I qualified as an Environmental Health Officer in 1964, and worked for Birmingham, Rowley Regis, Warley and Dudley Local Authorities. In 1970 I joined Rank Hovis McDougall Limited as Regional Hygiene and Safety Officer. I obtained the RoSPA Licensiate in Safety Management in 1974, and eventually became Senior Specialist Hygiene and Safety Officer, operating as part of the senior management team.
I left to join Trusthouse Forte in 1980, with the specific brief of developing company health and safety systems and strengthening the in house inspection team. I acted as deputy to the Group Adviser, with eventually a field team of eight Environmental Health Officers, who I helped appoint and manage.
I left in 1985, and established my own consultancy. I have lectured widely during my career, and for some fifteen years contributed regularly to the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health Diploma Course organised by RoSPA. I also delivered major papers to the Institution of Environmental Health International Congress, and RoSPA's International Health and Safety Conference.
I am past chairman of the Institution of Environmental Health Commercial and Industrial Centre, and I was elected a Fellow of the Institution in 1988.
As a consultant I am retained by a number of major companies in the hotel and catering industry, as well as a number in the food industry. My clients include the Dorchester, the Ritz, Copthorne Hotels, Metropole Hotels, Travellers Fare, Northern Foods and Mars International. Specific projects include the launch of the International Safety Rating System for RoSPA, together with the initial audits, and the British Rail Civil Engineering safety initiative, for whom I have run over seventy management workshops on safety auditing techniques.
Throughout the period in question, the basis of legal standards was the Health and Safety at Work Act, 1974. This places a general duty of care on all employers, (Section 2), and in particular, states that there must be adequate provision for:
a) Safe plant and system of work.
b) Safety in the use, handling and storage of articles and substances.
c) Information, instruction, training and supervision.
d) A safe place of work.
e) A safe and healthy working environment, together with adequate welfare provision.
Section 3 extends this general duty to cover anyone who may be affected by the operations at work, for example, customers or contractors working on site. Advice on general interpretation of the above is by a series of Guidance Notes, and in some instances, Codes of Practice, which are Published by the HSE. In 1990, such guidance was provided by HS(G)55, "Health and Safety in kitchen and food preparation areas".
The Health and Safety at Work Act also acts as an enabling Act, and thus under its general scope, a number of specific Regulations are made. The main requirement which applies is the General Statement under Regulation 4(2). "As may be necessary to prevent danger, all systems shall be maintained so as to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, such danger".
It should be noted that this duty is conditioned by "reasonably practicable". It is not, therefore, an absolute duty.
The Health and Safety at Work Act also lays specific responsibilities on employees under Sections 7 and 8. This provides that each employee shall:
i) "take reasonable care for the safety of himself and others who may be affected by his acts or ommisions. ii) Co-operate with his employer. iii) Not interfere with anything provided in the interests of health safety and welfare.
Sections 36 and 37 then allow action to be taken against individual managers, as well as the corporate body, if an offence has been committed with their connivance or consent, or is attributable to their negligence.
As can be seen from the general duties, each employer needs to review his operation and put appropriate control measure in place. The commitment of a company to this process should be stated in the Health and Safety Policy, together with the organisation and arrangements for its implementation.
Although new legislation, recently enacted in response to EEC directives, adds some weight to this process, fundamentally the law has remained the same throughout the period in question.
Enforcement of the law is via the Health and Safety Commission to whom the Health and Safety Executive are responsible. This body, comprising several specialised inspectorates, covers broadly industrial premises. The enforcement in non-industrial establishments, (such as McDonald's), is allocated to Local Authorities, who, for the main part, use their Environmental health team as authorised officers under the Act.
Attached is a document drawn up by McDonald's Safety Officer, (Jill Barnes), in which the development of McDonald's safety management structure is detailed. From this it can be seen that the basic procedures were put in place with the inception of the Health and Safety at Work Act. These were steadily built upon until the decision was taken to appoint a Safety Officer within the company.
It may be thought that this appointment is comparatively late in the day. It has to be seen in the following context however:
i) The growth of the company in terms of new restaurants and expanded workforce. ii) The McDonald's philosophy wherein the line management chain clearly takes responsibility for all aspects of control, and thus health and safety was assimilated into this role.
My own involvement dates from the same period. As well as providing advice on specific systems, the thinking is that with my wider experience of industry at large, I can help the Company Safety Officer ensure that McDonald's reflects the current best practice in safety.
In 1991, the Health and Safety Accident Prevention unit conducted a safety management audit on McDonald's. This reflects the move within the HSE, away from specific defect inspection towards management systems auditing as reflected in the "Management of Health and Safety at Work", (published 1991).
As part of this process, leading companies within their sector of industry are examined in depth and their organisation and structure reviewed. McDonald's took a positive view of this process and have used it as an opportunity to make further progress.
This progressive attitude reflects a growing commitment and awareness to health and safety issues. Although it may be held that more could have been done sooner, this progress is entirely consistent with that of a responsible company. The publication of the Hidden, Fennell and Taylor reports, (info respectively Clapham, Kings Cross and Hillsborough), dramatically illustrated that many top companies may have flaws in the implementation of their systems.
It is my firm belief that McDonald's have moved faster and farther in health and safety terms than the vast majority of industry in general, and very much further than the service industry in particular.
MCDONALD'S SAFETY ORGANISATION AND PROCEDURES
The following are some of the key points of the McDonald's safety organisation. As has been stated in the historical perspective, not all will have been in place throughout the period referred to in the statements of evidence.
1.1. All new crew members undergo a basic Fire and Health and Safety orientation on the first day, conducted by the Restaurant Manager.
1.2. The crew training programme then takes them through the proper use of equipment, and task procedures. Safety is incorporated in this process, and indeed, the right operation is in itself, a safety guarantee.
1.3. The majority of stores now have "safety circles", where ideas on safety can be exchanged, fulfilling the need for joint consultation.
1.4. Crew members are also encouraged to raise safety issues at "rap sessions".
2.1. McDonald's have a construction and design team who constantly monitor standards. Discussions are held at regular intervals with the company safety officer to review new build standards.
2.2. Floor problems have been discussed on a number of occasions. Premium quality, non slip tiles are used in the kitchen areas, but it should be noted that any tile when contaminated with grease and/or water, will become slippery.
2.3. Good standard air handling equipment is installed as standard, and this is regularly maintained.
2.4. Layout is planned so as to minimise traffic movement.
3.1. All electrical equipment is leak tested on an annual basis.
3.2. An equipment log is maintained detailing any maintenance etc.
3.3. In store inspection routines, backed by supervisor visits, are aimed at identifying any defects.
4.1. A main board member has lead responsibility for health and safety.
4.2. The company Safety Officer is trained to NEBOSH Diploma standard, and now has three Regional Safety Advisers, (all with mainstream management experience).
4.3. A health and safety steering group meet regularly.
4.4. McDonald's safety performance is being audited against an external standard, (the RoSPA Quality Safety Audit).
4.5. The Company Health and Safety Policy is under review and a new procedures manual is in preparation.
4.6. Health and safety training for managers has been revised during 1993, and a specialist one day course for all managers introduced. An advanced six day course has been established for key management and personnel. Both courses are run under the auspices of the Institution of Environmental Health.
5.1. All substances were assessed as required by the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations, 1988, and these are held in each store.
5.2. A risk assessment of all standard tasks was completed within three months of the Regulations being published.
5.3. Store audits are designed to include health and safety matters.
5.4. All accidents involving lost time are formally investigated . and reported. Three day injury accidents are religiously reported to the authorities. Thus, what may seem a high accident rate for the service industry, has to be seen against gross under reporting across the sector. (The HSE estimate that only one in six accidents are properly reported).
5.5. A central statistical analysis is compiled and discussed fully.
The above procedures, when taken in combination, reflect a very real commitment at McDonald's to principles of Health and Safety, a commitment that in my professional opinion, places them as one of the leaders in the industry.
I would particularly point to the standards of training and procedures laid down, as being models of their kind.
That being said, it would be surprising indeed if across 450 stores and 30,000 staff there were not problems from time to time. These are, however, closely monitored and appropriate and effective action is taken, including if necessary, the allocation of considerable capital sums.
As with industry generally, this has not happened overnight, and thus some systems are of recent origin. It is fair to say however, that even where this is so, what we are seeing is formalisation of previously informal practice, rather than a cultural change.
The law does not require the employer to be a paragon of virtue, rather to do everything "reasonably practicable" to secure the health and safety at work of their employees. I believe that McDonald's fully reflect that commitment, a belief that is endorsed by the lack of formal action by EHO's over the years, in a sector of the industry which is always vigorously scrutinised by the enforcement authorities.
COMMENT ON INDIVIDUAL STATEMENTS
1. JOANNE BISHOP
"There was no burn cream on hand when I got scalded, I was told to run my hand under the tap". This is the standard procedure taught on first aid courses, the running water taking the heat energy from the scald. Putting cream onto a burn is counter productive.
The fat filtering operation is a standard one, with purpose made equipment provided. Certainly if there was a leak this should have been repaired. Comment is made on rap sessions. The fact that McDonald's are prepared to pay people to participate in these and to raise complaints, is wholly in their favour. The further statement relating to "Lisa", seems to be subject to more than a little licence. Undoubtedly, some exaggeration is included, (it is difficult to envisage anyone's hand sticking to the grill since the immediate reaction would preclude this). Floors can get slippery during operation however, and McDonald's do specifically cover this in their cleaning schedules.
3. D.S. TOWNSEND
"Doing two to three jobs at the same time which made working conditions unsafe and very exhausting". It is difficult to answer such generalised comment. Long hours and fatigue can be a factor in safety, but this must be related to the risk element, and is more normally associated with work where a failure of perception would be critical, e.g. an HGV driver. I doubt that it is physically possible to do two to three jobs at the same time, and to comment further, this would need to be specified.
Reference is made to slippery floors, (previously discussed), and loose electric plug sockets. As stated, there are provisions for such repair and these items would be picked up on the unit audit sheets.
McDonald's Restaurants are not "air conditioned", as such, however good quality extract and supply air is provided to each restaurant that I have visited. In common with the rest of the industry, there can be a problem with radiant heat from grills etc., but a temperature of 120°F would certainly be an exaggeration. The highest temperature that I have ever taken in a kitchen was an air temperature of 39°C, (100°F).
A statement is made, "nothing was done to fix it because of expense". At no time during my involvement with McDonald's has capital been denied for a health and safety project. I would be interested to know the basis of this allegation.
4. CRAIG DONACHIE
Full protective clothing is indeed a requirement for fat filtering. There is no limit on replacement, and management are specifically tasked with maintaining this standard. Similarly, minor repairs, such as to electrical points, would normally be raised as soon as the defects were noted.
I do not know the definition of "big boss". A supervisor, however, will typically have four or five restaurants and will visit each regularly. The monthly audit should certainly identify problems.
5. ADRIEN BRETT
Comment is made about a girl slipping on a wet floor and burning her arm on a grill. Why the statement goes on to say that she was sent to hospital, "with some reluctancy" (sic), I do not know. It would appear that proper care and procedures were followed.
It is further stated that for six Saturdays on the trot, the toaster was giving people shocks. I do not believe that a defect of this type would be ignored, running contrary to all the laid down training and management systems. Why the "Mac toaster bun sheet" should fall on staff, I cannot conceive.
6. OMID SHAFIBEIK
"I witnessed people suffering serious burns and being dissuaded from taking any action". It is not possible to comment on the incidents without more detail. Nevertheless, why "dissuaded from taking action". McDonald's are far better than the industry average in terms of reporting accidents. If an injured person did decide to seek compensation, how would Mr Shafibeik know ? Again we are faced with speculation rather than fact.
Details are given of the incident referred to in the previous statement, and also that of Adrien Brett, (all three witnesses worked at Colchester). Comment has already been made on the detail. Here it is stated that "Hush Money" was paid to buy the silence of the injured girl. This seems unlikely, but in any case, it is normal practice for an insurer to settle a case out of court. If the injured had felt able to prove negligence on the part of the company, why was action not taken.
8. KAREN ANSTEE
Karen Anstee refers to "vats of boiling oil", and grills at extremely high temperatures. Firstly, deep fat fryers are used throughout the industry, and secondly, grills do tend to be hot, otherwise they do not cook. As anyone who has ever cooked will tell you, minor burns are endemic in the industry; I have never however, seen or heard reference to protective clothing to prevent this.
A situation is later described when a pipe bursts and at first, production continues. It would until the situation is assessed. It is then stated that after twenty minutes the branch was closed. This to me is entirely responsible. When any unforeseen circumstance occurs, there is a finite time before a decision is made. This does not seem out of the way.
I also have to say, that in my professional dealings with McDonald's, the crew members and management have seemed anything but dehumanised and deadened.
9. PETER SUTCLIFFE
Peter Sutcliffe describes how the pressure was on to unload as fast as possible. Indeed, the sooner goods are stored the better, (both in terms of temperature control and safety), but I suspect that the decision to take a number of boxes would be an individual one, and would depend on the weight of the individual box.
The laceration described was doubtless painful, but it seems it was treated appropriately, and recorded in the proper fashion.
12. SIAMAK ALIMI
Interestingly, Mr Alimi seems to complain of statements made by Mr Gibney, who has himself made a statement complaining of McDonald's policies, and again, this refers to the Colchester store.
Mr Alimi describes crew members working twenty-six hours in a row. This is obviously insupportable, but one would need to see evidence to take at face value such an obvious abuse of rostering. There is no statutory provision for breaks as far as I am aware - rather this tends to be a matter of contract. Certainly, throughout the catering industry breaks are taken in slack periods. (Waiters traditionally eat at noon, chefs at 2.30pm).
I am surprised at the statement that the temperature in the grill area was 6°C. As previously stated, the problems are usually the reverse, and kitchens are seldom fitted with heaters. If this position, normally the warmest in the store, is at 6°C, the public area must have been even colder. There is a legal minimum of 16°C as is correctly stated, I would need convincing that the heat gain from the grills and fryers would not be such as to rapidly nullify any excessively cold conditions.
13. NICHOLAS MAGILL
"The store did not follow the training procedures it was supposed to". I find it hard to believe that the training room was never used. Perhaps current records could be produced.
The heating in the crew room should be a matter of fact that can be checked. Certainly, an equitable temperature should be maintained, although I find it difficult to accept that the heating has been deliberately isolated in this area.
With drinking, it is a legal obligation that there should be a supply of drinking water. Employers are not obliged to supply anything else, and I would be interested to know whether Mr Magill is interpreting drink breaks as unlimited access to soft drinks. He is quite correct when he states that many caterers do supply drinks for chefs etc.
Mr Magill states that neither cold protection or gloves were available for staff. There is no laid down policy for this, however the time spent in a refrigerator stowing stores is minimal.
Dermatitis from chemicals is well documented in the industry, however I was not aware of any particular problem. The chemicals are centrally provided, and are mainly mild degreasants. COSHH assessments are available for this.
Mr Magill questions enforcement policies. Certainly in Westminster the authority has many outlets to inspect. They have established a very positive reputation for enforcement policies however, and in addition, McDonald's work centrally with Barnet who review their policies.
In paragraph 18, Mr Magill states that, "the Training Manual was extensive pumping vast amounts of information down to the heirarchy". "Everyone is supposed to know their procedures". I would suggest that this is somewhat at odds with his initial concern about lack of training.
15. MELANIE O'RIORDAN
If a legal action is to be taken in this case, presumably further information should be available.
The accident itself was another slip case. The fact that the tiles were subsequently changed will probably have little to do with this incident. McDonald's, in common with other major catering companies, are constantly seeking the ideal solution to the flooring problem, and various solutions have been tried.
In addition, as part of routine maintenance, worn and broken tiles have to be replaced.
The major complaint of Miss O'Riordan seems to be her treatment subsequent to the action, and this seems to be outside my brief. The accident details, and more particularly the alleged condition does seem to be confused however. If there had been a case to answer, undoubtedly proceedings would have been taken. 258
16. ANN TOBIN
The main point relating to safety appears to be the alleged lack of training. Obviously, this depends on the job that a new starter is being asked to undertake. I would have thought it a relatively simple process to grill burgers. Training and assigning a "buddy" to a new starter does not imply that the "buddy" will constantly stand at their shoulder, nor is it necessary.
There is no comment about the standard induction package, and I am not sure to what extent Ann Tobin is aware of the full range of procedures.
17. ROBERT CHAPMAN
Mr Chapman's statement refers to the tragic death of Mark Hopkins. Several points are relevant:
i) The comment that an insulated handle was missing, appears to be a new one, however, it is of little relevance. Grip handles are not specifically intended to insulate against shocks, since obviously the casing would be live, and shocks would be received directly by brushing against the casing.
ii) I have the greatest sympathy for Mr Chapman, and am concerned that he feels he has been made the scapegoat. The conclusion of the investigation seems to be that it was his rewiring that caused the problem, and having previously held the position of staff trainer, he should be aware of the need to conform with the stated systems. It should perhaps be added, however, that he would presumably have attempted the repair for all the right reasons.
iii) Shift managers are trained in first aid, however as has been stated, there was no shift manager in attendance. There is no requirement for a first aider to be present at all times, although there should be responsible person who will take charge of the incident. In this case, the responsible person sadly, would have been Mark Hopkins. It should be noted that there were only five people on site at the time of the accident.
iv) The accident was fully investigated by Manchester Environmental Health Department, and there is little doubt that if they had attached any blame to the company, action would have been taken. The fact that they have chosen not to do so suggests, very strongly, that they felt that McDonald's were doing all that is reasonably practicable to prevent this type of incident.
v) Mr Chapman makes subsequent comments about turnover of staff, pressure of work, floor tiling slipping, and health and safety procedures being abandoned by managers at rush hours and close periods.
18. C. HARRISON
Mr Harrison refers briefly to an accident occurring when hot shortening was being transferred. There is a system in operation for this, however ten years on, it is difficult to comment on the specifics of the case.
19. VENISE LEBRASSE
An incident is described when she fell off a ladder in the stock room, but, "had to carry on working". Patently, if she had been injured, she would not have been able to continue work. A ladder was at least properly provided in the stock room.
Burns were stated to be commonplace, and although a first aid box was provided, it was seldom used. Again, it should be stated that standard treatment for burns is to immerse them in cold water. She also states that she does not remember any recordings of accident. On the whole, McDonald's are good at such recording, obviously however, standards will vary.
20. KEVIN HARRISON
Mr Harrison states, "no shoes with non slip soles were issued". This is the norm throughout the hotel and catering industry. As a generality, safety footwear would normally be issued only when there is a risk of physical impact damage to the foot, e.g. in the engineering industry. In any case, it is difficult to recommend specific non slip soles. All shoes become slippery in contact with grease and water.
The wearing of suitable shoes is a contentious issue and the situation described, i.e. recommendations made but not enforced, is not unusual. Mr Harrison does not, however, give any details of why he states such supervision to be necessary.
With regard to the training and supervision of the emptying-of the shortening. Once competence has been established, it is not necessary for continuous supervision. Mr Harrison confirms that personal protective equipment was available, although "not always worn in its entirety". He does not substantiate this, however the wearing of such equipment is notoriously difficult to police.
21. KEITH JOHN BAKER
Mr Baker describes an accident with a girl slipping and coming into contact with the grill. He states that a fuss was made about putting the facts in the accident book. This should, of course, be freely available, and this is a legal obligation. It will often be kept in a manager's office, however, to allow proper investigation of incidents that have been entered.
Mr Baker's actions in placing the girls arm in a sink of iced water were entirely correct. He states that there was resistance to calling an ambulance. One would need to know the severity of the injury to judge whether this was a legitimate point. Obviously, an ambulance should only be called for a genuine emergency.
The case was settled out of court. It is a fact that compensation cases involving injury are notoriously difficult to defend. Some 95% are thus "settled out of court", a procedure entirely within the control of the insurers.
22. DAVID McGEE
Mr McGee first comments on a "black girl with burns on the inside of her arm". No information is given of this incident. He states that no sick pay or time off was given. Sick pay is given, (at that stage), following production of a doctor's note, and is a statutory entitlement paid, (at that stage), by the DHSS. It is not up to McDonald's to decide on whether such payment is made.
Mr McGee also comments about lack of burn spray and states, "they just told-me to put the burn under running water". That is entirely correct advice. He states that he did not see a doctor : presumably therefore, this was a minor, (if painful), incident.
There is, as has been stated, no provision for coats for freezer work, however the time scale under normal circumstances, for working in a freezer would be minimal. The comment about a "filthy" coat, normally worn on litter patrol, should also be taken in context. I see no reason for such a coat to be in an allegedly filthy condition, but in any case, only boxed commodities are kept in the freezer.
Comments have previously been made on the flooring, and will be expanded in the general comments. I would question the deliberate skidding. The "hustle" component of working has been specifically looked at by EHO's and McDonald's, and standing instructions are not to run.
As a postscript, Mr McGee states that he received no training for emergency procedures. This is clearly covered in the Orientation pack, and as such is part of basic procedures. Training in fire procedures is a legal obligation under the Fire Precautions Act 1971.
In his further statement, Mr McGee confirms the short time working in the refrigerator, and also states that, "I never asked for any other clothing", somewhat at variance with the strength of his previous comments on the matter.
24. VEONA BYFIELD
Comments relate to oil on the floor and having to work fast with hot equipment. Previous comments apply. Presumably having slipped over, Ms Byfield considered her shoes unsuitable for work and replaced them. This would be normal in the industry : the provision of footwear is an individual responsibility.
"I cut my arm on the sharp edges of a tray, and all they gave me was a plaster". Presumably the wound did not require hospital treatment, thus it is difficult to see what more could be done. Similarly with oil splashing on to the face, a cold compress is an appropriate treatment for what was presumably a minor injury.
30. EXPERT WITNESS STATEMENT : T McDONALD
I would agree with the generality of his brief comments, however the final point, "include the sufficiency of health risk assessments" has only been a requirement since 1 January 1993, and McDonald's were one of the first national companies to complete a risk assessment.
32. EXPERT WITNESS STATEMENT : RICHARD NORTH
Mr North's comments in paragraph lb, state that "the number of irregularities so presented, and the prosecution records, do not suggest that McDonald's is a company that can entirely claim to take its health and safety duties as seriously as would be expected of a U.K. based company".
The following thoughts occur:
1. Mr North knows nothing of McDonald's or their systems. How | can he draw such a conclusion?
2. The number of incidents have to be seen in the light of some 450 outlets and 30,000 employees. I would be interested to know what comparisons are being made for this statement.
Whilst I do feel that we have generally good standards in the U.K., why the reference, "as would be expected of a U.K. based company". If this is a veiled reference to U.S.A. standards, the best companies in the U.S.A. are certainly some of the world leaders in safety, and much of the management of health and safety philosophy had its origins on work done in the U.S.A.
GENERAL POINTS ON WITNESS STATEMENTS
1. The accident rate at McDonald's is stated throughout to be excessive. Last year, (having established good reporting criteria), there were 400 reportable accidents. Taken in context of the 31,000 employees, this gives a rate of 12.9 per 1000.
This is high for the service industry, mainly due to under reporting from others and McDonald's core business. A better comparison could be with the Food Manufacturing industry, where the annual rate of occurrence is 31 per 1000 employees. It should not therefore be thought that McDonald's employees are at unique risk if 2-1/2 times safer than working in a food factory where processess will be much the same.
2. Slips and trips account for nearly 50Z of all accidents at McDonald's. The following factors apply:
i) Floor construction is a balance between hygiene requirements and slip resistance. McDonald's have gone to considerable lengths to research the best quality finish and this continues.
ii) Cleaning routines are essential. Several statements have been made to the effect that people slipped on a wet floor. "Clean as you go" routines do provide minor problems, but the basic principle of continuously clearing up has got to be the most appropriate. In this respect, McDonald's systems are excellent.
iii) Footwear is also a problem in the industry. As is usual this is down to the individual, with the overriding concern that the shoes should be sensible. It is difficult to be specific as to the best type of shoe, since this will vary with conditions. Often a sole providing good slip resistance in clean dry conditions will be just the opposite in grease and water.
iv) Much play is made of the pressure of work, and the need to run. It is specifically stated that the "hustle", i.e. the need to serve a customer quickly should preclude the need to run, and indeed, the layout of the store is such that this will not be necessary.
The service period has been examined and even videoed by one Environmental Health Department without adverse criticism.
3. The employment of staff for over long periods is stated as a contributory factor in the safety problems. Little evidence is advanced for this. The type of work is for the most part, not safety critical, and even the driver of a heavy goods vehicle, (where perception and attentiveness are obviously paramount), is allowed to drive for ten hours out of fourteen.
Most of the problems associated with the Employment of Young Persons are in response to alleged long hours and late working. This was amended by the Employment Act of 1989, which repealed much of the old anachronistic legislation.
Jan 12, 1994|
Appeared in court|
exhibits: Not applicable/ available
transcripts of court appearances: