Applicant S200-2002, Ex parte - Re MIMIA & Anor

[2002] HCATrans 371

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S200 of 2002

In the matter of -

An application for Writs of Mandamus and Certiorari against MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

First Respondent

PRINCIPAL MEMBER OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Ex parte –

APPLICANT S200/2002

Applicant/Prosecutor

GAUDRON J

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON MONDAY, 23 SEPTEMBER 2002, AT 10.28 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HER HONOUR:   Now, would somebody kindly tell me what happens now?  I am aware of section 91X.  I presume I cannot say to this person, “Mr So‑and‑So, do you represent yourself?”, which is what I would normally say.  I presume I cannot extend to him the normal courtesies that I would extend to any person at the Bar table.  Mr X, I am addressing you.

MR G.T. JOHNSON:   Yes.  (instructed by the Australian Government Solicitor)

HER HONOUR:   Shall I call you Mr X?

MR JOHNSON:   Well, it is a matter for your Honour.

HER HONOUR:   Well, it is not a matter for me.  It is a serious question.  I take it that you appear for the Minister.

MR JOHNSON:   I appear for the Minister, your Honour, the first respondent.  The second respondent, the principal member of the Tribunal, I understand has submitted to such order as the Court finds fit save as to costs.

HER HONOUR:   Yes, there is a certificate here.  I have been informed for the second respondent – this is a certificate from the Deputy Registrar that she has been informed by the solicitor for the second respondent that it will not be seeking leave to appear at the hearing of this application and will abide by any order of the Court save as to costs.  Now, who is ‑ ‑ ‑

THE INTERPRETER:   I am the interpreter.

HER HONOUR:   You are the interpreter, and your name is?

THE INTERPRETER:   Amir Hossain.

HER HONOUR:   Mr Hossain.

THE INTERPRETER:   That is correct, your Honour. 

HER HONOUR:   And you, sir, are the applicant?

APPLICANT S200/2002:   Yes, I am the applicant.

HER HONOUR:   Do not tell me anything.  I did not hear it.  Now, was something said on that transcript?  Did you say who you were? 

THE INTERPRETER:   No.

HER HONOUR:   No, you did not.  You just said you are the applicant?

THE INTERPRETER:   Yes.

HER HONOUR:   Yes.  Now, what am I to do?

MR JOHNSON:   Your Honour, what the Federal Court has been doing ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   You are Mr Johnson, are you?

MR JOHNSON:   That is right, your Honour, yes.  I should have announced my appearance.

HER HONOUR:   No.  You see, you are very lucky.  You have a name.  Yes, here it is.

MR JOHNSON:   Well, your Honour, if it is of assistance, the practice in the Federal Court, as far as I have been able to observe at least, has been to call the applicant by the assigned name.

HER HONOUR:   The assigned name?

MR JOHNSON:   Well, there is an assigned, I think probably randomly allocated, set of letters in the Federal Court.

HER HONOUR:   That is ridiculous.  That is ridiculous.  Do you think you had better tell me about the constitutional validity of 91X?

MR JOHNSON:   Well, your Honour, I think that some submissions were put to your Honour in the matters that were heard on 3 and 4 September and all that I can do, your Honour, in relation to that is to formally repeat those, but with respect to the mechanics ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   You repeat that it is valid and that I am to treat this person as if he had no name?  Do you assert that?  I am to sufficiently ignore the man’s humanity as to deny him a name in these court proceedings and to deny him the ordinary courtesies that I would extend to anyone at the Bar table?

MR JOHNSON:   Your Honour, my suggestion to the Court is that he be referred to as S200.

HER HONOUR:   Well, that is exactly ‑ ‑ ‑

MR JOHNSON:   I understand ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   That is to say I deny him a name and I deny him the ordinary courtesies that I would extend to anyone at the Bar table?

MR JOHNSON:   Except, your Honour, that ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   Well, let me call you Mr J41, shall I?

MR JOHNSON:   That is a matter for your Honour, but, your Honour ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   Well, it is not.  I would not do it.  I would not do it because it is discourteous.

MR JOHNSON:   But, your Honour, if he understands – if he understands that it is done for the purposes of saving the fact that an application such as this is publicised, for those cases where, if it is publicised ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   Well, one can well understand that there may be some cases in which there would be a problem, or there might be.  There is no suggestion in these papers of any such problem, is there?

MR JOHNSON:   Well, your Honour, very often, I respectfully suggest, and particularly in a ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   But is there any suggestion here?

MR JOHNSON:   Well, your Honour, I do not think there is a suggestion one way or the other here ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   Exactly.

MR JOHNSON:   ‑ ‑ ‑ because I do not think he has been asked.

HER HONOUR:   Exactly, and, I mean, one could understand a provision which enabled application to be made by either party to suppress the name.  One could understand that.  But I just do not know how I am to conduct these proceedings.  I have never encountered it before and I just do not know how I am to proceed.

MR JOHNSON:   Well, your Honour, could I respectfully suggest to your Honour that if it is explained to the applicant that ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   No, no, explain it to me.  It is my problem; not the applicant.  It is my problem.  I was brought up understanding that there were certain courtesies and considerations to be extended to all fellow

creatures.  I was brought up at the Bar to believe that you treated people at the Bar table with respect.  My time on the Bench has reinforced that learning, that one is to treat them with respect.

MR JOHNSON:   Your Honour, I am sure that no one would argue against that.

HER HONOUR:   The Act is arguing against it.  The Act is denying me my right to treat this gentleman with the respect I would normally afford to anybody I met in society, in the street, or with whom I had to have any professional dealings, including in terms of listening to his submissions.

MR JOHNSON:   Could I submit to your Honour that a way for that to be dealt with, without causing the Court itself embarrassment, would be simply for the Court to tell the applicant, as your Honour indeed has, that your Honour would prefer to extend that courtesy but that the legislature has introduced this safeguard ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   Well, it is not a safeguard.

MR JOHNSON:   Well, it does have the effect, your Honour, of minimising the publication of ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   There is nothing in it to say it is a safeguard.  It might be thought to be a safeguard if there were provision enabling application to be made, but this is a blanket prohibition.  It is not a safeguard.

MR JOHNSON:   It ought be enough however for the applicant to understand that your Honour means him no discourtesy, if that was explained.  That is my only point, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:   Sir – I will have to refer to you as sir.  I would prefer to call you by your given name.  The Act forbids me.  I realise it is a gross discourtesy.  It is not one of my making.  So I shall be forced to call you sir, if that is sufficient, and I invite you now to speak to your application.

THE INTERPRETER:   He is asking, your Honour, to stand to speak.

HER HONOUR:   If he wishes.  Sir, what I need you to speak about is your argument that the Tribunal failed to observe the rules of procedural fairness.

APPLICANT S200/2002 (through interpreter):   First of all, your Honour, I would like to thank you very much for paying me such respect, the way you treated me.  I gratefully appreciate your concern in that regard and also I would seek proper judgment or some sort of legal guidelines that what am I supposed to do at this stage as I have received – the decision was made by the Refugee Review Tribunal.  I found it absolutely unlawful ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   Yes, but you will have to say why and where it is unlawful.

APPLICANT S200/2002 (through interpreter):   Well, first of all, the time and the date I was given for the hearing – conducting hearing date in RRT I was actually physically sick by the time and I got admitted to the New South Wales hospital and going through under the treatment and I am on medication as well and accordingly I did notify the RRT that I am mentally and physically quite unable or unfit to attend the hearing.  They have initially given me a reasonable – sorry, did not say “reasonable”, but a little time which I could not actually cover up and I did not get actually well, so the reason was, like, I was under medication, continuously taking those medications prescribed by a personal doctor and so that I was not actually quite able to attend the hearing and also, with my respect, I did let them know what was going on and I asking for a little bit extended time to consider me.

HER HONOUR:   But did not the doctor say that he would be well at a certain time?

APPLICANT S200/2002 (through interpreter):   Well, there was no certain time I was given that I would get well in a certain period of time, but as I have asked my doctor, I was given a letter where he described that I was ill and I was suffering from that sort of illness and taking medications.  Excuse me, your Honour.  Excuse me, your Honour, I just ask you permission to allow me to sit and talk to you because I am not physically still well.

HER HONOUR:   Yes, certainly.

APPLICANT S200/2002 (through interpreter):   I could not just continue standing.  And also he said since last five weeks, he said, I do have – continuously having that physical illness and up until today I am not actually quite fit.

HER HONOUR:   Now, what I wish to know is whether the applicant had an adviser at the time that he was dealing with the Tribunal.

APPLICANT S200/2002 (through interpreter):   Your Honour, due to my extreme financial hardship I was suffering from I could not afford to have a lawyer or a solicitor or any legal representative to act on behalf, but initially I did get some sort of advice, how to prepare the applications and

everything, but the person who actually helped me out with the paperworks, he was actually one of the persons from my own community and unfortunately he passed away last – he did not mention any particular time but he said that gentleman passed away – so that up until today I am not quite well off.  I mean, I cannot afford it financially to have some sort of legal advice.

HER HONOUR:   What I am concerned about is this.  The Tribunal claims that on 27 March she requested that an officer contacted the applicant’s adviser and told him that she would not send the written questions and that if the applicant did not attend the hearing then a decision would be made on the available information.  I want to know about that adviser.

APPLICANT S200/2002 (through interpreter):   As I have mentioned earlier that I had an adviser initially and when that gentleman passed away then he had actually recommended my case to a different lawyer and that person is actually from my own community as well and his name is Mr Sirajul Haque.  But I did contact Mr Sirajul Haque to obtain some sort of advice in that regard but that gentleman actually asked me for a certain amount of money because this is his profession and it is why he practices.  So without being paid, he was not actually willing to help me out with any information anyway.  So that I had to take it over to me and I was actually looking after my own case.

So whatever the papers, the documentations, I have received so far from RRT I did actually correspond with them, writing letters and everything, and I did also fax them the relevant papers and documentations it was necessary to and I do have those copies of the faxes and the documentations, whatever I have been corresponding with them.

HER HONOUR:   Thank you.  Now I wish to speak to Mr Johnson.  Mr Johnson, I think there may be an issue there.  I do not know who this adviser was or – and I am relying on what is said in the decision.  Would it not be at least fairer for everybody if I were to adjourn this with a recommendation to the Bar Association that somebody look at this aspect and see whether documents can be prepared to raise the issue properly?

MR JOHNSON:   Your Honour, if that is all there was, I would agree.  There are some relevant documents before your Honour which I could take your Honour to very shortly.

HER HONOUR:   No, my problem is who this adviser was.

MR JOHNSON:   Well, does your Honour have Ms Watson’s affidavit?

HER HONOUR:   I do, but what my problem is is the decision itself where it says an officer contacted this applicant’s adviser.

MR JOHNSON:   What I was going to suggest to your Honour was that I take your Honour to two underlying documents.  If your Honour is still concerned, then we would not oppose the course your Honour suggests.

HER HONOUR:   Yes.

MR JOHNSON:   The first underlying document that I will take your Honour to is at page 3.

HER HONOUR:   Page 3 of the affidavit.

MR JOHNSON:   Page 3 of the affidavit, yes.  It is the page numbered 3 down the bottom.  It is “Appointment of Person to Act as Agent”, if your Honour sees that, and ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   Who are these people though?

MR JOHNSON:   Hopefully he is a migration agent, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:   I am just wondering about that because, you see, what is happening, as I understand it, is this applicant is writing himself to the Tribunal and then the Tribunal, instead of responding to him, deals with this agent who makes a reply seemingly without instruction – I mean, in a timeframe that seems to be without instructions.

MR JOHNSON:   Well, two things in relation to that, your Honour.  Firstly, Mr Haque, as the person who is nominated by the applicant, is the one who, for instance, would have to receive, pursuant to the Act, pursuant to section 494D of the Act, copies of documents ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   Well, that may be so but does he not write himself?

MR JOHNSON:   Well, that is right, your Honour, but if we go past that first adjournment and come to the letter dated ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   Well, I am looking at the 20/2 ‑ ‑ ‑

MR JOHNSON:   Yes, that is the medical – that is a medical certificate, 20/2/2002.

HER HONOUR:   Just bear with me, sorry.

MR JOHNSON:   That is all right, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:   Immigration file number ‑ ‑ ‑

MR JOHNSON:   This letter on 20/2 at page 12 ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   I mean, 20 January it says.  So he is writing himself, is he not?  Have I got it wrong or is ‑ ‑ ‑

MR JOHNSON:   No, on the 20^th, your Honour – there was an adjournment application after this, so this is ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   No, what I am concerned about is not the steps that were taken – just so we can be clear – it is the question whether the agent was still the agent and whether – I do not wish to indicate a firm view ‑ ‑ ‑

MR JOHNSON:   No.

HER HONOUR:   ‑ ‑ ‑ but my worry is whether the communication in these circumstances to the agent who then, apparently without reference, says go ahead ‑ ‑ ‑

MR JOHNSON:   Could I just take your Honour through the indications that the agent was in the loop to the knowledge of the applicant and if your Honour ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   Not in the loop.  Not in the loop; able to bind this man.

MR JOHNSON:   I see, your Honour.  Look, if we go to page 10 down the bottom – this is a letter to the Tribunal – sorry, to the applicant with a copy sent to the agent which is an indication to the applicant the Tribunal still regards the agent as being his.

HER HONOUR:   Yes.

MR JOHNSON:   This particular letter is overtaken.  It tells the applicant that the Tribunal is not prepared to adjourn, but then at page 12 the applicant writes – it is signed by the applicant but if your Honour notes up the top it is dated 20 February 2002 and it says “From” and then there is the agent’s name.  So the applicant has signed it with the – signed it as a letter from the agent to the Department and this is ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   I am just not following that.

MR JOHNSON:   Did your Honour see up on the left of the page it says “To” and then there is an address given:

Officer in Charge
Department of Immigration
 . . . 

From
Mr –

and then there is a name.  That is the agent’s name.

HER HONOUR:   Well, are you sure?  I would not know.

MR JOHNSON:   I am sorry. 

HER HONOUR:   You see I do not know anybody’s name.  You will not let me know.

MR JOHNSON:   No, I am sorry, your Honour, that is the applicant’s name, I apologise.  That is the applicant’s name, your Honour.  Then there is a medical certificate attached to that.  Then there is a conversation with the doctor that your Honour has already referred to.

HER HONOUR:   He said if he takes his medication, he will be good in a month, and that is exactly what he gets.

MR JOHNSON:   That is right.

HER HONOUR:   Not longer.  Then there is another letter, is there not?

MR JOHNSON:   And then – this is the one that I meant to take your Honour to, and I apologise – 27 February 2002.

HER HONOUR:   What page is that?

MR JOHNSON:   That is page 17 down the bottom.

HER HONOUR:   Yes.

MR JOHNSON:   And this is addressed to the applicant and then, if your Honour notes over on page 18, there is a copy sent to the same agent that he had nominated in the first document that I took your Honour to and this tells him the new hearing date and it says there in capital letters your Honour will have noticed:

IF YOU DO NOT ATTEND THE HEARING AND A POSTPONEMENT HAS NOT BEEN GRANTED, THE TRIBUNAL MAY MAKE A DECISION ON YOUR CASE WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE.

HER HONOUR:   Yes.

MR JOHNSON:   So he is aware at this stage that the Department regards the agent as his.  There is no indication that the ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   Well, he knows that a copy has been sent to the agent ‑ ‑ ‑

MR JOHNSON:   Well, that is true.  That is true.

HER HONOUR:   ‑ ‑ ‑ and he knows at this point that the Tribunal communicates with him directly.  This is the worry about it.

MR JOHNSON:   Well, I am not sure there is a great deal more then that I can take your Honour to to allay that concern because the other communications ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   It is his letter then ‑ ‑ ‑

MR JOHNSON:   Well, he writes – there is that conversation with the agent on page 20 that your Honour will have noticed.

HER HONOUR:   Conversation with the agent?

MR JOHNSON:   Page 20, an officer ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   Yes, the refugee speaks to the agent.

MR JOHNSON:   That is right, an officer ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   But then again this man writes himself.

MR JOHNSON:   That is so.

HER HONOUR:   And the communication then – although there have been communications with him, it is then an agent ‑ ‑ ‑

MR JOHNSON:   That is right.  There is a ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   I do not want to express a firm view but it seems to me that both sides might need to investigate this matter a bit.

MR JOHNSON:   Well, yes, there is a document, your Honour, which is not with that affidavit, dated 11 March which I would seek to tender.  It is signed by the applicant on 11 March.  It is a response to hearing invitation form and it indicates that he wants to bring someone to the hearing, namely the same agent as was nominated.

HER HONOUR:   Yes.

MR JOHNSON:   Could I just show that to the applicant?

THE INTERPRETER:   I am sorry, I am just explaining a little bit otherwise he would not understand.

HER HONOUR:   Yes.

MR JOHNSON:   If your Honour is still concerned, we would not object, that if it turns out to be a non‑issue ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   Well, the problem, it seems to me, is 27 March and what – and I am going to page 3 of the decision I think it was.

MR JOHNSON:   The officer’s file note your Honour would have noticed on page 24.

HER HONOUR:   I know.  That is the problem.

MR JOHNSON:   I wonder if the applicant could perhaps just be asked through the interpreter whether he agrees that that is his signature.  Can I ask him that through the interpreter?

APPLICANT S200/2002 (through interpreter):   When my first migration agent was actually passed away, my case was actually actually recommended automatically to Mr Sirajul Haque, the second agent, and accordingly he did contact me on the phone and asked me if I could possibly come and see him, which I did, and then he told me that if I want him to act on behalf then I have to authorise him by signing a paper, which I did, okay, and within a certain time he was asking for money and then told me clearly that he would not be able to act for me unless I pay him a certain amount of money and I could not actually pay him anything.  So, so far that is all what happened and I do not know actually what happened afterward.

HER HONOUR:   Well, that does not necessarily – I do not know whether it answers your question or not but ‑ ‑ ‑

MR JOHNSON:   No, no, but perhaps if the interpreter could just have another go and ask him whether he agrees that is his signature.

HER HONOUR:   Yes.  The only question we want to know is is that his signature?

APPLICANT S200/2002 (through interpreter):   He was asking for my authorisation, yes, I did sign it and I can see that is my signature.  When the matter came in as an issue to act on behalf then – but he was asking for money which I could not afford to pay him and then I really do not know actually what happened after ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   Very well.  Do not tell me anything more.  Mr Johnson, you do not really – there is something to be investigated here.  I do not know what the answer will be.  Now, Mr Interpreter, could you tell the applicant this, that there may be a problem, although I cannot say there is, about the communications between him and his agent and the Tribunal.  Can you just say that.  What I would like to do is to adjourn the matter and make a recommendation to the Bar Association of New South Wales that it provide a pro bono lawyer to look at the issue of those communications.  Does the applicant object to that course?

APPLICANT S200/2002 (through interpreter):   Well, it is a great help indeed.  I do appreciate greatly your concern, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:   Well, it may – I am not suggesting that it will necessarily – that the inquiries will necessarily result in a decision in the applicant’s favour but I do think it needs to be investigated at this stage.

APPLICANT S200/2002 (through interpreter):   Can I say something?

HER HONOUR:   Yes.

APPLICANT S200/2002 (through interpreter):   When I have appealed to the RRT to reconsider the case they have notified me in writing that they have received such file and applications for it and they did not actually contact me for such a long time and when they came in in a state that – to set up a time and date for hearing or something, they did let me know, but I did ask for a further extended time due to my illness.  They did not actually consider that properly.  Now, my understanding is they did not actually pay the attention and ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   Well, that is what we would like to check out.

APPLICANT S200/2002 (through interpreter):   I want to say a little more about it, thanks.

HER HONOUR:   Yes.

APPLICANT S200/2002 (through interpreter):   With my regards and high respect to the Australian law, I would like to mention that the way RRT conducts interviews with immigration applicant, most of the time they actually ignore – they do not actually come into conclusion with the positive points of view ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   Well, we do not need to know – if you tell him we do not need to know that at this stage.  What we need – we need to have a lawyer look at these papers and we need the applicant to speak to the lawyer who can come back to this Court with a proper argument relating to it.

APPLICANT S200/2002 (through interpreter):   Thanks.

HER HONOUR:   What I am going to do is I am going to adjourn it for six weeks and the Registrar will today contact the Bar Association and forward a transcript of today’s proceedings and make it clear to them that my concern concerns the question whether it was sufficient or proper simply to communicate with the person whose name appeared as agent on the immigration papers.  Would the week ‑ ‑ ‑

MR JOHNSON:   The week commencing 18 November, your Honour, I think would allow six weeks fully clear.

HER HONOUR:   Yes.  Has the Bar been able to provide people within six weeks in the past?  Well, look, I will adjourn it until 18 October.  Mr Johnson, you ‑ ‑ ‑

MR JOHNSON:   18 November, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:   18 November, is it?

MR JOHNSON:   Yes, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:   All right.  I will adjourn it until 18 November, sorry, thank you.  Would you be kind enough to contact the Bar Association and indicate what has transpired today too?

MR JOHNSON:   Yes, I will, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:   And, Mr Interpreter, would you make sure that the Registry has a telephone number where the applicant can be contacted.  There is a telephone number, is there?

APPLICANT S200/2002 (through interpreter):   I was actually contacted by the Registry office, the local office, on my telephone number and I still do have the same number, so I do not think it needs to be changed, but I would like to draw your attention to – the postal address actually I am actually intending to change.  Now, do you think it is going to be a problem or am I allowed to just notify you of my new address?

HER HONOUR:   Well, it will be important for the Bar Association or the barrister to contact him, so he should make sure that there is a telephone number and an address at the Registry at all times so that he can be contacted, but it is only for the purpose of allowing the barrister to make contact.  Yes, very well.  Nothing else is there?

MR JOHNSON:   I was going to suggest, your Honour, that the applicant also notify Ms Watson, my instructing solicitor, of any new address in case we need to send anything to him.

HER HONOUR:   Yes.  Well, it will be with the Registry, so you can get it through the Registry.

MR JOHNSON:   Thank you, your Honour.  There is nothing else, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:   I will certify at this stage for the attendance of counsel and I will make no other orders in that regard.

APPLICANT S200/2002 (through interpreter):   So nothing to be worried about with my home address.  It remains as it is, but I am going to change my postal address and I will notify you accordingly.  That should not be a problem at all.

HER HONOUR:   Thank you very much.  I will simply certify for the attendance of counsel and adjourn the matter until 18 November 2002 in Sydney.

APPLICANT S200/2002 (through interpreter):   I greatly appreciate your concern in order to help me out with this information which I did not – I never came across the Bar Association who are eventually going to help me out a bit with some legal advice ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   Well, I hope so.

APPLICANT S200/2002 (through interpreter):   ‑ ‑ ‑ and also the way you paid your Honour to me I highly respect that.  I thank you very much indeed.

HER HONOUR:   Well, he does not have to say that.  Thank you.  The matter will be called on again at 9.30 on 18 November in the same court, thank you.

AT 11.16 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED

UNTIL MONDAY, 18 NOVEMBER 2002