Juries (Remuneration for Jury Service) Regulations 2017

The Regulations use a small set of concepts to allocate payment and discretion. These concepts are expressly defined or evident by operation within the text.

• Juror attendance and compliance: The triggering event for entitlement is attending court “in compliance with a summons to render jury service” (regulation 4(1)). The Regulations do not set a claims timetable; they define the circumstances under which payment is due, not a payment procedure.

• Daily rate: The term daily rate is defined in regulation 3(1) to mean the remuneration payable in accordance with clause 1 or 2 of Schedule 1. That definition anchors several procedural rules: maximum rates (regulation 4(5)), entitlement periods for long trials (regulation 4(4)), and indexing (regulation 3(2)).

• Long trial: The Regulations create the category long trial by allowing the Minister, on the advice of the court, to declare a criminal trial to be a long trial for the Regulations’ purposes (regulation 4(2)). The definition is procedural rather than temporal; there is no duration threshold in the Regulations themselves. The Minister may make the declaration before or after empanelment (regulation 4(3)). For jurors empanelled for a long trial, the payment rules change: the daily rate for sitting days after empanelment has a higher cap (Schedule 1, clause 2(b)(ii); regulation 4(5)(a)).

• Sheriff’s satisfaction: Payment above the nominal $20.00 daily rate is conditional on the sheriff being satisfied that the attendance caused the juror to suffer monetary loss or necessarily incur expenditure exceeding $20.00 (Schedule 1, clauses 1(b) and 2(b)(ii)). The Regulations do not specify criteria, evidence requirements or a review mechanism for that satisfaction; they simply vest the sheriff with a threshold gate to authorise higher payments.

• Indexing and CPI: For any monetary amount followed by “(indexed)” (Schedule 1 contains three indexed figures), regulation 3(2) instructs annual adjustments on 1 July. The adjustment is the greater of no change or the CPI ratio described in regulation 3(2). The CPI is defined as the Consumer Price Index (All Groups) for the City of Adelaide published by the ABS (regulation 3(1)).

• Travel reimbursement: Schedule 1, clause 3 sets a per‑kilometre amount for travelling expenses between court and the juror’s residence and the Regulations include a minimum‑daily rule when travel expenses are paid,12 times the per‑kilometre rate (regulation 4(6) and Schedule 1 Note). Travel reimbursement is explicitly additive to other payments (regulation 4(6)(b)).

• Maximum daily rates: Regulation 4(5) caps the daily rate payable on any day,separately for long trials (capped by Schedule 1, clause 2(b)(ii)) and for other cases (capped by Schedule 1, clause 1(b)). Thus even where demonstrated loss exceeds the cap, payment cannot exceed the relevant maximum.

These concepts allocate the entitlement, the ceilings and the limited discretionary decision points. The Regulations do not define administrative claim forms, payment timelines, audit rules, or who disburses payment. They also do not define “residence” or “sitting day” beyond the context in which the terms appear.

The Regulations create rights and set administrative roles that affect three classes of actors explicitly and others implicitly.

• Jurors: Individuals summoned to render jury service are the direct beneficiaries. A juror who attends in compliance with a summons is entitled to remuneration in accordance with Schedule 1 (regulation 4(1)). The nature of the entitlement depends on whether the juror is empanelled for a long trial (regulation 4(4)) and whether attendance caused monetary loss or necessary expenditure exceeding $20.00 (Schedule 1, clauses 1 and 2). Jurors who attend and incur travel between court and residence may claim per‑kilometre reimbursement (Schedule 1, clause 3).

• The sheriff: The sheriff is given a gatekeeping role with respect to higher payments. The Regulations require the sheriff to be satisfied that attendance caused loss or necessary expenditure exceeding $20.00 before a juror may be paid an amount equal to that loss, subject to the relevant statutory cap (Schedule 1, clauses 1(b), 2(b)(ii)). The sheriff’s satisfaction is the precondition for payment above $20.00; the Regulations do not specify the evidentiary standard or review route.

• The Minister and the courts: The Minister (presumably the responsible Minister) may declare a criminal trial to be a long trial, but only on the advice of the court (regulation 4(2)). The declaration must be published by notice in the Gazette (regulation 4(2)). The Minister’s power is procedural and can be exercised before or after empanelment (regulation 4(3)). The court’s role is advisory for the Minister but is not operationally described beyond that advisory capacity.

