- Email: [email protected]
The Police Doctor
276
Medicine and the Law Industrial Diseases and the Limitation Act
plaintiffs were steel workers who contracted pneumoconiosis-though they were unaware of it and had no reason to suspect it-through working for many years in a silica-dust-laden atmosphere in a factory, their employers having failed in their duty under the Factories Act, 1937, to provide proper ventilation. THE
-..
In 1950 the employers took steps to improve conditions in the factory, so that from September, 1950, there was no breach of duty by them contributing materially to the plaintiffs’ disease. Though by 1950 the disease had so far developed that it was visible on X-ray examination to a sufficiently skilled eye, the plaintiffs did not discover that they had contracted ituntil dates between 1950 and 1955. On Oct. 1, 1956, they issued writs claiming damages against their employers.. The employers denied liability, and relied on section 2(1) of the Limitation Act, 1939, which precludes a plaintiff from bringing an action in tort for damages for personal injury more than six " years (now three years) from the date on which the cause of action accrued ".
The trial
Judge found that the plaintiffs had suffered damage by reason of the employers’ breach of duty before September, 1950, so that their causes of action had accrued more than six years before the writs were issued, and held that their claims must therefore be dismissed as statute-barred. The Court of Appeal regretfully affirmed that decision. The plaintiffs appealed to the House of Lords. Lord REID, Lord EvERSHED, Lord MORRIS, and Lord HODSON, agreeing with Lord Pearce’s speech, said that the mischief revealed by the present case could only be
remedied by legislation. Lord PEARCE said that the sole question was the effect of the Limitation Act in cases where an insidious industrial disease had done secret damage whose existence might not be discovered, or even discoverable, until the first onset of the disease.
some
years after
The first argument for the plaintiffs was that the injury to them must be taken to have first occurred when the man became aware of his disease. But it was impossible to hold that a man who had no knowledge of the secret onset of pneumoconiosis and suffered no present inconvenience from it could not have suffered any actionable harm; and it would be wrong to deny a right of action to a plaintiff who could prove by X-ray photographs that his lungs were damaged but could not prove any symptom or present physical inconvenience. It would be impossible to hold that while the X-ray photographs were being taken, he could not yet have suffered any damage to his body, but that immediately the result of them was told to him, he had from that moment suffered damage. It was for a judge or jury to decide whether a man had suffered any actionable harm. There was no legal principle that lack of knowledge in the plaintiff must reduce the damage to nothing or make it minimal. Moreover, there was the difficulty here that, since the pneumoconiosis did not increase of itself, the harm which the Judge had found must have existed before October, 1950, when the cause of it ceased. On the second contention for the plaintiffs that even if a cause of action accrued when the unknown injury was done to the lungs, a fresh cause of action accrued when the damage was discovered, the difficulty was that the law was clear and settled that in cases of personal injury only one action might be brought. The cause of action accrued when it reached a stage, whether then known or unknown, at which a judgecould properly give damages for the harm that had been done. In the present cases, that stage, on the Judge’s findings, had been reached before October, 1950.
The third contention for the plaintiffs, that in the case of injury by such an insidious disease as pneumoconiosis the Courts should import into the Limitation Act a gloss that the cause of action did not accrue nor time begin to run until the plaintiff knew or ought to know that he had suffered injury, must also be rejected, for the English Limitation Act, unlike the United States Federal Employers’ Liability Act, was of general application to all classes of action, and it was impossible to argue that it had any particular concern with regard to employees recovering compensation. The Limitation Act was intended to encourage and secure reasonable diligence in litigation and protect defendants from stale claims. Was it now open to their Lordships to adopt a construction of that Act which would adapt its incidence more fairly in cases where modern conditions in industrial pneumoconiosis and X-ray photograph made its application unjust ? The authorities did not support such a construction. A committee appointed in 1961 had recently reported on the limitation of actions in personal injury cases, had considered the hardships of the present cases, and had recommended an amendment to the Act which would avoid them. It was to be hoped therefore that in future their Lordships would not have to deny relief to plain. tiffs who, having good causes of action, had lost them through no fault of their own. But the appeal must, regretfully, be dismissed.
