Dangerous driving is risk-based, not negligence-based: King v The Queen [2012] HCA 24 (20 June 2012). It is not necessary to ask whether there has been a sufficiently great level of negligence to attract criminal rather than merely civil liability. Such negligence could be sufficient if it reached a high enough level, but it is not a necessary ingredient of dangerous driving. So, on the 3-2 majority's reasoning in King, the judge had not been wrong to direct the jury that the prosecution did not have to prove criminal negligence [48], [50].
The appellant submitted that the judge had steered the jury away from what in the context of the trial was conviction on the lesser offences. More serious than dangerous driving causing death were the offences on which he had been convicted, culpable driving causing death. The judge, said the appellant, had given the jury the impression that dangerous driving causing death was too trivial an offence to reflect his culpability, as it didn't even require criminal negligence. In diminishing the seriousness of dangerous driving (here, the conviction sought by the defendant) the judge may have conveyed to the jury that the more serious offence of culpable driving could more easily be committed.
You can see that while the judge had "not been wrong" to direct the jury that criminal negligence did not have to be proved for dangerous driving, at the same time a direction that criminal negligence was required would also have been correct in the circumstances. Such negligence would be sufficient, albeit not necessary for liability. The majority should have held that the judge was wrong in the context of the evidence. The minority, Heydon and Bell JJ, would have allowed the appeal on the grounds that this had been a misdirection which had created a substantial miscarriage of justice because the defendant may have been deprived of a more favourable verdict. They substantially agreed with the majority on the elements of dangerous driving.
When a court asks whether the driving in question demonstrated a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in all the circumstances (R v Roy, 2012 SCC 26, discussed here on 15 June 2012), it is focusing on one sort of dangerousness: that which is accompanied by negligence. Usually examples of dangerous driving will involve some degree of negligence, above a minimum level (marked departure from the reasonable person's standard of care), and this can include even momentary inattention in circumstances where particular care and attention are required (King at [46]). However negligence is not an element of dangerous driving (Bell J [94]), just as (this is me now, not Bell J) stabbing is not an element of murder. But just as in the circumstances of a given case stabbing may have to be proved to secure a conviction for murder, so too negligence may have to be proved to secure a conviction for dangerous driving.
It is inevitable that jurors will have to assess the driving in the instant case against an imagined scale of qualities of driving. Somewhere on the scale careless driving becomes dangerous driving, and somewhere else on the scale dangerous driving becomes a more serious offence. The statutory context is always important. The extent to which the defendant departed from the objective standard required by the law for all drivers has to be assessed (Bell J at [74]). It is of no use to tell jurors that the defendant's driving must be such as to "merit criminal punishment" (Bell J [74], Heydon J [68]) because the criterion for guilt should not be left to jurors but rather is for the law to lay down. The criterion is whether the manner of driving gave rise to potential danger in a real sense to a person in the vicinity (French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ at [46], applying Barwick CJ in McBride v The Queen [1966] HCA 22, (1966) 115 CLR 44). Plainly, in assessing responsibility for dangerous driving it is necessary to compare the level of danger to that required for liability for comparable offences. This does not mean that comparison with civil law negligence is useful: Bell J at [102].
Bell J stated [92] the mens rea requirement for dangerous driving as being confined to "the intention to do the acts involved in driving". She said that liability is subject to an objective test, citing the old case R v Gosney [1971] 2 QB 674 at 679. But in Gosney D 's conviction was quashed because she had made the same mistake as a reasonable driver would have made, and the Court of Appeal held that dangerous driving was not an offence of strict liability (for this point I rely on my 1978 Fourth Edition of Smith and Hogan, Criminal Law, pp 88-89). Bell J's dictum on mens rea is difficult to reconcile with negligence being a sufficient but not a necessary condition for liability.
By comparison, the Supreme Court of Canada required in Roy, above, mens rea elements of either an unreasonable failure to recognise a risk of the required kind or an awareness of the actual risk created by the driving and a deliberate running of that risk. The culpability or fault requirement inherent in the notion of mens rea is generally said to consist of either intention or recklessness as to the essential factual elements of an offence. But the meaning of intention in criminal law is context-dependent, sometimes extending to consequences and sometimes not.
Since we are not allowed to include criminally negligent failure to recognise danger as an element of the offence, we must slip it in as a relevant consequence under intention. The mens rea elements of dangerous driving here would therefore be: either intention to drive with knowledge of the danger created by the manner of driving, or intention to drive accompanied by a failure to appreciate the danger that a reasonable person would recognise as being created by the manner of driving.
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Friday, June 15, 2012
Responsibility for dangerous driving
The offence of dangerous driving is carefully analysed in R v Roy, 2012 SCC 26 (1 June 2012), where the appellant had been convicted of dangerous driving causing death. He had pulled out from a stop sign into the path of an oncoming vehicle. There was thickening fog and visibility was poor.
Cromwell J, for the Court, observed [1]:
"Dangerous driving causing death is a serious criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. Like all criminal offences, it consists of two components: prohibited conduct — operating a motor vehicle in a dangerous manner resulting in death — and a required degree of fault — a marked departure from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in all the circumstances. The fault component is critical, as it ensures that criminal punishment is only imposed on those deserving the stigma of a criminal conviction. While a mere departure from the standard of care justifies imposing civil liability, only a marked departure justifies the fault requirement for this serious criminal offence."
On the reach of the criminal law, he continued:
"[2] Defining and applying this fault element is important, but also challenging, given the inherently dangerous nature of driving. Even simple carelessness may result in tragic consequences which may tempt judges and juries to unduly extend the reach of the criminal law to those responsible. Yet, as the Court put in R. v. Beatty, 2008 SCC 5 (CanLII), 2008 SCC 5, [2008] 1 S.C.R. 49, at para. 34, "If every departure from the civil norm is to be criminalized, regardless of the degree, we risk casting the net too widely and branding as criminals persons who are in reality not morally blameworthy." Giving careful attention to the fault element of the offence is essential if we are to avoid making criminals out of the merely careless."
