Bill No:    2010 750 JR

 

HIGH COURT

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE KEARNS

 

____________________

 

01 December 2010

____________________

 

Dylan Evans v. UCC

____________________

 

Counsel for the Applicant:                              Mr B Kennedy, QC

                                                                        Ms E Egan, SC

                                                                        Mr N Buckley, BL

 

Counsel for the Respondent:                          Mr M Collins, SC

                                                                        Ms P O'Rourke, BL

Dylan Evans v. UCC

21 December 2010

 

 

                                                                                                                        


JUDGE:  Right. Well, as I have reached a clear view as to what I should do in this case, I propose to give my judgment in the matter ex tempore.  It is being recorded DAR, so a full transcript of the judgment will in due course be available.  The background facts of this matter may be simply stated:  On the 2nd of November 2009 the applicant, a lecturer in behavioural science, called in to the office or rooms of a colleague, Mrs Kennedy, in the School of Medicine in UCC and there produced to her a scientific paper which had featured in the October 2009 issue of PLoS ONE, a peer-reviewed scientific journal.  The article was entitled, "Fellatio by fruit bats prolongs copulation time."  Until this morning, the Court had no idea of what sort of document had been tendered by the applicant to Ms Kennedy on that occasion.  It has now been produced and, as is apparent from an inspection of the document, it contains nothing of what might be described as a lurid or graphical nature by way photography or imagery.  It's couched in the scientific language adopted by the Chinese authors of this report, based on their observation of bats in a laboratory experiment in Guangzhou province in southern China, and compiled in liaison with, as I understand it, some professor in Exeter.  It's printed in what might be described as very small print and, indeed, I note that the complainant who raised a complaint about the piece offered to the applicant at the particular time the excuse that she needed to get her glasses before she could read the item in question.  Be that as it may, and whatever the motives the applicant had in producing this particular piece to her, itís not denied by him that he produced it to a number of other people on the day in question, and reference had been made to the fact that the particular paper did receive whatís referred to as an Ig Nobel award at a later stage, an award, apparently, whereby a particular paper may through its title appear to have certain humorous connotations but which nonetheless incorporates serious scientific material, and that indeed appears to have been the case with this particular paper. 

 

Now, several days later, the complainant lodged a formal complaint arising out of this showing to her of the piece in question, and that set in train a sequence of formal procedures which have had what can only be described as very significant consequences for the applicant, and Iíll return to that in a few moments.  But essentially, what happened then was that the wheels of the procedures set out in the collegeís document, "Duty of respect and right to dignity" document were set in train.  Notwithstanding that paragraph five of the document states that the university supports the resolution of complaints as far as is possible and appropriate through informal processes, this matter, simple as it would appear to me to have been, proved incapable of resolution by any such straightforward manner, be it an apology or something of that sort.  And the matter subsequently came to be investigated by two well-known figures, John Horgan and Ms Clohessy, who frequently act as arbitrators or in work-related disputes.  They subsequently met with both the complainant and the respondent, and there was a subsequent hearing before them.  In working with the dignity policy, of course the investigators had before them the actual policy itself which contained a definition of sexual harassment.  In the policy document it's defined as any form of unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical contact of a sexual nature if the conduct has the purpose or effect of violating a person's dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for the person.  I pause en passant to simply observe there was no suggestion ever in this case that the applicant's behaviour was accompanied by any unwanted touching or intimidatory behaviour or  bullying behaviour or anything of the sort.  In fact, his entire case when, to his amazement and shock, he was the subject matter of complaint, was that the production of the piece in question was greeted with amusement by the complainant and that he was completely unaware that any offence had been taken.  The matter, as I say, proceeded and the college can in no way, in my view, be faulted insofar as the actual procedural steps in the investigative process are concerned.  They brought in two outside persons of impeccable integrity and they commenced their work and a hearing subsequently took place. 

 

Now, they had to approach it by reference to the policy document, which provides at paragraph 34 that those involved in interpreting, administering and applying the policy will use a "Reasonable person" standard, that is to say, whether a person in the same position as the complainant and of the same relevant characteristics as the complainant would reasonably judge harassment or bullying to have occurred as a result of a given behaviour or pattern of behaviour.  Now, remarkably, having regard to an allegation being made of sexual harassment which, for any man, is about the serious accusation that can be made against him, the applicant didn't seek to represent himself at this hearing with legal representation; however he did  have the assistance of a trade union representative.  And a matter which has been canvassed before the Court during this hearing is whether or not on the day in question, the 2nd of November 2009, there was another person present in the room, a Ms Chalmers, who could have given an account to the investigators, which would have been particularly relevant, having regard to the ultimate manner in which the investigators resolved this particular matter. 

 

Now, it seems to me that Mr Collins is correct in his submission that the onus of proof lay on the applicant in this regard to produce, or either to cross-examine -- serve a notice of cross-examination on the investigators or take such other steps as were open to them to take to bring to court the Ms Chalmers, if indeed she was present in the room on the morning in question.  If she was present, it would have been obviously of great importance.  If she wasn't present - and that was obviously the view formed by the investigators - that too would have been a very important matter to have confirmed in that particular way. 

 

I want to turn now, if I can immediately find it in the smaller book, the actual findings of the investigators.  Yes, they duly reported on the 11th of February 2010, confirming that they carried out their investigation in accordance with the policy, and both parties had been met separately; the complainant on her own on the 10th of December 2009 and Dr Evans on the 8th of February 2010.  He was accompanied on that occasion by his trade union representative.  There was some delay in meeting Dr Evans, and it appears that this was due to illness on his part; it's clear from the papers he was extremely stressed as a result of the particular allegation.  In any event, having heard the views of both parties in the kind of hearing which, I have to say, surprising though it may be, Dr Evans voluntarily agreed to and participated in, the investigators took the view that this particular complaint as made by Mrs Kennedy fell within the definition of sexual harassment in the dignity policy to which I have referred.  They went on to say that there was considerable conflict of evidence in relation to interactions between the parties, and referred to the fact that Dr Evans's evidence had produced email evidence that cast serious doubts on some of the evidence of the complaint.  They also went on to say, "We find that on the balance of probability that Dr Evans did not ever intend to cause offence to the complainant.  He was not aware that he may have been causing offence by visiting her office, and the complainant admits that she was not sufficiently assertive in making clear her displeasure at his visits to her office or other behaviour."  But in relation to the particular day in question they say it is a fact - and this isn't in dispute- that Dr Evans showed an academic article which the complainant claims was "inappropriate and offensive, and which made her feel hurt and disgusted.  Dr Evans was emphatic in saying that the complainant showed so such signs, and on the contrary was amused by it, and requested a copy.  The question for us is whether Dr Evans' action can reasonably be regarded as sexually offensive, humiliating or intimidating to the complainant.  We find that the action was a joke with sexual innuendo and it was reasonable for the complainant to be offended by being presented with it in her office alone.  We therefore find that the complaint on this action is upheld, though it was not Dr Evans' intention to cause offence." 

 

So, I pause here only to say what may strike people as obvious, but in the modern world where matters of this sort are concerned, matters are very rarely obvious or simple; that there can be different forms of sexual harassment, ranging from highly objectionable to mildly objectionable.  By any standard, it strikes me that this was at the very lower end of the scale in this case.  But nonetheless, that said - and I think, again Mr Collins is right in this - that there was material on which the investigators were entitled to make an assessment of the case, they did make an assessment, and they made the particular finding which they did make.  The principal complaint, based on natural justice, is that there was another person present, but as already indicated, I find that the onus of establishing that and establishing what that person might have said lies on the applicant and they have failed to discharge the onus of proof to suggest that the particular version on this aspect as tendered by the applicant is one that the Court should accept.  The Court can't accept it on the facts, nor can the Court interfere with the finding made by the investigators in the particular circumstances. 

