Mr Tuckfield, hereafter referred to as 'the Offender', appears before the Court for sentencing, having pleaded guilty to a charge of aggravated sexual intercourse with a person between the ages of 14 and 16 years. The aggravation was by reason of the fact that the Victim was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the offending, in breach of s 66C(4) of the Crimes Act 1900 NSW and carries a maximum penalty of 12 years', imprisonment together with a standard non parole period of 5 years.
There is an additional charge on a Form 1, which is to be taken into account in relation to the principal charge, is assault occasioning actual bodily harm, in breach of s 59(1) of the Crimes Act, carrying a maximum penalty of 5 years' imprisonment, or 2 years in the Local Court. The matter on the Form 1 is to be taken into account with a view to increasing the penalty in relation to the principal charge, both by way of achieving deterrence and also to satisfy the community's expectation of extracting retribution in relation to criminal conduct.
The offending occurred on a single day, on 23 January 2018. The Offender was arrested on 20 February 2018, and was in custody from 20 February 2018 through 25 January 2019, and then again in 2 April 2019 through 26 July 2019, a period of 398 days.
Madam Crown, I have got a note here the commencement date ought be 23 June 2018, is that correct?
NICHOLSON: Could your Honour just give me a moment.
HIS HONOUR: Yes, take your time. There was obviously a period where he was on remand prior to the guilty plea.
NICHOLSON: That's right so there was that period from 20 February to 25 January 2019 that was spent on remand, and 2 April is the date that your Honour bail refused him after the guilty plea.
HIS HONOUR: Very well. Can you just double check the commencement date ought be 23 June 2018 backdating to account for those periods spent on remand and bail refused?
R v Tuckfield [2019] NSWDC 954 | Case summary | Zoe
NICHOLSON: I will double check that your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you.
The Offender was committed for trial in this Court on 9 November 2018 from the Gosford Local Court. The trial was listed to commence on 1 April 2019, and a plea of guilty was entered on 2 April 2019.
The facts relating to the offending have been agreed between the parties and form part of Exhibit A. They are as follows.
AA, whose name is not to be published, is the Victim in this matter ('the Victim'). The Victim was 14 years of age at the time of the offence. The Offender was 32 years of age at the time of the offending, but has since turned 33.
On the afternoon of Tuesday 23 January 2018 the Victim and her sister were walking their dog at Green Point wharf. The Offender was also at Green Point wharf. He was with his friend drinking alcohol and smoking cigarettes. The Victim recognised the Offender, as he lived nearby and he had previously given the Victim's sister cigarettes on a few occasions. She wanted a cigarette, so she approached the Offender and asked if she could have one. The Offender gave the Victim a cigarette and he also gave her a can of Bearded Lady 8% strength bourbon and cola. The Victim smoked the cigarette and drank the can of bourbon. She began to feel affected.
Whilst she was drinking the first can of bourbon, the Victim and her sister stayed at the wharf talking to the Offender and his friend for a few hours. The Victim recalls that during the conversation the Offender asked her age, and she told him that she was 14 years of age. He told her that he was 31 years of age.
While the group were at the wharf, the Victim and her sister were consuming alcohol provided to them by the Offender and his friend. The Victim drank 3 cans of 8% Bearded Lady bourbon and cola given to her by the Offender, as well as 2 bottles of Toohey's Extra Dry, given to her by the Offender's friend. The Offender and his friend each left the wharf on separate occasions, in order to purchase more alcohol for the group from a nearby bottle shop.
After a few hours the group decided to go swimming at Terrigal Lagoon. They decided that the sisters would go home to change into their swimwear and drop off their dog. They left the wharf in 2 separate cars. The Offender drove his white Ford utility with the Victim in the passenger seat. The Offender's friend drove his green Holden utility with the Victim's sister and the dog in the passenger seat. By this stage the Victim was feeling very drunk. Her sister also observed that AA was intoxicated. The group drove to the sisters' house where they dropped off their dog and changed into their bikini swimmers. The Victim's father observed that both girls were visibly intoxicated and were laughing and falling over.