,
CARTLEDGE & OTHERS V. E. JOPLING & SONS LTD.—House of Lords : (Lord Reid, Lord Evershed, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Hodson, and Lord Pearce); Jan. 17, 1963. Counsel and solicitors: G. S. Waller, Q.c., and J. F. S. CoBB, Q.c. (Rowley, Ashworth & Co.); Patrick 0’Conhor,o.c.,md P. Taylor (T. D. Jones & Co., for Linsley & Mortimer, upon
Newcastle
Tyne).
M. M. HILL Barrister-at-Law
The Police Doctor The defendant was charged with driving a car, and being in charge of a car, while under the influence of drink. While at the police-station, he was asked if he was ’ willing to be examined by a doctor and it was made clear that the purpose of the examination was to see whether, the defendant was suffering from any illness or disability, and that it was not part of the doctor’s duty to examine the defendant with a view to giving an opinion as to his fitness to drive. That statement was made in pursuance of a policy, which had since been discontinued,l that a doctor would not examine a person to ascertain whether he was unfit to drive, but would merely examine him to see whether he was suffering from illness or disability and to see whether he was fit to leave the police-station, At the trial the doctor was called as a witness for the prosecution and gave evidence as to the extent to which the defendant was under the influence of drink. The defendant was convicted, fined, and disqualified from driving for three years. He appealed. Lord PARKER, the Lord Chief Justice, giving the judgment of the Court, said that on the same day as the defendant was being tried at London sessions, the Court of Criminal Appeal was hearing the appeal in Regina Court2 which was almost identical with the present case, In that case the Court pointed out that evidence from a doctor in such circumstances was inadmissible and that the chairman ought to have refused to allow the evidence to be given, on the basis that if the defendant had realise that the doctor was going to give evidence on whether he was fit to drive, he might have refused to subject himself to examination. The present case was on all fours with 1. See Lancet, 1962, i, 532, 647, 700. 2. [1962] Crim. L.R. 697.
277
Regina v. Court and in the circumstances the Court was constrained to quash the convictions. Appeal allowed. Regina v. Payne-Court of Criminal Appeal: Lord Parker, C.y., Ashworth and Lyell, Ty. Jan. 16, 1963. Counsel and Solicitors: Lord Stormont (Kennedys); William Howard (Solicitor, Metropolitan Police). C.
J. ELLIS
Barrister-at-Law.
Parliament
Age
of
Responsibilty
At the committee stage of the Children and Young Persons Bill in the House of Lords, Lady WOOTTON’S amendment, raising the age of criminal responsibility from 8 to 12 years, was carried by one vote. In the debate Lord DiLHORNE, the Lord Chancellor, said that he would consider whether the Government could go some way to meet the wishes expressed by the amendment. At the report stage on Jan. 24 he accordingly moved a Government amendment setting the age at 10 years, which was carried by 41 votes to 27.
National Insurance Benefits and Contributions
University Salaries
ON Jan. 23 Mr. NIALL MACPHERSON, Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, introduced a Bill to raise the standard rates of unemployment and sickness benefit and flat-rate retirement pensions. It is proposed that the increase in unemployment, sickness, maternity, and injury benefits and in unemployability supplement will begin early in March, and the increases in widow’s benefit, retirement pension, guardian’s allowance, industrial injuries disablement benefit (including special hardship and constant attendance allowances), and industrial injuries death benefit at the end of May.
After dicussion with the Vice-Chancellors’ Committee and with representatives of the Association of University Teachers, the University Grants Committee have recommended new salary scales for academic non-medical and preclinical staff. They also recommend that the salary scales of clinical staff should be revised from April, 1963, by amounts to be determined after account has been taken of any adjustments made in the salaries of National Health Service doctors on the recommendations of the Review Body. The Government has accepted both these recommendations. The new scale of preclinical salaries, with the old scale in parenthesis, is given below:
Standard rates of unemployment and sickness benefit, widows’, and flat-rate retirement pensions will go up from E217s. 6d. to E37s. 6d. a week for single people, and from E412s. 6d. to E59s. a week for married couples, and the allowance for the eldest dependent child from 17s. 6d. to 20s. and for other children from 9s. 6d. to 12s. The maternity grant will go up from E14 to E16 and the maternity allowance from 57s. 6d. to 67s. 6d. Injury benefit, now E417s. 6d. a week for a single person and E612s. 6d. for a married couple, will be increased to t515s. and E716s. 6d. respectively. The 100% disablement pension will go up from E417s. 6d. to E515s. with proportionate increases for lower assessments, and the industrial pension for widows, at present payable at E3 4$. will go up to E3 15s. The allowances payable with disablement pension-e.g., special hardship allowance and constant attendance allowance-will also be increased. The allowances for a widow’s dependent children will be increased by 5s.-i.e., double the increase for the children of other National Insurance beneficiaries-and the earnings rule will be relaxed so as never to reduce the widowed mother’s personal benefit below 26s.