 

Now, they made no recommendation but simply forwarded their report to the President of UCC and the President on the 19th of February wrote to Dr Evans, attaching a copy of the report and inviting any comments.  And there was a detailed response in reply from Dr Evans and it's clear that Dr Evans, for whatever reason, misunderstood the particular conclusions of the report because he seemed to believe that the complaint of sexual harassment had not been upheld.  And he describes how the whole affair caused significant distress to both him and his partner, and he complained he found it very hard to accept the investigators' verdict that the complaint was not malicious.  So he also complained that this matter was needlessly escalated into this, in his view, unnecessarily high level, and the full formal processes, instead of being resolved by more informal means.  And it's certainly the case that he was willing to apologise immediately the matter was drawn to his attention that he may have caused offence in the manner stated; I think that should be emphasised.  Now, matters moved on from there, and in response to that letter the President wrote to Dr Evans on the 23rd of March 2010 and in relation to the complaint against the applicant which was upheld the President stated, "It is now for me to decide whether or not to invoke the disciplinary procedures against you as contemplated in paragraph 35 of the policy, or to proceed in accordance with paragraph 36 of the policy.  In view of the finding in relation to the allegation that it was upheld that, 'It was not your intention to cause offence', I have decided in the particular circumstances of this case not to invoke the university's disciplinary procedure as contemplated in paragraph 35 of the policy, but instead to invoke paragraph 36 of the policy.  Accordingly, I am requesting you to engage in training and counselling and to complete a period of monitoring and appraisal.  Behaviour of this type is utterly unacceptable within the university and should any further complaint of sexual harassment against you be upheld in the future, I will have no hesitation in invoking the university's disciplinary procedures.  The details of the training and counselling will be sent to you in due course.  With reference to the monitoring and appraisal, I believe that it is appropriate that your behaviour in this regard should be monitored and appraised over a two year period, commencing on the 1st of April 2010.  That monitoring/appraisal will be conducted by your Head of School, and I propose to ask the Head of School to let me have a short report every six months during that time.  Needless to say, I must strongly encourage you to behave in an appropriate manner and in strict compliance with the university's duty of respect and right to dignity policy." 

 

Now, I want to go back to those two paragraphs of the policy document, I think it's important to just have regard to the options that were open to the President in the particular circumstances.  Paragraph 35 provides that, should the finding be that either harassment or bullying did occur, and note how those two words are used in juxtaposition, they're giving an impression of what harassment might be normally regarded as consisting of, or that the complaint was malicious, the President may invoke the university's disciplinary procedure.  And then paragraph 36, "In some circumstances, the use of disciplinary procedures may be inappropriate; the outcome of such cases may be a recommendation to engage in training, counselling and/or a period of monitoring and appraisal.  Should the period of appraisal not be satisfactory, the disciplinary procedure may then be invoked."  So, I note in particular that paragraph 36 does not preclude the President from simply giving a verbal warning to a person in Dr Evans' position, pointing out what a silly thing he had done and to not to engage in any such behaviour in the future.  It seems to me, and I make this observation in passing that that might well have disposed of this matter in its entirety.  But instead, unfortunately, what happened was that the President decided to subject Dr Evans to a two-year period, during which he would attend counselling and would be monitored and appraised and, in effect, set him on a spiral which was inevitably going to have further adverse consequences for him.  And that adverse consequence wasn't very long in coming, because when the time came for his E2 form to go in at the end of his second year, on foot of which he might -- he was to be considered for permanency, or to be established in the university, a recommendation went in that he not be the beneficiary of such treatment because of this two year period.  So it was, to my way of thinking, an extremely serious sanction that was imposed on the applicant. 

 

Now, I'm not saying that he had no opportunity to make submissions, this is a point that was made by Mr Collins; he did have an opportunity.  But I don't think he really realised how serious the situation was and that the roof was about to fall in on top of him, insofar as his working career was concerned.  There were complications that followed then, allegations of breach of confidentiality leading to the setting up of the disciplinary inquiry, but I am very deliberately steering clear of that in this particular case because it seems to me that the critical issues can be resolved by reference to the steps taken by the President on receipt of this report.  I've indicated my view that under the dignity policy he could have -- he was not precluded from dealing with this in a different way, namely by an admonishment or by giving a kind of verbal warning, which is permissible, as one of the sanctions, if the disciplinary proceedings themselves are put in train.  But what he did instead was impose this two-year period which, to my way of thinking, was a very severe and disproportionate sanction, having regard to the particular effects of the case, and to the particular nature of the incident involved. 

 

Now, what consequences should that have and what role does proportionality have to play in judicial review proceedings?  Well of course I was a member -- a dissenting member of the Supreme Court when the decision in Meadows was delivered, and I think it must be acknowledged that that judgment, delivered on the 21st of January 2010, has affected a significant change in how judicial review matters must be approached and evaluated.  Up to this time, judicial review has been purely concerned with the manner of the decision making, and under no circumstances where the merits of the case to be considered unless, on due consideration of the case, it was clear that no rational adjudicator could have reached the particular conclusions arrived at by the decision-maker.  However, in the version I have of the three judgments, I turn immediately to the judgment of the Chief Justice, page 14 of 24.  And I quote, "In examining whether a decision properly flows from the premises on which it was based, and whether it might be considered a variance with reason and common sense, I see no reason why the Court should not have recourse to the principle of proportionality in determining those issues.  It is already well-established that the Court may do so when considering whether the Oireachtas has exceeded its constitutional powers in the enactment of legislation."  And I continue reading from the judgment, "The principle requires that the effects on -- or prejudice to an individual's rights by an administrative decision be proportional to the legitimate objective or purpose of that decision.  Application of the principle of proportionality is, in my view, a means of examining whether the decision meets the test of reasonableness.  I do not find anything in the dicta of the Court in Keegan or O'Keefe which would exclude the Court from applying the principle of proportionality in cases where it could be considered to be relevant.  Indeed in Fajujuno v. Minister for Justice, to which I will refer in more detail shortly, this Court made express reference to the need of the Minister to observe the principle of proportionality when deciding whether to permit the immigrates in that case to reside in the State."  I now turn to the judgment of Mrs Justice Denham in the same case, where she says -- no perhaps this is still -- perhaps I'm still on the Chief Justice's judgment, I am, at page 18, where he says, "I'm of the view --" and I quote, "--that the principle of proportionality is a principle that may be applied for the purpose of determining whether, in the circumstances of a particular case, an administrative decision may properly be considered to flow from the premises on which it is based, and to be in accord with fundamental reason and common sense.  In applying the principle of proportionality in this context, I believe the Court may have regard to the degree of discretion conferred on the decision-maker.  In having regard to the degree of discretion, a margin of appreciation should be allowed to the decision-maker, in choosing an effective means of fulfilling any legitimate policy objectives."  And if I may turn then to the judgment of Ms Justice Denham, at paragraph 19 of her judgment, she says, "While the term 'proportionality' is relatively new in this jurisdiction, it is inherent in any analysis of the reasonableness of a decision.  Proportionality has been expressly referred to in judicial reviews in recent years; the doctrine of proportionality has roots in the civil law countries of Europe, but has been applied in other common law countries, as well as in Ireland."  And she did an analysis then of the proportionality test, by reference to cases such as Heaney v. Ireland, and concluded this portion of her judgment by saying, "The nature of the proportionality test is that, as described above, it must be rationally connected to the objective, not arbitrary, unfair or irrational.  The inherent similarity may be seen in the requirement in O'Keefe v. An Bord PleanŠla that the decision not be irrational or at variance with reason and common sense."  And, again, towards the end of her judgment on the very last page, 15 of 15, she says, "When a decision-maker makes a decision which effects rights then, on reviewing the reasonableness of the decision, (a) the means must be rationally connected to the objective of the legislation and not arbitrary, unfair or based on irrational considerations; (b) the rights of the person must be impaired as little as possible; and (c) the effect on rights should be proportional to the objective."  And, finally, then of course in the judgment of Mr Justice Fennelly, he adopted a similar view, I think, the actual quotation is referred to in the submissions filed on behalf of the applicant.  Can you just refer me to the page, Ms Egan, in your submissions, where there's the reference you made -- you yourself sought in --

MS EGAN:  It's page eight, Judge.

JUDGE:  Page eight, thank you.

MS EGAN:  In the middle of -- it's the last paragraph, 6.05.

JUDGE:  Thank you.  Yes, and as indicated, Mr Justice Fennelly, in his judgment, opposed a dual test of anxious scrutiny for fundamental rights and unreasonableness.  He preferred to permit a proportionality test, saying that, "A Court may not interfere with the exercise of an administrative discretion on substantive grounds, save where the Court is satisfied on the basis of evidence produced by the applicant, that the decision is unreasonable in the sense that it plainly and unambiguously flies in the face of fundamental reason and common sense.  I use the word 'substantive' to distinguish it from procedural grounds, and not to imply that the Courts have jurisdiction to trespass on the administrative preserve of the decision-maker.  This test, properly applied, permits the person challenging the decision to complain of the extent to which the decision encroaches on rights or interests of those affected.  In those cases, the Courts will consider whether the applicant shows that the encroachment is not justified.  Justification will be commensurate with the extent of the encroachment, the burden of proof remains on the applicant to satisfy the Court that the decision is unreasonable in the sense of the language of Henchy J." 

 

So all three judges delivering the majority view of the Supreme Court in Meadows favoured a proportionality test which, it seems to me, necessarily implies some assessment of the particular merits of the case.  And, certainly, I'm satisfied in this case that on application of a proportionality test, the root, the scale of the measure adopted by the President was disproportionate to the finding which the investigators had made.  I do not believe he can be faulted in any way for not referring the matter back to the investigators when the issue of the non-appearance of Ms Chalmers, surfaced in Dr Evans' correspondence with the President.  I think he was entitled to decide himself what sanction he should impose but, as I've indicated, it was a snakes and ladders situation created for Dr Evans in the sanction adopted by the President, which was only going to go in one direction, namely downwards.  To my way of thinking, it was totally foreseeable on the part of the President that Dr Evans, who at the time was a probationary lecturer, would be the subject matter, as a result of an unfavourable recommendation, and of course, that is what duly occurred, resulting in the bringing of the present proceedings by Dr Evans.  So, for all of those reasons, it seems to me that the applicant is entitled to succeed in his claim to -- the limited degree to which I have found in his favour.  So the reliefs I propose to grant, if I can turn to the judicial review leave application that --

MR COLLINS:  I wonder, President, would you just hear me on the relief issue as to what relief should be granted?  It seems me that in the circumstances, it should be remitted to the President to reconsider --

JUDGE:  Oh that -- yes, well perhaps you'll let me conclude my judgment, first, Mr Collins.

MR COLLINS:  Oh, I'm sorry --

JUDGE:  Yes, so I am not going to make an order of certiorari quashing the investigators' finding, I refuse to grant that relief.  However, what I will do is grant an order of certiorari to quash the sanctions and requirements imposed upon the applicant by the President of the respondent, pursuant to paragraph 36 of the dignity policy.  I will not make any order under paragraph 4, I'm not going to quash the refusal of the President to reconsider or review or to permit an appeal against the finding, in other words, on the basis of the alleged extra witness who was present.  I will also grant an order under paragraph five, to quash the recommendation dated 29th April 2010 of Professor Kearns, the Dean of the respondent School of Medicine to the establishment committee against the applicant's establishment, on the basis that he had been the subject of the particular two year period of monitoring and appraisal, under the dignity policy.  I do not propose to make any order restraining the continuance of the disciplinary proceedings on the other ground, which relates to the confidentiality aspects of the case.  That seems to me to be quite a separate matter, an unfortunate by-product of this case.  So they're the reliefs which I propose to grant in the hearing of this application.

MR KENNEDY:  As it -- in relation to your indication that there would be a final written judgment, this is ex tempore, could --

JUDGE:  No, this is my judgment --

MR KENNEDY:  This is your judgment --

JUDGE:  This is recorded on digital audio recording, which --

MR KENNEDY:  I'm obliged.

JUDGE:  -- hopefully will be available in every court in the land very shortly.

MR KENNEDY:  I'm obliged.

JUDGE:  And the full transcript can be taken up as soon as may be required --

MR KENNEDY:  That's all right.

JUDGE:  -- later on this afternoon, if necessary.

MR KENNEDY:  Great, could we have time to consider that before I make any further submissions to you on any other matters that might arise?  In other words, just time to consider the implications in any other way that we could then address you on?  If necessary, it may not be.

MR COLLINS:  I'm not sure what other matters arise.

JUDGGE:  I'm quite sure, I mean --

MR COLLINS:  The judgment has been now given --

JUDGE:  Judgement has been delivered, Mr Kennedy -

MR KENNEDY:  Yes.

JUDGE:  And normally it would be followed by an application for costs --

MR KENNEDY:  Well --

JUDGE:  -- but if you don't want to make such an order --

MR KENNEDY:  No, no we -- oh no we certainly do want to make that application.

JUDGE:  Yes, well I'm not going to defer matters any further, I've given my decision.

MR KENNEDY:  I'm obliged.

JUDGE:  -- as far as I'm concerned, I'm functis officio, once I deal with the costs application.

MR KENNEDY:  Obliged.

JUDGE:  Do you want to say anything, Mr Collins?

MR COLLINS:  Well, wait and see is there any application for costs, other than that, I --

MR KENNEDY:  I thought that I did indicate that there is an application for costs.

MR COLLINS:  Well, I don't think there should be any order for costs.  In this instance, if you look at the variety of reliefs and the variety of grounds that were sought, the vast majority of them are directed to trying to quash the finding of sexual harassment.  The applicant failed in that respect and the finding has been upheld or no order of certiorari has been made.  The other --

JUDGE:  Yes, but you see, Mr Collins, I hope I made clear in my judgment and what I have said that sexual harassment means very different things in very different situations.  There are levels of sexual harassment --

MR COLLINS:  Yes.

JUDGE:  -- which would amount to bullying of a very high order.  It might be indicative of a prolonged course of behaviour or something of that sort.  This case is, at the minimal level of objectionability, in my view --

MR COLLINS:  Yes --

JUDGE:  -- I'd hoped I'd made that clear.

MR COLLINS:  You did indeed, President, I'm merely making the point that, insofar as the reliefs that are sought are concerned, the only relief that the applicant has succeeded on is that the President's imposition of a two-year monitoring period was disproportionate.  The recommendation by Professor Kearns being quashed is entirely consequential upon that.

JUDGE:  Yes, well I'm taking the view that the President -- it was foreseeable by the President that this further consequence --

MR COLLINS:  Yes.

JUDGE:  -- would ensue in the context that he was opposing this two year sanction.

MR COLLINS:  I understand that.

JUDGE:  So in other words, I'm looking at effect --

MR COLLINS:  Yes.

JUDGE:  -- in much the same way as the investigators did.

MR COLLINS:  Yes.

JUDGE:  The effect of all of this from Dr Evans' point of view is, number one, he was put under observation and counselling for two years and secondly he was turned down for permanency at the university.

MR COLLINS:  Well, I don't want to revisit the question of being turned down for permanency --

JUDGE:  Yes.