The Victim and her sister got changed, retrieved some towels and then returned to the cars. The Victim got back into the car with the Offender and her sister with the Offender's friend. The Offender and his friend returned to the bottle shop for a third time, and both the Offender and his friend purchased more alcohol. The Offender also purchased watermelon vodka cruisers for the Victim and her sister. This transaction occurred at 7.07pm. When he returned to his car the Offender gave one of these vodka cruisers to the Victim, who drank it. The group drove to Terrigal Lagoon and parked their cars. They swam and continued talking, drinking and smoking. The Victim drank a further 2 and a half bottles of watermelon vodka cruisers, including the one in the car. By this time she was feeling very drunk. While they were at the lagoon, the group also took some photographs. The Offender took these photographs on his mobile phone, including one of the group of 4, and also some of the Victim and her sister alone. The Offender also recorded some videos of the girls on his mobile phone.
At about 8pm the Victim used the Offender's mobile phone to make a phone call. At this time she was seated in the front seat of the Offender's car. The Offender got out of the water and joined the Victim in the car. He asked for his phone back and she finished her call. The Offender was smoking a cigarette at the time, and he extinguished the cigarette on the Victim's thigh, leaving a small circular burn mark that conduct giving rise to the offence on the Form 1, assault occasioning actual bodily harm. The Victim did not feel pain at the time the Offender did this due to her level of intoxication but subsequently when she became sober, the burn did feel painful.
The Victim asked if she could use the Offender's mobile phone to send herself the photographs and videos that he had taken earlier. She recalls that she was texting these images and photos to her own mobile phone number. At this time she was still seated in the front seat with the door open, her body at an angle facing out of the door with her legs outside the vehicle. The Offender was standing next to her.
The next thing the Victim was aware of was that the Offender was on top of her with his penis inside her vagina having sexual intercourse with her. The Victim told the Offender to stop but he did not appear to respond. She physically pushed him off her body and ran from the car screaming out her sister's name.
Those are the facts giving rise to the primary offence. The Further Agreed Facts are as follows.
As the Victim ran she telephoned triple-0. The phone call connected, but the Victim's phone battery ran out and the call disconnected. AA's sister also phoned triple-0, but had difficulty explaining their location. The sisters went to a nearby house where the occupants assisted them to phone police. One of the residents of that house also went to the lagoon and made a notation of the registration number of the vehicles which he later provided to the police.
Police arrived at the scene and spoke with the Victim and her sister. They observed the Victim was hysterical and also that she was intoxicated. The police went to the lagoon where they spoke with the Offender's friend. The Offender was no longer present at the lagoon. The Victim was conveyed by ambulance to Gosford Hospital, however a SAIK examination was not undertaken due to her intoxication. She returned the following day where she undertook the examination. During the examination a small circular burn mark on her thigh was observed and documented. The Victim was interviewed by the Child Abuse Unit on 25 January 2018, and disclosed the above account of the incident.
Detectives obtained records from Bamvino Cellars at Green Point in relation to the various purchases of alcohol. As part of the investigation Detectives obtained a communications warrant, pursuant to the appropriate Act. As a result of that warrant they obtained copies of messages sent by the Offender's friend to the Offender on the night of the incident, as follows:
9.07pm: "Here with cops /n".
9.08pm: "Talk ya tomoz".
9.24pm: "Cops just left".
10.35pm: "Delete them /n trust me /n they went through my phone".
10.40pm: "Fuck cunts /n delete it all /n I'm telling you now /n 100% delete".
The Offender was arrested on 20 February 2018. He attended Gosford Police Station by prior arrangement and was cautioned and he entered into custody. He declined legal advice to participate in an interview, but did consent to a forensic procedure and a sample of his DNA was obtained. The Offender's mobile phone was seized and analysed. The photographs and videos of the Victim and her sister had been deleted. The messages just referred to had also been deleted. Detectives were able to obtain copies of the photographs from the Victim's phone as she had sent them to herself. Those messages show the original files had been sent from the Offender's phone. Those are the facts agreed between the parties for the purpose of sentencing the Offender.
Next in Exhibit A was the Offender's criminal history. There are no entries of particular significance, his record relating mostly to driving type offences together, along with one possession of prohibited drug. I find that his criminal record does not in any way aggravate his offending.
