[2014] FWC 194

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION


Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Mr Fahad Khan
v
Northern Territory of Australia (Commissioner of Police)
(U2013/1216)

COMMISSIONER CAMBRIDGE

SYDNEY, 10 JANUARY 2014

Application for unfair dismissal remedy - misconduct - allegations of unauthorised use of police computer system - probationary police constable - directed interview - apparent admissions - notice to show cause - breach of discipline - further evidence of misconduct - dismissal not harsh, unjust or unreasonable - application dismissed.

[1] This matter involves an application for unfair dismissal remedy made pursuant to section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The application was lodged at Darwin on 15 April 2013. The application was made by Fahad Ali Khan (the applicant) and the respondent employer is the Northern Territory of Australia (Commissioner of Police) (the employer).

[2] The application indicated that the date the applicant’s dismissal took effect was 28 March 2013. Consequently, the application was made within the 21 day time limit prescribed by subsection 394 (2) of the Act.

[3] The matter was not resolved at conciliation and it has proceeded to arbitration before the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) in a Hearing conducted in Alice Springs on 4, 5 and 6 September and in Darwin on 24 October 2013.

[4] At the Hearing, Mr J H Pearce, barrister, appeared for the applicant. The applicant and three other witnesses were called to provide evidence in support of the claim. The employer was represented by Mr J V Murphy, barrister, who called a total of three witnesses who provided evidence on behalf of the employer.

Factual Background

[5] The applicant is a man of some 35 years of age, who was born and grew up in Pakistan. He served as a Commissioned Officer in the Pakistani Military for 12 years. The applicant immigrated to Australia in 2009 and he completed post graduate studies attaining Masters Degrees in Human Resource Management and Business Administration. Prior to entry into the Northern Territory Police Force (NTPF), the applicant worked for the Northern Territory Correctional Services as a Prison Officer.

[6] The applicant commenced with the NTPF as a Trainee Police Constable in May of 2012. The applicant became a sworn police officer on 15 November 2012, and graduated from the Police College, Darwin in December 2012. On 24 December 2012, he commenced work as a Probationary Police Constable in Alice Springs.

[7] On 31 January 2013, a NTPF Senior Sergeant based in Alice Springs received information of a confidential but unsubstantiated nature from a “human source”. The information from this source involved allegations that the applicant had provided information to his (the applicant’s) brother about the criminal history of particular persons. The source suggested that the applicant had accessed the criminal records database held by the NTPF and conveyed the criminal record information about persons who were, or had been, employees of the applicant’s brother. The applicant’s brother had then allegedly divulged to the source that his brother had provided him with the criminal background checks for a number of his employees.

[8] The Senior Sergeant made some preliminary inquiries about the allegations raised by the source and then in a memo dated 1 February 2013, addressed to the Superintendent of the Alice Springs Division of the NTPF, the allegations against the applicant were first formalised. The allegations were investigated by the Internal Investigation Division of the Professional Standards Command (PSC) of the NTPF.

[9] The PSC directed the applicant to attend a meeting on 27 February (the directed interview) during which the applicant was told that he must answer all questions in respect to an investigation regarding release of confidential information. The PSC officers advised the applicant that the directed interview was part of a disciplinary investigation and the applicant was accompanied by a support person, a NTPF Sergeant in attendance as a Northern Territory Police Association (NTPA) representative.

[10] During the directed interview, the applicant was asked about his operation of the NTPF computer database system called the Police Real-time Online Management Information System (PROMIS). The PSC officer who was conducting the investigation into the allegations made against the applicant, had undertaken searches of the PROMIS system which revealed all activity of the applicant involving his operation of the PROMIS system in the period between 1 December 2012 and 18 February 2013. A search of this nature produces a report which is referred to as a CRYSTAL report.

[11] The CRYSTAL reports provided information which focused the attention of the PSC investigating officer upon the applicant's activities involving access to PROMIS records relating to a particular individual who was identified as one of the employees of the applicant's brother referred to in the information originally provided by the source. This individual is referred to as M. The CRYSTAL reports revealed that the applicant had conducted PROMIS inquiries in respect to M on 14 January and 3 February 2013. At the time that the applicant conducted these PROMIS inquiries he was working in the Alice Springs Watch House and there appeared to be no police involvement with M on either of these occasions.