MR COLLINS:  -- he wasn't turned down for permanency or for tenure.

JUDGE:  Well he wasn't recommended --

MR COLLINS:  He wasn't recommended --

JUDGE:  -- and he was recommended for this reason.

MR COLLINS:  At the first of three stages.

JUDGE:  Well that's as may be --

MR COLLINS:  Yes.

JUDGE:  --- but he wasn't recommended for this reason --

MR COLLINS:  Yes.

JUDGE:  -- whereas Professor Kearns noted his work otherwise --

MR COLLINS:  Yes.

JUDGE:  -- was satisfactory.

MR COLLINS:  But the ultimate root, the only criticism at the end of the day, the legal criticism that you've upheld is that the President's sanction, if I can call it that, of two year monitoring was disproportionate.  Everything else was consequential with that; all the other reliefs that were sought failed, and that's why I say in those circumstances, it seems to me that the Court -- that there would be no order as to costs.

JUDGE:  Well in the interests of clarifying any ambiguity or uncertainty, I regard the two year period monitoring as disproportionate in itself.  When you add to that what followed subsequently, aggregating both the two year period --

MR COLLINS:  Yes.

JUDGE:  -- and the subsequent non-recommendation --

MR COLLINS:  Yes.

JUDGE:  -- I would regard it as grossly disproportionate.

MR COLLINS:  Yes.

JUDGE:  Is that clear enough?

MR COLLINS:  Oh, I was under no illusion about that, President, but my application remains still that there should be no order as to costs, because of the failure of the applicant to establish the other reliefs and grounds.

JUDGE:  Very good, I'm satisfied the applicant's entitled to costs.

MR KENNEDY:  I'm obliged.

JUDGE:  Very good.

 

Case concluded

 


 Certified to be a complete and correct transcript of the record of the proceedings herein:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Office Manager

WordWave International Ltd.


a

about 1:18 2:30 6:24 13:19

above 8:16

academic 4:2

accept 4:24 5:1

accompanied 2:14 3:19

accord 8:3

accordance 3:17 5:11

account 3:2

accusation 2:31

acknowledged 7:7

act 2:5

action 4:5,7,9

actual 2:8,20 3:15 8:26

add 13:11

address 11:3

adjudicator 7:12

administering 2:25

administrative 7:22 8:1 9:2,7

admits 3:33

admonishment 6:31

adopted 1:13 8:26 9:19,24

adverse 6:14,15

affair 4:34

affected 7:8 9:9

afternoon 10:33

again 4:17 8:19

against 2:31 5:9,10,19 10:12,16

aggregating 13:12

agreed 3:24

all 9:15,29 10:32 12:20 13:7

allegation 2:30 3:22 5:12

allegations 6:26

alleged 10:13

allowed 8:6

alone 4:9

already 4:20 7:18

also 3:30 5:2 10:14

amazement 2:16

ambiguity 13:10

amount 12:1

amused 4:4

amusement 2:18

analysis 8:10,14

and 1:6,11,15,17,20,22,25,29,31,33 2:1,4,5,6,7,11,16,18,19,21,22,25,27,33 3:11,17,19,21,24,28,32 4:1,2,3,4,5,7,16,18,21,22,29,30,31,33,34 5:3,4,7,8,17,18,21,22,23,25,27,28,33 6:2,4,5,9,10,13,15,24,34 7:1,4,6,9,10,15,16,17,20,33 8:3,7,13,15,19,22,24,25,33,

another 3:1 4:20

anxious 8:34

any 2:3,10,14,18,30 3:22 4:15,30 5:18 6:9 8:7,10 9:20 10:11,18 11:1,2,3,14,21,24 13:10

anything 2:15 7:25 11:20

apologise 5:5

apology 2:3

apparent 1:11

apparently 1:23

appeal 10:12

appear 1:24 2:2

appearance 9:21

appears 1:26 3:21

applicant's 2:14 10:16 13:22

applicant 1:5,10,18,20,31 2:31 3:7 4:22,23 5:9 6:20 8:27 9:3,10,12,30 10:10 11:27 12:7 13:21

application 7:23 9:18,32 10:22 11:10,13,18,21,23 13:19

applied 7:34 8:13 9:8

applying 2:25 7:26 8:3

appraisal 5:17,22,24 6:5 10:18

appraised 5:23 6:13

appreciation 8:6

approach 2:24

approached 7:9

appropriate 2:1 5:22,27

arbitrary 8:17,23

arbitrators 2:5

are 2:20 4:13 5:33 6:33 11:26,31 12:7

arise 11:2,5

arising 1:28

arrived 7:13

article 1:8 4:2

ask 5:25

aspect 4:23

aspects 10:20

assertive 3:33

assessment 4:18 9:17

assistance 2:33

attaching 4:30

attend 6:13

attention 5:6

audio 10:27

authors 1:14

available 1:3 10:29

award 1:23

aware 3:32

Accordingly 5:16

April 5:24 10:15

b

back 5:30 9:21

background 1:4

balance 3:30

based 1:14 4:20 7:16 8:2,23

basis 9:3 10:13,16

bats 1:8,14

because 4:32 6:15,19,28 13:20

been 1:10,11,22,26 2:2,19,33 3:2,11,12,18,32 4:33 7:9 8:11,13 10:17 11:7,8,27,28

before 1:19 2:7,8,34 11:1

behalf 8:27

behave 5:27

behaviour 2:14,15,29 3:34 5:17,22 6:9 12:2

behavioural 1:5

being 1:2 2:30 4:8 5:4 12:9,23

believe 4:32 5:22 8:4 9:20

beneficiary 6:18

between 3:28

book 3:15

both 2:6 3:18,23 4:34 13:12

breach 6:26

bring 3:9

bringing 9:29

brought 2:21

bullying 2:15,28 5:33 12:1

burden 9:12

but 1:25,31 3:34 4:12,16,20,28 5:15 6:11,23,27,33 8:12 9:23 11:12,29 12:33 13:4,19

Bord 8:18

c

call 13:5

called 1:5

came 2:4 6:16

can't 4:24

can 1:30 2:19,31 3:15 4:5,14,24 6:28 8:27 9:20,31 10:31 13:5

canvassed 2:33

career 6:25

carried 3:17

cases 6:4 7:27 8:14 9:10

cast 3:29

cause 3:31 4:10 5:13

caused 4:34 5:6

causing 3:32

certain 1:24

certainly 5:4 9:17 11:13

certiorari 10:7,9 11:28

challenging 9:8

change 7:8

characteristics 2:27

choosing 8:7

circumstances 4:26 5:14,32 6:3 7:10 8:1 10:2 13:8

civil 8:12

claim 9:30

claims 4:2

clarifying 13:10

clear 1:1 3:21,33 4:31 6:27 7:12 11:29 12:5 13:18

colleague 1:6

college 2:19

collegeís 1:33

coming 6:15

commenced 2:22

commencing 5:23

commensurate 9:11

comments 4:30

committee 10:16

common 7:17 8:3,13,19 9:5

compiled 1:15

complain 9:8

complainant 1:17,28 2:6,18,27,28 3:18,31,33 4:2,4,7,8

complained 5:1,2

complaint 1:17,28 2:17 3:25,30 4:9,19,33 5:2,9,19 6:1

complaints 2:1

complete 5:17 14:1

completely 2:18

compliance 5:27

complications 6:25

concerned 2:21 4:13 6:25 7:10 11:17 12:7

conclude 10:4

concluded 8:15 13:26

conclusions 4:32 7:13

conduct 2:11

conducted 5:24

conferred 8:5

confidentiality 6:26 10:20

confirmed 3:13

confirming 3:17

conflict 3:27

connected 8:16,22

connotations 1:25

consequence 6:15 12:12

consequences 1:31 6:14 7:4

consequential 12:10 13:6

consider 9:10 11:1,3

considerable 3:27

consideration 7:11

considerations 8:23

considered 6:17 7:11,16,27 8:2

considering 7:19

consisting 6:1

constitutional 7:20

contact 2:10

contained 2:9

contains 1:12

contemplated 5:11,15

context 8:4 12:14

continuance 10:19

continue 7:20

contrary 4:4

copulation 1:9

copy 4:5,30

correct 3:6 14:1

correspondence 9:22

costs 11:10,17,21,23,24 13:9,20,22

couched 1:13

could 1:19 3:2 6:30 7:12,27 10:24 11:1,3

counselling 5:17,21 6:4,13 12:21

countries 8:12,13

course 1:3 2:8 5:21 7:5 8:25 9:28 12:2

created 9:24

creating 2:12

critical 6:28

criticism 13:4,5

cross 3:7,8

Case 1:2,26 2:14,16 4:16,18 5:5,14 6:28 7:1,11,12,30,31 8:1 9:17,18 10:20,21 12:2 13:26

