AAW15 v Minister for Immigration

[2015] FCCA 643

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AAW15 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2015] FCCA 643

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Refugee Review Tribunal – Protection (class XA) visa – bogus document – whether the Tribunal applied the correct test – no jurisdictional error.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Summary dismissal – proceedings summarily dismissed.

Legislation:  
Federal Circuit Court Act 1999, s.17A
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, r.13.10
Migration Act 1958, ss.36(2)(aa), 476

Spencer v the Commonwealth of Australia (2010) 241 CLR 118; [2010] HCA 28

Applicant: AAW15

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 446 of 2015

Judgment of: Judge Street

Hearing date: 19 March 2015

Date of Last Submission: 19 March 2015

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 19 March 2015

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appeared in person

Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms R. Krishnan
Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

1. The proceeding before this Court, commenced by way of application filed on 24 February 2015, is summarily dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the costs of the first respondent fixed in the amount of $790.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT SYDNEY

SYG 446 of 2015

AAW15

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for a Constitutional writ under the Court’s jurisdiction conferred by s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 in respect of a decision of the Tribunal delivered on 5 February 2015 affirming a decision of the Tribunal not to grant the applicant a protection visa.

2. The application filed by the applicant identifies that the Court may hear and determine all interlocutory or final issues or may give directions for the future conduct of the proceedings.  In this case, the application identified the following grounds:

   1. The Refugee Review Tribunal made jurisdictional error in finding that I was not a person to whom Australia owes protection for the purpose of s 36(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

   2. The Tribunal misapplied the test of whether there was a real risk of significant harm to the applicant if returned to his country of nationality.

3. The Court identified to the applicant that, having looked at the decision of the Tribunal and having looked at the application, it appeared this was a matter where the Court should consider whether it should exercise its summary disposal powers.  I take into consideration in considering the application under s.17A (Federal Circuit Court Act 1999) and r.13.01 (Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001), I take into account the principles and caution in Spencer v the Commonwealth of Australia (2010) 241 CLR 118; [2010] HCA 28, and, in particular, [24]-[25] and [59]-[60].

4. This was a case where the Tribunal did not accept the applicant and found the applicant had fabricated his claims, which were serious adverse findings of credit against the applicant.  Those serious adverse findings of credit were clearly open on the material before the Tribunal.  The applicant said that he wanted to get a final hearing date. 

5. The applicant said he wanted to an adjournment so that he could demonstrate the errors in relation to the findings of the Tribunal in respect of the credit of the applicant. The applicant alleged that the error was that he had, in fact, lied.  I am clearly satisfied on the material before the Tribunal that it was open for the Tribunal to come to the serious findings that it did in relation to the applicant’s credibility.  Those findings do not lack an evidence and intelligible justification.

6. I will note that the applicant arrived in Australia on 4 December 2012 and made an application for a protection visa on 12 June 2014.  The delegate refused to grant the applicant a visa on 11 December 2014.  The applicant sought a review on 23 December 2014 and the applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 3 February 2015 to give evidence and present arguments to the Tribunal  with the assistance of an interpreter.  The Tribunal carefully set out the relevant law. 

7. The Tribunal identified in brief form initially the applicant’s claims identifying the serious credibility issues in respect of those claims:

   10. The applicant claims that his father has been involved in politics as the supporter of the BNP. The father and the applicant’s elder brothers had been actively involved in the campaign of 2008. When the Awami League (AL) came to power, AL supporters took revenge against BNP supporters. The applicant, his father and brothers had been assaulted, beaten and verbally assaulted regularly. At the time a man asked the applicant to join the AL as revenge against the applicant’s father. The man warned the applicant he would be physically harmed if he did not. His brothers received the same threats. The applicant and his brothers moved to Dhaka while their father remained in their area and continued to suffer harm and paid extortion. In 2010 the applicant returned to his home village to assist his father to run the grocery store. The village was under control of the AL supporters. The applicant’s family were identified as BNP family and were extorted, mistreated and beaten. From 2012 AL began to clamp down on BNP supporters and Jamaat-e-Islami members. The applicant’s father openly questioned the policies of the AL, which made local AL supporters more aggressive towards the family. They would come to the store and take goods without paying, physically harm the applicant and demand larger extortion amounts and generally, BNP assets would be looted. The AL supporters prevented the population from praying in mosques and the applicant was harmed on many occasions simply for praying. Around October 2012 men from AL came to the applicant’s store and demanded 2 lakh as extortion. The father refused to pay. They came a week later, asked for the money and beat up the applicant and his father. They looted the store and burned it. The applicant’s father made arrangements for him to leave the country. Since he came to Australia, he could not contact his family members and fears that they had been harmed by the AL. He did not disclose that information in detail in the entry interview because he was told to give only key points, did not comprehended the questions and there may have been mistranslations or misapprehensions.

   11. In his oral evidence to the Tribunal the applicant also stated that he had been receiving threats from the creditors and also that he is a homosexual and had been harmed as a result of that.

8. I note that the last two claims were also carefully addressed by the Tribunal.  It is appropriate to note what the Tribunal said in the following paragraphs:

   13. The applicant claims that he will be persecuted for his political opinion, primarily as a result of his and his family’s involvement with the BNP. For the following reasons the Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant is not a person of credibility and that he has not been truthful in his claims.

   14. Firstly, the Tribunal finds that the information the applicant gave in his entry interview and in his subsequent dealings with Immigration to be entirely inconsistent with the claims he made in his protection visa application. The Tribunal noted such inconsistencies in its letter, sent pursuant to s. 424A of the Act, sent on 19 January 2015.

   15. … These statements entirely contradict the claims the applicant made in his protection visa and also the documentary evidence he subsequently presented to the Department.

   16. The applicant explained in the declaration which accompanied his protection visa application that he did not disclose the details in his entry interview because he was only asked to give key points. The Tribunal does not accept that explanation because the issue is not that the applicant’s explanation at the entry interview did not provide sufficient details, but that it was entirely different to the claims he subsequently made in his protection visa application.

   17. The applicant also explained in his initial written declaration, his interview with the delegate, as well as the statement of 10 November 2014 that there may have been issues with interpretation during the entry interview. The Tribunal does not accept that this is so. Firstly, there is nothing to indicate that the applicant identified at any time problems with the interpreter at the time of the interview. The applicant would have been advised of the significance of that interview and would have appreciated the importance of providing accurate information about his claimed fears. In the Tribunal’s view, if the applicant had any difficulties with the interpreter or the interpretation, he would have said so. Secondly, the Tribunal notes that the information the applicant supplied on the two occasions was entirely inconsistent, there were not minor mistakes or discrepancies. If these were caused by interpreting issues, such issues may have resulted in inconsistencies in evidence, rather than an entirely different set of claims. Thirdly, the Tribunal notes that in his entry interview the applicant is recoded to have stated that he has good English capability. In the protection visa application form the applicant also indicated that he could speak English and stated that his proficiency in English was ‘good’. If there were any concerns with the accuracy of the interpretation, the applicant would have been able to identify these and correct any errors. Fourthly, the applicant continued to supply false information in March and May 2013, as discussed below. That is, the applicant’s decision to provide false information had nothing to do with the claimed problems with interpretation.

   19. The applicant suggested in his written submission of 10 November 2014 that he was fearful of disclosing his family’s political involvement during the interview. The Tribunal finds that explanation unconvincing. If the applicant entered Australia for the purpose of seeking protection and if he was being interviewed for the purpose of assessing whether he may be entitled to seek protection, the applicant would have recognised the significance of that interview and the need to disclose full information and the basis for his claimed fear of persecution. That is, if the purpose of the entry interview was to assess whether the applicant could claim protection in Australia, the applicant would have disclosed his political involvement, if it exist, rather than refer to the strikes in Bangladesh and a hard life that he had. Further, if the applicant had any difficulty understanding anything asked of him, the applicant would have sought clarification, rather than offered untruthful or incomplete information. As such, the Tribunal does not accept that an entirely different set of claims put forward by the applicant in his entry interview was due to any mistranslation or miscommunication. Rather, the Tribunal is of the view that it reflects the applicant’s lack of candour and that he had fabricated his claims, as well as the explanation for the discrepancies in his claims. In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal acknowledges that there are a number of factors that may affect one’s ability to present evidence. The Tribunal is mindful, and has had regard to, the various guidelines on assessing credibility. In the Tribunal’s view, however, the discrepancies in the applicant’s evidence are not due to such factors but rather his willingness to falsify his claims.

   20. Another matter of concern for the Tribunal is the applicant’s admission to having provided false information to Immigration. In March 2013 and May 2013 the applicant provided additional claims to the Immigration officer. Again, the applicant put forward claims that were substantially different to the claims he subsequently made in his protection visa application, as well as the claims he made in his initial entry interview. In that interview conducted in March 2013 the applicant referred to a dispute about land ownership between his family, who were BNP supporters, and AL supporters. The applicant claims that there was an incident involving a girl, which was arranged by AL supporters for the purpose of bringing a false case against the applicant’s family. The applicant claims that false charges had been laid against him, his brother and his nephew as a result of the incident, which remain unresolved. The applicant stated that his brother had been in jail. The applicant made no mention of any of these events in his protection visa application, informing the Tribunal that the case was already resolved, so he did not feel the need to mention it.

   21. In the written submission of 10 November 2014 the applicant admitted that he provided false information concerning the ongoing court case. The applicant claims that he was advised by other detainees that he would be deported otherwise and he feared being removed from Australia, so he falsified that evidence about the ongoing court case. The applicant suggested that he did not yet obtain legal advice at the time. The Tribunal is not convinced that it would have been necessary for the applicant to obtain legal advice to recognise the need to provide truthful information. The applicant is suggesting, effectively, that he was informed by other detainees that his chances of remaining in Australia would be improved if he falsified his claims, so he decided to provide false claims in the hope of obtaining the protection visa. The applicant’s willingness to intentionally fabricate claims in order to obtain the protection visa is a strong indication, in the Tribunal’s view, that the applicant is not a person of credibility and that the entirety of his claims is unreliable and untrue.

9. The provision of false information in support of his application is a matter of considerable concern in relation to the credit of the applicant.  It was clearly open to the Tribunal in those circumstances to make the serious finding as to the intentional fabrication of claims by the applicant in this case.  The finding that the applicant’s claims were unreliable and untrue was clearly open. 

10. The Tribunal continued:

    22. Another concern for the Tribunal is that if the applicant’s present claims were true, there was simply no need for the applicant to create a different set of claims. That is, there was no reason for the applicant to provide false information about the abduction of a girl and the case against him and his brother, even if somebody in the detention centre advised him it would be better for him. If the applicant truly had active political involvement as he now claims, and if he had been genuinely targeted by the AL, as he now claims, there is no reason why the applicant would not rely on such claims, rather than make up different ones. If his present claims were true, there was need for the applicant to fabricate an entirely different set of claims. The fact that the applicant chose to do so suggests the claims he now makes have also been fabricated.

    …

    24. The Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant is not a person of credibility. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is willing to fabricate claims if he believes it would assist him in gaining the protection visa. The Tribunal has formed the view that the fabrication of evidence was the reason for the significant escalation of the applicant’s claims each time he had with the delegate and the Tribunal. The Tribunal prefers the applicant’s evidence in his initial entry interview, when he stated that neither he nor his family had any political connections, involvement or activities and that he came to Australia purely for economic reasons. The Tribunal is of the view that the applicant then decided, or was advised, that he needed to claim something more significant to increase his chances of obtaining the protection visa, so he fabricated claims in his dealings with the Department in March and May 2013 and he fabricated further (or different) claims when he made the application for the protection visa. He made entirely new claims for the first time in his oral evidence to the Tribunal (see below). The Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant is willing to be untruthful in his dealings with Immigration in order to obtain a visa.

    25. Secondly, and also of significance, is the Tribunal’s concern relating to the documentary evidence presented by the applicant. The applicant presented with his application a number of documents. One of the documents is the penal certificate allegedly issued by the Chairman of the local Parishad. This one page document contains four identifiable spelling errors. Three of these relate to the text of the template. (The Tribunal notes that the letterhead refers to the ‘Peopls’ Republic, the heading is “to whom it may ‘cobcern’” and the text refers to ‘word’ No 3). The text of the document also refers to ‘him / he’. There is nothing to suggest that the document is a translation, rather, it is presented as an original document with the Chairman’s signature. Given the number of mistakes in this brief document, the Tribunal finds that it is a bogus document and was not issued by the Chairman of the Parishad.

    …

    27. In his written submission to the delegate dated 10 December 2014 the applicant explained that he did not read English, and neither did his father who requested the letter from his friend, the Secretary. In the Tribunal’s view, the fact that the applicant allegedly could not read the letter does not explain why the writer of the letter would refer to the applicant being an active member of the AL, a party which the applicant claims had been persecuting him for years. The applicant also suggested in that submission that the writer may have wished for the applicant to join the AL and that is the reason he provided false information. In the Tribunal’s view, the Minister chose a very odd way to ensure the applicant’s support for the AL by providing false claims in support of the applicant’s application for the protection visa.

    28. The applicant’s explanation in oral evidence to the Tribunal was somewhat different as the applicant stated the Chairman purposely provided false information to ruin his case. The Tribunal does not accept that someone holding a senior position of a Minister and a Chairman of a Parliamentary committee would go to the trouble of providing purposely false information to the Australian government agency only to ruin the applicant’s case. The Tribunal considers that claim to be far-fetched and implausible.

    29. The Tribunal finds that the statement from the Minister is a bogus document which contains false or misleading information.

    30. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has deliberately obtained bogus documents containing false information to assist in his protection visa application and that he provided such documents in support of his application. The applicant’s willingness to obtain and submit bogus documents in support of his protection visa application is significant for two reasons. Firstly, the Tribunal is of the view that the applicant’s willingness to submit bogus documents containing false information to the Department in support of the protection visa indicates the applicant entirely lacks credibility and that he is willing to falsify evidence to assist him in his visa application. Secondly, the fact that at least the two documents referred to above (the police certificate and the statement from the Chairman) are bogus documents indicates that the documents submitted by the applicant are unreliable and of little probative value.

    31. Information before the Tribunal indicates that document fraud is prevalent in Bangladesh.1 Having regard to the above concerns, the Tribunal is not convinced that any of the documents presented by the applicant are of probative value. The Tribunal gives these no weight.

1. To propound  a bogus document which the Tribunal found was clearly open is again a very serious matter from the viewpoint of the applicant’s credibility:

   33. The Tribunal found the applicant’s answer to be extremely vague and simplistic. … The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant had such involvement with the BNP as he claims.

2. Materially, the Tribunal summarised the inconsistencies in paragraph 34:

   Fourthly, the Tribunal found the applicant’s evidence in response to most questions posed to him by the Tribunal was vague and evasive. There are inadequacies and inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence in relation to other aspects of his claims, as noted below.

   a. The applicant claims that he learned from his sister that his family was missing and he does not know their whereabouts. The applicant was highly evasive when asked when this occurred. The applicant suggested his sister did not tell him when it happened, but he also claims his sister told him about the family’s disappearance. It makes little sense that the sister would mention that the family disappeared but either not mention when that happened or that the applicant would not recall the period when such a significant conversation took place.

   b. The applicant claims he joined the BNP when he was 14 -15 years old but he also stated it was around 1993 or 1995 (when he would have been 8 or 10 years old). The applicant stated that he formally joined the party when he was about 25 year old and that it happened about five years before he left the country, but as the applicant was born in 1985, he would have been 25 in 2010, two years before he left Bangladesh and not five years. The Tribunal is mindful that the applicant had no difficulty recalling other dates both in his written statement and in his oral evidence to the Tribunal.

   c. In his oral evidence to the Tribunal the applicant claims he held the position of the publications secretary of the BNP. This is consistent with the statement from the BNP which the applicant provided with his protection visa application. The applicant made no mention of having occupied any specific position in his written statement which accompanied his application, instead referring to his general activities within the party.

   d. The applicant informed the Tribunal in oral evidence that in October 2012 a group of AL people came to the shop and demanded 2 lakh taka be paid within a month. The applicant said that they returned after a month, beat him and burned the shop. However, in his written application the applicant stated that the men gave him one week and not one month to make payment and that they came back after a week, not a month. When this discrepancy was pointed out, the applicant said that they initially gave him a week to pay and then another week. This contradicts both the applicant’s oral evidence that he was given a month, and his written evidence that he was given a week. The applicant then attempted to explain the discrepancy by stating that he was first given a month and it was only on the last occasion that he was given a week. The Tribunal notes that in all of his previous evidence the applicant referred to only one incident and in his written declaration the applicant specifically stated that the men came into the shop, gave him time, came in again and burned the shop. There is no mention of the second visit and the extension of time to pay. Further, in his written statement the applicant claims the men came in or around October, which is also when he claims the business was burned. It is not plausible, in the Tribunal’s view, that that the men first came to the business in October 2012, gave the applicant first a month, then a week or a fortnight to pay and then burned the business in the same month.

   e. The applicant informed the Tribunal that he ‘could not remember’ whether his brother was jailed before he left Bangladesh or since he came to Australia, as a result of the false court case. In his submission to the delegate made in March 2013 the applicant suggested that his brother had been jailed. The Tribunal does not accept that if the brother had been jailed, the applicant would not have any recollection of it.

   f. The Tribunal is also concerned by the applicant’s claim that he and his family had been harassed since 2008and beaten, extorted, threatened, etc. Yet, the applicant’s claim is that the family continued to live in the same area. They had not taken any effort to move to another area to avoid harm. The applicant lived in Dhaka for two years but he claims he moved to Dhaka for employment. His father continued to live in the village and had not taken any steps to move. The applicant suggested the AL have networks everywhere but the Tribunal does not consider it plausible that the family would take no steps at all to avoid harm but would instead remain in the same area while experiencing significant harassment on a daily basis. The applicant informed the Tribunal that when he lived in Dhaka, he was constantly worried about being found and he had no freedom of movement. However, he does not claim he was harassed during his residence in Dhaka. That is, he was not found while he spent two years in Dhaka. If that is the case, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant and his family would prefer to remain in the village and be subjected to constant harm since 2008 rather than move to another place such as Dhaka.

3. In those circumstances, the Tribunal came to the following finding:

   35. For all these reasons, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is not a person of credibility. The Tribunal finds that the applicant he has fabricated the entirety of his claims for the benefit of his protection visa application. The Tribunal also finds that the applicant had purposely obtained and provided bogus documents in support of his application, knowing that the information in such documents was not correct. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is willing to be untruthful in order to obtain the visa. The Tribunal rejects the claims made by the applicant. …

4. The Tribunal then carefully identified each of the claims that it did not accept, and the Tribunal concluded in para.36:

   36. The Tribunal finds that there is no real chance that the applicant will be persecuted for the reason of his political opinion (actual or imputed) if he were to return to Bangladesh now or in the reasonably foreseeable future.

5. The Tribunal considered the issue relating to the alleged data breach, and the Tribunal made the findings relevantly:

   38. The applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal is that the government in Bangladesh would know that he has left the country, that he has applied for a visa and has been detained and as a result, Immigration in Bangladesh would detain him or harm him or the government might kill them. The Tribunal does not consider such claims to be persuasive.

   39. The available information indicates that the ‘data breach’ involved personal information of people detained in immigration  detention facilities on 31 January 2014, which was briefly available on the Department’s website; the information included the name, date of birth, nationality, gender, details of the detention (including the date and place of detention and the reason why detained). The available information does not indicate that any details of the applicant’s application for protection were available online, including the claims made in the application.

   40. The Tribunal notes that the information was available for a very brief period, so in the Tribunal’s view, the chance that the DIBP website is being constantly monitored by the AL or its supporters or the government authorities in Bangladesh, and that the information became known to them, is remote. Nevertheless, even if that did happen, the only information that would become available would be the applicant’s personal details. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s assertion that it could be implied that he lodged claims against the AL. The most the information offered was that the applicant sought asylum. The applicant could have made a protection visa application on any number of grounds. Even if the applicant’s suggestion was accepted (and the Tribunal considers it to be far-fetched), all it indicates is that the applicant is an opponent of the Awami League and the ruling party. However, the applicant’s own evidence is that the AL and its supporters are already well aware of that and that is the reason he claims he had been persecuted in the past. The applicant’s claimed involvement with BNP would put the AL on notice that the applicant was not a supporter of the Awami League.

   41. The Tribunal is also of the view that the authorities in Bangladesh are likely to see an application such as the applicant’s as an opportunity to relocate to a rich country, as the applicant initially stated in his entry interview. The Tribunal does not accept that the mere fact that a person sought asylum in another country means that the person be perceived as having a political opinion against the government.

   42. As such, even if the information about the applicant’s detention became known to anyone in Bangladesh as a result of the data breach (and the Tribunal does not consider there is a real chance of that), the Tribunal does not accept that it would in any way increase the risk of harm to the applicant.

6. There were two other claims made by the applicant, and they were carefully addressed by the Tribunal.  It is not necessary to set out the findings that were made in that regard, beyond the conclusion in para.54:

   54. For the reasons stated elsewhere, the Tribunal has found the applicant not be a credible witness. The applicant has admitted to having deliberately provided false information in relation to one aspect of his claims. The Tribunal has formed the view that he has been untruthful in all other aspects of his claims and also that he had wilfully fabricated his claims and submitted bogus documents. The Tribunal has formed the view that, having been unsuccessful in his application, the applicant decided to strengthen his application by making entirely untruthful claims. The Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant has fabricated his claim relating to homosexuality to assist him in his protection visa application. The Tribunal does not accept that claim. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is, or has ever been, a homosexual. The Tribunal does not accept that he had a long term relationship (or any homosexual relationship) in Bangladesh. The Tribunal does not accept that the families found out and that his family and his partner’s family attacked him or threatened to kill him. The Tribunal does not accept that if the applicant returns to Bangladesh, he will wish to form any homosexual relationships, or that he will engage in any activities that would cause anyone to perceive him as being a homosexual. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant will have any problems showing his face to the community or his family or getting married. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is not, has never been, and will not be, a homosexual. The Tribunal finds that there is no real chance that the applicant will be persecuted for that reason.

   …

   56. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims singularly and cumulatively. The Tribunal has formed the view that the entirety of such claims has been fabricated. The Tribunal finds there is no real chance that the applicant will be persecuted for any reason, or a combination of reasons, if he were to return to Bangladesh now or in thee reasonably foreseeable future. The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution.

7. Finally, the Tribunal considered the issue of complementary protection and concluded:

   58. The Tribunal has formed the view that the entirety of the applicant’s claims has been fabricated. The Tribunal has rejected the entirety of the claims put forward by the applicant. The Tribunal finds that there are no substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being removed from Australia to a receiving country (Bangladesh), there is a real risk that he will suffer significant harm. The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not meet the complementary protection criterion in s.36(2)(aa).

8. In those circumstances, the Tribunal found the applicant was not a person in respect of whom Australia owed any protection obligations, and affirmed the decision of the delegate.  This was a case where there were very serious findings of fabrication and the propounding of bogus documents by the applicant.  These are matters that directly impact upon the question of any utility in granting an adjournment.  It is clearly not in this case one where there was any substance in the allegation that the adverse findings of the Tribunal were not open. 

9. In those circumstances, there is clearly no utility in granting any adjournment, because that would only add unnecessarily to the increasing of costs for the parties and further utilisation of limited Court time.  Moreover such an adjournment is not appropriate where the proceedings are clearly doomed to failure.  I am clearly satisfied the proceedings have no reasonable prospect of success.  The proceedings are summarily dismissed.

I certify that the preceding nineteen (19) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Street

Associate: 

Date:  25 March 2015