 10 September 2007 and 22 March 2016. During that period the offender commenced a motor trimming apprenticeship in 2008 and completed it in 2012. Mr Doyle said this: "Justin is a very skilled tradesman and is held in high regard within the trade. Working with us for eight and a half years, Justin was a very reliable and honest employee. He had taken on a leadership role." Mr Doyle is happy to offer the offender further employment on his discharge from custody. After leaving Mr Doyle's employment, the offender worked for a labour hire company as a hoist operator for 18 months. After that he worked in air conditioning installation for a period of 12 months, which he completed at the end of 2018 and clearly shortly before the accident which now brings him before this Court.

Remorse

1. There are a number of things which need to be considered. The first is, is the offender truly contrite, is he truly remorseful? Many offenders are remorseful, not because of the effect of their crimes on others, but because of the effects of their crimes on themselves and their own family. What courts look for is victim empathy, true contrition and true remorse. I am persuaded in this case that there is such contrition and remorse.
2. The sentencing assessment report, made by Ms Nikki Grant on 16 December 2019 contains this matter: " He displayed insight into the impact his offending behaviour has had on the victim's family and acknowledged the loss they have incurred as a result of his actions. He further acknowledged the impact on his own family and all responding emergency services. Mr Lynch has expressed the motivation to engage with Restorative Justice in order to convey his apologies to the victim's family, and a subsequent referral has been made."
3. The offender also expressed his remorse to the psychologist, Ms Howell. Her report contains this matter: "Mr Lynch described his behaviour as irresponsible and wrong and he is ashamed that the decisions he made prior to the offence have affected his and the victim's families. His parole officer provided him with information about the victim and his family which Mr Lynch found difficult to hear. He said he is deeply remorseful for the harm his behaviour has caused others and has no excuse other than his own poor decision. Mr Lynch would like the opportunity to apologise to the victim's family to express his shame and remorse for the grief and anguish his behaviour has caused them. He accepts and understands they may not wish to speak to him."
4. Today, a victim impact statement from the deceased's daughter Erin was read and I am confident that the offender would have been chastened by hearing out loud her description of the effect of his conduct upon her. True contrition and remorse of course are positive for the future.

Rehabilitation

1. The next question is, what are the prospects of rehabilitation? The Crown submitted that I must be guarded in making any finding in that regard because of the offender's history of substance abuse and driving, in particular, driving whilst under the influence of drugs on 18 May 2017, driving under the influence of alcohol on 27 August 2017 and being involved in a very serious collision in which, luckily, no-one suffered any substantial injury. But then this offence of driving under the effect of drugs he had ingested, driving whilst disqualified. Young men create many problems in our society. Fortunately, most young men grow up. I accept that this offender has now realised that he cannot continue to live as he had been living prior to 5 January 2019.
2. He had formed a relationship prior to that time but lost it as a result of being incarcerated. He wants to have his own family. To do that he must make a commitment to a young lady, a lifetime commitment and make a lifetime commitment to any children that he has from his relationship with such a young lady. No one will commit themselves to a man who drinks to excess, takes illicit drugs and takes risks by driving whilst under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.
3. The offender has been offered opportunities to rehabilitate himself in the past but has not taken full advantage of them. One was a MERIT program and the other was the result of a Community Corrections Order. The offender told me that working six days a week and performing community service on Sunday tired him out such that he could not participate in courses and the like. That appeared to me to be merely rationalisation. However the sentencing assessment report is positive. A number of things said in that are these: " He expressed a willingness to undertake community service work. It would appear he is physically able and has access to transport. Mr Lynch's most recent involvement with Community Corrections was in 2019 when he was supervised for a community service order, with both a work and program component. Whilst he completed an intervention program as directed, his response to the work component was unacceptable and he committed further offences. A subsequent breach action was taken, and the order was varied to exclude a work component."
4. The offender has taken up work in the prison system. He works in a bakery at Shortland Correctional Centre. He enjoys that and even has expressed a view that he would like to continue to work as a baker on his discharge from custody. He has also told me, and I accept, that he is willing and prepared to undertake courses in prison but he must realise that if he declines any such opportunity it is likely that the Parole Board would not allow him to be admitted to parole when he is eligible to do so. The offender told me that he is currently undertaking a literacy and numeracy course to increase his level of education and is booked in on the waiting list to do a drug and alcohol program which commences next year at the Correctional Centre at which he is currently incarcerated.
5. Ms Howell expressed the view that there were very good prospects for rehabilitation and that the offender indicated his willingness to attend, participate in and complete treatment for his illicit drug use. The sentence assessment report assesses a medium risk of reoffending and states that Community Corrections will implement a supervision plan which includes referral for inclusion in the EQUIPS Foundations course commencing in late April 2020 and that if the offender is released from custody to be referred to the Traffic Offenders Intervention Program and to a local hospital for targeted intervention to cope with the offender's history of drug abuse. Such can also be undertaken in custody.
6. The Crown submitted that the offender's prospects of rehabilitation and therefore, by inference, the risk of his reoffending must be guarded because of his past response despite the continued support of the offender's family. However I have a more optimistic view of the offender's prospects of rehabilitation and I accept the formulation of Ms Howell that there are very good prospects for rehabilitation. As I said most young men grow up.
7. However I accept that the offender will need as much assistance as possible when released from prison to re-establish himself in the community, to stay away from an adverse peer group, to remain abstinent from illicit drugs and to substantially moderate his alcohol intake. A lengthy period under supervision by Community Corrections is therefore called for and there are therefore grounds for a finding of special circumstances to break the statutory nexus between the head sentence and the non-parole period.