• Court administration/finance units: Although the Regulations do not state which government entity pays jurors, they create entitlements that require administrative implementation: calculating indexed amounts on 1 July (regulation 3(2)), applying caps (regulation 4(5)), calculating per‑kilometre travel payments and minimum daily amounts when travel is paid (regulation 4(6) and Schedule 1 Note), and recognising the commencement and revocation of earlier regulations (Schedule 2). Those administrative tasks fall to whoever exercises financial responsibilities under the Act, but the Regulations do not name the agency.

• Employers and third parties: The Regulations do not address employer obligations or deductions or whether an employer’s continued wage payment offsets entitlement. They affect employers indirectly because jurors who suffer loss may claim compensation from public funds under these scales; the Regulations stipulate what those claims can recover but do not allocate liability between employer and state.

• The public ledger: The Regulations create a fiscal exposure for the State in respect of juror payments. Indexed caps and per‑kilometre rates set an upper bound on discrete payment items, and the minimum‑daily payment tied to travel ensures a floor in certain cases (regulation 4(6)(a)). The Regulations therefore define the pay‑out parameters for jury service remuneration.

Actors not mentioned in the Regulations,such as claim forms, appeal bodies, audit offices or specifics as to disbursing authority,are left to other instruments or internal administrative practice. The Regulations’ explicit actors are jurors, the sheriff, the Minister and the court for the purposes of a long‑trial declaration.

The Regulations create a set of rights for jurors and impose decision responsibilities on the sheriff and the Minister, with a limited set of administrative obligations implicit for court finance functions.

Rights

• Right to remuneration for attendance: A juror who attends court in compliance with a summons is entitled to remuneration in accordance with the Schedule (regulation 4(1)). This right arises from attendance “in compliance with a summons” and is expressed as an entitlement under section 70(1)(a) of the Act (regulation 4(1)).

• Right to higher payment where loss is shown: A juror who can secure the sheriff’s satisfaction that attendance caused monetary loss or necessary expenditure exceeding $20.00 is entitled to be paid an amount equal to that loss, subject to the applicable maximum daily rate (Schedule 1, clauses 1(b) and 2(b)(ii); regulation 4(5)).

• Right to travel reimbursement: Jurors are entitled to travelling expenses for travel between the court and the juror’s residence at the per‑kilometre rate set out in Schedule 1, clause 3. Where traveling expenses are paid, the minimum daily payment is 12 times the amount fixed for each kilometre (regulation 4(6); Schedule 1 Note). Travelling expenses are additive to other amounts payable (regulation 4(6)(b)).

• Right to long‑trial daily rate once empanelled: If a criminal trial has been declared a long trial by the Minister (on the court’s advice), a juror empanelled for that trial is entitled to the applicable daily rate in respect of each sitting day from empanelment until a specified end point (excusal, death, or dismissal), whether or not the juror is required to attend each sitting day (regulation 4(2), (3), (4)).

Duties and decision responsibilities

• Minister’s declaratory duty: The Minister may declare that a criminal trial is a long trial for these Regulations’ purposes, and must publish such a declaration in the Gazette (regulation 4(2)). The power is discretionary in the sense that the Minister may or may not declare, and it is exercisable on the advice of the court (regulation 4(2)-(3)).

• Sheriff’s evaluative role: The sheriff must be satisfied that attendance caused monetary loss or necessary expenditure exceeding $20.00 before approving a payment equal to that loss up to the cap (Schedule 1, clauses 1(b) and 2(b)(ii)). The Regulations do not prescribe process for how the sheriff reaches this satisfaction or how a juror appeals or reviews the sheriff’s decision.

• Administrative obligations implied: The Regulations require calculation of indexed amounts each 1 July (regulation 3(2)), application of maximum daily rates (regulation 4(5)), identification of sitting days for long trials (regulation 4(4)), and calculation of travel reimbursements including the minimum daily amount when travel is paid (regulation 4(6) and Schedule 1 Note). The Regulations do not specify which office must perform these calculations; however, such functions will be required to operationally give effect to entitlements.

Limitations and caps

• Caps on payments: Even where loss or expenditure exceeds the numerically higher cap, payment is limited by Schedule 1 caps ($158.00 indexed for ordinary days with proof of loss; $284.00 indexed for long‑trial sitting days after empanelment) and the $20.00 floor where no higher payment is justified (Schedule 1 clauses 1 and 2; regulation 4(5)).

