Dyson Heydon: Why did CJ Bathurst, AG Speakman not treat sexual harassment complaints as instances of threatening and intimidating behaviour, which is far easier to prove, and can lead to judicial officers involved being disbarred, removed, otherwise penalised

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Elizabeth Lee MLA

@ElizabethLeeCBR

It is not easy to speak up. It is also not easy to stay silent. But I would much rather speak up now - seven years later - than not at all, and do my small part to encourage others to stand with me

Why speaking up about sexual harassment is so hard to do

While it's easy for those on the sidelines to cry "why didn't you speak up?", there are many complex reasons why so many of us do not.

Elizabeth Lee's story is clearly one of threat and intimidation


The Australian's Nicola Berkovic reported on  JUNE 27, 2020:
........a NSW Supreme Court judge was told (that former High Court judge Dyson) Heydon had made unwanted advances towards one of its young female employees two years ago but did not take any action Dhanya Mani, 26, was working as a tipstaff to NSW Supreme Court judge Guy Parker in 2018 when she told him about alleged harassment by Heydon.

Parker informed NSW Chief Justice Tom Bathurst only this week of Mani’s allegations.

The court says Mani did not ask Parker to take the matter any further, but she told The Australian that she had hoped when she raised the matter he would do something about it.

Bathurst has now asked the state’s judicial commission to prepare an education program for judges on what to do if an allegation is made. The court says judges were not previously trained on the issue because it was generally expected they would have been educated in their previous careers.

Mr Bathurst, and the Attorney General Mark Speakman SC, have the option of treating complaints of  sexual harassment as complaints  of threatening and intimidating behaviour, which is far easier to prove, and thus less of a strain on complainants. Mr Bathurst, AG Speakman, and the NSW LPAB which Bathurst chairs and Speakman oversees, have found threatening and intimidating behaviour to be evidence that a person is not fit and proper for admission to practise.  A finding of threatening and intimidating behaviour can therefore be relied on to disbar, remove or otherwise publicly sanction any judicial officer. 

The  threshold for what constitutes threatening and intimidating behaviour is quite low; for example a PLT student questioning the qualifications and experience of his or her instructors, who are senior judicial officers, can constitute threatening and intimidating behaviour, regardless of the evidence against the instructors.

Additionally, reporting a senior lawyer to the NSW LPAB and its chairman, the Chief Justice, can be construed as threatening and intimidating behaviour against all concerned. Similarly communicating such matters to journalists  can be considered threatening and intimidating, despite the decision of the NSW Supreme Court in Carlovers Carwash,which concerns journalists, but which has implications for whistleblowers as well.

Clearly, if a senior judicial officer can be considered to be threatened and intimidated by the complaints of a PLT student, so can a junior female lawyer who is the subject of unwelcome advances from a senior judicial officer.The case ACT MLA Elizabeth Lee demonstrates why such advances should be treated as cases of threatening and intimidating behaviour(see tweet above). 

That Mr Bathurst and AG Speakman do not see it open to them to immediately pursue all complaints of sexual harassment as matters of threatening and intimidating behaviour is hard to comprehend. 

 The Chief Justice's request that the "judicial commission... prepare an education program for judges on what to do if an allegation (of sexual harassment) is made" is unnecessary, at best. 

END 

Dyson Heydon sexual harassment revelations are also matters for the NSW Auditor General Margaret Crawford: reports suggest NSW LPAB, NSW Legal Services Council did not disclose complaints in their Annual Reports; NSW LPAB has a history of interfering with the paper trail

by Ganesh Sahathevan




Dhanya Mani, one of Dyson Heydon’s accusers. (Picture by Adam Yip, published on The Australian website.) 
Mani's complaints should have been reported in the NSW LPAB and NSW Legal Services Commission annual reports.


The Australian's Nicola Berkovic reported on  JUNE 27, 2020:
........a NSW Supreme Court judge was told Heydon had made unwanted advances towards one of its young female employees two years ago but did not take any actionDhanya Mani, 26, was working as a tipstaff to NSW Supreme Court judge Guy Parker in 2018 when she told him about alleged harassment by Heydon.

Parker informed NSW Chief Justice Tom Bathurst only this week of Mani’s allegations.

The court says Mani did not ask Parker to take the matter any further, but she told The Australian that she had hoped when she raised the matter he would do something about it.