On 25 February 2008 I discussed Beatty and its various judicial analyses of the ingredients of dangerous driving. A minority approach in that case was to use mens rea to assist in determining whether there was an actus reus, which indeed seems conventional (actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, or words to that effect), but it ignores the first requirement which is an act that causes harm. A level of bad conduct must exist before it can come within the reach of the criminal law. Otherwise, outwardly normal driving would be criminally dangerous if the driver's state of mind was a marked departure from the standard of care expected of drivers. In Beatty all judges agreed that the acquittal should be restored, but their reasoning was divergent. McLachlin CJ, Binnie and LeBel JJ held that a momentary crossing of the centre line was not an actus reus of dangerous driving. Charron, Bastarache, Deschamps, Abella and Rothstein JJ held – correctly I think - that it was. All judges agreed there was no mens rea as there was only a momentary lapse of attention.So the Court's attention in Roy was on the sensitive issue of actus reus. It is not, said the Court, the consequences (collision and death) that determine whether there was an actus reus, but the quality of the driving itself [34]:
"In considering whether the actus reus has been established, the question is whether the driving, viewed objectively, was dangerous to the public in all of the circumstances. The focus of this inquiry must be on the risks created by the accused's manner of driving, not the consequences, such as an accident in which he or she was involved. As Charron J. put it, at para. 46 of Beatty, "The court must not leap to its conclusion about the manner of driving based on the consequence. There must be a meaningful inquiry into the manner of driving" (emphasis added). A manner of driving can rightly be qualified as dangerous when it endangers the public. It is the risk of damage or injury created by the manner of driving that is relevant, not the consequences of a subsequent accident. In conducting this inquiry into the manner of driving, it must be borne in mind that driving is an inherently dangerous activity, but one that is both legal and of social value (Beatty, at paras. 31 and 34). Accidents caused by these inherent risks materializing should generally not result in criminal convictions."
Personally I would take the consequences of the driving as relevant to whether there was an actus reus: what was the harm? Not just pulling out from a stop sign. Hitting another vehicle was relevant too. Be that as it may, the Court continued by reasoning that if there is an actus reus, attention turns to whether there is a fault element or mens rea:
"[36] The focus of the mens rea analysis is on whether the dangerous manner of driving was the result of a marked departure from the standard of care which a reasonable person would have exercised in the same circumstances (Beatty, at para. 48). It is helpful to approach the issue by asking two questions. The first is whether, in light of all of the relevant evidence, a reasonable person would have foreseen the risk and taken steps to avoid it if possible. If so, the second question is whether the accused's failure to foresee the risk and take steps to avoid it, if possible, was a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in the accused's circumstances."
The "marked departure" requirement serves to separate criminal from civil responsibility. Momentary lapses of attention can occur in good drivers and in appropriate circumstances may give rise to civil liability or to convictions for careless driving [37]. As established in Beatty and cited by the Court in Roy [38]:
"The marked departure from the standard expected of a reasonable person in the same circumstances — a modified objective standard — is the minimum fault requirement. The modified objective standard means that, while the reasonable person is placed in the accused's circumstances, evidence of the accused's personal attributes (such as age, experience and education) is irrelevant unless it goes to the accused's incapacity to appreciate or to avoid the risk (para. 40). Of course, proof of subjective mens rea — that is, deliberately dangerous driving — would support a conviction for dangerous driving, but proof of that is not required (Charron J., at para. 47; see also McLachlin C.J., at paras. 74-75, and Fish J., at para. 86)."
And now for the tricky point, contentious in Beatty: when can an inference of mens rea be drawn from the actus reus? The Court gave this answer [42]:
"Driving which, objectively viewed, is simply dangerous, will not on its own support the inference that the accused departed markedly from the standard of care of a reasonable person in the circumstances (Charron J., at para. 49; see also McLachlin C.J., at para. 66, and Fish J., at para. 88). In other words, proof of the actus reus of the offence, without more, does not support a reasonable inference that the required fault element was present. Only driving that constitutes a marked departure from the norm may reasonably support that inference."
The trouble with this approach is that it is perfectly normal for the law to hold a person responsible for an intended act that causes harm, and intention is usually inferred from the conscious performance of an act. There is no such thing as driving that is merely "simply dangerous" because by definition dangerous driving is driving that is a marked departure from the standard of a reasonable driver. This imagined "simply dangerous" driving should not be immune from the usual approach to determining intention and responsibility, and "on its own" it should support an inference that it was intended. The Court acknowledged [42, above] that "simply dangerous" driving is an actus reus. It is important to remember we are only talking about the drawing of an inference of mens rea, and in the circumstances of a particular case there may be facts giving rise to competing inferences or facts that strengthen the inference of mens rea.The Court in Roy was concerned to avoid extending the reach of the criminal law beyond what was appropriate in view of the law's purposes. It appropriately set a high level for the required harm (the actus reus) but then needlessly constrained the process of inferring the existence of the mental requirements for criminal responsibility. In Roy the trial judge had inferred mens rea from the fact that the driving was objectively dangerous, and the Supreme Court held that that was wrong [44]. Given the thickening fog, the stop sign, the poor visibility and the oncoming traffic, the Court concluded [51]:
" ... While the appellant's act of driving out from the stop sign was apparently a voluntary act, there was no evidence to support the conclusion that the appellant was in fact aware of the risk he was creating in doing so and deliberately chose to run that risk ... ."
This seems to mean that the evidence suggested that the appellant had been well aware of the risk but had simply, and excusably, misjudged the position and speed of the oncoming vehicle. He knew there was a risk but he did not correctly measure the level of risk. The Court's assessment of the facts was [55]:
" ... on any realistic scenario consistent with the evidence, the time between visibility and impact would be only a few seconds. In my view, the appellant's decision to pull onto the highway is consistent with simple misjudgment of speed and distance in difficult conditions and poor visibility. The record here discloses a single and momentary error in judgment with tragic consequences. It does not support a reasonable inference that the appellant displayed a marked departure from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person in the same circumstances so as to justify conviction for the serious criminal offence of dangerous driving causing death."
Yes indeed, the defendant was not guilty because of absence of mens rea. I think there was an actus reus, just as there really was one in Beatty: pulling out from a stop sign and hitting an oncoming vehicle is a dangerous act, just as crossing the centre line while driving and hitting a car on the other side of the road is a dangerous act, but in each case the absence of mens rea supported acquittal. There was not the degree of inattention required in the circumstances to support a finding of sufficient fault for attribution of criminal responsibility.