• Indexing floor: Indexed amounts cannot be reduced below their stated figure because the annual multiplication factor is the greater of 1 or the CPI ratio (regulation 3(2)). This protects the nominal value from downward movement but allows increases in line with CPI growth.

The Regulations establish rights of payment and embed key decision points. They do not, however, set out detailed administrative procedures, appeal rights, or enforcement mechanisms for these duties and rights.

The Regulations do not create offences, penalties, or explicit enforcement mechanisms. They are focused on remuneration entitlements and the administrative conditions for payment. The source text contains no fine, criminal sanction or compliance penalty for non‑payment or breaches by any party.

Mechanisms that have enforcement implications

• Entitlement structure: Enforcement of a juror’s entitlement is implicitly left to the administrative processes under the Act and the administering body, but the Regulations themselves specify no statutory remedy if payment is withheld or delayed (regulation 4(1); Schedule 1). The Regulations therefore define the entitlements and discrete decision points (sheriff satisfaction and Ministerial declaration) but do not provide enforcement pathways, dispute resolution processes, or timelines for payment.

• Sheriff satisfaction as a gatekeeper: The requirement that the sheriff be satisfied before payment above $20.00 can be made functions as an internal approval control (Schedule 1, clauses 1(b) and 2(b)(ii)). Because the Regulations do not prescribe an evidentiary standard, the sheriff’s decision is administratively significant and any challenge to a sheriff’s decision would have to be pursued under other statutory processes or judicial review rules applicable to administrative decisions, which are not mentioned in the Regulations.

• Publication of long‑trial declarations: The Minister’s declaration must be published in the Gazette (regulation 4(2)). Publication provides a public record of the decision and may be relied on by jurors and administrators to determine entitlement periods. The Gazette notice is the mechanism for making the Minister’s decision known; the Regulations do not require further notice to jurors or specify contestability.

• No penalty provisions: There is no provision that penalises false claims by jurors, nor any provision specifying recovery of overpayments, cross‑offsets against other entitlements, audits or sanctions for administrative misapplication. Similarly, there is no provision setting time limits for making claims or defining a claims form.

Practical consequence of absence of enforcement detail

• Administrative reliance on external frameworks: Because the Regulations create monetary entitlements but lack enforcement provisions, enforcement in practice will depend on the administrative framework established under the Act or by the administering agency. That framework is not contained in these Regulations. Any procedural gaps,payment timeframes, how to establish loss to satisfy the sheriff, how to dispute a sheriff’s decision,will need to be addressed by separate practice directions, internal procedures, or other instruments under the Act.

In summary, the Regulations set entitlement rules and administrative decision points but do not themselves create penalties or a statutory enforcement scheme. The operational enforcement and dispute mechanisms are left to the Act and to administrative practice not contained within the Regulations.

The Regulations operate under and in support of the Juries Act 1927, and they expressly interact with the Act in limited ways; they also interact indirectly with the Australian Bureau of Statistics CPI series as the basis for annual indexing.

Interaction with the Juries Act 1927

• Statutory source: The Regulations are made under the Act and explicitly reference section 70(1)(a) as the entitlement the Regulations give effect to (regulation 4(1)). They implement the Act’s remuneration power by setting the scales and conditions for payment.

• Administrative functions not set out: The Regulations do not attempt to displace or replicate procedural or enforcement provisions that might be present in the Act. Any administrative processes for claiming, payment, or dispute must therefore be sourced elsewhere,either in the Act itself, in territorial financial management legislation, or in administrative practice. The Regulations explicitly rely on the Act for the underlying entitlement and do not alter other Act provisions.

Revocation of prior subordinate legislation

• Repeal of 2002 Regulations: Schedule 2 repeals the Juries (Remuneration for Jury Service) Regulations 2002 (Schedule 2). That revocation indicates that the 2017 Regulations are intended to be the operative subordinate legislative instrument on juror remuneration from their commencement date (Schedule 2, clause 1).

