State of New South Wales v Martin - [2017] NSWSC 414 - NSWSC 2017 case summary — Zoe

NSWNSWSC

State of New South Wales v Martin

[2017] NSWSC 414

Supreme Court of NSW|2017-04-11|Before: Adamson J, Bellew J, Latham J

View original source

At a glance

Source facts

Court

Supreme Court of NSW

Decision date

2017-04-11

Before

Adamson J, Bellew J, Latham J

Source

Original judgment source is linked above.

Judgment (53 paragraphs)

[1]

Solicitors: New South Wales Crown Solicitor's Office (Plaintiff) Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales (Defendant) File Number(s): 2016/345905

[2]

Introduction

By summons filed on 18 November 2016, the State of New South Wales (the plaintiff) sought interim and final orders pursuant to the Crimes (High Risk Offenders) Act 2006 (NSW) (the Act) against Gerard Martin (the defendant). On 15 December 2016, Bellew J made an interim detention order (IDO) pursuant to ss 18B and 18C of the Act and appointed Drs O'Dea and Adams to conduct psychiatric examinations of the defendant pursuant to ss 7(4) and 15(4) of the Act and furnish reports to the Court of the results of such examinations.
On 28 December 2016 the defendant was interviewed by Dr O'Dea who prepared a report dated 8 February 2017. Dr Adams interviewed the defendant on 4 and 6 February 2017 and prepared a report dated 14 February 2017. These reports are considered below.
The matter was listed for final hearing before Latham J on 27 February 2017. Her Honour, after having heard all the evidence in the proceedings, adjourned the matter at 12.22pm and requested that the parties get instructions with a view to the matter being resolved by agreement. It was adjourned to 2 March 2017. On that day Ms Hawkins, who appeared for the defendant, informed the Court that she had "firm instructions that Mr Martin is willing to make himself amenable to an extended supervision order, and comply with such an order". This represented a marked change in the defendant's attitude and led to his being able to be assessed for residence in a Community Offender Support Program (COSP) facility. Her Honour stood the matter over part-heard for mention on 20 March 2017 to enable that to be done. On 20 March 2017 Latham J directed the parties to file and serve further material. Her Honour was unavailable to conclude the hearing within the time provided for by the Act, which required final orders to be made by 3 May 2017 (being three months from 4 February 2017, being the date of expiry of his sentence: s 18C(2)).

Part 1A of the Act deals with supervision and detention of high risk offenders. As the application is made on the basis that the plaintiff is a high risk violent offender it is necessary to address Division 2, which relevantly provides: "5E High risk violent offender (1) An offender can be made the subject of a high risk violent offender extended supervision order or a high risk violent offender continuing detention order as provided for by this Act if and only if the offender is a high risk violent offender. (2) An offender is a high risk violent offender if the offender is a violent offender and the Supreme Court is satisfied to a high degree of probability that the offender poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious violence offence if he or she is not kept under supervision. (3) The Supreme Court is not required to determine that the risk of a person committing a serious violence offence is more likely than not in order to determine that the person poses an unacceptable risk of committing a serious violence offence. 5F Extended supervision orders for high risk violent offenders (1) The Supreme Court may, on application under this Act, make an order for the supervision of an offender if the offender is a high risk violent offender. (2) An order made under this section is an extended supervision order. (3) An extended supervision order made under this section may also be referred to as a high risk violent offender extended supervision order. 5G Continuing detention orders for high risk violent offenders (1) The Supreme Court may, on application under this Act, make an order for the detention of an offender if the offender is a high risk violent offender and the Supreme Court is satisfied that adequate supervision will not be provided by an extended supervision order. (2) An order made under this section is a continuing detention order. (3) A continuing detention order made under this section may also be referred to as a high risk violent offender continuing detention order."