I have been assisted by submissions by both the Crown and Ms Court, counsel for the Offender. In written submissions from the Crown, MFI 1, detailed submissions were made concerning the objective seriousness of the offending. It is observed that child sexual assault offences have profound and deleterious effects upon Victims for many years. It is apparent from the Victim Impact Statement prepared by the Victim that it has indeed been the case to date. Such offences will inevitably give rise to psychological damage. That is also apparent from the Victim impact statement. The court has repeatedly emphasised the serious view that has to be taken towards matters of this kind.
The Crown further submitted that the most significant matter which determines where a particular offence is to be placed in the spectrum of offences of this kind is that the degree to which the Offender is seen to have exploited the youth of the Victim.
The following matters that are submitted are relevant in the assessment of the objective seriousness of the offending.
The first matter is the age of the Victim, which in this case was 14 years and 5 months at the time of offending. This is the lowest end of the spectrum for offences of this type which includes offending where the Victims are between the ages of 14 and 16.
The second matter was the age difference between the Victim and the Offender. In this case the age difference was some 18 years. It was submitted by the Crown that the Offender's awareness of the exploitation involved in the disparity between their ages is reflected in the evidence that he was somewhat dishonest with the Victim about his age, telling her he was only 31 rather than 32. I do not consider that to be of any major significance.
A third matter was the degree of exploitation. It was submitted that there was a disparity of power and degree of exploitation in other ways, including that the Offender was the person purchasing the alcohol on behalf of the Victim and giving it to her while at the Green Point wharf and also at the Lagoon. It was submitted that the Offender was aware that the Victim did not have any transport away from the Terrigal Lagoon and that she travelled there with him in his vehicle. Finally, it was submitted on this topic that he knew the Victim did not have the ability to make any phone calls on her mobile phone at the time, as she had to use his mobile phone in order to call someone earlier in the afternoon due to the lack of credit on her phone.
It was further submitted on behalf of the Crown that it is relevant to the assessment of objective seriousness that this is not a case where the Victim was a willing participant in the intercourse. The Victim simply became aware that the Offender had his penis inside her. She had to physically push the Offender off her body in order to stop the intercourse.
The type of the intercourse is also relevant to the objective gravity of the offending. In this case it was penile/vaginal intercourse which is serious and carries with it the risk of pregnancy and disease being a relevant consideration: RL v R [2018] NSWCCA 274 at [24]-[27].
It was submitted by the Crown that there was also a degree of humiliation and degradation in the manner in which the intercourse took place. That is that it took place in a public place on the banks of a Lagoon, with the Offender's friend and the Victim's sister present in the vicinity. The Offender also inflicted a physical injury on the Victim immediately prior to the offence, being the matter on the Form 1.
It was submitted by the Crown that this included offence reflects an additional component of degradation, callousness and cruelty towards the Victim on the part of the Offender. It is also apparent from the Agreed Facts that the Offender was distressed by what occurred, and was observed to be hysterical.
It was submitted that the Offender must have been aware of the impact of the offending on the Victim and responded by leaving the scene, failing to make contact with the police and deleting data and other material from his telephone.
Having regard to those matters, I have assessed the offending as falling in the mid-range of objective gravity.
The other circumstances of aggravation to which I have had regard is the fact that AA was taken advantage of in circumstances where she was under the influence of alcohol, demonstrating an exploitation of the Victim. I note that is an element of the aggravated version of the offence, and not a matter which aggravates the offending pursuant to s 21A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act. It is plain from the observations made by her father that she was intoxicated. The same would have been apparent to the Offender. It was submitted that the Offender was responsible for the state of intoxication of the Victim. Whilst that is true, her intoxication, as I have observed is the aggravating feature of the charge to which the Offender has plead guilty.
It was submitted on behalf of the Crown that the offending was aggravated further by the presence of another child under the age of 18, being the Victim's sister, who was 16 years at the time. Whilst that is true, I decline to find aggravation on that basis, absent any evidence as to the location and observations made AA's sister of the offending.
The Crown further submitted there is no evidence of any remorse. It submitted that not only did the Offender take steps to delete evidence which may otherwise have implicated him, but he maintained his plea of not guilty until the second day of the trial listing.
Before turning to the submissions on behalf of the Offender, I should make some observations about the subjective case. As I have already observed, the Offender is relatively young and does not have a criminal record of any particular significance. He declined, on advice, to give evidence in court today. That is his right, and no adverse inference can be drawn from that, however it does make it difficult for the court to find remorse absent any sworn evidence as to the same.