Interaction with CPI and ABS data

• Indexed amounts tied to CPI: The Regulations use the Consumer Price Index (All Groups) for the City of Adelaide published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics to adjust indexed monetary amounts on an annual basis (regulation 3(1)-(2)). This establishes a direct dependence on ABS statistical releases and on the CPI measure for Adelaide. Any methodological change in that CPI series by the ABS could affect the indexed amounts, and the Regulations tie annual adjustment dates to 1 July.

Interaction with Gazette and public notice requirements

• Publication in the Gazette: The Minister’s long‑trial declaration must be published as a notice in the Gazette (regulation 4(2)). The Regulations therefore rely on the machinery of official publication to communicate a discrete administrative decision; any rules governing the Gazette or requirements for valid notice under other statutes will govern the sufficiency of that publication.

Implications for other statutory regimes

• No explicit interaction with employment, social security or taxation law: The Regulations do not address whether jury remuneration affects an individual’s social security entitlements, tax liabilities, or employer obligations. Those interactions, if relevant, will be determined by the separate statutory or administrative regimes that govern social security, tax or employment and are not modified by these Regulations.

• Administrative compatibility: Because the Regulations leave procedural matters to other instruments or practice, their practical interaction with financial management law (for example, disbursement and appropriation rules) will be determined by the State’s financial administration framework rather than the Regulations themselves.

In short, the Regulations implement an entitlement under the Juries Act 1927, revoke the prior subordinate instrument, and tether indexed amounts to the Adelaide CPI. They do not modify other statutory regimes, nor do they set out procedural links to taxation, employment, or social security law, meaning those interactions must be resolved outside the Regulations.

The Regulations themselves contain a small amendment and commencement record in the instrument and the legislative history appended to it. The history in the source limits the amendment trail and records the instrument’s commencement.

• Revocation of the previous regulation: Schedule 2 expressly revokes the Juries (Remuneration for Jury Service) Regulations 2002 (Schedule 2, clause 1). That is the only revocation recorded within the instrument.

• Commencement: Regulation 2 states that the Regulations “come into operation on the day on which they are made” (regulation 2). The legislative history records the Gazette reference for the principal regulations as Gazette 22.8.2017 p3673 and the commencement date as 22.8.2017 (Legislative history).

• Principal regulations entry: The legislative history table under “Principal regulations” records the year 2017, instrument number 256, Gazette reference (Gazette 22.8.2017 p3673) and the commencement entry repeating regulation 2 (22.8.2017: r 2). No subsequent amendments are recorded in the legislative history provided in the source.

• Indexed amounts and automatic adjustment: While not an “amendment” in the conventional sense, the Regulations include an embedded annual update mechanism for indexed monetary amounts (regulation 3(2)). That mechanism adjusts amounts each 1 July by a CPI‑based multiplier. Functionally, the indexing rule performs periodic numeric change that otherwise would require amendment to the Regulations to alter the nominal figures; the instrument therefore contains a delegated‑operation that updates amounts without separate amending instruments.

• No later amending instruments recorded: The source does not list any amendments to the Regulations after their initial Gazettal and commencement in August 2017. If amendments have been made, they are not recorded in the provided text.

Takeaway: The legislative history contained within this instrument is narrow. The Regulations were made in 2017, took effect the same day, and replaced the 2002 Regulations. The instrument carries an internal CPI‑based indexing mechanism to adjust monetary figures annually, which reduces the need for frequent subordinate amendments to alter the numeric scales.

The provided source contains no litigation history. The Regulations themselves do not cite, summarise or record any court decisions that interpret or apply them. There are no cases named in the instrument and no reference to judicial review, appeals, or decided disputes in the text provided.

What the absence of litigation history in the source means in practice

• No statutory record of interpretation: Because the Regulations do not include any recorded judicial consideration, there is no statutoryly‑attached interpretive guidance (for example, case law on the meaning of “sitting day”, “loss”, “residence”, or the sheriff’s standard of satisfaction).

• Potential judicial issues left open: The Regulations leave certain phrases and decision standards undefined (for example, the sheriff’s standard for being “satisfied” that loss has occurred; what counts as “necessary” expenditure; how “residence” is to be interpreted for travel claims). In the absence of reported decisions in the source, these questions remain for administrative practice or future litigation.

• Remedies and dispute processes: The Regulations do not set out remedies, timelines or appeal mechanisms for disputes over payments or the sheriff’s decisions. If a dispute arises, remedies would be pursued under general administrative law channels or under the Act, but the Regulations do not provide a litigation history to indicate how courts have treated such disputes.

Summary statement: The instrument, as provided, contains no litigation history and does not enumerate any cases. Any questions of statutory construction, judicial review of administrative decisions under the Regulations, or disputes about payment standards would therefore need to be sourced from external judicial records or future litigation not recorded in this text.

This section highlights specific textual features and operational pitfalls in the Regulations that may catch administrators, jurors or advisers unaware. Each item is grounded in the Regulation language.

1. Indexed amounts will not fall: The annual adjustment rule multiplies indexed figures by the greater of 1 or a CPI ratio (regulation 3(2)). That means indexed amounts have a floor equal to the stated figure; they cannot be reduced by negative CPI movement. Administrators must therefore apply a non‑reduction rule each 1 July.

2. “Long trial” is a declaratory category, not a fixed duration: The Regulations do not define “long trial” by number of days or other objective metric. The Minister may declare a trial a long trial on the advice of the court at any time before or after empanelment (regulation 4(2)-(3)). This creates a timing and strategic issue: the declaration’s timing affects which days qualify for the enhanced cap and when payment under clause 2(b)(ii) may apply (regulation 4(4)).

3. Payments for long trials apply from empanelment even when a juror is not required to attend each sitting day: For a juror empanelled for a long trial, payment at the applicable daily rate is due for each sitting day of the trial from empanelment until excusal, death or dismissal, “whether or not the juror is required to attend the court each sitting day” (regulation 4(4)). Administrators must therefore track empanelment dates and sitting days, not merely physical attendance.

4. Sheriff’s satisfaction is an undefined threshold: Payment above $20.00 requires the sheriff to be “satisfied” that the attendance caused the juror to suffer loss or necessarily incur expenditure exceeding $20.00 (Schedule 1, clauses 1(b) and 2(b)(ii)). The Regulations provide no evidentiary guidance, no appeal route or timeframe for the sheriff’s decision, and no standard of review. That leaves a potential administrative black box around higher payments.

5. Caps limit recovery even when proven loss is greater: Even where a juror proves loss exceeding the cap, payment cannot exceed the statutory maximum for the relevant case,$158.00 (indexed) for ordinary attendance or $284.00 (indexed) for long‑trial sitting days (Schedule 1 clauses 1(b) and 2(b)(ii); regulation 4(5)). Advisers should not assume full loss recovery will follow proof of high loss.

6. Minimum daily when travel paid is formulaic: Where travelling expenses are paid, the minimum daily amount is 12 times the per‑kilometre rate (regulation 4(6)(a)). Because the per‑kilometre rate is a small figure ($0.76 indexed in Schedule 1 clause 3), the minimum daily payment may be modest (12 × $0.76 indexed). This interacts with the $20.00 nominal floor only insofar as the Note in Schedule 1 and regulation 4(6) combine to ensure travel is additive to other amounts (regulation 4(6)(b)).

7. The phrase “attends court in compliance with a summons” is the entitlement trigger: Entitlement arises from complying with a summons. The Regulations do not create entitlements for other kinds of court attendance or for voluntary attendance; advisers should verify that attendance meets that statutory trigger.

8. No administrative forms, deadlines or appeal routes: The Regulations do not set forms, claim windows, processing timelines, or remedies. Practitioners should expect those procedures to be specified by the administering agency or the Act rather than in the Regulations.

9. Travelling expenses confined to court‑residence travel: Schedule 1 clause 3 specifies travel between the court and the juror’s residence; other travel costs (e.g. travel from workplace to court for those who do not travel from residence) are not addressed. The berth for alternate travel claims is therefore uncertain under the Regulations alone.

10. Revocation of 2002 regulations may create transitional questions: Schedule 2 revokes the 2002 Regulations. The source does not set out transitional provisions or transitional entitlements, so any questions about payments or claims spanning the revocation date may require reference to the 2002 instrument or to administrative practice.

These textual features create practical compliance and administrative issues that must be resolved through process design, clear recordkeeping, evidence standards for sheriff satisfaction, notice of long‑trial declarations, and integration with the administering entity’s payment procedures.

The Regulations leave many operational details to the administering authority; this section outlines concrete, source‑grounded steps that courts, sheriffs, jurors and administrators should implement to comply with the Rules as written.