Section 9(3) provides that the following are to be taken into account in determining whether to make an ESO (as well as any other matter I consider to be relevant): "In determining whether or not to make an extended supervision order, the Supreme Court must have regard to the following matters in addition to any other matter it considers relevant: (a) the safety of the community, (b) the reports received from the persons appointed under section 7(4) to conduct examinations of the offender, and the level of the offender's participation in any such examination, (c) the results of any other assessment prepared by a qualified psychiatrist, registered psychologist or registered medical practitioner as to the likelihood of the offender committing a further relevant offence, the willingness of the offender to participate in any such assessment, and the level of the offender's participation in any such assessment, (d) the results of any statistical or other assessment as to the likelihood of persons with histories and characteristics similar to those of the offender committing a further relevant offence, (d1) any report prepared by Corrective Services NSW as to the extent to which the offender can reasonably and practicably be managed in the community, (e) any treatment or rehabilitation programs in which the offender has had an opportunity to participate, the willingness of the offender to participate in any such programs, and the level of the offender's participation in any such programs, (f) the level of the offender's compliance with any obligations to which he or she is or has been subject while on release on parole or while subject to an earlier extended supervision order, . . . (h) the offender's criminal history (including prior convictions and findings of guilt in respect of offences committed in New South Wales or elsewhere), and any pattern of offending behaviour disclosed by that history, (h1) the views of the sentencing court at the time the sentence of imprisonment was imposed on the offender, (i) any other information that is available as to the likelihood that the offender will in future commit offences of a sexual nature (in the case of an application for a high risk sex offender extended supervision order) or serious violence offences (in the case of an application for a high risk violent offender extended supervision order)."

[5]

The facts

The defendant was born in 1978. For much of his childhood he lived on the Mission at Wilcannia with his grandmother. He was sexually abused by an adult male health worker when he was about seven years old. He reported the matter to the police and made a statement. The defendant's grandmother, who was concerned about the effect of the abuse, reported to a doctor that the defendant had nightmares. His behaviour at school was also adversely affected by the abuse.
The defendant began drinking at a young age, with the concurrence and participation of his family. He also smoked cones of marijuana. He was admitted to hospital in April 1999 as a result of what was diagnosed as a drug-induced psychotic episode. He was noted to be aggressive and reported the use of alcohol and "snow cones" earlier that day. He reported persecutory auditory hallucinations. He remained in hospital for two days for the purposes of alcohol withdrawal. He did not experience any further psychotic symptoms or suicidal ideation during that period.
In May 1999 the Health Service reported that he complained of hearing voices and feeling "things creeping all over him". He reported that voices were telling him to kill. It was noted that he was aggressive and smelled of alcohol. He was assessed at the Broken Hill Base Hospital where his presenting symptoms were noted to be "acute psychosis, suicidal and homicidal ideation". A diagnosis of self-induced psychosis was made. He was admitted on 31 May 1999 and discharged on 2 June 1999. The principal diagnosis was alcohol dependence and marijuana abuse. He was advised to decrease alcohol and marijuana intake but he said that he did not want any help from the Drug and Alcohol Service or the Mental Health Service in Menindee.
A referral letter dated 1 June 1999 from the visiting psychiatrist and registered nurse recorded alcohol dependence and marijuana abuse. They reported the following history: "He says that he has had a binge alcohol problem for some years and can drink up to a four litre cask of Moselle and a dozen beers in one session on top of a heavy intake of marijuana (twenty cones a day)."
His criminal history began in 1999. He committed various summary offences of no particular significance, relating to disruption to public order, when he was intoxicated.

[6]

The assaults on Kerry Johnson

In March 2000 the defendant began an intimate relationship with Kerry Johnson. He assaulted her on four separate occasions, on 12 April 2000, 13 April 2000, 11 May 2000 and 3 August 2000. He was charged and convicted of three counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.
The evidence does not include the sentencing remarks, although details of the offences appear from the police facts. However, these assaults were referred to by Barr J when sentencing the defendant for the subsequent murder of Ms Johnson. The following summary of what occurred in the course of these assaults in 2000 is taken from [2]-[3] of Barr J's remarks on sentence (R v Martin [2002] NSWSC 577): "[2] The offender and the deceased knew each other as children and began to live in a de facto relationship in March 2000. They were both addicted to alcohol. On 12 April 2000 a fight erupted between them and there was an exchange of blows. The deceased lost a tooth. No action was taken. On the following day, while the offender and the deceased were drinking together, a man approached the offender and said that he wanted to have sex with the deceased. The offender reacted by repeatedly punching the deceased in the face. The police were called and arrested the offender. The deceased was taken to hospital and treated for injuries to her mouth. On 11 May 2000 the offender pushed the deceased to the ground and kicked her in the head, then jumped on her head with both feet. She bled from the mouth and the nose. The offender was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm and an apprehended domestic violence order was issued. [3] The relationship between the two came to an end and the deceased took up a relationship with Mr Kevin Mackay. On 3 August 2000 the offender and the deceased were living in adjoining houses and as the deceased was walking home she had to pass the offender's residence. He came out as she did so and an argument began. He pushed her onto the roadway and punched and kicked her a number of times. She was taken to hospital and kept in intensive care. She was bleeding from the mouth and her nose was swollen. Again the offender was arrested and charged."