Saturday, June 09, 2012
Criminal responsibility, insanity, diminished responsibility and the role of the common law
The criteria for holding a person (D) responsible in criminal law for a particular harm emerge from moral decisions. These criteria are manifest as statutory laws and as judicially created common laws. For example, D's acts must be voluntary. They must cause the relevant harm. There must be no circumstance of justification or excuse.
The recent Supreme Court of Canada case Maybin v R, 2010 SCC 24 noted here, highlighted the moral basis for attribution of a sufficient causal connection between D's acts and the harm. The Privy Council has recently referred to the moral dimension of diminished responsibility: Daniel v The State (Trinidad and Tobago) [2012] UKPC 15 at [37]-[38].
Parliament tends to limit defences and to create new offences. It seems to be engaged in extending the scope of acts for which a person can be held criminally responsible. Whether that legislative activity really reflects community perceptions of what is right can be a controversial question. But the important point is that if the courts are perceived by Parliament to be going wrong, legislation can correct that error. Whatever the common law might say, it is trumped by legislation. This is why courts should not be shy about developing the common law.
The recent Supreme Court of Canada case Maybin v R, 2010 SCC 24 noted here, highlighted the moral basis for attribution of a sufficient causal connection between D's acts and the harm. The Privy Council has recently referred to the moral dimension of diminished responsibility: Daniel v The State (Trinidad and Tobago) [2012] UKPC 15 at [37]-[38].
The moral dimension is often recognisable by a requirement for reasonableness. Self-defence justifies killing, or any other form of violence, where it is reasonable for D to cause the harm in the circumstances as he believed them to be. This almost universal formulation of self-defence reflects its common law origins. The common law reflects the customs of the people. Reasonable conduct should be lawful because it is perceived as right.
Is the common law merely residual, ever-diminishing as statute advances? Or is the common law a potentially powerful source of justice? It might seem from the High Court of Australia decision in PGA v The Queen, discussed here recently, that the common law perpetually withers, although that would - or should - be a misconception. Judges deal with the requirements of justice in particular cases, and with each case there is potential for development of the common law. This should be as true for defences as it is for any other developments that justice requires. By "justice" I mean here the judicially perceived sense of what the community regards as right. For recognition of this ability to develop new defences, see R v Kingston[1994] 3 WLR 519, at 536 (although in R v Cargill [1995] 3 NZLR 263, (1995) 13 CRNZ 291(CA) I was unable to persuade the Court to recognise a new defence of reasonable demand in relation to a charge of blackmail; that development was subsequently made by legislation: Crimes Act 1961, s 237(2)).
Parliament tends to limit defences and to create new offences. It seems to be engaged in extending the scope of acts for which a person can be held criminally responsible. Whether that legislative activity really reflects community perceptions of what is right can be a controversial question. But the important point is that if the courts are perceived by Parliament to be going wrong, legislation can correct that error. Whatever the common law might say, it is trumped by legislation. This is why courts should not be shy about developing the common law.
Daniel, above, prompts us to think about whether a defence of diminished responsibility should be developed at common law where legislation is silent on that. A defence of insanity will not cover all the states of mind that should negate criminal responsibility. The varieties of what in a loose sense may be called mental disorder seem extensive, as anyone who has glanced at the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (4th ed) can see. Some of them, as Daniel illustrates, are states of mind that, if established at trial, should lead to acquittal. A court should be allowed to decide whether in a particular case mental abnormality should attract liability. This is what the court in Norway is currently doing, but under the guise of deciding the question of sanity.
An overview of judicial response to mental deficiencies in the context of the (now, former) statutory partial defence of provocation in New Zealand illustrates how moves from absolute rejection to accommodation can be made. In R v McGregor [1961] NZLR 1069 (CA) the Court declined to extend the meaning of provocation in the absence of statutory authority. Some withdrawal from this absolute position is evident in R v McCarthy [1992] 2 NZLR 550, (1992) 8 CRNZ 58 (CA). A variety of mental weaknesses have been accepted as relevant to whether D had in a non-culpable sense lost his self-control: R v Taaka [1982] 2 NZLR 198 (CA) obsessive compulsive personality, R v Pita (1989) 4 CRNZ 660 (CA) aversion to violence, R v Foreman 18/2/92, CA254/91 active schizophrenic process, R v Oakes [1995] 2 NZLR 673 (CA) battered woman's syndrome, R v Timoti [2005] 1 NZLR 466, (2004) 21 CRNZ 90 (CA) paranoid personality disorder.
Does abolition of provocation as a partial defence to murder mean that none of these factors can have any relevance to the attribution of criminal responsibility generally? I think not. But even on a narrow view that they could only be relevant to whether intention or recklessness, or voluntariness, or causation had been proved, there is sufficient flexibility in the mysteries of fact-finding for morality to have an influence.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Ascertainable law
The law must be ascertainable. This is a requirement for the enforceability of enacted law and for the validity of common law. In jurisdictions where the common law creates offences, it must be possible to find out what they are.
It doesn't matter how sure we now are of what the common law used to be, if it was uncertain when a person did acts that are now alleged to have been contrary to that law.
In PGA v The Queen [2012] HCA 21 (30 May 2012) the issue was whether in 1963 in South Australia, where rape was a common law crime, a wife could withdraw her consent to sexual intercourse with her husband.
To find that out, one would think that it would be sufficient to consult the case law of the time. Were husbands charged with raping their wives? Did judges say that that was rape? What did legal scholars think? If a man went to his lawyer then and asked, what would he have been told?
According to the majority in PGA, a lawyer back then would have concluded that a wife could withdraw her consent to sexual intercourse with her husband. This view would have been reached by considering the fact that marriage is not permanent [59], that marriage is a consensual contract which could be breached by wilful and persistent refusal of sexual relations – implying that some refusal is possible [60], that relevant legislation required cohabitation but did not require matrimonial intercourse as an order to that effect would be unenforceable [60], that a wife had a distinct legal personality from her husband, particularly as to property rights, and this undermined any idea of her being her husband's property [61], and that women had the vote and had recognised rights to commercial and professional lives [60]-[61].
These considerations, according to the majority reasoning, would have led a lawyer in 1963 to advise that a husband could be guilty of raping his wife.
It is for judges or the legislature to change the common law. The majority review at [19]-[24] the meaning of the term "the common law", emphasising how judicial precedents may diminish in value over time. Old decisions can become obsolete and inoperative.