Certified 14:1

Chalmers 3:1,9 9:21

Chief 7:14,32

China 1:15

Chinese 1:14

Clohessy 2:5

Court 1:9 2:34 3:9 4:24,25 7:6,17,19,25,26,29 8:4 9:1,3,12,15 10:29 13:8

Courts 9:6,10

COLLINS 3:6 4:17 6:23 10:1,5,6 11:5,7,20,21,24,29,32 12:4,6,13,15,17,19,23,26,28,30,32,34 13:2,4,13,15,17,19

d

dated 10:14

day 1:21 2:34 4:1 13:4

days 1:28

deal 11:17

dealing 6:30

decide 5:10 9:23

decided 5:13 6:12

deciding 7:30

decision 7:6,10,13,15,22,23,24 8:2,5,6,10,18,20,21 9:4,7,8,9,13 11:15

defer 11:14

defined 2:10

definition 2:9 3:26

degrading 2:12

degree 8:5 9:31

delay 3:20

deliberately 6:27

delivered 7:6,7 11:8

delivering 9:15

denied 1:21

described 1:12,16,30 8:16

describes 4:33

detail 7:28

detailed 4:30

details 5:20

determining 7:18 8:1

dicta 7:25

did 1:22 2:32 3:31 4:18,19 5:33 6:23,33 8:13 11:23 12:6,18

didn't 2:31

different 4:14 6:31 11:30

digital 10:27

dignity 1:33 2:8,11 3:26 5:28 6:30 10:10,18

directed 11:26

direction 9:25

discharge 4:22

disciplinary 5:10,14,20 6:2,3,6,27,32 10:19

discretion 8:5,6 9:2

disgusted 4:3

displeasure 3:34

disposed 6:10

disproportionate 6:34 9:19 12:9 13:6,11,16

dispute 4:1

disputes 2:6

dissenting 7:5

distinguish 9:6

distress 4:34

doctrine 8:12

document 1:10,11,33,34 2:9,24 5:30

does 6:7 7:4

don't 6:23 11:12,24 12:23

done 6:9

doubts 3:29

down 12:22,23,26

downwards 9:25

drawn 5:5

dual 8:34

due 1:3 3:21 5:21 7:11

duly 3:16 9:28

during 2:34 5:26 6:12

duty 1:33 5:27

DAR 1:3

Dean 10:15

December 3:19

Denham 7:31 8:8

e

effect 2:11 6:13 8:24 12:16,20

effective 8:7

effects 7:1,21 8:21

eight 8:30,31

either 3:7 5:33

else 13:6

email 3:29

emphasised 5:7

emphatic 4:3

enactment 7:20

encourage 5:26

encroaches 9:9

encroachment 9:11,12

end 4:16 6:16 8:19 13:4

engage 5:16 6:4,9

enough 13:18

ensue 12:14

entire 2:16

entirely 12:10

entirety 6:11

entitled 1:8 4:18 9:22,30 13:22

environment 2:12

escalated 5:3

essentially 1:32

establish 13:21

established 6:17 7:19

establishing 4:21

establishment 10:16

evaluated 7:9

event 3:22

ever 2:13 3:31

every 5:25 10:29

evidence 3:27,29,30 9:3

examination 3:8

examine 3:7

examining 7:15,24

exceeded 7:20

exclude 7:26

excuse 1:18

exercise 9:2

experiment 1:15

express 7:29

expressly 8:11

extent 9:9,11

extra 10:13

extremely 3:22 6:20

EGAN 8:28,30,32

Europe 8:12

Evans's 3:28

Evans 3:19,21,24,31 4:1,3,5,10,29,31 5:8 6:8,12 9:22,24,26,29 12:20

Everything 13:6

Exeter 1:16

f

face 9:5

fact 1:22 2:15 3:28 4:1

facts 1:4 4:24

failed 4:22 11:27 13:7

failure 13:20

fall 6:24

far 2:1 11:17

faulted 2:20 9:20

favour 9:31

favoured 9:16

featured 1:7

feel 4:3

fell 3:26

few 1:31

figures 2:5

filed 8:27

final 10:23

finally 8:25

find 3:15,30 4:7,9,21 7:25

finding 4:19,25 5:12,32 9:19 10:8,13 11:26,27

findings 3:16

first 10:4 12:30

five 1:34 10:14

flies 9:4

flow 8:2

flows 7:15

followed 6:26 11:10 13:12

foot 6:16

for 1:31 2:12,30 4:5,8,31 5:9 6:14,16,17 7:28,34 8:34 9:20,24,29 11:10,21,23,24 12:21,22,23,26,29,33

foreseeable 9:26 12:11

form 2:10 6:16

formal 1:28,29 5:3

formed 3:12

forms 4:14

forwarded 4:28

found 5:1 9:31

frequently 2:5

from 1:11 3:21 4:14,31 5:7 6:7,30 7:15,21,26 8:2 9:6 12:20

fruit 1:8

fulfilling 8:7

full 1:3 5:3 10:31

functis 11:17

fundamental 8:3,34 9:5

further 5:18 6:14 11:2,14 12:12

future 5:19 6:9

Fajujuno 7:28

February 3:16,19 4:29

Fellatio 1:8

Fennelly 8:26,33

g

get 1:19

give 1:2

given 2:29 3:2 11:7,14

giving 5:34 6:7,31

glasses 1:19

going 6:14 9:25 10:7,11 11:14

good 13:22,24

grant 9:31 10:8,14,22

granted 10:2

graphical 1:12

greeted 2:17

grossly 13:16

ground 10:19

grounds 9:2,6 11:25 13:21

Great 3:11 11:1

Guangzhou 1:15

h

had 1:7,9,10,20,22,30 2:8,19,24 3:18,29 4:33 6:9,22 9:20 10:17

happened 1:32 6:11

harassment 2:9,28,30 3:26 4:14,33 5:19,33,34 11:27,30,31

hard 5:1

has 1:11 2:11,33 7:8,9,19 8:11,12 11:7,8,27,28 12:7

have 1:1,24,26,30 2:2,28,32 3:2,10,12,13,23,26,32 4:22 5:6,13,19,25,31 6:10,14,23,30 7:4,12,13,17 8:4 9:6,31 11:1,30