I have had regard to the Sentencing Assessment Report dated 30 May 2019, marked Exhibit B. It records a number of factors particular to the Offender, including the fact that he was a fulltime carpenter, prior to being placed into custody. He worked for his father. His father gave evidence in court today, and it is plain from the evidence provided by the Offender's father that the Offender is well supported outside of prison in the community. It is also apparent in the evidence provided by his father that the Offender will be gainfully employed upon release from prison.
He was asked about his attitude to the offending and it is recorded in the report that he displayed some insight as he state he "felt bad and disgusted" about the sexual assault. His recollection was, however, limited. I gather, and it appears plain, that his recollection was affected by the fact that he was intoxicated at the time of the offending.
He provided the report author with a history of alcohol abuse, consumed on a daily basis prior to being placed in custody. In the 3 months prior to the offending, the Offender identified his use of alcohol as becoming "problematic", and he had commenced attending alcoholics anonymous meetings. He attributed alcohol as a factor relating to his poor decision making.
The Offender has no history of sexual offending and as I have observed, his criminal record is limited. He appears to be a person who, prior to this offending, was in a positive relationship with his partner, with whom he had a biological daughter and 2 step-daughters. He was also employed full-time and was a positive contributor to the community.
The author of the first Sentencing Assessment Report considered that the Offender was at a medium/low risk of reoffending according to the usual inventory LSI-R. It was suggested that, once sentenced, he will be assessed by a Corrective Services psychologist to determine his risk of sexual reoffending. A number of recommendations were made in the report dated 30 May 2019, which I have read.
The more recent report, dated 18 July 2019, followed a further interview with the Offender. It also was informed by a pre-sentence consultation completed by psychologist Rebecca Grey, dated 17 July 2019. It was noted by the author of the second report that a pre-sentence consultation was sought from Community Services psychologist as per the court request, and as a result of that consultation the Offender returned an above average risk of further sexual offending. I note this is different to the risk assessed at first instance as being medium to low.
Attached to the Sentencing Assessment Report is a document by Rebecca Graham, a psychologist working with Corrective Services. She assessed the Offender's risk of sexual reoffending using the static 99R 2016 instrument, which identified static risk factors for sexual offending. He received a score of 4, placing him in the 'above average' risk category relative to other male sex Offenders. It is said by Ms Graham that the outcome was accounted for by his relatively young age, his index offending including, a conviction for non-sexual violence, 4 or more prior sentencing dates and the fact that the Victim was unrelated to him. I do not entirely understand the rationale for the conclusions reached by Ms Graham, and I find that the risk of reoffending is guarded.
It was suggested by Ms Graham that the Offender be referred to Corrective Services psychology service for further assessment to identify dynamic risk factors specific to his offending and to be referred for appropriate treatment.
I have also had regard to the Victim Impact Statement which was Exhibit D. I do not intend to read it onto the record, but it is apparent that the offending has had a significant effect upon the Victim, not only in her interpersonal relationship, but also in terms of her psychiatric condition.
I have had regard to the various testimonials provided on behalf of the Offender, the first by Christopher Brennan, marked Exhibit 1. He acknowledges the offending for which the Offender is to be sentenced. They first met in May 1996, when Mr Brennan commenced dating the Offender's sister. At that time the Offender was 9 years of age and Mr Brennan has watched him grow since that age. It is apparent without reciting the contents of Exhibit 1 that Mr Brennan holds the Offender in high regard and considers him to be a person of good character, as well as a responsible member of their family.
I have also had regard to a testimonial by Franck Dargenton dated 26 May 2019, marked Exhibit 2. He was made aware of the Offender's conduct bringing him before the court. He has known the Offender for some 20 years after becoming a partner to the Offender's younger sister. Despite that relationship ending, Mr Dargenton and the Offender remained friends and developed a very strong friendship over time. It is sufficient for present purposes to note that the author of the testimonial holds the Offender in high regard.
Next was a testimonial by Tina Eldridge dated 22 May 2019, marked Exhibit 3. She too has known the Offender for over 20 years, being friends with the Offender's older sister. She referred to the Offender as being a kind-hearted man, always willing to assist. She speaks highly of the Offender as a friend as a father.