[12] As the directed interview continued, the applicant was asked many questions about the reason for his PROMIS inquiries made of M and what his knowledge of and connection with M may have been. Although the applicant maintained that his initial PROMIS inquiry of M was accidental, he admitted that he had conveyed information obtained from PROMIS to his brother. At the conclusion of the directed interview, the applicant was removed from operational duties pending further investigation and determination of issues arising from the allegations made against him.

[13] Following further inquiries, the PSC investigating officer produced a report and a recommendation that the applicant be dismissed from employment on the basis of his admitted breaches of discipline involving the disclosure to his brother of information obtained from PROMIS. On 11 March 2013, the Commissioner of Police issued the applicant with a Notice to Show Cause as to why his appointment as a Probationary Constable should not be terminated. The applicant provided a written response to the Notice to Show Cause which was dated 18 March 2013.

[14] On 28 March 2013, the Commissioner of Police issued the applicant with a Notice of Termination which inter alia, advised the applicant that the Police Commissioner was not satisfied with responses and explanations provided in answer to the Notice to Show Cause. The Notice of Termination advised that the Commissioner of Police was of the opinion that the applicant had committed breaches of discipline as alleged.

[15] The Notice of Termination also referred to additional information obtained by the PSC investigating officer after the directed interview. The additional information of significance was obtained from CCTV footage from the Alice Springs Watch House on the morning of 14 January 2013, when the applicant was recorded making a telephone call and engaging in conversation in the Urdu language. The CCTV footage involving the applicant's conversation in Urdu on 14 January 2013, has become an issue of crucial significance for the determination of this matter.

The Case for the Applicant

[16] Mr Pearce, barrister, who appeared for the applicant at the Hearing, made extensive verbal submissions in addition to documentary material that had been filed earlier. Mr Pearce submitted that the determination of the matter had to be approached having regard to the established legal principles upon which a termination of employment would be held to be harsh, unjust or unreasonable. Mr Pearce referred to various decided cases as Authorities which formed the basis for the legal principles, which he submitted, were appropriate.

[17] Mr Pearce submitted that the appropriate legal principles needed to be considered in the context of the provisions of section 387 of the Act. In broad terms, according to the submissions made by Mr Pearce, the dismissal of the applicant was unreasonable because there was no rationality in the reasons given for the decision to terminate. Further, Mr Pearce submitted that the termination of the applicant's employment was unjust because he did not engage in the conduct which was alleged and further, the dismissal was harsh because of the procedure adopted by the employer and because of the personal circumstances of the applicant.

[18] In respect to the issue of any valid reason for dismissal, Mr Pearce made submissions which were highly critical of the grounds that were set out in the Notice of Termination issued by the Commissioner of Police. Mr Pearce said that the decision to dismiss was based on the alleged admissions of the applicant that he had accessed police information and disclosed confidential and personal information for private purposes. Mr Pearce said that the applicant had not admitted to any of those things and therefore the decision to dismiss was of itself irrational.

[19] Mr Pearce submitted that the terminology used in the Notice of Termination did not involve the Commissioner of Police establishing a positive finding in respect of the actions that were alleged against the applicant. Instead, according to Mr Pearce, the reason for the termination was established upon a view that the Commissioner of Police was not satisfied that the applicant did not commit the alleged breaches of discipline. Consequently, according to Mr Pearce, the grounds of non-satisfaction of the applicant's responses to the Notice to Show Cause did not provide for any positive finding and therefore could not represent a valid reason.

[20] Mr Pearce made further submissions which addressed the various other components contained within section 387 of the Act. Mr Pearce submitted that because the reason to dismiss was irrational and not valid, the applicant was not notified of the reason for dismissal because such notification had to be for the true reason for dismissal. In similar vein, Mr Pearce submitted that it was meaningless to provide the applicant with an opportunity to respond if the decision to terminate gave nonsense reasons or did not give the real reason for the proposed termination.

[21] Mr Pearce also made submissions which were critical of the employer’s reference to and reliance upon the applicant's telephone conversation in Urdu which was a matter that was not put to the applicant before the decision to dismiss was made. According to the submissions of Mr Pearce, the failure of the employer to put the issue of the telephone conversation in Urdu to the applicant was one of numerous procedural errors evident in the employer's investigation and ultimate determination to dismiss the applicant. In this regard, Mr Pearce was highly critical of the process which involved the directed interview which he said may be held to be unlawful. Further criticism was made of the failure to provide the applicant with the CRYSTAL report information before he was required to answer the questions posed in the directed interview.