having 2:29 3:3,23 7:1 8:5

hear 10:1

heard 3:23

hearing 2:7,22,32,34 3:23 10:22

her 1:7,19,21,29 3:18,32,33,34 4:3,8 8:8,15,19

here 4:12

herein 14:2

hesitation 5:20

high 5:3 12:1

highly 4:14

him 1:21 2:31 4:34 6:13,14,25

himself 2:32 9:23

his 2:15,16 3:6,20,21,34 4:34 5:3,5 6:16,25 8:33 9:30,31 13:1

hope 11:29

hoped 12:5

hopefully 10:29

hostile 2:12

how 4:33 5:33 6:24 7:8

humiliating 2:12 4:6

humorous 1:24

hurt 4:3

Head 5:24,25

Heaney 8:14

Henchy 9:13

Horgan 2:5

However 2:32 7:13 10:8

i

idea 1:9

illness 3:21

illusion 13:19

imagery 1:13

immediately 3:15 5:5 7:14

immigrates 7:30

impaired 8:24

impeccable 2:21

implications 11:3

implies 9:16

imply 9:6

importance 3:11

important 3:12 5:31

impose 6:33 9:23

imposed 6:20 10:9

imposition 12:8

impression 5:34

inappropriate 4:2 6:3

incapable 2:3

incident 7:2

incorporates 1:25

indeed 1:17,26 3:9 7:27 12:6

indicate 11:23

indicated 4:21 6:29 8:33 9:23

indication 10:23

indicative 12:2

individual's 7:22

inevitably 6:14

informal 2:2 5:4

inherent 8:10,17

innuendo 4:7

inquiry 6:27

insofar 2:20 6:25 12:6

inspection 1:11

instance 11:25

instead 5:4,15 6:11,33

integrity 2:21

intend 3:31

intention 4:10 5:13

interactions 3:28

interests 9:9 13:10

interfere 4:25 9:1

interpreting 2:25

intimidating 2:12 4:6

intimidatory 2:15

into 5:3

investigated 2:4

investigation 3:17

investigative 2:20

investigators 2:8 3:2,3,8,12,16,25 4:17,25 5:1 9:19,21 10:8 12:18

inviting 4:30

invoke 5:10,14,15 6:2

invoked 6:6

invoking 5:20

involved 2:25 7:2

irrational 8:17,18,23

isn't 4:1

issue 1:7 9:21 10:1

issues 6:28 7:18

it's 1:13,16 2:9 3:21 4:31 5:4,30 8:30,32

itís 1:21

item 1:19

its 1:24 6:11 7:20

itself 2:8 13:11

I'd 12:5

I'm 6:22 7:32,33 9:17 10:6,11,28,30 11:5,6,14,16,17 12:6,11,16 13:22,23

I've 6:29 9:23 11:14

Iíll 1:31

International 14:12

Ireland 8:13,15

j

joke 4:7

journal 1:8

judges 9:15

judgment 1:2,3 7:7,14,21,31,33 8:8,9,15,20,25,33 10:4,24,25,26 11:7,29

judgments 7:14

judicial 7:5,8,9 8:11 9:32

jurisdiction 8:10 9:7

just 5:31 8:27 10:1 11:3

justified 9:11

juxtaposition 5:34

January 7:7

John 2:5

Judgement 11:8

Justice's 7:32

Justice 4:20 7:14,28,31 8:8,26,33

Justification 9:11

JUDGE 1:1 2:28 8:30,31,33 10:4,7,25,27,29,31,33 11:8,10,12,14,17,20,29 12:1,5,11,14,16,18,20,25,27,29,31,33 13:1,3,10,14,16,18,22,24

JUDGGE 11:6

k

kind 3:23 6:31

known 2:5

Kearns 10:15 12:9 13:1

Keegan 7:25

KENNEDY 1:6,10 3:25 10:23,26,28,30,32 11:1,8,9,11,13,16,19,23 13:23

l

laboratory 1:14

ladders 9:24

land 10:29

language 1:13 9:13

last 8:20,32

later 1:23,28 10:33

law 8:12,13

lay 3:7

leading 6:26

leave 9:32

lecturer 1:5 9:27

legal 2:32 13:5

legislation 7:20 8:22

legitimate 7:23 8:7

let 5:25 10:4

letter 5:7

level 5:3 12:3

levels 11:31

liaison 1:15

lies 4:22

limited 9:30

little 8:24

lodged 1:28

long 6:15

look 11:25

looking 12:16

lower 4:16

lurid 1:12

Ltd 14:12

m

made 1:22 2:30,31 3:25 4:3,19,25,28 6:23 7:29 8:28 9:20 11:28,29 12:5

majority 9:15 11:26

make 4:18,19 6:10,22 10:7,11,18 11:1,12,13

maker 7:13 8:5,6,20 9:7

makes 8:20

making 3:33 7:10 12:6

malicious 5:2 6:1

man 2:30

manner 2:3 3:3 5:6,27 7:10

margin 8:6

material 1:25 4:17

matter 1:2,4 2:2,4,16,19,33 3:4,13 5:2,5 6:11 9:20,27 10:21

matters 4:13 5:7 7:8 11:2,5,14

may 1:4,20,24 3:24,32 4:12 5:6 6:1,3,4,6 7:19,34 8:2,4,8,17 9:1 10:31 11:4 12:31

mean 11:6

means 5:4 7:24 8:7,22 11:30

measure 9:18

meeting 3:20

meets 7:24

member 7:5,6

merely 12:6

merits 7:11 9:17

met 2:6 3:18

middle 8:32

might 1:12,16 4:22 5:34 6:10,17 7:16 11:2 12:1

mildly 4:15

minimal 12:3

misunderstood 4:32

modern 4:12

moments 1:31

monitored 5:23 6:13

monitoring 5:17,22,24 6:5 10:17 12:8 13:6,11

months 5:26

more 5:4 7:28

morning 1:9 3:10

motives 1:20

moved 5:7

much 12:18

must 5:26 7:7,8 8:16,22,24

Manager 14:11

March 5:8

Meadows 7:6 9:15

Medicine 1:6 10:15

Minister 7:28,29

Mrs 1:6 3:25 7:31

n

namely 6:31 9:25

natural 4:20

nature 1:12 2:11 7:1 8:15

necessarily 9:16

necessary 10:33 11:4

need 7:29

needed 1:19

needlessly 5:2

new 8:9

non 2:10 9:21 13:14

nonetheless 1:25 4:16

nor 4:24

normally 5:34 11:10

not 1:21 2:34 3:31,32,33 4:10,33 5:2,10,13,14 6:5,7,9,18,22,30 7:17,25 8:17,18,22 9:1,6,11,20 10:7,11,18 11:4,5,14

note 1:17 5:33 6:6

noted 13:1

nothing 1:12

notice 3:8

now 1:11,28 2:24,29 3:6,15 4:28 5:7,9,30 6:22 7:4,31 11:7

number 1:21 12:20

Needless 5:26

Nobel 1:23

Notwithstanding 1:34

November 1:4 3:1

o

objectionability 12:3

objectionable 4:15

objective 7:23 8:17,22,25

objectives 8:7

obliged 10:28,30 11:16,19 13:23

observation 1:14 6:10 12:21

observe 2:13 7:29

obvious 4:12,13

obviously 3:11

occasion 1:10 3:20

occur 5:33

occurred 2:28 9:28

offence 2:18 3:31,32 4:10 5:6,13

offended 4:8

offensive 2:12 4:3,6

offered 1:18

officio 11:17

once 11:17

one 1:7 4:24 6:32 9:25 12:20

only 1:30 4:12 9:25 12:7 13:4

onus 3:6 4:21,22

open 3:9 5:31

opportunity 6:22,23

opposed 8:34

opposing 12:14

options 5:31

order 10:7,9,11,14,18 11:12,24,28 12:1 13:8,20

other 1:21 3:8,34 8:13 10:13,19 11:2,3,5,21,28 12:16 13:7,21

otherwise 13:1

out 1:28,32 3:17 6:8

outcome 6:3

outside 2:21

over 5:23

own 3:18

O'Keefe 7:26 8:18

October 1:7

Office 1:5 3:32,34 4:8 14:11

Oireachtas 7:19

p

paper 1:7,22,24,26

papers 3:21

paragraph 1:34 2:25 5:11,12,15,16,32 6:2,7 8:8,32 10:10,11,14

paragraphs 5:30

part 3:21 9:26

participated 3:24

particular 1:18,20,22,24,26 3:4,13,22,25 4:1,19,23,25,32 5:14,32 6:7,27 7:1,12 8:1 9:17 10:17

particularly 3:3

parties 3:18,23,28

partner 4:34

passant 2:13

passing 6:10

pattern 2:29

pause 2:13 4:12

peer 1:8

people 1:21 4:12

perhaps 7:32 10:4

period 5:17,23 6:5,12,19,33 10:17 12:8 13:11,12

permanency 6:17 12:22,24,26

permissible 6:32

permit 7:30 9:1 10:12

permits 9:8

person's 2:11

person 2:13,26 3:1 4:20,21 6:8 8:23 9:8

persons 2:21

photography 1:13

physical 2:10

piece 1:18,20,29 2:17

place 2:22

plainly 9:4

play 7:5

point 6:22 12:6,20

pointing 6:8

policy 2:8,9,24,26 3:17,26 5:11,12,15,16,28,30 6:30 8:7 10:11,18

portion 8:15

position 2:27 6:8

possible 2:1 8:24

powers 7:20

preclude 6:7

precluded 6:30

preferred 9:1

prejudice 7:21

premises 7:15 8:2

present 3:1,10,11 4:20 9:29 10:13

presented 4:8

preserve 9:7

principal 4:19

principle 7:18,21,23,26,29,34 8:4

print 1:17

printed 1:16

probability 3:31

probationary 9:27

procedural 2:20 9:6

procedure 5:15 6:2,6

procedures 1:30,32 5:10,20 6:3

proceed 5:11

proceeded 2:19

proceedings 6:32 7:5 9:29 10:19 14:1

process 2:20

processes 2:2 5:4

produce 3:7

produced 1:6,11,21 3:29 9:3

producing 1:20

product 10:21

production 2:17

prolonged 12:2

prolongs 1:9

proof 3:7 4:23 9:12

properly 7:15 8:2 9:8

proportional 7:22 8:25

proportionality 7:4,18,24,27,30,34 8:4,9,11,12,14,16 9:1,16,18

propose 1:2 5:25 9:31 10:18,21

proved 2:2

provides 2:24 5:32

province 1:15

purely 7:9

purpose 2:11 7:23,34

pursuant 10:10

put 6:33 12:21

Page 7:14,33 8:20,28,30,31

PleanŠla 8:18

PLoS 1:7

President's 12:8 13:5

President 4:29 5:8,9,31 6:1,7,12,29 9:19,22,24,26 10:1,3,10,12 12:6,11,12 13:19

Professor 1:16 10:15 12:9 13:1

q

quash 10:9,11,14 11:26

quashed 12:9

quashing 10:7

question 1:19,22,29 2:17,34 3:10 4:1,5 12:23

quite 10:20 11:6

quotation 8:26

quote 7:15,33

r

raised 1:17

ranging 4:14

rarely 4:13

rational 7:12

rationally 8:16,22

reached 1:1 7:12

read 1:19

reading 7:21

realised 6:24

really 6:23

reason 4:31 7:16,17 8:3,19 9:5 12:29,33

reasonable 2:26 4:8

reasonableness 7:25 8:10,21

reasonably 2:28 4:6

reasons 9:29

receipt 6:29

receive 1:23

recent 8:11

recommendation 4:28 6:4,18 9:28 10:14 12:9 13:14

recommended 12:27,28,29,33

reconsider 10:3,12

record 14:1

recorded 1:2 10:27

recording 10:27

recourse 7:17

refer 7:28 8:27

reference 1:22 2:24 5:21 6:28 7:29 8:14,28

referred 1:23 3:27,28 8:11,26

referring 9:20

refusal 10:12

refuse 10:8

regard 2:29 3:3,7 5:23,31 7:1 8:4,5 13:10,16

regarded 4:6 6:1

related 2:6

relates 10:19

relation 3:28,34 5:8,12 10:23

relatively 8:9

relevant 2:27 3:3 7:27

relief 10:1,2,8 12:7

reliefs 9:31 10:21 11:25 12:7 13:7,21

remains 9:12 13:20

remarkably 2:29

remitted 10:3

reply 4:31

report 1:14 4:28,30,32 5:25 6:29

reported 3:16

represent 2:32

representation 2:32

representative 2:33 3:20

requested 4:5

requesting 5:16

required 10:31

requirement 8:18

requirements 10:9

requires 7:21

reside 7:30

resolution 2:1,3

resolved 3:4 5:4 6:28

respect 1:33 5:28 11:27

respondent 2:7 10:10,15

response 4:31 5:7

restraining 10:18

result 2:29 3:22 9:27

resulting 9:28

return 1:31

review 7:5,8,9 9:32 10:12

reviewed 1:8

reviewing 8:21

reviews 8:11

revisit 12:23

right 1:1,33 4:17 5:28 10:32

rights 7:22 8:21,23,24,34 9:9

role 7:4

roof 6:24

room 3:1,10

rooms 1:5

root 9:18 13:4

roots 8:12

s

said 4:16,22 11:30

same 2:27 7:31 12:18

sanction 6:20,34 9:23,24 12:14 13:5

sanctions 6:32 10:9

satisfactory 6:6 13:3

satisfied 9:3,17 13:22

satisfy 9:12

save 9:2

say 2:19,26 3:23,27,30 4:1,12 5:26 11:20 13:7

saying 4:4 6:22 8:15 9:1

says 7:32,33 8:9,20

scale 4:16 9:18

science 1:5

scientific 1:7,8,13,25

scrutiny 8:34

second 6:16

secondly 12:21

see 7:17 11:21,29

seek 2:31

seemed 4:32

seems 3:6 6:9,28 9:16,30 10:2,20 13:8

seen 8:17

sense 7:17 8:3,19 9:4,5,13

sent 5:21

separate 10:20

separately 3:18

sequence 1:29

serious 1:25 2:31 3:29 6:20,24

serve 3:8

set 1:29,32,33 6:13

setting 6:26

several 1:28

severe 6:34

sexual 2:9,10,30 3:26 4:7,14,33 5:19 11:26,30,31

sexually 4:6

she 1:18,19 3:9,10,11,33 7:32 8:9,13,20

shock 2:16

short 5:25

shortly 7:28 10:29

should 1:1 4:24 5:6,18,23,32 6:5 7:4,17 8:6,24 9:23 10:2 11:24 13:20

showed 4:2,4

showing 1:29

shows 9:10

significant 1:30 4:34 7:8

signs 4:4

silly 6:8

similar 8:26

similarity 8:17

simple 2:2 4:14

simply 1:4 2:13 4:28 6:7

situation 6:24 9:24

situations 11:31

six 5:26

small 1:17

smaller 3:15

snakes 9:23

some 1:16 3:20,29 6:2 9:16

something 2:4 12:2

soon 10:31

sorry 10:6

sort 1:9 2:4,15 4:13 12:2

sought 8:29 11:26 12:7 13:7

southern 1:15

spiral 6:14

stage 1:23

stages 12:30

standard 2:26 4:15

stated 1:4 5:6,9

states 1:34

steering 6:27

steps 2:20 3:8 6:29

still 7:32 13:20

straightforward 2:3

stressed 3:22

strict 5:27

strike 4:12

strikes 4:15

strongly 5:26

subject 2:16 6:12 9:27 10:17

submission 3:6

submissions 6:22 8:27,28 11:2

subsequent 2:7 13:14

subsequently 2:4,6,22 13:12

substantive 9:2,5

succeed 9:30

succeeded 12:8

such 2:3 3:8 4:4 6:4,9,18 8:14 11:12

sufficiently 3:33

suggest 4:23

suggestion 2:13

supports 2:1

sure 11:5,6

surfaced 9:22

surprising 3:24

School 1:6 5:25 10:15

State 7:31

Supreme 7:6 9:15

t

take 3:8,9

taken 2:19 6:29 10:31

taking 12:11

tempore 1:2 10:24

tendered 1:10 4:23

tenure 12:26

term 8:9

test 7:25 8:14,16,34 9:1,8,16,18

than 11:21

that's 10:32 12:31 13:7

that 1:10,17,18,19,21,22,25,29,31,32,34 2:4,14,17,18,25,26,31 3:6,11,12,13,17,20,21,25,27,28,29,30,31,32,33 4:1,4,7,9,14,15,16,17,20,21,23,24,31,33 5:1,2,5,6,7,12,13,22,24,26,31,32 6:1,7,10,11,15,18,20,22,23,24,25,27,28,29 7:4,7,12,19,21,23,30,33,34 8:16,

the 1:2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,13,17,18,19,20,21,22,26,28,29,31,32,34 2:1,4,6,7,8,9,11,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,24,25,26,27,30,31,32,34 3:1,2,3,6,7,8,9,10,12,15,16,17,18,19,21,22,23,24,25,26,28,29,30,31,33,34 4:2,4,5,6,7,8,9,12,16,17,18,19,21,22,23,24,25,28,2

their 1:14 2:22 3:17 4:28

them 2:7,8 3:9 11:26

themselves 6:33

then 1:32 6:2,6,26 8:8,14,21,25 11:3

there's 8:28

there 1:6 2:7,13 3:1,20,27 4:14,17,20,30 5:7 6:25 10:23 11:21,23,24,31 13:8,20

therefore 4:9

they're 5:34 10:21

they 2:6,21,24 3:16,17,27,30 4:1,18,19,22,28

thing 6:8

things 11:30

think 4:16 5:6,30 6:23 7:7 8:26 9:22 11:24

thinking 6:19,34 9:26

this 1:1,4,9,14,20,26,29 2:2,13,32,34 3:4,7,21,25 4:1,9,13,15,16,17,23 5:2,3,14,18,22 6:10,19,22,27,29,30,33 7:9,28,32 8:4,9,15 9:7,17 10:21,22,24,25,26,27,33 11:24 12:2,12,14,20,29,33

those 2:25 5:30,33 7:18 9:9,10,29 13:7

though 3:24 4:9

thought 11:23

three 7:14 9:15 12:30

through 1:24 2:1

time 1:9,18 5:26 6:15 7:9 9:27 11:1,3

title 1:24

too 3:12

took 2:22 3:25

top 6:24

totally 9:26

touching 2:14

towards 8:19

trade 2:33 3:20

train 1:29,34 6:33

training 5:16,21 6:4

transcript 1:3 10:31 14:1

treatment 6:19

trespass 9:7

trying 11:26

turn 3:15 7:14,31 8:8 9:32

turned 12:21,23,26

two 2:4,21 5:23,30,33 6:12,19,33 10:17 12:8,14,21 13:6,11,12

type 5:18

Thank 8:31,33

u

ultimate 3:3 13:4

unacceptable 5:18

unambiguously 9:4

unaware 2:18

uncertainty 13:10

under 6:30 7:10 10:11,14,18 12:21 13:19

understand 1:16 12:15

unfair 8:17,23

unfavourable 9:28

unfortunate 10:21

unfortunately 6:11

union 2:33 3:20

university's 5:14,20,27 6:2

university 1:34 5:18 6:18 12:22

unless 7:11

unnecessarily 5:3

unreasonable 9:4,13

unreasonableness 8:34

unwanted 2:10,14

upheld 4:9,33 5:9,13,19 11:27 13:5

upon 10:9 12:10

use 2:26 6:3 9:5

used 5:33

utterly 5:18

UCC 1:6 4:29

Until 1:9

v

variance 7:16 8:19

variety 11:25

vast 11:26

verbal 2:10 6:8,31

verdict 5:1

version 4:23 7:13

view 1:1 2:20 3:12,25 5:3,12 6:29 7:24,33 8:26 9:15 12:3,11,20

views 3:23

violating 2:11

visiting 3:32

visits 3:34

voluntarily 3:24

Very 1:17,30 3:12 4:13,16 5:1 6:15,27,34 8:20 10:29 11:30 12:1 13:22,24

w

wait 11:21

want 3:15 5:30 11:12,13,20 12:23

warning 6:8,32

was 1:8,32 2:7,13,14,16,17,18 3:1,9,10,11,19,20,21,22,27,32,33 4:2,3,4,7,9,15,17,20,30 5:2,5,9,13 6:1,11,14,17,19,20,23,24,25,30,33,34 7:5,6,12,16 9:19,22,23,25,26,27 10:13 12:8,11,14,21,29 13:3,6,19

wasn't 3:11 6:15 12:26,27,28,33

way 1:12 2:19 3:13 6:19,31,34 9:20,25 11:3 12:18

went 3:27,30 6:18

were 1:33 3:9 4:18 5:31 6:25 11:25 13:7

what 1:1,9,12,16,30,32 4:12,21 5:34 6:8,11,33 7:4 9:23,28 10:2,8 11:5,29 13:11

whatís 1:23

whatever 1:20 4:31

wheels 1:32

where 4:13 7:11,27,32,33 8:28 9:2

whereas 13:1

whereby 1:24

whether 2:26,34 4:5 5:10 7:15,16,19,24,30 8:1 9:10

which 1:7,25,30 2:9,24,30,33 3:2,3,23,26 4:2,3,17,19 5:9 6:12,14,16,32,34 7:16,26,28 8:2,21 9:9,16,19,25,31 10:19,21,27 12:1

who 1:17 2:5 3:2 9:26 10:13

whole 4:34

why 7:17 13:7

will 1:3 2:26 5:19,21,24 7:28 9:10,11 10:8,11,14,29

willing 5:5

with 1:15,26 2:6,7,17,32 3:17 4:7,8,25 5:11,21,27 6:30 7:10,16 8:3,19 9:2,11,22 11:17 13:7

within 3:26 5:18

witness 10:13

wonder 10:1

word 9:5

words 5:33 10:13 11:2 12:16

work 2:6,22 13:1

working 2:7 6:25

world 4:13

would 2:2,28 3:2,10,12 6:12,13 7:26 9:27 10:1,23 11:10 12:1,14 13:8,16

written 10:24

wrote 4:29 5:8

Well 1:1 2:5 6:10 7:5,18 8:13 10:4 11:11,14,21,24 12:11,23,27,31 13:10

When 2:16 6:15 7:6,19,30 8:20 9:21 13:11

While 8:9

WordWave 14:12

x

y

year 5:23 6:12,16,19,33 10:17 12:8,14 13:6,11,12

years 8:11 12:21

you'll 10:4

you've 13:5

you 5:10,16,19,21,26 8:27,28,31,33 10:1 11:2,4,12,20,25,29 12:6 13:11

your 5:13,22,24 8:28 10:23,26

yourself 8:29

Yes 3:16 8:33 10:4,7 11:9,14,29,32 12:4,11,13,17,19,25,32,34 13:2,13,15,17

z

 

--- 12:33

10th 3:18

11th 3:16

19th 4:29

1st 5:24

2009 1:4,7 3:1,19

2010 3:16,19 5:8,24 7:8 10:15

21st 7:7

23rd 5:8

29th 10:15

2nd 1:4 2:34

8th 3:19