But, one would have thought, it is for judges to say when that obsolescence and inoperativeness has led to a change in the common law, and to declare the new law for the future. The majority in PGA have made that declaration retrospectively. One does not have to say that they are wrong in deciding that a judge in 1963 would have made the same declaration, to recognise the injustice from the point of view of the defendant who now faces historical charges including two counts of rape of his then wife.
Our natural aversion to rape may cloud perception of this injustice. If it was reasonably likely that in 1963 a husband would have been advised that as far as the law was concerned he was entitled to sexual intercourse with his wife because there was no judicial decision to the contrary, the new law was not ascertainable. A court that changed the law, or at least made it ascertainable, should only do so prospectively, acquitting this defendant but making the law clear from then on. Enacted law is "law" if properly enacted, but if it is not reasonably ascertainable it will be unenforceable, whereas common law must be ascertainable in order to be "law". If enacted criminal law is not ascertainable a prosecution should be stayed: Christian v R (The Pitcairn Islands) [2006] UKPC 47 at [24] (not cited in PGA):
"Their Lordships would accept that the fact that a law had not been published and could not reasonably have been known to exist may be a ground for staying a prosecution for contravention of that law as an abuse of process... .",
The ECtHR has upheld convictions where retrospective change in the law has been reasonably foreseeable, as in the removal of the marital exemption defence to rape, upholding R v R [1992] 1 AC 599: SW and CR v UK (1996) 21 E.H.R.R. 363. It may be that with increasing focus on the idea of the rule of law this tolerance of injustice to the defendant whose prosecution marked the change in the law will diminish. The traditional view that judges declare the common law as it has been from time immemorial is now regarded as an outdated legal fiction.
Just as reasonable minds may differ on the application of known law to the facts of a case, so too may reasonable minds differ over how and when the common law may change. An obligation to obey law that has not yet been declared is a form of "common law" not within the definitions recognised by the majority in PGA. It is unjust.
There is plenty of authority for this, as Heydon and Bell JJ demonstrate in their dissenting judgments. A helpful summary from the House of Lords is in R v Rimmington [2005] UKHL 63 especially at [33] which concludes:
"There are two guiding principles: no one should be punished under a law unless it is sufficiently clear and certain to enable him to know what conduct is forbidden before he does it; and no one should be punished for any act which was not clearly and ascertainably punishable when the act was done. If the ambit of a common law offence is to be enlarged, it "must be done step by step on a case by case basis and not with one large leap": R v Clark (Mark) [2003] EWCA Crim 991, [2003] 2 Cr App R 363, para 13."
There is a risk of cherry-picking authorities in this sort of argument, but I recommend Rogers v Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451 (2001) as an illustration of the upholding of a common law change but only where there had been a pervasive change in the law that should have put the defendant on notice that the law was clearly going to change. The change was not unfair or arbitrary. Scalia J dissented on the grounds that restrictions on legislative retrospective change should also apply to retrospective common law change. But even on the majority view there is a requirement of ascertainability before a defendant is bound by future decisions changing the common law.
Anyway, this interesting case raises questions about who defines the common law, is it just social mores or does it have to be declared by judges, whether retrospective effect should be more acceptable for common law offences than for legislated offences, and the extent to which social and legislative changes in some areas can influence assumptions about the common law in other areas. In New Zealand we have only one common law offence - some forms of contempt of court - but we do have common law defences. It was not until as recently as 1986 that legislation removed the spousal immunity defence to rape, which implies that it did exist at common law (at least in a form that had been modified by earlier legislation) until then. Some people think we are behind Australia in our development, but - as one who can remember 1963 and the grassy knoll quite clearly - I don't think that in 1986 we were 23 years behind.
It doesn't matter how sure we now are of what the common law used to be, if it was uncertain when a person did acts that are now alleged to have been contrary to that law.
In PGA v The Queen [2012] HCA 21 (30 May 2012) the issue was whether in 1963 in South Australia, where rape was a common law crime, a wife could withdraw her consent to sexual intercourse with her husband.
To find that out, one would think that it would be sufficient to consult the case law of the time. Were husbands charged with raping their wives? Did judges say that that was rape? What did legal scholars think? If a man went to his lawyer then and asked, what would he have been told?
According to the majority in PGA, a lawyer back then would have concluded that a wife could withdraw her consent to sexual intercourse with her husband. This view would have been reached by considering the fact that marriage is not permanent [59], that marriage is a consensual contract which could be breached by wilful and persistent refusal of sexual relations – implying that some refusal is possible [60], that relevant legislation required cohabitation but did not require matrimonial intercourse as an order to that effect would be unenforceable [60], that a wife had a distinct legal personality from her husband, particularly as to property rights, and this undermined any idea of her being her husband's property [61], and that women had the vote and had recognised rights to commercial and professional lives [60]-[61].
These considerations, according to the majority reasoning, would have led a lawyer in 1963 to advise that a husband could be guilty of raping his wife.
It is for judges or the legislature to change the common law. The majority review at [19]-[24] the meaning of the term "the common law", emphasising how judicial precedents may diminish in value over time. Old decisions can become obsolete and inoperative.
But, one would have thought, it is for judges to say when that obsolescence and inoperativeness has led to a change in the common law, and to declare the new law for the future. The majority in PGA have made that declaration retrospectively. One does not have to say that they are wrong in deciding that a judge in 1963 would have made the same declaration, to recognise the injustice from the point of view of the defendant who now faces historical charges including two counts of rape of his then wife.
Our natural aversion to rape may cloud perception of this injustice. If it was reasonably likely that in 1963 a husband would have been advised that as far as the law was concerned he was entitled to sexual intercourse with his wife because there was no judicial decision to the contrary, the new law was not ascertainable. A court that changed the law, or at least made it ascertainable, should only do so prospectively, acquitting this defendant but making the law clear from then on. Enacted law is "law" if properly enacted, but if it is not reasonably ascertainable it will be unenforceable, whereas common law must be ascertainable in order to be "law". If enacted criminal law is not ascertainable a prosecution should be stayed: Christian v R (The Pitcairn Islands) [2006] UKPC 47 at [24] (not cited in PGA):
"Their Lordships would accept that the fact that a law had not been published and could not reasonably have been known to exist may be a ground for staying a prosecution for contravention of that law as an abuse of process... .",
The ECtHR has upheld convictions where retrospective change in the law has been reasonably foreseeable, as in the removal of the marital exemption defence to rape, upholding R v R [1992] 1 AC 599: SW and CR v UK (1996) 21 E.H.R.R. 363. It may be that with increasing focus on the idea of the rule of law this tolerance of injustice to the defendant whose prosecution marked the change in the law will diminish. The traditional view that judges declare the common law as it has been from time immemorial is now regarded as an outdated legal fiction.