[22] In further submissions which were directed at the information that was extracted from the PROMIS and CRYSTAL reports, Mr Pearce said that the various screenshots which were relied upon could not necessarily represent an accurate reflection of what the applicant would have been viewing at the particular time in question. In any event, according to Mr Pearce, the applicant had innocently stumbled onto the PROMIS records of M and that if there was any misconduct it would be confined to the applicant examining the material for a little longer than he should have. Mr Pearce further submitted that the evidence established that the applicant just gave his brother a general warning about matters relating to M which were in large part already known to his brother. Mr Pearce said that the conduct of the applicant did not amount to a “hanging offence”.

[23] Mr Pearce summarised his submissions by concluding that the dismissal of the applicant was unfair because the reasons given for dismissal were irrational and pretty much uninformed about the real circumstances of the applicant's conduct. Consequently, Mr Pearce submitted that the decision to dismiss the applicant should be held to have been for reason or reasons which were invalid. Further, the investigation procedure that the employer adopted included significant deficiencies that denied the applicant proper process and harshly excluded consideration of the applicant's personal circumstances. Mr Pearce said that the applicant was a small cog at the very bottom level in a large organisation and he urged that the Commission find in favour of the applicant and make appropriate Orders that he be reinstated.

The Case for the Employer

[24] The employer was represented by Mr Murphy, barrister, who submitted that the dismissal of the applicant was not unfair. Mr Murphy commenced his submissions by rejecting certain aspects of the submissions made on behalf of the applicant. Mr Murphy also made submissions which elaborated upon a documentary outline that had been filed on behalf of the employer.

[25] Mr Murphy rejected the proposition that there were matters relied upon by the employer which had not been raised with the applicant. Mr Murphy said that perhaps some matters of detail had not been canvassed with the applicant. However the allegations which were subsequently found to be true and for which the applicant was terminated, had been put to him and he had been given an opportunity to respond. Further, according to Mr Murphy the proposition that the directed interview was unlawful was wrong and that directed interviews were a regular feature of the police workforce.

[26] Mr Murphy made further submissions which referred to the written outline of submissions filed by the employer. According to the submissions of Mr Murphy, the applicant was specifically made aware of the restrictions placed on police officers with respect to access of information from the PROMIS system. Mr Murphy said that the applicant was aware that it was impermissible for him to do a criminal search or criminal history check on M in circumstances where his brother had been nagging him to do so. Mr Murphy urged the Commission to reject the proposition that the applicant had accidentally stumbled upon the PROMIS information of M. Mr Murphy said the applicant intentionally accessed this information at the request of his brother.

[27] Mr Murphy further submitted that the applicant had not provided truthful evidence and as an example, he said the applicant gave different answers in respect of the frequency of requests made to him by his brother for information about M. Further, Mr Murphy referred to the transcript of the directed interview which he said established that the applicant admitted on various occasions that he had provided information to his brother, but that he sought to defend this conduct with the suggestion that the information was general in nature. Mr Murphy said that the evidence did not support any finding that the information that the applicant conveyed to his brother did not represent a serious breach of discipline, as was well understood by the applicant.

[28] Mr Murphy made detailed submissions about the information that was obtained by way of a translation of the CCTV footage of the applicant's telephone conversation in Urdu on 14 January 2013. It was submitted by Mr Murphy that the evidence of the screenshot that the applicant would have been viewing at around the time that he had the telephone conversation in Urdu contained a series of similarities with the information that was being conveyed over the telephone. Mr Murphy said that it was unsurprising that there might be some points of difference but it was remarkable that there were so many points of similarity between information relevant to the PROMIS record of M and the contents of the applicant's telephone conversation in Urdu.

[29] The explanation that the applicant gave about the contents of the telephone conversation in Urdu became the subject of vigorous criticism by Mr Murphy. It was submitted that the applicant had been blatantly dishonest in respect to his evidence that the subject of the telephone conversation in Urdu was not M, but rather a man in Pakistan that the applicant's father had either employed or was considering employing. This man in Pakistan had a criminal record which apparently the applicant's father had discovered and recounted to the applicant during a Skype conversation earlier on that day, 14 January 2013. In the telephone conversation that had been recorded by the CCTV in the Watch House, the applicant had conveyed the information earlier provided by his father, to his wife. According to the submissions of Mr Murphy, this information, which had various similarities to the criminal record information of M, was being conveyed to the applicant's wife so that she could in turn pass the information on to the applicant's father. Mr Murphy described this evidence as arrant nonsense and an outrageously ridiculous proposition.