[8]

The murder of Ms Johnson following the defendant's release from custody

The events that followed the defendant's release from custody were described by Barr J in the remarks on sentence as follows: "[14] Immediately after his release from Broken Hill Gaol the offender went to the house of the Dutton family, relatives of his, in Broken Hill. The occupants and the offender purchased alcohol and went to Menindee where they spent the rest of the day. They arrived back in Broken Hill during the evening. More alcohol was purchased and they continued drinking. During the evening the occupants noticed that the offender had left the house. [15] On the same day Mr Mackay, the deceased, Mr Rex Johnson, a relative of the deceased, and Douglas Hele were at the Pepper Trees camp. Mr Johnson went to sleep while it was still light and was not woken until after Mr Mackay had found the deceased injured. Mr Hele said that before he went to sleep a young man he did not know came up and asked for a drink of water, then walked away. I accept that evidence and that the man described by Mr Hele was the offender. Mr Mackay says that the offender came to the camp during the night and that he and the deceased walked off together. [16] When a member of the Dutton family arose on the following morning he noticed that the offender had returned to the house and was asleep. He saw blood on his face. Photographs of the offender later taken by the police show blood on both sides of his face and on his ears. A number of people saw the offender with blood on him. [17] The deceased was taken to Broken Hill Base Hospital but because her injuries were so severe she was transferred to the Royal Adelaide Hospital. She died there on 6 February 2001. A post mortem examination showed significant facial and head injuries and also swelling and bruising of the vulva and lacerations to the genitalia. Injuries included lacerations to the scalp, the bridge of the nose, the lips and the tongue. There was bruising to the scalp, eyes, mouth and shoulders. There were abrasions to the back, buttocks and arm. Seven adjoining ribs on the left side were fractured, those injuries being consistent with a heavy fall or stomping. [18] The injuries to the genitalia involved marked swelling to the vulva, lacerations respectively 7.5 centimetres, 5 centimetres, 4.5 centimetres, 4 centimetres, and 2 centimetres long to the labia majora and labia minora as well as other lacerations. The forensic pathologist expressed the opinion that the state of the genitalia was more likely to have resulted from forcible blows to the vulva from a blunt object such as a fist, rock, stick or bottle. Those injuries did not exclude penile penetration before or after the infliction of the injuries. Death resulted from an acute subdural haematoma resulting from blunt head trauma."
His Honour also found, at [27]: "There is no evidence of any contrition on the part of the offender for the welfare of the deceased. I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, because of the offender's threats to kill the deceased, because he attacked her during the first evening or night after his release from prison and because of the savage nature of the attack that at the time of the attack the offender intended to kill the deceased."
The defendant was charged with murder. An indictment was presented in the Supreme Court, which sat for that purpose at Broken Hill.

[10]

The history of alcohol and drug abuse

The sentencing judge referred to the defendant's history of alcohol abuse as follows: "None of the evidence shows precisely how much the offender had to drink between the time of his release and the attack. I assume that it was a substantial amount, as he was accustomed to drinking. Alcohol was part of the offender's life. . ." ([28]) "Alcohol is not irrelevant to the Court's consideration, for it needs to be considered as part of the circumstances of cruelty, violence, deprivation and hopelessness that surrounded the offender during his formative and adult years." ([29]) "Both the maternal and paternal sides of the offender's family have strong tribal links in far western New South Wales. He grew up in Wilcannia. His parents drank heavily. They separated when he was three years old." ([30]) "When he was seven years old the offender was sexually abused over several months by a health worker. He was unable to tell anyone about it and still has difficulty doing so. He began to behave badly at school and his grandmother sent him to live with his mother and her partner. The offender, who loved and trusted his grandmother, was badly affected by their separation. His mother's partner and his mother drank a lot and the partner used to hit his mother and destroy things in the house. Both mother and partner fought regularly. The children were beaten with anything that came to hand; jug cord, broomstick, hose." ([31]) "The offender was expelled from school in Year 10 for swearing at a teacher and failed as a result to get his School Certificate. He has no formal qualification. He began to carry out unskilled work for the scheme by which Aboriginal people worked for the dole. As a child he had begun to drink alcohol and he remembers his mother getting him drunk on his fifteenth birthday. After that, he was drunk regularly each week. He used to draw his pay and spend most of it on drink. He also took up cannabis in his teenage years and abused it." ([32])

[21]

Risk assessment report by Mr Ardasinski dated 14 May 2016

Mr Ardasinski considered the defendant to pose a moderate-high risk of re-offending, largely because of his poor control over alcohol and substance abuse and the impact this has on his propensity for violence. He considered the defendant to be untreated as he has not undertaken a course of sufficient intensity to address his violent risk factors, although he had done the SMART course which was aimed at his substance abuse. Mr Ardasinski reported that he considered that although the defendant demonstrated some insight into how he might avoid violence in the future, he lacked the skills to achieve this and also lacked the motivation to change. Mr Ardasinski also addressed the relative benefits of an ESO and a CDO. Of the former he said that the mitigation of future risk might be enhanced by such an order, which could assist in monitoring his transition to the community and enforce abstention. He said of the latter, that a further period of detention would enable him to undertake the CUBIT course which could address the risk of sexual violence which the defendant continues to pose.
Mr Ardasinski identified the following dynamic risk factors: substance abuse; intimate relationships; hostility towards women; and a violent lifestyle. Mr Ardasinski considered that the defendant's potential for serious violence would be transferred to any future relationship without intervention (by way of further courses) to address anger, attachment and jealousy. He described the following violent cycle: "c. VIOLENCE CYCLE - hostility and resentment towards women, violent lifestyle Mr Martin's violence followed a clear pattern, whereby he would drink to excess - either in company with his partner or separate to her - and then some conflict within that relationship would arise which would typically revolve around some perceived slight or feeling of jealousy or inadequacy. Mr Martin likely holds a sense of hostility and other problematic attitudes towards women in general, which will be most pronounced within domestic settings. He demonstrates an insecure attachment style within his intimate relationships which likely has a basis in Mr Martin's upbringing, and may relate to his fractured relationships with his primary caregivers (mother, father, grandmother) growing up."
Mr Ardasinski postulated the following scenario if the defendant were to be released without supervision: "42. . . .However it is considered that were Mr Martin to be released without any further intervention or any community supervision, he is likely to return to a community in western NSW (since he has family ties to the region), where he will likely engage in excessive alcohol and possible drug use. Such actions will heighten his risk of engaging in acts of violence, and with any perceived slight or minor provocation, Mr Martin's potential for violence, including serious violence, will be manifest. 43. On the balance of the evidence the above high risk scenario could potentially result in serious violence, since Mr Martin has, on more than one occasion, kicked his victim to the head and stomped on her head after they have fallen to the ground. There also appears to have been the opportunistic use of makeshift weapons in the form of a rock and a nearby flagon, which the evidence suggests were also used in the index attack. There certainly appears to be a risk that Mr Martin may commit another serious violent offence, and the fact that he has failed to adequately address his aggression and substance abuse issues during this custodial sentence would indicate that this risk is chronic in nature, given the availability of alcohol in the community and the demonstrated empirical link between substance abuse and repeat domestic violence (Eke et al, 2011)."
Mr Ardasinski concluded: "47. Mr Martin is a 37-year old Aboriginal man whose risk of violent reoffending is estimated to be in the Moderate-High risk category relative to other men who have offended violently. It was further determined that, due to his failure to address the risk factors of aggression, intimacy deficits and alcohol abuse which have resulted in lethal violence previously, Mr Martin's risk of future violence may include the potential for further serious violence."

[24]

Dr O'Dea

As referred to above, Dr O'Dea interviewed the defendant on 28 December 2016. He described his presentation as follows: "Mr Martin presented as a relatively fit and healthy aboriginal man of his stated age, with a missing front upper tooth, a relatively neat haircut and beard that were greying, and evident tattoos. Whilst the interview was conducted with a Perspex window between the two of us, he was relatively cooperative through the interview and we were able to establish some rapport. He appeared of adequate intelligence, and although at times, he was somewhat dismissive and unwilling to go into detail regarding his history, and at other times showed flashes of anger and/or entitlement, and often stressed his point of view in a forceful manner, he was able to display a wide range of appropriate emotional responses, with no undue anxiety or agitation was evident at interview. No psychosis was evident at interview. He displayed limited remorse or contrition, focusing more on his problems and the victim's role in his offending behaviours, rather than the impact of his actions on the victims. He also did not convey a clear commitment and pathway to change."
Dr O'Dea addressed potential risk factors of being in an intimate relationship and taking drugs or alcohol. He opined that the defendant ought remain totally abstinent from drugs or alcohol in the long term in order to manage and minimise the risk of engaging in further violent offending behaviours. Dr O'Dea considered that there would be a high degree of probability that the defendant would pose a significant risk of committing a further serious violence offence in the community in the long-term without supervision and abstinence from drugs and alcohol. He also considered that the risk could be adequately and appropriately managed in the community under an ESO with the conditions set out in the annexure to the summons filed in these proceedings. He added: "In addition, further time in custody, including to participate in the VOTP or CUBIT, or other psychological programs in custody, is unlikely to significantly reduce Mr Martin's risk profile on his subsequent release into the community."
Dr O'Dea considered the risk posed by the defendant was a long-term risk, which was at least of five years duration.
In his oral evidence Dr O'Dea disagreed with the proposition put to him in cross-examination that it would augur well for potential abstinence that he had had a prolonged period of time of abstinence in custody. Dr O'Dea said that he was not confident that, without support and strong supervision, the defendant would be able to remain abstinent from alcohol on his release. Dr O'Dea did not regard the lack of violence in gaol as of particular weight because the violence the defendant had displayed in the past was in relation to women. Dr O'Dea identified alcohol and other drug use as the "central issue" for the defendant and said that if he were to remain abstinent from alcohol and drugs, his risk to the community would be well-managed.

[25]

Dr Adams

As referred to above, Dr Adams interviewed the defendant in February 2017. They discussed the possibility of a CDO or ESO. Dr Adams recorded the defendant's response in the following paragraph: "With regards to the possibility of a CDO or an ESO he commented, "I consider it double punishment". Out of the two he said he would prefer a CDO, because "jail's easy, I've adapted to jail life". Mr Martin was aware of the various potential conditions of an ESO, and commented, "I'm not going to abide by it". He referred to the possibility of having a GPS anklet, and remarked, "I'll probably just cut it off and throw it away". With regards his potential supervision failure, he commented, "It's your fault not mine … I told you what I'm going to do…""
Dr Adams observed that it was reasonable to expect that the defendant would experience problems with professional services and treatment in light of his expressed attitudes. Dr Adams considered that the defendant's offending behaviour in custody towards the female prison officer and his reluctance to engage in treatment were markers of his underlying attitude towards the index offence. He questioned whether there had been any substantive change in the defendant's views of his offending conduct during his time in custody. Dr Adams noted that the defendant continued to try to shift responsibility to others, both by blaming the victim for his offending conduct and also, in the course of the interview where he said, in the exchange extracted above, "It's your fault, not mine".
Dr Adams considered that his management needs have been well addressed in custody but said that this might "significantly alter" if he is subjected to a CDO, "given his concern about the absence of justice". He considered that the defendant would pose a "significant risk of committing a further act of serious violence" if released from custody. Dr Adams was concerned that the defendant's risk could not be adequately managed in the community by reason of his negative attitude to an ESO and his stated intention not to abide by conditions. Of the conditions proposed by the plaintiff, Dr Adams said: "In my opinion these conditions provide an appropriate framework for addressing Mr Martin's risk management needs, as long as he demonstrates a willingness to comply with the conditions. At the time of my assessment this was not the case."
Dr Adams considered the defendant's risk management needs would be long term and opined that an ESO of five years "could not be considered inappropriate".

[26]

Whether a CDO ought be made

The only purpose for which a CDO was sought by the plaintiff was to ensure that the defendant participated in the two custody-based programmes appropriate to his circumstances: CUBIT and VOTP. A CDO of one year was sought for that purpose. I note that the defendant agreed to undertake VOTP in 2011 and was regarded as eligible but unsuitable for it. He has since refused to consent to a referral to that programme. The defendant has consistently maintained that he ought not have to participate in CUBIT because he is not a sex offender, having been convicted of murder, not sexual assault.
The defendant submitted that the risk posed by the defendant of committing a serious violence offence if released could not be adequately managed by an ESO. Mr Hammond contended that the defendant's failure to engage in any real treatment in gaol to address his substance abuse and his attitudes to violence, particularly towards women with whom he is in an intimate relationship, meant that the risk could not be sufficiently ameliorated until he had completed custody-based courses in respect of those matters. He identified the two courses as CUBIT and VOTP. I note that there has been some change in the defendant's position since the plaintiff first applied for a CDO. In particular, he has indicated his preparedness to live at a COSP facility if an ESO were granted, as reflected in Ms Hawkins' instructions referred to above.
I have three reservations about ordering a CDO in the present case. First, it is foreseeable that the defendant will continue to refuse to engage in CUBIT and VOTP even if a CDO is imposed, having regard to his intransigence in the past. In this event, he will have been incarcerated for a further year to no good purpose. Secondly, Drs Adams and O'Dea do not consider that the risk he poses will be significantly ameliorated by participation in those courses. Thirdly, Dr Adams has referred to the potential for destabilising the defendant considerably if a CDO were imposed.
In my view, for the reasons set out in more detail below, the best way of addressing the risk posed by the defendant to the community is to subject him to an ESO which will manage the risk by the imposition and enforcement of appropriate conditions. If the defendant's DSO can build good rapport with him and if he is able to settle into the accommodation at ISC, he may be able to remain abstinent from alcohol and drugs and may have a sense of purpose, which was lacking in his youth and has been, to some extent, lacking in gaol. Far from diminishing the risk, the imposition of a CDO for the purposes of requiring him to complete these courses may have the opposite effect and aggravate it, particularly if he feels aggrieved by the continued incarceration. This is not to say that his wishes are by any means determinative, particularly in circumstances where he has expressed contradictory sentiments on the topic. However, the facilities and services available to the defendant through the ESO Team, not least of which being the contributions made by the DSOs, could potentially have a beneficial effect on the defendant and, in turn, protect the public from his violent offending.
In these circumstances I propose to address below only those statutory provisions which relate to ESOs, rather than CDOs.

[51]

Part I: Search and seizure 30. If the DSO reasonably believes that a search (of the type referred to in sub-paragraphs d to f below) is necessary: a. for the safety and welfare of residents or staff or persons present at the defendant's approved address; b. to monitor the defendant's compliance with this order; or c. because the DSO reasonably suspects the defendant of behaviour or conduct associated with an increased risk of the defendant committing a serious offence; then the DSO may direct, and the defendant must submit to: d. search and inspection of any part of, or any thing in, the defendant's approved address; e. search and inspection of any part of, or any thing in, any vehicle owned, hired by or under the control of the defendant; f. search and inspection of any part of, or any thing in, any storage facility, including a garage, locker or commercial facility owned, hired by or under the control of the defendant; and/or g. search and examination of his person. 31. For the purposes of the above condition: a. a search of the defendant means a garment search or a pat-down search; and b. to the extent practicable, a pat-down search will be conducted by a DSO of the same sex as the defendant, or by an Officer of CSNSW of the same sex as the defendant under the direction of the DSO. NOTE: "Garment search" means a search of any article of clothing worn by the defendant or in the defendant's possession, where the article of clothing is touched or removed from the person's body. "Pat-down search" means a search of a person where the person's clothed body is touched. 32. During a search carried out pursuant to condition 30 above, the defendant must allow the DSO (or any other person requested by the DSO) to seize anything found, whether in the defendant's possession or not, which the DSO reasonably suspects will compromise: a. the safety of residents or of staff at the defendant's approved address; b. the welfare or safety of any member of the public or any other person; or c. the defendant's compliance with this order; or which the DSO reasonably suspects relates to behaviour or conduct associated with an increased risk of the defendant committing a serious offence. 33. The defendant must allow CSNSW to search any phone, tablet device, data storage device or computer that he may use. 34. The defendant must not attempt to destroy or interfere with any object that is the subject of a search or seizure, carried out pursuant to conditions 30 to 33 above.