in contributions, which will June 3, will be as follows: For an employed man not contracted out of the graduated scheme
The
consequential increases
start on
the National Insurance part of the joint minimum contribution will go up from 14s. 7d to 16s. 7d. a week. The industrial injuries part goes up from Is. 3d. to Is. 5d., so that, with the National Health Service contribution, the total joint contribution becomes 21s. 4d., of which the man pays lIs. 8d. (instead of 10s. 7d.) and his employer pays 9s. 8d. (instead of 8s. 7d.). The percentage rate of the graduated contribution is not increased, but the maximum earnings to which it is applied will be E 18 a week instead of E 15.
New rates of war pensions will begin in May, but supplements for the disabled may start in March.
some
WAR PENSIONS
The basic rate of pension for 100% war-disablement will be raised by 17s. 6d, a week from E417s. 6d. to t515s. a week for private soldiers,
with proportionate increases for the less severely disabled. Certain allowances will also be attendance allowance from 40s. to 50s.
supplementary
increased-i.e.,
the constant
NATIONAL ASSISTANCE
Mr.
Macpherson said that the National
Assistance Board
intended to make proposals for some further improvements in National Assistance rates-which were increased last September - to come
into effect
temporary provision
at the end of to ensure that
May. The Bill includes a people receiving a supple-
ment to any of the benefits which are to be increased in March will normally receive, by way of benefit and assistance together,
much
would have received if the new Assistance operation at that time. The extra cost of the higher pensions and benefits in the first full year will be about E201 million, of which E 144 million will be on retirement pensions. This will bring total expenditure under the National Insurance scheme to some M446 million. The Bill received the second reading on Jan. 28. as
as
they
rates had been in
Lecturers.-El250
to
maxima in range £ 2150- £ 2800
(t1l50
to
E1950-E2525). Readers and Senior Lecturers.-Within the maxima for lecturers.
Professors.-t290o-t4000 ( £ 2600- £ 3600).
QUESTION TIME Medical Aid to Developing Countries Mr. H. J. BoYDEN asked the Secretary for Technical Cooperation what progress had been made in implementing the recommendation of the Porritt Working Party that his department should prepare a code for terms of medical appointments overseas.-Mr. DENNIS VospER replied: I accept the recommendation in the report and my department is preparing a code. Mr. BOYDEN asked the Minister what funds he had made available, and what steps he had taken, to enable senior medical visitors to Commonwealth countries to spend short periods in teaching duties on the lines recommended by the Working Party-Mr. VOSPER replied: Money is already available for this purpose, although the sum is not specified. This and other recommendations of the Working Party have been taken into account in formulating my Department’s estimates for 1963-64. I am bringing the report to the notice of overseas Governments. Junior Hospital Posts In a written answer Mr. ENOCH POWELL gave the following figures for doctors employed whole-time in junior grades in National Health Service hospitals. The figures in brackets show the number of doctors born outside the United Kingdom and Eire, who are included in the unbracketed figures.
Registrar 3027 (1219); junior hospital medical officer 668 (290); senior house-officer 2538 (1313); house-officer (fully registered) 767 (255); house-officer (provisionally registered) 1699 (343).
Prescriptions Refunds Sir BARNETT JANNER asked the Minister why, when doctors were required to refund the cost of prescriptions which are disallowed, they were also required to refund in addition the 2s. charge which the patient had paid in accordance with National Health Service procedure; and whether he would reconsider this practice-Mr. PowELL replied: I intend to amend the regulation shortly. Closure of Hospital Beds Mr. W. D. CHAPMAN asked the Minister in respect of which hospitals he had received reports that the effect of his recent circular, enforcing economy and condemning overspending, had been to cause wards or beds to be put out of use through lack of funds.-Mr. POWELL replied: The Royal Sussex and Bevendean.
Medicine and the Law Industrial Diseases and the Limitation Act
plaintiffs were steel workers who contracted pneumoconiosis-though they were unaware of it and had no reason to suspect it-through working for many years in a silica-dust-laden atmosphere in a factory, their employers having failed in their duty under the Factories Act, 1937, to provide proper ventilation. THE
-..
In 1950 the employers took steps to improve conditions in the factory, so that from September, 1950, there was no breach of duty by them contributing materially to the plaintiffs’ disease. Though by 1950 the disease had so far developed that it was visible on X-ray examination to a sufficiently skilled eye, the plaintiffs did not discover that they had contracted ituntil dates between 1950 and 1955. On Oct. 1, 1956, they issued writs claiming damages against their employers.. The employers denied liability, and relied on section 2(1) of the Limitation Act, 1939, which precludes a plaintiff from bringing an action in tort for damages for personal injury more than six " years (now three years) from the date on which the cause of action accrued ".
The trial
Judge found that the plaintiffs had suffered damage by reason of the employers’ breach of duty before September, 1950, so that their causes of action had accrued more than six years before the writs were issued, and held that their claims must therefore be dismissed as statute-barred. The Court of Appeal regretfully affirmed that decision. The plaintiffs appealed to the House of Lords. Lord REID, Lord EvERSHED, Lord MORRIS, and Lord HODSON, agreeing with Lord Pearce’s speech, said that the mischief revealed by the present case could only be
remedied by legislation. Lord PEARCE said that the sole question was the effect of the Limitation Act in cases where an insidious industrial disease had done secret damage whose existence might not be discovered, or even discoverable, until the first onset of the disease.
some
years after
The first argument for the plaintiffs was that the injury to them must be taken to have first occurred when the man became aware of his disease. But it was impossible to hold that a man who had no knowledge of the secret onset of pneumoconiosis and suffered no present inconvenience from it could not have suffered any actionable harm; and it would be wrong to deny a right of action to a plaintiff who could prove by X-ray photographs that his lungs were damaged but could not prove any symptom or present physical inconvenience. It would be impossible to hold that while the X-ray photographs were being taken, he could not yet have suffered any damage to his body, but that immediately the result of them was told to him, he had from that moment suffered damage. It was for a judge or jury to decide whether a man had suffered any actionable harm. There was no legal principle that lack of knowledge in the plaintiff must reduce the damage to nothing or make it minimal. Moreover, there was the difficulty here that, since the pneumoconiosis did not increase of itself, the harm which the Judge had found must have existed before October, 1950, when the cause of it ceased. On the second contention for the plaintiffs that even if a cause of action accrued when the unknown injury was done to the lungs, a fresh cause of action accrued when the damage was discovered, the difficulty was that the law was clear and settled that in cases of personal injury only one action might be brought. The cause of action accrued when it reached a stage, whether then known or unknown, at which a judgecould properly give damages for the harm that had been done. In the present cases, that stage, on the Judge’s findings, had been reached before October, 1950.
The third contention for the plaintiffs, that in the case of injury by such an insidious disease as pneumoconiosis the Courts should import into the Limitation Act a gloss that the cause of action did not accrue nor time begin to run until the plaintiff knew or ought to know that he had suffered injury, must also be rejected, for the English Limitation Act, unlike the United States Federal Employers’ Liability Act, was of general application to all classes of action, and it was impossible to argue that it had any particular concern with regard to employees recovering compensation. The Limitation Act was intended to encourage and secure reasonable diligence in litigation and protect defendants from stale claims. Was it now open to their Lordships to adopt a construction of that Act which would adapt its incidence more fairly in cases where modern conditions in industrial pneumoconiosis and X-ray photograph made its application unjust ? The authorities did not support such a construction. A committee appointed in 1961 had recently reported on the limitation of actions in personal injury cases, had considered the hardships of the present cases, and had recommended an amendment to the Act which would avoid them. It was to be hoped therefore that in future their Lordships would not have to deny relief to plain. tiffs who, having good causes of action, had lost them through no fault of their own. But the appeal must, regretfully, be dismissed.
,
CARTLEDGE & OTHERS V. E. JOPLING & SONS LTD.—House of Lords : (Lord Reid, Lord Evershed, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Hodson, and Lord Pearce); Jan. 17, 1963. Counsel and solicitors: G. S. Waller, Q.c., and J. F. S. CoBB, Q.c. (Rowley, Ashworth & Co.); Patrick 0’Conhor,o.c.,md P. Taylor (T. D. Jones & Co., for Linsley & Mortimer, upon
Newcastle
Tyne).
M. M. HILL Barrister-at-Law
The Police Doctor The defendant was charged with driving a car, and being in charge of a car, while under the influence of drink. While at the police-station, he was asked if he was ’ willing to be examined by a doctor and it was made clear that the purpose of the examination was to see whether, the defendant was suffering from any illness or disability, and that it was not part of the doctor’s duty to examine the defendant with a view to giving an opinion as to his fitness to drive. That statement was made in pursuance of a policy, which had since been discontinued,l that a doctor would not examine a person to ascertain whether he was unfit to drive, but would merely examine him to see whether he was suffering from illness or disability and to see whether he was fit to leave the police-station, At the trial the doctor was called as a witness for the prosecution and gave evidence as to the extent to which the defendant was under the influence of drink. The defendant was convicted, fined, and disqualified from driving for three years. He appealed. Lord PARKER, the Lord Chief Justice, giving the judgment of the Court, said that on the same day as the defendant was being tried at London sessions, the Court of Criminal Appeal was hearing the appeal in Regina Court2 which was almost identical with the present case, In that case the Court pointed out that evidence from a doctor in such circumstances was inadmissible and that the chairman ought to have refused to allow the evidence to be given, on the basis that if the defendant had realise that the doctor was going to give evidence on whether he was fit to drive, he might have refused to subject himself to examination. The present case was on all fours with 1. See Lancet, 1962, i, 532, 647, 700. 2. [1962] Crim. L.R. 697.
277
Regina v. Court and in the circumstances the Court was constrained to quash the convictions. Appeal allowed. Regina v. Payne-Court of Criminal Appeal: Lord Parker, C.y., Ashworth and Lyell, Ty. Jan. 16, 1963. Counsel and Solicitors: Lord Stormont (Kennedys); William Howard (Solicitor, Metropolitan Police). C.
J. ELLIS
Barrister-at-Law.
Parliament
Age
of
Responsibilty
At the committee stage of the Children and Young Persons Bill in the House of Lords, Lady WOOTTON’S amendment, raising the age of criminal responsibility from 8 to 12 years, was carried by one vote. In the debate Lord DiLHORNE, the Lord Chancellor, said that he would consider whether the Government could go some way to meet the wishes expressed by the amendment. At the report stage on Jan. 24 he accordingly moved a Government amendment setting the age at 10 years, which was carried by 41 votes to 27.
National Insurance Benefits and Contributions
University Salaries
ON Jan. 23 Mr. NIALL MACPHERSON, Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, introduced a Bill to raise the standard rates of unemployment and sickness benefit and flat-rate retirement pensions. It is proposed that the increase in unemployment, sickness, maternity, and injury benefits and in unemployability supplement will begin early in March, and the increases in widow’s benefit, retirement pension, guardian’s allowance, industrial injuries disablement benefit (including special hardship and constant attendance allowances), and industrial injuries death benefit at the end of May.
After dicussion with the Vice-Chancellors’ Committee and with representatives of the Association of University Teachers, the University Grants Committee have recommended new salary scales for academic non-medical and preclinical staff. They also recommend that the salary scales of clinical staff should be revised from April, 1963, by amounts to be determined after account has been taken of any adjustments made in the salaries of National Health Service doctors on the recommendations of the Review Body. The Government has accepted both these recommendations. The new scale of preclinical salaries, with the old scale in parenthesis, is given below:
Standard rates of unemployment and sickness benefit, widows’, and flat-rate retirement pensions will go up from E217s. 6d. to E37s. 6d. a week for single people, and from E412s. 6d. to E59s. a week for married couples, and the allowance for the eldest dependent child from 17s. 6d. to 20s. and for other children from 9s. 6d. to 12s. The maternity grant will go up from E14 to E16 and the maternity allowance from 57s. 6d. to 67s. 6d. Injury benefit, now E417s. 6d. a week for a single person and E612s. 6d. for a married couple, will be increased to t515s. and E716s. 6d. respectively. The 100% disablement pension will go up from E417s. 6d. to E515s. with proportionate increases for lower assessments, and the industrial pension for widows, at present payable at E3 4$. will go up to E3 15s. The allowances payable with disablement pension-e.g., special hardship allowance and constant attendance allowance-will also be increased. The allowances for a widow’s dependent children will be increased by 5s.-i.e., double the increase for the children of other National Insurance beneficiaries-and the earnings rule will be relaxed so as never to reduce the widowed mother’s personal benefit below 26s.
in contributions, which will June 3, will be as follows: For an employed man not contracted out of the graduated scheme
The
consequential increases
start on
the National Insurance part of the joint minimum contribution will go up from 14s. 7d to 16s. 7d. a week. The industrial injuries part goes up from Is. 3d. to Is. 5d., so that, with the National Health Service contribution, the total joint contribution becomes 21s. 4d., of which the man pays lIs. 8d. (instead of 10s. 7d.) and his employer pays 9s. 8d. (instead of 8s. 7d.). The percentage rate of the graduated contribution is not increased, but the maximum earnings to which it is applied will be E 18 a week instead of E 15.
New rates of war pensions will begin in May, but supplements for the disabled may start in March.
some
WAR PENSIONS
The basic rate of pension for 100% war-disablement will be raised by 17s. 6d, a week from E417s. 6d. to t515s. a week for private soldiers,
with proportionate increases for the less severely disabled. Certain allowances will also be attendance allowance from 40s. to 50s.
supplementary
increased-i.e.,
the constant
NATIONAL ASSISTANCE
Mr.
Macpherson said that the National
Assistance Board
intended to make proposals for some further improvements in National Assistance rates-which were increased last September - to come
into effect
temporary provision
at the end of to ensure that
May. The Bill includes a people receiving a supple-
ment to any of the benefits which are to be increased in March will normally receive, by way of benefit and assistance together,
much
would have received if the new Assistance operation at that time. The extra cost of the higher pensions and benefits in the first full year will be about E201 million, of which E 144 million will be on retirement pensions. This will bring total expenditure under the National Insurance scheme to some M446 million. The Bill received the second reading on Jan. 28. as
as
they
rates had been in
Lecturers.-El250
to
maxima in range £ 2150- £ 2800
(t1l50
to
E1950-E2525). Readers and Senior Lecturers.-Within the maxima for lecturers.
Professors.-t290o-t4000 ( £ 2600- £ 3600).
QUESTION TIME Medical Aid to Developing Countries Mr. H. J. BoYDEN asked the Secretary for Technical Cooperation what progress had been made in implementing the recommendation of the Porritt Working Party that his department should prepare a code for terms of medical appointments overseas.-Mr. DENNIS VospER replied: I accept the recommendation in the report and my department is preparing a code. Mr. BOYDEN asked the Minister what funds he had made available, and what steps he had taken, to enable senior medical visitors to Commonwealth countries to spend short periods in teaching duties on the lines recommended by the Working Party-Mr. VOSPER replied: Money is already available for this purpose, although the sum is not specified. This and other recommendations of the Working Party have been taken into account in formulating my Department’s estimates for 1963-64. I am bringing the report to the notice of overseas Governments. Junior Hospital Posts In a written answer Mr. ENOCH POWELL gave the following figures for doctors employed whole-time in junior grades in National Health Service hospitals. The figures in brackets show the number of doctors born outside the United Kingdom and Eire, who are included in the unbracketed figures.
Registrar 3027 (1219); junior hospital medical officer 668 (290); senior house-officer 2538 (1313); house-officer (fully registered) 767 (255); house-officer (provisionally registered) 1699 (343).
Prescriptions Refunds Sir BARNETT JANNER asked the Minister why, when doctors were required to refund the cost of prescriptions which are disallowed, they were also required to refund in addition the 2s. charge which the patient had paid in accordance with National Health Service procedure; and whether he would reconsider this practice-Mr. PowELL replied: I intend to amend the regulation shortly. Closure of Hospital Beds Mr. W. D. CHAPMAN asked the Minister in respect of which hospitals he had received reports that the effect of his recent circular, enforcing economy and condemning overspending, had been to cause wards or beds to be put out of use through lack of funds.-Mr. POWELL replied: The Royal Sussex and Bevendean.