Bathurst has now asked the state’s judicial commission to prepare an education program for judges on what to do if an allegation is made. The court says judges were not previously trained on the issue because it was generally expected they would have been educated in their previous careers.

The problem for Bathurst (who is also Chairman of the Legal Profession Admission Board) , and for Parker, is this: even if the complaint was not progressed,  it should have been reported to the NSW Parliament (and the public) in the relevant NSW LPAB and NSW Legal Services Council  annual reports, as an operational matter. Non-disclosure has caused an underestimation of operational risks. This should be evident from the reports this week that leave no doubt as to the magnitude of the risks. Indeed, the reports suggest that there are systemic risks that have been allowed to fester. 

Both organisations, but in particular the NSW LPAB  have a history of making incomplete disclosures.  As reported by this writer the NSW LPAB has recently gone so far as to misstate the facts of a landmark decision of the NSW Supreme Court  in what appears to be an attempt to deflect questions about its failure to investigate and report complaints against the College Of Law, which it certifies as a PLT provider.  Evidence has also been provided of what appears to be an attempt to confect a paper trail in order to deflect questions about the NSW LPAB's own conduct.

These are all matters for the NSW Auditor General Margaret Crawford, who must now conduct a full and complete investigation into all and any complaints of sexual harassment, and ensure that NSW LPAB and NSW Legal Council Annual Reports are amended to reflect those complaints.

TO BE READ WITH 

Sunday, July 21, 2019

Malaysia will investigate NSW AG and LPAB oversight of the College Of Law: College's Malaysian business removes protective mantle; likely to further expose LPAB Annual report exclusions

by Ganesh Sahathevan

by Ganesh Sahathevan


The story below was published by the well connected Malaysian investigative new site New Malaysia Times. An investigation by all the relevant Malaysian authorities can be expected, and that will involve a forensic examination of the College Of Law Sydney.

Questions about the College's activities in Malaysia have been put by this writer to the two parties ultimately responsible for regulating the College's activities , the Attorney General NSW Mark Speakman and the Legal Professional Admission Board NSW.

The queries have been met with accusations, by the LPAB and the AG of harassment , threat and intimidation by this writer of the College's management.They have gone so far as to object to the Attorney General Malaysia being informed about the  College's activities in Malaysia
They have also excluded from the LPAB's 2018 and earlier Annual Reports , which the AG tables in the NSW Parliament complaints against the College and its management; and in particular statements on the official record that they have made in support of the College.

All the above is  now likely to be investigated in Malaysia.
END

Bar Council education ‘JV’ must be clarified

By Editor , in Scandal on July 19, 2019 . Tagged width: College of Law , Fareed Gafoor , Malaysian Bar

KUALA LUMPUR, July 19 – The Malaysian Bar Council launched its first education venture, a LLM in Malaysian Legal Practise (LLM), last year in collaboration with the College Of Law Australia.

The LLM does not seem to have the approval of Malaysia’s Legal Professional Qualifying Board (LPQB) but the website for the course, which is hosted in Australia, prominently displays the Bar Council crest.

The crest has not been used before to promote a course of study, and queries put to Bar Council President Fareed Gafoor about the use of the crest have been acknowledged but remain unanswered.

NMT has however sighted an email from Fareed dated Friday, May 24, 2019 with regards the LLM and the use of the crest where he states:

Dear Rajen,

We can’t remain silent on this.

Abdul Fareed Bin Abdul Gafoor

Sent from my iPad

It is understood that “Rajen” refers to  Rajen Devaraj, Chief Executive Officer of the Bar Council Secretariat in Kuala Lumpur.

The Bar has remained silent for nearly 2 months since.

Key person suddenly retired during extensive query

The College of Law used to be represented in Malaysia by its Director, Peter Tritt. Tritt have been queried extensively about the LLM and about the College’s business in Malaysia but has refused to provide answers. Tritt has been based in Kuala Lumpur since 2017 but announced on Friday that he had “retired” from the College on 30 June 2019.

It is understood that Tritt has forwarded queries sent him to his head office in Sydney and hence it appears that Tritt is under orders from his Chief Executive, Neville Carter, to remain silent.

Questionable advertising claims?