Consideration

1. It is common ground that the offender is entitled to a 25% discount on the sentence to be properly passed upon him for the utilitarian value of his plea of guilty at an early stage.
2. I have come to the view that the appropriate starting point for this sentencing exercise is a period of imprisonment of five years bearing in mind the objective seriousness of the offence. However that is to be reduced by 25% for the utilitarian value of the offender's plea of guilty. That reduces the head sentence to three years and nine months.
3. Applying the statutory ratio the non-parole period should be two years and nine months. In my view a longer period of supervision is required. In my view the appropriate non parole period, bearing in mind the special circumstances, is two years and three months.
4. The next question is when should that sentence commence? Both the offender through his counsel and the Crown submitted that the sentence can commence prior to the expiration of the non-parole period of the sentence imposed by his Honour Judge Mahony. I disagree. In my view the non-parole period fixed by his Honour was a minimum non-parole period for the crimes which the offender committed on 26 May 2017. I intend therefore to commence the current sentence at the expiration of the non-parole period fixed by his Honour. That will in effect mean that the total period of incarceration for this relatively young man will be three years and six months and he will then be on parole for a period of one year and six months.
5. I am mindful that one of the major considerations in sentencing for crimes of this nature is deterrence. Both specific deterrence and general deterrence are extremely important. However, the community will bear in mind that committing the sort of crime which this young man did calls for a five year gaol sentence in addition to any sentence currently being served. The effect of the discount on the sentence is the inevitable result both of the common law and of the statutory provisions relating to the early guilty pleas.
6. Does anyone want any further reasons for judgment? YOUNG: No, your Honour. PROVERA: No, your Honour. HIS HONOUR: I have enquired of counsel for parties whether any further reasons for judge are required, I am told that none is so required.
7. Justin Andrew Lynch, on the charge that on 5 January 2019 at Lucas Heights in this State you did drive a vehicle, namely a silver Toyota Hilux utility when it was involved in an impact occasioning the death of Paul Brock and at the time of the impact you were driving your vehicle in a manner dangerous to other persons, you are convicted. I sentence you to imprisonment. I fix a non-parole period of two years and three months commencing on 12 April 2020 and expiring on 11 July 2022. I fix a further period of imprisonment of one year and six months which expires on 11 January 2024. The total sentence is therefore three years and nine months comprising the head sentence and the additional period. I have found special circumstances. You are eligible to be considered for release on parole at the expiration of the non-parole period on 11 July 2022.
8. HIS HONOUR: Now he needs to be dealt with for sequence 3, is it? And sequence 6? YOUNG: Yes. PROVERA: Yes. YOUNG: And your Honour I've outline the maximum penalties at par 3 and 4 of my submissions. It must be said the Crown particularly doesn't press for any further penalty, it's more for it to be on his record and for the disqualification periods-- HIS HONOUR: And you want the disqualification periods, right. A 10A on each with the disqualification period, is that what you're seeking? YOUNG: Sorry, your Honour? HIS HONOUR: Is that what you're seeking? A 10A on each. YOUNG: Yes, I think it's appropriate, your Honour. PROVERA: 10A, yes, your Honour. I don't wish to be heard. HIS HONOUR: Disqualified, what is the-- YOUNG: Sequence 3 has an automatic six months disqualification at a minimum of six months. HIS HONOUR: Automatic six months. Now he is disqualified at the moment until when? YOUNG: He's currently disqualified until 22 March 2023. HIS HONOUR: So if I add the disqualification of six months that would take it to 22 September 2023, is that right. YOUNG: Yes, your Honour. HIS HONOUR: And for the sequence 6? YOUNG: Sequence 6 has an automatic disqualification of 12 months and no minimum, being a subsequent offence of driving with drug present. HIS HONOUR: Yes, s 10A. And disqualification, what is it? YOUNG: 12 months. PROVERA: With no minimum, your Honour. YOUNG: For a second offence, yes. HIS HONOUR: That would take it to 22 September 24, which is almost two years after he becomes eligible for parole. PROVERA: Would your Honour consider in respect to sequence 6, I know it's an automatic 12 months but you can reduce it, would your Honour consider doing six months? So that he has two six months accumulative disqualifications so it's not out of sight. HIS HONOUR: That would take him to when? 22 March-- PROVERA: March 2024. HIS HONOUR: --24, and that's about nine months after he's eligible for parole. PROVERA: No, your Honour, with respect I think it's a year and nine months. I don't think my friend disagrees with my calculation? YOUNG: Yes, that's right. He's eligible in July 22. PROVERA: Yes, and it would be 24. HIS HONOUR: All right. I'll make it six months and it would take it to 22 March 24. That's right, it's a year-- PROVERA: Yes, a year and nine months, your Honour. HIS HONOUR: And then he goes off parole and he can have his licence back. PROVERA: Yes, your Honour.
9. HIS HONOUR: Justin Andrew Lynch, on the charge that on 5 January 2019 at Lucas Heights in this State, you drove a motor vehicle on a road, namely New Illawarra Road, during a period of disqualification, I record a conviction but no further penalty, you are disqualified for a period for six months, expiring on 22 September 2023.
10. On the charge that on 5 January 2019 at Lucas Heights in this State, you did drive motor vehicle, namely a silver Toyota Hilux utility on a road, namely New Illawarra Road, whilst a prescribed illicit drug was present in your blood, namely methylamphetamine, I record a conviction. I impose no further penalty. You are disqualified for a further period for driving of six months, expiring on 22 March 2024. Any other orders sought? YOUNG: No. PROVERA: No, your Honour.

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 March 2020