Just as reasonable minds may differ on the application of known law to the facts of a case, so too may reasonable minds differ over how and when the common law may change. An obligation to obey law that has not yet been declared is a form of "common law" not within the definitions recognised by the majority in PGA. It is unjust.
There is plenty of authority for this, as Heydon and Bell JJ demonstrate in their dissenting judgments. A helpful summary from the House of Lords is in R v Rimmington [2005] UKHL 63 especially at [33] which concludes:
"There are two guiding principles: no one should be punished under a law unless it is sufficiently clear and certain to enable him to know what conduct is forbidden before he does it; and no one should be punished for any act which was not clearly and ascertainably punishable when the act was done. If the ambit of a common law offence is to be enlarged, it "must be done step by step on a case by case basis and not with one large leap": R v Clark (Mark) [2003] EWCA Crim 991, [2003] 2 Cr App R 363, para 13."
There is a risk of cherry-picking authorities in this sort of argument, but I recommend Rogers v Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451 (2001) as an illustration of the upholding of a common law change but only where there had been a pervasive change in the law that should have put the defendant on notice that the law was clearly going to change. The change was not unfair or arbitrary. Scalia J dissented on the grounds that restrictions on legislative retrospective change should also apply to retrospective common law change. But even on the majority view there is a requirement of ascertainability before a defendant is bound by future decisions changing the common law.
Anyway, this interesting case raises questions about who defines the common law, is it just social mores or does it have to be declared by judges, whether retrospective effect should be more acceptable for common law offences than for legislated offences, and the extent to which social and legislative changes in some areas can influence assumptions about the common law in other areas. In New Zealand we have only one common law offence - some forms of contempt of court - but we do have common law defences. It was not until as recently as 1986 that legislation removed the spousal immunity defence to rape, which implies that it did exist at common law (at least in a form that had been modified by earlier legislation) until then. Some people think we are behind Australia in our development, but - as one who can remember 1963 and the grassy knoll quite clearly - I don't think that in 1986 we were 23 years behind.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
What is a verdict?
And for more on procedure as a means of giving effect to the substance of the law, see the failure of this concept in Blueford v Arkansas USSC No 10-1320, 24 May 2012.
A fundamental precept of the criminal law is that a jury will obey instructions from the judge. Here the jury were told the sequence required by the law of Arkansas for the deciding of verdicts on multiple and included charges. A decision on the most serious charge was required first, then the jury would proceed to the next serious, and so on until either they had reached a verdict of guilty, in which case they would stop there, or they had reached not guilty verdicts on each charge.
The jury had difficult reaching the end of this process,and the judge asked if they had decided any of the charges. The foreman said they had agreed that the defendant was not guilty on the two most serious charges. The judge told them to resume their deliberations and try to reach the end of the process. They were unsuccessful and they were discharged. On retrial the defendant was charged with all counts and pleaded previous acquittal on the two most serious ones.
The Supreme Court held by a majority that the special plea was not available. The jury had returned to the jury room and could have changed their minds on the most serious charges - they had not been asked whether they had. There were no verdicts returned at the trial.
Sotomayor J for the minority emphasised the importance of the rule against double jeopardy. She analysed the Arkansas process for deciding multiple charges of this kind and found it most unrealistic for the majority to say the jury might have changed their minds. In reality they had returned verdicts of not guilty on the two most serious charges.
True enough, the ritual incantations had not been followed in receiving the verdicts, but did that matter? What was the point of instructing the jury how to proceed, if that had no consequence because the technical question about verdicts was not asked by the judge? Had the jury decided the most serious charges? Should the prosecution have another opportunity to prove them? Did procedure serve the interests of justice here?
Friday, May 25, 2012
Too late! Or is it ...?
As everyone knows, procedural laws are for bringing the law into effect. Procedure brings the law to life, as I once said. Another thing that everyone knows is that senior appellate courts spend much of their time getting people to be sensible.
Lucaszewski v The District Court in Torun, Poland [2012] UKSC 20 (23 May 2012) gets people to be sensible about time limits for filing notices when statutory requirements are expressed in absolute terms.
The Court did not overrule Mucelli v Govt of Albania [2009] UKHL 2 (21 January 2009), noted here on 23 January 2009, although Lady Hale would have preferred to. However she agreed with the reasoning and conclusion of the leading judgment, delivered by Lord Mance.
Just as Mucelli reminded us of the Latin dies non, so does Lord Mance now remind us of non constat [19]. These things don't go unnoticed.
Anyway, Lucaszewski allows that timely notice of intention to appeal an extradition order can be given although the document does not comply with the enacted form, if the court decides to permit the informality. Also, where a defendant is a citizen, as opposed to an alien, his civil right to enter and remain in the country attracts the right to a fair hearing when extradition is sought, and the court may extend time for the defendant to file documents if that would promote his rights, even if no discretion to extend time appears on the face of an enactment.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Causing moral responsibility
In Maybin v R, 2012 SCC 24 (18 May 2012) Karakatsanis J for the Court discusses the criteria for determining that D's acts have caused the actus reus, here the death of V, to an extent that criminal responsibility could be attributed to D. Essentially this is a moral question.
The legal requirement is that D's acts were a significant contributing cause of the death. There may be several causes of the death, but if D's contribution was more than de minimis, causation will be established for the purpose of deciding whether D is criminally responsible.
Legal responsibility requires that D's acts had sufficient connection to that harm to warrant attribution of criminal responsibility [16]. There might be an insufficient connection if there was an intervening act so that D's acts were not a significant contributing cause of the harm. Such intervening acts might not sever the causal link between D's acts and the harm if they should have been foreseen by D at the time he acted [26], and this does not mean that D should have foreseen the exact details of the intervening act, but some sort of appreciation of what might happen, akin perhaps to the mens rea requirements of the offence, may be enough to make D responsible [36], [38].