The final testimonial document comes from Lynne Burman, dated 28 May 2019, marked Exhibit 4. She was also informed of the charges for which the Offender is to be sentenced. She has known the Offender for about 20 years, as the Offender is a close friend of her son. She speaks of his relationship with her family and refers to him as being honest, trustworthy and caring with a strong work ethic. Again, the reference is a favourable one, indicating prior good character.
On 9 June 2015 the Offender was referred by his GP to a Ms Ruscheinsky. The letter of referral from the GP states the Offender was suffering from major depression and slight anxiety which had improved slightly since commencing Effexor on 26 May 2015. In a report back to the GP on 3 July 2015, the psychologist confirmed that the Offender had reported symptoms of depression and anxiety. She recommended that he undergo 6 sessions of cognitive behavioural therapy focussing on anxiety management, and approval for those sessions was sought.
In a further letter dated 20 June 2016, Exhibit 7, the psychologist confirmed that she saw the Offender on 1 July 2015 and that he returned for a second session on 13 July 2016. I infer that ought to be 13 July 2015, as the report itself was dated 20 June 2016. In any event, at the time of the second consultation, the Offender reported improved mood and coping abilities. Since that time the Offender had not attended any further counselling sessions and his mental health plan had been finalised.
A very comprehensive report has been prepared by a neuropsychologist, Dr Janette Stewart, marked Exhibit 8. Not only did she have access to the GP records for the Offender, but also to his Justice Health records. She took a history at para 1.8 of the report on page 4 as to an event that occurred in prison, where it is said by the Offender that he suffered a head trauma and lost consciousness. That seems inconsistent with the records produced by Corrective Services, which indicate that the injuries were located elsewhere. In particular, they noted bruising on both upper arms and back. There is no record in the Correctives documents of any head trauma or loss of consciousness. The court is left in the dark as to the reason for the discrepancy between the history provided by the Offender and the facts as disclosed by Corrective Services but, in any event, not much turns upon that.
Ms Stewart took a history that since high school the Offender has suffered anxiety and depression and provided some further information as to the cause of those conditions. The Offender told her that at time his psychological symptoms were such that he did not get out of bed during the day, and those episodes could last for up to a month. Whilst I accept that the Offender has suffered from anxiety and depression in the past, his counsel does not submit that it rises to the level considered by the Court of Criminal Appeal in the matter of DPP v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194, such as to permit a finding of reduced moral culpability. It is, however, a matter to which the court will have regard in determining special circumstances.
Apart from the psychiatric conditions referred to by Dr Stewart, I note that she also observed that the Offender appeared to have some cognitive weakness with borderline range of intellectual functioning, and he has some psychological difficulties. Again, those are matters which the court will have regard to in determining whether special circumstances exist, so that the Offender may spend more time in the community seeking rehabilitation and treatment in respect of those conditions. There is no suggestion that the offending was in any way related to those conditions.
Submissions on behalf of the Offender have been presented to the court and marked for identification, MFI 2. In terms of objective seriousness, it was submitted on behalf of the Offender that it fell below the midrange, as there are other features of this type of offending such as the use of weapons and the like which did not exist in the present case. Submissions were made concerning breach of trust, however I do not find that there was a breach of trust in the circumstances in which the offending occurred.
It was submitted on behalf of the Offender that, leaving aside the disparity in age and the consumption of alcohol, there is little to suggest that either the Victim or the Offender regarded their relationship as one of adult/child. I cannot accept that submission, particularly in the absence of evidence from the Offender as to that matter. The age difference was some 18 years, and it ought to have been readily apparent to the 32 year old Offender that he was engaging in sexual conduct with a 14 year old girl. In fact, I note that she told him that she was 14 years of age. It was submitted on behalf of the Offender that the offending fell below the midrange. The following submissions were advanced in support of that submission:
1. there was no established relationship from which it could be suggested there was trust, let alone breach of trust. I accept that submissions and do not make a contrary finding;
2. it was suggested that it ought to fall below midrange due to the disparity of age being 18 years. In circumstances where the offence relates to aggravated sexual intercourse with a person between the ages of 14 and 16 years, and the fact that the Victim was well towards the bottom of that range, I do not accept that the disparity of age assists the Offender in determining the objective gravity. In fact, I find that given the age of AA, being close to 14 years of age, that it is in that sense in terms of age, a more serious example of this type of offending;
3. it was further submitted that the duration of the offence, in that it appears to be of a short duration, is also a matter which reduces the matter to below the midrange. It is unclear what the duration of the offence was, except that I note that the Victim told the Offender to stop and he continued, causing her to force him off her.