[30] Mr Murphy made further submissions which rejected the suggestion that there were procedural deficiencies in respect to the investigation and ultimate determination of the allegations made against the applicant. In any event, according to Mr Murphy this was not a case where any perceived procedural irregularity would warrant the Commission’s intervention to reverse the decision to dismiss.

[31] Mr Murphy summarised his submissions by stating that the applicant had undeniably committed serious breaches of discipline when he made unauthorised inquiries and subsequent disseminations of PROMIS information and he was aware that such action represented a very serious breach of discipline. Mr Murphy said that in this case, the applicant had not been honest with the employer and he had not been honest with the Commission. Mr Murphy urged the Commission to find that the applicant was a witness of little, if any, credit and that he had effectively disqualified himself from the benefit of any discretion that might be provided by the Commission.

Consideration

[32] Section 385 of the Act stipulates that the Commission must be satisfied that 4 cumulative elements are met in order to establish an unfair dismissal. These elements are:

[33] In this case, there was no dispute that the matter was confined to a determination of that element contained in subsection 385 (b) of the Act, specifically whether the dismissal of the applicant was harsh, unjust or unreasonable. Section 387 of the Act contains criteria that the Commission must take into account in any determination of whether a dismissal is harsh, unjust or unreasonable. These criteria are:

387 (a) - Valid reason for the dismissal related to capacity or conduct

[34] Despite some challenge to the precise terminology used by the Commissioner of Police in the Notice of Termination, the reason for the dismissal of the applicant was fairly plain and unambiguous. The final sentence of the penultimate paragraph of the Notice of Termination relevantly stated: “Accordingly, I am of the opinion that you have committed the breaches of discipline pursuant to section 76 (c) & (d) of the Police Administration Act as alleged in that Notice.” The “Notice” that this sentence refers to is the Notice to Show Cause which was issued on 11 March 2013.

[35] The Notice to Show Cause relevantly stated that the dismissal of the applicant was proposed on the grounds that the applicant had admitted:

“1. that on 14 January 2013 and 3 February 2013, you accessed Police information holdings relating to [M], for private purposes and that you disclosed the confidential and personal information that you had accessed to your brother, [J]; and

2. on 12 and 19 February 2013, without any official or appropriate purpose you accessed Police information holdings relating to yourself as a victim of assault which occurred prior to you becoming a Police Officer.”

[36] The applicant challenged that he had made admissions in respect of the two charges contained in the Notice to Show Cause. The applicant asserted that his access to the confidential and personal information was coincidental and that he provided his brother with only general commentary in respect of the information that he had inadvertently discovered. It was clear that the employer rejected the applicant's proposition that his actions were not deliberate and that nothing more than vague or general comments were made to his brother.

[37] Consequently, whether the applicant admitted to the conduct or not, the employer dismissed the applicant because it believed that the applicant had deliberately accessed PROMIS information for private purposes and conveyed that information to his brother. It would seem that if the evidence presented during the Hearing established findings that the applicant did deliberately access PROMIS information for private purposes and that he conveyed that information to his brother or some other person who was not entitled to receive the information, such actions would represent a valid reason for dismissal.

[38] The PSC investigating officer examined the CRYSTAL reports which confirmed that the applicant had examined the records in respect of M on 14 January and 3 February 2013. Suspicions were understandably raised when it was discovered that there was a connection between M and the applicant and his brother. Further examination of the CRYSTAL reports and other investigations did not reveal any proper, legitimate reason for the applicant’s access to the police records of M. The explanations and answers given by the applicant during the directed interview did not provide any proper, legitimate basis for the applicant’s accessing of the police records of M.