In advertising on the College’s website Carter has claimed that he had established a Professional Legal Training course for Malaysian Law students seeking admission to practise in Malaysia. There seems to be no evidence of such a course, or of any national level training course for the existing Certificate of Legal Practise.

Carter has also claimed to have produced the “inaugural” Handbook in Legal Practise for Malaysia, in the late 80s. A search of the main law libraries in Malaysia directed by the Chief Registrar, Federal Court Malaysia, has not found any such handbook.

He has also claimed to have, during that time to have identified and addressed “gaps” in Malaysian legal practise, but not even those in practice during that period and since have ever heard of him. Nor are senior practitioners aware of  “gaps” that needed that to be addressed by external consultants.

As CEO of the College Carter  has ultimate responsibility for the College’s Malaysian operation headed by Tritt and variously named the “College Of Law Asia Pacific” and the “College Of Law Asia”. A search by NMT has not revealed any entities registered under those names in Malaysia or in Australia, not even a foreign entities registered to conduct business in Malaysia.

Meanwhile the College, in collaboration with the Bar Council continues to sell its LLM and other courses in Malaysia, deriving a fee income from Malaysian courses.

-NMT

See also

AG NSW justifies exclusion of foreign regulatory risks from Dept of Justice annual reports on the basis that he was threatened, intimidated by the information:The matter of Top Group has implications for all regulators (including the NSW Law Soc)

College Of Law offers $3M in COVID support packages for students enrolling in its "applied law" grad certs ,COL's primary PLT revenue is financed by Commonwealth's FEE HELP Scheme :Meanwhile College remains silent with regards Malaysian issues

by Ganesh Sahathevan


As reported by Lawyers Weekly: 

Speaking exclusively to Lawyers Weekly, COL outlined three primary components to its relief package: up to 300 scholarships to support training toward a graduate certificate in applied law within any of the college’s range of 11 specialist practice areas; up to 100 scholarships to support training towards a graduate certificate in legal business or a graduate certificate in legal operations within the college’s legal business management program; and access without fee to an extensive range of programs offered by the Centre for Legal Innovation, including complimentary membership of the Legalpreneurs Lab.


The College's main source of revenue is its Commonwealth FEE HELP funded PLT. A NSW Law Society internal document sighted by Justinian says that the College Of Law is losing market share in the market for PLT courses.

Meanwhile the College has remained silent about the Malaysian affair. 

As noted buy this writer: 

Overseas business travel, sponsorship of foreign events,all funded by FEE HELP: The College Of Law's taxpayer funded South East Asian adventure

TO BE READ WITH

COL launches $3m support package with up to 400 scholarships

Hundreds of scholarships will be offered to support training towards graduate certificates in various legal disciplines, as part of a new pandemic-inspired package from The College of Law.

The College of Law (COL) on Monday launched a multimillion-dollar package to support the legal profession in Australia and New Zealand as it recovers from the economic and professional impacts of the global coronavirus pandemic.

Speaking exclusively to Lawyers Weekly, COL outlined three primary components to its relief package: up to 300 scholarships to support training toward a graduate certificate in applied law within any of the college’s range of 11 specialist practice areas; up to 100 scholarships to support training towards a graduate certificate in legal business or a graduate certificate in legal operations within the college’s legal business management program; and access without fee to an extensive range of programs offered by the Centre for Legal Innovation, including complimentary membership of the Legalpreneurs Lab.

The package will be funded by an initial tranche of $3 million, but further tranches “are anticipated”.

COL has been thinking “for some time” about how best it can support the profession in the wake of the pandemic, CEO and principal Neville Carter told Lawyers Weekly.

“We know that many firms and practices have seen a decline in business and that many legal professionals have lost their jobs. The college exists to support lawyers and other legal professionals into and through their careers and we therefore have enormous sympathy for our colleagues who are coming to grips with challenges like these,” he said.

“It is essential for the Australian economy as a whole that the legal industry emerges from this as strong if not stronger than before. However, we know that funds will be tight in the early stages and rehiring may be slow to take off. We feel the best contribution we can make is to assist the profession in upskilling to assist individuals seeking employment or looking to reposition their careers, and firms to expand their skill base.”

Mr Carter said he has noticed a “most interesting feature of law firm responses to this pandemic”, whereby there has been an “unmistakable new organisational maturity” when it comes to forward planning and resourcing.