For courts and the Minister

• Record and publish long‑trial declarations: If the court advises the Minister that a criminal trial should be declared a long trial, ensure the Minister’s decision is published in the Gazette as required (regulation 4(2)). Maintain a public record of the Gazette notice and the date(s) of publication, because the declaration may be made before or after empanelment (regulation 4(3)) and entitlements for jurors empanelled are calculated from empanelment (regulation 4(4)).

• Define “sitting day” operationally: To avoid ambiguity, court administration should publish a clear definition of “sitting day” for payment purposes and log sitting days in a way that can be matched to empanelment records (regulation 4(4)).

For sheriffs and payment administrators

• Establish a documented process for “sheriff satisfaction”: Because payment above $20.00 requires the sheriff to be satisfied about loss or necessary expenditure exceeding $20.00, create a written policy listing acceptable evidence (for example, loss of income calculations, receipts for unavoidable expenses) and a standard administrative timeline for decisions. Record the sheriff’s reasons and evidence in each file to support both payment and auditability (Schedule 1, clauses 1(b), 2(b)(ii)).

• Apply caps and indexing faithfully: Ensure payment systems enforce the statutory caps: ordinary losses are payable up to $158.00 (indexed) per day; long‑trial sitting‑day payments are capped at $284.00 (indexed) per day (Schedule 1 clauses 1(b) and 2(b)(ii); regulation 4(5)). Implement the annual CPI‑based adjustment on 1 July each year by multiplying the stated amount by the multiplier set in regulation 3(2). The multiplier is the greater of 1 or the March‑quarter CPI ratio for Adelaide (regulation 3(2)).

• Calculate travel reimbursements and minima: Pay travel expenses at the per‑kilometre rate in Schedule 1 clause 3, and when travel expenses are paid ensure the juror receives at least 12 times that per‑kilometre rate as the minimum daily amount (regulation 4(6)(a); Schedule 1 Note). Add travel payments to any daily rate paid (regulation 4(6)(b)).

• Track empanelment and attendance: For long trials, payments for empanelled jurors commence from empanelment and continue until excusal, death or dismissal (regulation 4(4)). Administrators should link empanelment records to payment run files to ensure entitlements start and stop on the correct dates.

For jurors and their advisers

• Preserve evidence of loss or necessary expenditure: If seeking a payment above $20.00, jurors should preserve documentation that can satisfy the sheriff (for example, proof of lost earnings, invoices, or unavoidable expenditure receipts), because the sheriff’s satisfaction is a precondition to higher payment (Schedule 1 clauses 1(b) and 2(b)(ii)).

• Keep accurate travel records: For travel claims between residence and court, jurors should record kilometres travelled each day. The per‑kilometre rate is set in Schedule 1 clause 3 and the minimum daily payment when travel is paid is 12 times the per‑kilometre rate (regulation 4(6)(a)). Provide km evidence to the payment administrator.

• Check Gazette notices for long‑trial declarations: A long‑trial declaration affects entitlement caps and timing. Jurors and their advisers should check the Gazette for any notices that declare a trial a long trial, because the declaration can be made before or after empanelment and affects payments from empanelment until the jury is excused, dies or is dismissed (regulation 4(2)-(4)).

Administrative and audit considerations

• Maintain versioning and indexed rates: Payment ledgers should record the exact indexed rates used on each payment date and maintain audit trails showing the 1 July CPI multiplier calculation (regulation 3(2)). Retain copies of the ABS CPI data used for the multiplier.

• Provide internal guidance on ambiguous terms: Because the Regulations do not define “necessary expenditure” or “residence”, administrators should adopt operational definitions (consistent with legal advice) and publish internal guidance so that claims are handled consistently.

• Reconcile with financial rules: Ensure that payments made under these Regulations are processed under relevant appropriation and financial management rules. The Regulations create entitlements; payment flows must conform to public finance requirements, which are not specified in the instrument.

• Prepare for disputes: Because the Regulations do not provide an internal appeal mechanism for sheriff decisions, set out an internal review or escalation pathway and inform jurors of that pathway to reduce the risk of external review.

These steps will operationalise the Regulations’ textual obligations: publish long‑trial declarations, implement the sheriff’s evidentiary role, index amounts annually without decrease, apply statutory caps, and document travel and empanelment records to support payments.