In my opinion, the offending falls at the midrange of objective gravity, given the following:
1. the age of the complainant;
2. the disparity in ages;
3. the element of exploitation induced by alcohol, it being an aggravating feature or element of the offence;
4. the fact that the Victim was not a willing participant;
5. and the nature of the intercourse, being penile/vaginal.
Counsel for the Offender made submissions as to the subjective case. I have no reason to reject those submissions. It does appear that the Offender is now a single man who formerly resided with his parents, is a qualified carpenter and works fulltime. At the time of the offending he was affected by alcohol, which had an impact upon his decision-making. It may explain the offending but is not a factor of mitigation. His subjective case is relatively strong.
Counsel for the Offender very frankly and fairly conceded that her client will be sentenced to a term of immediate imprisonment. That is, counsel conceded that the s 5 threshold has been crossed. I find, after considering all sentencing alternatives, that no sentence other than fulltime custody is reasonable in the circumstances.
It was further submitted on behalf of the Offender that special circumstances ought to be found, on the basis this is his first time in prison and there is a need for a longer than normal period of supervision in the community. I accept those submissions and find special circumstances.
In respect of the primary offence matter, to which a standard non-parole period of 5 years applies, I do not intend to impose the standard non-parole period. The relevance of the standard non-parole period was discussed in the matter of Tepania v R [2018] NSWCCA 247, where Johnston J made a number of statements in relation to the topic. The standard non-parole period is a matter to be taken into account as part of the determination of sentence. The legislation in part 4, division 1A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act specifies that the standard non-parole period applies to an offence found within the middle range of objective seriousness for such an offence, taking into account only objective factors and without bringing to account matters that are unique to the Offender or the class of Offenders.
Ultimately, though, the standard non-parole period is but a factor to be taken into account in the sentencing exercise, together with the objective and subjective matters which are considered in synthesis in accordance with McHugh J's discussion in the matter of Markarian. Thus, even though an offence might be found to be at the midrange, it does not necessarily follow that the standard non-parole period will apply, nor that this shall be a percentage calculation performed where the offence might be found lower than the scale of seriousness. The process is not an arithmetical one, but more intuitive.
In my opinion, the sentence outcome in the circumstances of this case warrant a departure from the standard non-parole period given the guilty plea, albeit late, and also the fact that the Offender suffers a number of conditions which warrant an adjustment to the parole period, so as to obtain rehabilitation treatment outside of prison.
Madam Crown, in terms of the commencement date, I may be mistaken before; is it 27 April 2018?
CROWN PROSECUTOR: That's my date your Honour. I apologise, I think the issue was that the calculation of time spent in custody. Although my instructing solicitor had updated the 2 separate periods with the correct days, he had unfortunately not totalled them into the - 455 days should be the total. It was still with the total as it was on 31 May. So I get the same date as your Honour when I count back.
HIS HONOUR: Ms Court, I think you had a slightly different date, didn't you, in your submissions?
COURT: Those submissions were filed when this matter originally came before the court. The date that I have calculated is 27 April 2018.
HIS HONOUR: Okay, so it's agreed that should be the commencement date? Thank you. Yes, please stand sir.
Ryan Tuckfield, you are convicted of the offence of aggravated sexual intercourse with a person between 14 and 16 years of age in breach of s 66C(4) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). For that offence, and having regard to the Form 1 matter, I impose a sentence of imprisonment, consisting of a non-parole period of 3 years commencing 27 April 2018, and a head sentence of 4 years and 6 months. You will be eligible to be released on parole on 26 April 2021. The term has been reduced by a discount of 10%, representing the value of the guilty plea, noting that by pleading guilty, albeit late, you spared the Victim the necessity of giving evidence in court. Do you understand the sentence?
OFFENDER: Yes, your Honour.
[2]
NOTE:
A. These remarks on sentence were revised without access to the Court File.
I certify that the previous 77 paragraphs are the reasons for the Remarks on Sentence of his Honour Judge D Wilson SC.
J Bailey
Associate
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 2021