“In past economic downturns, we saw rapid management response with early shedding of staff and closing down of training budgets. This time there is a plain willingness to focus on active business continuity strategies and support to the people who will make that happen on the other side of the pandemic,” he reflected.

SPONSORED CONTENT

“The underlying human talent which carries a law firm through challenges of this kind responds to the kind of leadership which pursues opportunities in crisis at all levels of the organisation.  These humans will engage with new learning opportunities with high energy and renewed commitment to the firm and the business.

“In other words, we feel that this package is timely and anticipate that the profession will support successful candidates through their studies.” 

To be awarded one of the hundreds of scholarships on offer, practitioners will have to satisfy three criteria: a demonstrable and direct negative impact on one’s career as a result of COVID-19, a commitment to reforging one’s career utilising education strategies to build career-relevant knowledge, skills and credentials, and showing a likely positive impact of career strategy on the wider legal profession and the communities it serves.

The scholarship programs will provide credit towards graduate diploma and master’s level qualifications for those wishing to continue to higher levels of qualification, and can be completed via flexible or remote working schedules. Successful applicants, COL said, can choose from over 80 subjects across 11 areas of specialisation, taught by practising lawyers and other professionals in the legal industry.

“We at the college are delighted to be able to make this contribution. I have our board’s approval to fund this from our reserves. The board is unanimously supportive of this initiative,” Mr Carter concluded.

Applications can be made via the COL website.

Chief Justice Tom Bathurst who declared BLM protest not illegal promised that the judiciary would defend Australia from xenophobia, racism

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Chief Justice Tom Bathurst




As reported,  the NSW  Court Of Appeal, led by the Chief Justice Tom Bathurst, ignored NSW Chief Health Officer Kerry Chant's COVID19 contagion evidence when it decided that the Black Lives Matter protest in Sydney of 6 June 2020 was not illegal.


Chief Justice Tom Bathurst once promised that the judiciary would defend Australia from xenophobia, racism. See article by Tim Blair below:

Chief Justice Tom Bathurst will save us from ourselves

WHY BOTHER WITH ELECTIONS?

Tim Blair, The Daily Telegraph

February 2, 2017 5:22am

Judges know best. They are more knowledgeable and caring than politicians. They are also more knowledgeable and caring than the voters who elect those politicians.

We know this because the state’s leading judge, Tom Bathurst, says so.

In a speech to the Opening of Law Term dinner, Chief Justice Bathurstdeclared it was the judiciary and not the government who can be relied upon to promote fairness and equality. Left to our own devices, and without the soothing touch of all-wise judges, Australians would apparently descend into rampant racism.

“It should give us pause that one of the most serious threats to the rule of law in Australia was grounded in xenophobia,” Chief Justice Bathurst said, much in the manner of his predecessor Jim Spigelman.

The chief justice’s speech will no doubt please that sector of our community which is essentially suspicious of and distrusting towards the majority of Australians. Bathurst reinforced this notion with a line about promoting equality, fairness and the rule of law “in spite of popular sentiment”.

Poor old popular sentiment always cops a bashing from the we-know-better brigade. This is frequently ill-considered. After all, popular sentiment led to stopping the people smuggling trade in our region – and therefore ending a murderous practice that cost around 1200 lives at sea during Labor’s six years of power.

Interestingly, the legal fraternity – those promoters of fairness and equality – even now forms a large part of the movement dedicated to ending Australia’s life-saving border security operations.

Chief Justice Bathurst reached all the way back to 1888 for one example of the judiciary’s wisdom over popular opinion. During that year the NSW Government ordered police to stop Chinese passengers getting off a ship which had docked in Sydney Harbour, only for the government to be eventually overruled.

The chief justice sees parallels between the events of 1888 and Australia’s current mood, at least in terms of then-NSW premier Sir Henry Parkes’s comments at the time.

Sir Henry is presently unable to respond, having been dead for more than 100 years, but we would submit that Australia has changed a great deal during the intervening period. We are now a multicultural, tolerant, educated and thoughtful people who are quite capable of seeking fair outcomes without being bossed into them.

If Chief Justice Bathurst would like to have more of a say in the state’s affairs, he is welcome to run for elected office.