[39] On the basis of the material under consideration up to and including the directed interview, there appeared to be sufficient basis for the employer to move towards dismissal. However additional material emerged in the form of the CCTV footage from the Watch House on 14 January 2013. The CCTV footage recorded the applicant's telephone conversation conducted in Urdu. An initial translation of the words spoken by the applicant in Urdu was made by another PSC officer who had some limited understanding of the Urdu language. Unfortunately the CCTV footage and the initial audio translation were not provided to the applicant and therefore the applicant did not have an opportunity prior to his dismissal to respond to the apparent contents of the Urdu telephone conversation.

[40] After the applicant had made claim for unfair dismissal remedy, the employer engaged the services of a professional translator. The professional translator, Ms Chopra, was called as a witness and she gave evidence via video-link during the Hearing. Despite some areas of contest about particular words that Ms Chopra had adopted, the professional translation has been broadly accepted as accurate. 1

[41] During the Hearing, evidence was provided about a number of similarities (and some inconsistencies) that can be identified in the applicant's words spoken during the telephone conversation which was confirmed to have been with his wife, and particular aspects of detail of the information contained in PROMIS in respect to M. The CRYSTAL reports verified that shortly before and during the telephone conversation of 14 January, the applicant had accessed the PROMIS records of M. The applicant was invited to offer explanation for this unusual coincidence.

[42] The applicant provided an explanation which involved a rejection that he was conveying to his wife information from the PROMIS records of M, but instead, was telling her about the details of the criminal record of a man in Pakistan who was either an employee or prospective employee of his father. The applicant’s explanation was the subject of stringent criticism from the barrister who appeared for the employer. The applicant's wife was called as a witness and she gave evidence which confirmed that the criminal record information given to her during the telephone conversation was about a man in Pakistan. The applicant's wife said that her husband had given her this information so that she could pass it on to the applicant's father.

[43] As the evidence about the telephone conversation between the applicant and his wife emerged during the Hearing, the explanation involving the criminal record details of a man in Pakistan, obtained the initial appearance of being at best, a highly implausible proposition. As the Hearing continued to traverse the evidence of the explanation involving the criminal record details of a man in Pakistan, the strong impression that was gathered was that the veracity of this evidence was highly doubtful and verged upon being entirely untenable and simply unbelievable.

[44] Of course initial impressions are capable of being altered, particularly with the benefit of careful examination of all of the evidence. Unfortunately for the applicant, in this instance, a further detailed examination of the transcript of proceedings and contemplation of the totality of the evidence has confirmed the initial impressions that were gained when the applicant and his wife gave evidence about the telephone conversation, allegedly concerning the criminal record details of a man in Pakistan.

[45] There were numerous aspects of the evidence regarding the telephone call made by the applicant to his wife on 14 January which impeached the veracity of the applicant’s and his wife’s “version” that the subject of the call involved information of the criminal record of a person in Pakistan. I have selected two particular examples of many aspects of the applicant’s evidence which contribute to finding that it was simply unbelievable.

[46] Initially the applicant gave the following evidence about the purpose of making the telephone call to his wife:

[47] The applicant was subsequently questioned about the inclusion of the words “Kindly let him know, when he comes and tell him to check...” which appeared in his own version of the translated telephone conversation. The applicant then changed his evidence and said that he was telling his wife to pass the information on to his father “when he comes in on the Skype” 2. Of course it is nonsensical for the applicant to be asking his wife to pass on information to his father, which was information that his father had earlier given to him.

[48] The second unfortunate example of particular evidence from the applicant that can most generously be described as questionable, involved the applicant talking to his wife about “41 entries”. Once again, in the applicant’s version of the translation of the telephone conversation, he mentions to his wife “...17 involvements and 41 entries.” 3 When questioned about what 41 entries meant, the applicant gave the following amazing evidence:

[49] Regrettably, I am unable to find that the applicant was a witness of truth. The evidence has conclusively established that the applicant improperly accessed and disclosed confidential information held by the police on the PROMIS system. This disclosure was made to his wife during the telephone call on 14 January 2013, to enable that information to be conveyed to his brother. The access and disclosure of this information was not for legitimate police business, but rather for personal assistance to his brother.

[50] Consequently, the applicant was dismissed for valid reason. In view of the findings that I have made regarding the nature of the particular actions of the applicant on 14 January and his absence of credit, it is unnecessary to examine the other breaches of discipline which were found against him.

[51] In some respects, the nature of the valid reason for dismissal and the basis for the findings upon which the valid reason was established, might be sufficient to dispose of the claim for unfair dismissal remedy. Nevertheless, a dismissal for valid reason can be unfair because of other factors and therefore I am required to address all of the elements contained in s.387 of the Act.

387 (b) - Notification of reason for dismissal

[52] The employer provided written notification of the reason for the applicant's dismissal.

387 (c) - Opportunity to respond to any reason related to capacity or conduct

[53] The employer summoned the applicant to attend a directed interview on 27 February 2013. The directed interview was part of a process that is broadly adopted in respect of complaint and or disciplinary procedure for police officers in many jurisdictions.

[54] The directed interview process has some troubling aspects. The police officer who is the subject of interview is required to answer questions without first being advised of the allegations made against him or her. Information which may have been gathered by the investigating officers is not necessarily divulged to the police officer who is the subject of complaint of some form or another. In some respects, the directed interview can be construed as an ambush or a “star chamber”. Particular aspects of a directed interview would infringe the notions of natural justice and might deny a person a proper opportunity to respond and provide explanation.

[55] It seems to me, that the directed interview process may be a manifestation of the higher standards of probity that our community expects of police officers when compared with persons in other employment. Public confidence in the integrity of police officers is a vital component for a civilised society. To some extent, this societal requirement seems to diminish the applicability of natural justice for police officers. The overwhelming number of police officers would probably accept this outcome and be little troubled by it. Nevertheless, the directed interview process and the use of material obtained from it must be treated with great caution.

[56] In this instance, after the directed interview, the applicant was given a Notice to Show Cause and he provided extensive response material. However, in general terms there will likely be ongoing concern and caution about reliance upon the answers given in a directed interview. In the present case, no particular concern about this process and the material that was produced from it could displace or alter the severity of the breaches of discipline which have ultimately been confirmed.

387 (d) - Unreasonable refusal to allow a support person to assist

[57] The applicant was permitted to have a support person present during the directed interview. The applicant made some criticism of the means by which selection of the particular support person was arranged. However, in the context of police employment there would be obvious requirements to confine any support person to a serving police officer. The apparent preference of the applicant to have had a different support person has no impact on the determination of this case.

387 (e) - Warning about unsatisfactory performance

[58] This factor has no relevance in this instance.

387 (f) - Size of enterprise likely to impact on procedures

[59] This factor has no relevance in this instance.

387 (g) - Absence of management specialists or expertise likely to impact on procedures

[60] This factor has no relevance in this instance.

387 (h) - Other relevant matters

[61] Other matters, such as the personal circumstances of the applicant, including his immigrant status, family predicaments, and the financial hardship suffered as a result of the dismissal have been considered. However, these other matters when evaluated against the findings made in respect to the established reasons for dismissal, do not militate against the severity of the misconduct of the applicant.

Conclusion

[62] The applicant was dismissed for serious misconduct involving the improper access and dissemination of confidential information held by the police on the PROMIS system.

[63] Upon Hearing, I have concluded that in particular, the applicant accessed confidential information relating to the criminal history of an individual, M, and he disclosed this information to his wife during a telephone call on 14 January 2013. This information was provided to the applicant’s wife so that she could pass it on to the applicant’s brother. The accessing and dissemination of this criminal record information was not for legitimate police business but rather for personal assistance to the applicant’s brother.

[64] Consequently, the substantive reasons for the applicant's dismissal have been held to be valid.

[65] Some criticism can be made of certain aspects of the procedure that the employer adopted when it conducted an investigation into allegations made against the applicant and which led to the determination to dismiss. However, these concerns do not provide any basis to disturb the employer’s decision to dismiss.

[66] Similarly, other matters relating to the personal circumstances of the applicant do not diminish the seriousness of the transgressions of the applicant.

[67] The dismissal of the applicant was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable. Consequently, the application for unfair dismissal remedy is dismissed.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Mr J H Pearce, barrister, instructed by Carroll O’Dea Lawyers, for the applicant;

Mr J V Murphy, barrister, instructed by solicitors from the Northern Territory of Australia (Commissioner of Police), for the employer.

Hearing details:

2013.

Alice Springs:

September, 4, 5 & 6.

2013.

Darwin:

October, 24.

 1   Transcript of Proceedings (5 Sept 2013) @ PN1352.

 2   Transcript of Proceedings (5 Sept 2013) @ PN1486.

 3   Exhibit 1 paragraph 37.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

<Price code C, PR546601>