The independent acts might not sever the causal connection between D's acts and the harm if, although those independent acts were unforeseeable, the relative weights of the causes of the harm [46] were such as to leave a more than minimal causal link attributable to D.
In any event, these are just analytical aids, not legal tests, for determining causal responsibility. In different factual matrices they might point in different ways. The fundamental question is always whether D's acts were a significant contributing cause of the harm.
The moral question whether D should be held responsible when there are multiple causes of a harm will often attract different answers, as is illustrated in the differences of opinion in the Court of Appeal here. There had been a fight in a bar and D had knocked out V, who was then struck by a third person, a bouncer. V died and D was charged with manslaughter. You be the judge (after reading the full facts in the case, of course).
Friday, May 11, 2012
Suppressing contempt
Our Court of Appeal has today confirmed the inherent power of a court to suppress its judgments on an interim basis in order to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial: Siemer v Solicitor-General [2012] NZCA 188.
Dicta in this case [68]-[72] on the right to a fair trial are significant too. The defendants in the criminal case had the right to a fair trial and the court used its inherent power to regulate its procedures for the ultimate objective of securing fairness. However Mr Siemer, who was not subject to criminal proceedings but only to the "neither criminal nor civil" proceedings for contempt, did not have the protection of the rights given by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 to people who are charged with offences [95]. But he did have the right to justice, enjoyed by everyone pursuant to s 27 of the Bill of Rights, which applies the rules of natural justice to the determination of his rights, obligations or interests.
This is a departure from Privy Council and House of Lords decisions: Independent Publishing Ltd v Attorney-General of Trinidad and Tobago [2004] UKPC 26, [2005] 1 AC 190, Attorney-General v Leveller Magazine Ltd [1979] AC 440. Since the establishment of our Supreme Court, decisions of the Privy Council from other jurisdictions are of persuasive authority only [37].
The Court of Appeal held [91] that the same position on suppression orders applies under the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 ("CPA"). I will consider the other aspects of the judgment by reference to what the position should be after commencement of that Act.
Of equal interest is the Court's discussion of contempt proceedings. Sometimes contempt is an offence. This is when an enactment creates the offence and provides for a punishment. Provisions doing that, however, provide that they do not limit the power of a court to punish for contempt: see s 365(3) of the CPA.
Contempt that is punishable pursuant to the court's inherent power is probably not an "offence" although there is no definition of "offence" in the CPA except in the schedule where a definition is inserted in another act. In any event, the Court of Appeal accepted [96] that contempt proceedings outside those defined in an enactment are neither criminal nor civil proceedings, and they are not prosecuted by the laying of an information (nor, by implication, by the filing of a charging document under the CPA). Although the criminal standard of proof applies, these sorts of contempt do not result in a conviction but rather in a "finding" of contempt. Such a finding, and the sentence, may be appealed under the CPA, s 260.
If contempt outside the statutory definition is an offence, proceedings in respect of it should be commenced under the CPA by the filing of a charging document. However it is more likely that it is not an offence and the Solicitor-General commences proceedings for this sort of contempt by the filing of an originating application and supporting affidavits, and the defendant may answer by affidavit [93]. The criminal procedure of entering a plea does not apply.
In Siemer the appellant had published a judgment that the High Court had temporarily suppressed. That suppression order was designed to protect the right of defendants in a notorious criminal case to fair trials. As a result of losing the appeal the defendant was ordered to commence serving his sentence of six weeks in prison.
Dicta in this case [68]-[72] on the right to a fair trial are significant too. The defendants in the criminal case had the right to a fair trial and the court used its inherent power to regulate its procedures for the ultimate objective of securing fairness. However Mr Siemer, who was not subject to criminal proceedings but only to the "neither criminal nor civil" proceedings for contempt, did not have the protection of the rights given by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 to people who are charged with offences [95]. But he did have the right to justice, enjoyed by everyone pursuant to s 27 of the Bill of Rights, which applies the rules of natural justice to the determination of his rights, obligations or interests.
Thursday, April 19, 2012
My 500th posting: Probative value and independent evidence
Probative value is the tendency that an item of evidence has to prove an issue in a case. Does the measure of that tendency depend on other independent evidence in the case?
For example, consider these facts on a charge of murder:
In the circumstances of this appeal it was unanimously held that there was no improper prejudice because the jury had been carefully directed on how they should reason. Determining whether there is improper prejudice requires having regard to the whole of the evidence [30].
The question I started with did not need to be answered in this case because the appeal turned on whether there was illegitimate prejudice, but Heydon J considered it in some detail [41]-[65], especially in relation to whether giving evidence of one way of expressing the scientific results rendered an alternative and equivalent way redundant and inadmissible.
Evidence about the matching of samples is like all other evidence: it raises the question, given the existence of this evidence, what is the probability that the defendant is guilty? This probability of guilt is the ultimate issue and involves consideration of all the admissible evidence in the case that the fact-finder accepts as true. The probative value of an item of evidence is its tendency to prove an issue, and where that is the ultimate issue, the question arises as to whether probative value should be assessed by considering the item of evidence in isolation, or whether its probative value should be considered in the context of other evidence.
Logicians would be isolationists but with some qualification. Independent evidence is irrelevant but dependent evidence is relevant to the probative value of an item of evidence, as is contextual evidence.
Usually evidence of the sort of match in Aytugrul would be given in terms such as: "whatever the probability that the defendant is guilty based on the other evidence in the case, this evidence increases that probability by 1600 times." Sometimes the same thing might be said in words rather than numbers, for example by saying the evidence strongly supports the proposition that the defendant is guilty (see [32]).
I am assuming that the ratio would result in a figure of 1600, although that is not clear. There might (here I am not referring to the particular facts of this case) be innocent explanations for the evidence of a match, even if the defendant was guilty: the test result might have been a false positive so that in reality it was someone else's hair, or the defendant's hair might have been transferred there when the police had custody of the body, or there might have been an error in handling scene exhibits and a mix-up between what was found on the victim and medical samples from the defendant. The probability of those sorts of errors, although normally small (but if larger they could make the test result irrelevant - see my concluding comment below), should be taken into account. In that sense some other evidence in the case could be relevant to the probative value of the evidence of a match. But that other evidence would not be independent of the existence of the hair.
Independent evidence, such as evidence of the time at which the defendant and the victim were together, and the time of death, does not affect the probative value of the evidence of the match between the hair and the defendant. It does not affect the numerator or the denominator of the likelihood ratio. Those are based on assumptions, or "givens": that the prosecution hypothesis of guilt is true, and that the defence hypothesis of innocence is true.
I infer from the extract from Dr Buckleton's evidence at [16], where he mentioned the lesser of two evils, that he would prefer not to put his evidence as either a random occurrence ratio or an exclusion percentage. The reference in the judge's summing up to Dr Buckleton's evidence of expecting the occurrence of that sort of hair in the relevant population of innocent people as between one in 50 people and one in 100 or less, seems to be a reference to the denominator of the likelihood ratio being between 0.01 and 0.02. Dr Buckleton usually gives his results as a likelihood ratio following the Bayesian approach, and he supports the "Bayes and the Law" site. Plainly there was a discrepancy between the experts in Aytugrul as to the statistical values. In any event, in this case Dr Buckleton said that the test results did not indicate a match: Aytugrul v R [2010] NSWCCA 272 at [55]. The implication of that evidence seems to have been lost in this case.
Significantly, the High Court recognised that the question of how this sort of evidence should be expressed is a question of psychology upon which the Court would need further evidence before making a legal rule about that [22]-[24]. (I recommend to anyone interested in this sort of thing the Nobel laureate psychologist Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow".) The Court did not say that evidence of this kind must be given in the form of a likelihood ratio, and it specifically did not lay down a rule that it could never be given as an exclusion percentage [21].
Note the difference between the probative value of evidence and the effect of its combination with other evidence in the case on the ultimate probability of guilt. In BBH v R, discussed here on 31 March 2012, it was this latter combination that was relevant in considering the Pfennig requirement.
There is a need for experts to agree on how to express their conclusions when giving evidence, and for legal professionals and judges to become familiar with correct reasoning with probabilities. In the NSWCCA in this case (see above link) McLellan CJ at CL, whose judgment is well worth reading for its references to specialist articles - including a paper by Kahneman - on the effects on juries of different ways of expressing statistical results, held that the trial was unfair, notwithstanding that the verdict was, on the evidence, not unreasonable, because the jury may have been led to think that the exclusion percentage was the same as the percentage likelihood of the defendant being guilty. The other judges in that court regarded the statistical evidence as strongly supportive of guilt and that was sufficient, there being no identifiable unfair prejudice to the defendant (Simpson J at [193]-[195]).
Indeed, as Bayesians know, if the other evidence in the case only established guilt to a probability of 0.1, the hair match evidence would increase that to 0.99. The same is true without any other evidence, but obviously there have to be other proven facts to give the match evidence context in relation to the offence charged. It is also appropriate to talk about groups of facts which together have probative value in relation to an issue, but their individual probative value is different from their collective probative value. Again, context is relevant, and it may be inappropriate to consider the probative value of a fact in isolation.
So what would have been unfair prejudice here? If the jury had not found as a fact that the hair had the DNA profile that the prosecution claimed it had, the other evidence about the frequency of a match would be irrelevant. To find as a fact that the hair had the alleged DNA profile, the jury would have to be satisfied about that to the standard of the balance of probabilities. Most subsidiary facts - that is, facts that are not elements of the relevant offence - only need to be proved to that standard, although there is an argument, popular - to the point of being law - in Australia, that critical facts have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Be that as it may, unfair prejudice would have existed if the match frequency evidence could have distracted the jury from its proper assessment of whether the hair did indeed have the DNA profile claimed for it.
For example, consider these facts on a charge of murder:
"[2] ... A hair found on the deceased's thumbnail had been subjected to mitochondrial DNA testing. The results of that testing showed two things: first, that the appellant could have been the donor of the hair and, second, how common the DNA profile found in the hair was in the community. This second aspect of the results was expressed in evidence both as a frequency ratio [sometimes called a "random occurrence ratio" or a "frequency estimate"] and as an exclusion percentage. The expert who had conducted the test gave evidence to the effect that one in 1,600 people in the general population (which is to say the whole world) would be expected to share the DNA profile that was found in the hair (a frequency ratio) and that 99.9 per cent of people would not be expected to have a DNA profile matching that of the hair (an exclusion percentage)."
The case, Aytugrul v R [2012] HCA 15 (18 April 2012) concentrated on whether expressing the statistics as an exclusion percentage was improperly prejudicial. It was argued for the appellant that to say 99.9% of people wouldn't match suggests that it is 99.9% likely that the appellant was guilty.In the circumstances of this appeal it was unanimously held that there was no improper prejudice because the jury had been carefully directed on how they should reason. Determining whether there is improper prejudice requires having regard to the whole of the evidence [30].
The question I started with did not need to be answered in this case because the appeal turned on whether there was illegitimate prejudice, but Heydon J considered it in some detail [41]-[65], especially in relation to whether giving evidence of one way of expressing the scientific results rendered an alternative and equivalent way redundant and inadmissible.
Evidence about the matching of samples is like all other evidence: it raises the question, given the existence of this evidence, what is the probability that the defendant is guilty? This probability of guilt is the ultimate issue and involves consideration of all the admissible evidence in the case that the fact-finder accepts as true. The probative value of an item of evidence is its tendency to prove an issue, and where that is the ultimate issue, the question arises as to whether probative value should be assessed by considering the item of evidence in isolation, or whether its probative value should be considered in the context of other evidence.
Logicians would be isolationists but with some qualification. Independent evidence is irrelevant but dependent evidence is relevant to the probative value of an item of evidence, as is contextual evidence.
Usually evidence of the sort of match in Aytugrul would be given in terms such as: "whatever the probability that the defendant is guilty based on the other evidence in the case, this evidence increases that probability by 1600 times." Sometimes the same thing might be said in words rather than numbers, for example by saying the evidence strongly supports the proposition that the defendant is guilty (see [32]).
I am assuming that the ratio would result in a figure of 1600, although that is not clear. There might (here I am not referring to the particular facts of this case) be innocent explanations for the evidence of a match, even if the defendant was guilty: the test result might have been a false positive so that in reality it was someone else's hair, or the defendant's hair might have been transferred there when the police had custody of the body, or there might have been an error in handling scene exhibits and a mix-up between what was found on the victim and medical samples from the defendant. The probability of those sorts of errors, although normally small (but if larger they could make the test result irrelevant - see my concluding comment below), should be taken into account. In that sense some other evidence in the case could be relevant to the probative value of the evidence of a match. But that other evidence would not be independent of the existence of the hair.
Independent evidence, such as evidence of the time at which the defendant and the victim were together, and the time of death, does not affect the probative value of the evidence of the match between the hair and the defendant. It does not affect the numerator or the denominator of the likelihood ratio. Those are based on assumptions, or "givens": that the prosecution hypothesis of guilt is true, and that the defence hypothesis of innocence is true.
I infer from the extract from Dr Buckleton's evidence at [16], where he mentioned the lesser of two evils, that he would prefer not to put his evidence as either a random occurrence ratio or an exclusion percentage. The reference in the judge's summing up to Dr Buckleton's evidence of expecting the occurrence of that sort of hair in the relevant population of innocent people as between one in 50 people and one in 100 or less, seems to be a reference to the denominator of the likelihood ratio being between 0.01 and 0.02. Dr Buckleton usually gives his results as a likelihood ratio following the Bayesian approach, and he supports the "Bayes and the Law" site. Plainly there was a discrepancy between the experts in Aytugrul as to the statistical values. In any event, in this case Dr Buckleton said that the test results did not indicate a match: Aytugrul v R [2010] NSWCCA 272 at [55]. The implication of that evidence seems to have been lost in this case.
Significantly, the High Court recognised that the question of how this sort of evidence should be expressed is a question of psychology upon which the Court would need further evidence before making a legal rule about that [22]-[24]. (I recommend to anyone interested in this sort of thing the Nobel laureate psychologist Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking, Fast and Slow".) The Court did not say that evidence of this kind must be given in the form of a likelihood ratio, and it specifically did not lay down a rule that it could never be given as an exclusion percentage [21].
Note the difference between the probative value of evidence and the effect of its combination with other evidence in the case on the ultimate probability of guilt. In BBH v R, discussed here on 31 March 2012, it was this latter combination that was relevant in considering the Pfennig requirement.
There is a need for experts to agree on how to express their conclusions when giving evidence, and for legal professionals and judges to become familiar with correct reasoning with probabilities. In the NSWCCA in this case (see above link) McLellan CJ at CL, whose judgment is well worth reading for its references to specialist articles - including a paper by Kahneman - on the effects on juries of different ways of expressing statistical results, held that the trial was unfair, notwithstanding that the verdict was, on the evidence, not unreasonable, because the jury may have been led to think that the exclusion percentage was the same as the percentage likelihood of the defendant being guilty. The other judges in that court regarded the statistical evidence as strongly supportive of guilt and that was sufficient, there being no identifiable unfair prejudice to the defendant (Simpson J at [193]-[195]).
Indeed, as Bayesians know, if the other evidence in the case only established guilt to a probability of 0.1, the hair match evidence would increase that to 0.99. The same is true without any other evidence, but obviously there have to be other proven facts to give the match evidence context in relation to the offence charged. It is also appropriate to talk about groups of facts which together have probative value in relation to an issue, but their individual probative value is different from their collective probative value. Again, context is relevant, and it may be inappropriate to consider the probative value of a fact in isolation.
So what would have been unfair prejudice here? If the jury had not found as a fact that the hair had the DNA profile that the prosecution claimed it had, the other evidence about the frequency of a match would be irrelevant. To find as a fact that the hair had the alleged DNA profile, the jury would have to be satisfied about that to the standard of the balance of probabilities. Most subsidiary facts - that is, facts that are not elements of the relevant offence - only need to be proved to that standard, although there is an argument, popular - to the point of being law - in Australia, that critical facts have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Be that as it may, unfair prejudice would have existed if the match frequency evidence could have distracted the jury from its proper assessment of whether the hair did indeed have the DNA profile claimed for it.
Friday, April 06, 2012
The transcendent civility of verbal eunuchs
The case with the most amusing facts in a long time is Doré v Barreau du Québec, 2012 SCC 12 (22 March 2012). A judge was rude to counsel and counsel was rude to the judge. Both received reprimands from their respective disciplinary bodies.
The odd thing about this case is that whereas the judge was rude to counsel in open court, counsel was only rude to the judge in a private letter to him.
Another thing, not quite "odd" but at least strange, is that after setting up a fine sort of conceptual structure for the review of administrative decisions when Charter rights are involved, the Court's application of it to the facts is shrouded in mystery. The answer pops out, but because the private nature of counsel's letter was not taken into account we can't be sure why it didn't go the other way.
Valuable aspects of the judgment concern the duties of judges and of counsel as far as behaviour in court is concerned:
Judges must show respect for officers of the court (counsel), they must not be impatient and they have a duty to listen calmly to the parties and to counsel. They must respect the dignity of every individual who argues a case. Comments must not be immoderate. [14]
Counsel are bound by rules of professional conduct, and these include a requirement to behave respectfully and not undermine the processes of the court or the dignity of the judiciary. But at the same time counsel have rights of free speech, and a role in ensuring the accountability of the judiciary [64], and the protected tenure enjoyed by judges increases the threshold for the lawyers' expressive rights [65]. The balance between criticism and upholding dignity is fact-dependent and a discretionary administrative exercise. Criticism is measured against "the public's reasonable expectations of a lawyer's professionalism" [69] and must not overstep 'the generally accepted norms of moderation and dignity" [70].
The Supreme Court agreed with the conclusion of the disciplinary tribunal that had censured counsel.
In reality, the policy of discouraging a flood of vigorous personal correspondence between bar and bench may well have been the elephant in the courtroom.
"Lawyers potentially face criticisms and pressures on a daily basis. They are expected by the public, on whose behalf they serve, to endure them with civility and dignity. This is not always easy where the lawyer feels he or she has been unfairly provoked, as in this case. But it is precisely when a lawyer's equilibrium is unduly tested that he or she is particularly called upon to behave with transcendent civility. On the other hand, lawyers should not be expected to behave like verbal eunuchs. They not only have a right to speak their minds freely, they arguably have a duty to do so. But they are constrained by their profession to do so with dignified restraint." [68]
In this case one is tempted to suggest that the proper outcome would be to gather the judge and the lawyer together, get them to laugh a little, and send them off for brain scans, as ill-temper can be a symptom of tumours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)