SEE ALSO BY THIS WRITER ,POSTED ON FEBRUARY 2017

A chief justice who ignores the law, and the facts: On Thomas Bathurst CJ's warning that he will uphold his law against xenophobia,popular sentiment and Donald Trump 

The Court Of Appeal has ignored NSW Chief Health Officer Kerry Chant's COVID19 contagion evidence, so can we: Brad Hazzard wrong to say that COA approved Sydney BLM "in a set of specific circumstances"

by Ganesh Sahathevan

The SMH has reported:

NSW Health Minister Brad Hazzard says the Black Lives Matter protest was an isolated event and pleaded with the community to continue following the state's public health rules.

Mr Hazzard said the protest was "approved by the Court of Appeal (COA) in a set of specific circumstances" but warned health officials remained very concerned that COVID-19 was "still amongst us".

"For that reason, the NSW government implores the community to stay with us on the journey to keep all of us safe from the virus that is still wreaking havoc on communities overseas," he said.

Contrary to what Hazzard has had to say, the COA made it clear that it was not concerned with the evidence of COVID19 contagion, including the affidavit of the NSW chief health officer, Kerry Chant.

As the COA put it:

Where we differed from the primary judge was in the view that we took of the circumstances in which the Notice of Intention was modified in the course of the week leading up to the proposed assembly, and the legal significance of that modification.

It follows from what has already been said that identification of the statutory context in which public assemblies and rallies may be held in New South Wales is of first importance in understanding both the decision at first instance and our subsequent decision on appeal.

In lay terms this was the equivalent of saying COVID19 contagion and its consequences, including death, were not not relevant; what mattered was whether the proper form had been adhered to. 

The COA's decision had nothing to do with the right to protest or anything like that.Again in the words of the COA:

Competing public interests of great importance were thus potentially engaged but, as we shall explain, the issues before this Court were very narrow. Our decision did not ultimately turn on a difficult weighing exercise that resolution of that competition would necessarily have required.

The COA has ignored the advice of NSW chief health officer, Kerry Chant.So can we, the rest of NSW.

END 

TO BE READ WITH 

Monday, June 8, 2020

Sydney Black Lives Matter protest appeal: Court Of Appeal did not consider COVID19 contagion and its consequences; COVID19 contagion considered irrelevant despite Fagan J clearly citing COVID 19 restrictions

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Police clashing with protesters inside Central Station. Source: AAP

In the reasons for their decision in the  Sydney Black Lives Matter protest appeal  Bathurst CJ, Bell P, Leeming JA sitting as the Court Of Appeal NSW said: 

The proceedings before the primary judge (Fagan J)  related to a proposed public assembly set to commence in Sydney at 3.00 pm on Saturday, 6 June 2020.

The assembly had been organised by the appellant (Mr Bassi) in response to the tragic death of Mr George Floyd in Minneapolis in the United States of America on 25 May 2020, in furtherance of the Black Lives Matter cause in general and in particular memory of an indigenous Australian, Mr David Dungay.

Mr Floyd's death and the circumstances in which it occurred have sparked public protests throughout the United States and indeed throughout the world. These protests have been occurring, however, at a time when the world including Australia, has been dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the public health measures deployed in response to the pandemic has been "social distancing" with related restrictions being placed upon public gatherings. These measures have been designed to minimise the scope for community transmission of the coronavirus.

Competing public interests of great importance were thus potentially engaged but, as we shall explain, the issues before this Court were very narrow. Our decision did not ultimately turn on a difficult weighing exercise that resolution of that competition would necessarily have required; rather, the appeal was allowed by reason of the operation of the provisions of the Summary Offences Act in the context of a notice of intention to hold a public assembly (the Notice of Intention) which had been given pursuant to that Act by Mr Bassi to the Commissioner on 29 May 2020.

Where we differed from the primary judge was in the view that we took of the circumstances in which the Notice of Intention was modified in the course of the week leading up to the proposed assembly, and the legal significance of that modification.

It follows from what has already been said that identification of the statutory context in which public assemblies and rallies may be held in New South Wales is of first importance in understanding both the decision at first instance and our subsequent decision on appeal.

Fagan J the primary judge was reported to have said in his oral judgement: 

“No one denies  (the protest organisers their grievances about Aboriginal treatment at the hands of police) but we’re talking about a situation of a health crisis ... Everyone has given up a lot in order to defeat the disease on the basis that this is best advice health officials have given us (including an affidavit from the NSW chief health officer, Kerry Chant).

“I cannot accept that these proposals ... should take the place of the public health order which applies to all citizens.....” 

Given the grounds of Fagan J's judgement it is difficult to see how the Court Of Appeal decided that  their overturning Fagan J's decision did not ultimately turn on a difficult weighing exercise that resolution of that competition (between the right to protest and the COVID 19 restrictions)  would necessarily have required.

Meanwhile, as a result of their decision, a virus seeding even was permitted. It was serious enough for the President Of Australian Medical Association to issue this warning

“Mass gatherings are certainly the last gatherings on the list (of restrictions) and it was clearly against the advice of all the health authorities.”

He said anyone who attended the protests should “consider their position”, adding the “only safe way … of minimising any risk of it (coronavirus) spreading over the next 14 days is to ensure that we keep our distance from the rest of the community”.

Police men and women who were at the frontline of controlling the protests permitted by the Court Of Appeal are probably among the most likely to be infected (see photo above).

END 

:

Sydney Black Lives Matter protest appeal: Court Of Appeal did not consider COVID19 contagion and its consequences; COVID19 contagion considered irrelevant despite Fagan J clearly citing COVID 19 restrictions

by Ganesh Sahathevan

Police clashing with protesters inside Central Station. Source: AAP

In the reasons for their decision in the  Sydney Black Lives Matter protest appeal  Bathurst CJ, Bell P, Leeming JA sitting as the Court Of Appeal NSW said: 

The proceedings before the primary judge (Fagan J)  related to a proposed public assembly set to commence in Sydney at 3.00 pm on Saturday, 6 June 2020.

The assembly had been organised by the appellant (Mr Bassi) in response to the tragic death of Mr George Floyd in Minneapolis in the United States of America on 25 May 2020, in furtherance of the Black Lives Matter cause in general and in particular memory of an indigenous Australian, Mr David Dungay.

Mr Floyd's death and the circumstances in which it occurred have sparked public protests throughout the United States and indeed throughout the world. These protests have been occurring, however, at a time when the world including Australia, has been dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the public health measures deployed in response to the pandemic has been "social distancing" with related restrictions being placed upon public gatherings. These measures have been designed to minimise the scope for community transmission of the coronavirus.

Competing public interests of great importance were thus potentially engaged but, as we shall explain, the issues before this Court were very narrow. Our decision did not ultimately turn on a difficult weighing exercise that resolution of that competition would necessarily have required; rather, the appeal was allowed by reason of the operation of the provisions of the Summary Offences Act in the context of a notice of intention to hold a public assembly (the Notice of Intention) which had been given pursuant to that Act by Mr Bassi to the Commissioner on 29 May 2020.

Where we differed from the primary judge was in the view that we took of the circumstances in which the Notice of Intention was modified in the course of the week leading up to the proposed assembly, and the legal significance of that modification.

It follows from what has already been said that identification of the statutory context in which public assemblies and rallies may be held in New South Wales is of first importance in understanding both the decision at first instance and our subsequent decision on appeal.

Fagan J the primary judge was reported to have said in his oral judgement: 

“No one denies  (the protest organisers their grievances about Aboriginal treatment at the hands of police) but we’re talking about a situation of a health crisis ... Everyone has given up a lot in order to defeat the disease on the basis that this is best advice health officials have given us (including an affidavit from the NSW chief health officer, Kerry Chant).

“I cannot accept that these proposals ... should take the place of the public health order which applies to all citizens.....” 

Given the grounds of Fagan J's judgement it is difficult to see how the Court Of Appeal decided that  their overturning Fagan J's decision did not ultimately turn on a difficult weighing exercise that resolution of that competition (between the right to protest and the COVID 19 restrictions)  would necessarily have required.

Meanwhile, as a result of their decision, a virus seeding even was permitted. It was serious enough for the President Of Australian Medical Association to issue this warning

“Mass gatherings are certainly the last gatherings on the list (of restrictions) and it was clearly against the advice of all the health authorities.”

He said anyone who attended the protests should “consider their position”, adding the “only safe way … of minimising any risk of it (coronavirus) spreading over the next 14 days is to ensure that we keep our distance from the rest of the community”.

Police men and women who were at the frontline of controlling the protests permitted by the Court Of Appeal are probably among the most likely to be infected (see photo above).

END 

: