APV15 v Minister for Immigration
[2017] FCCA 2608
•27 October 2017
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| APV15 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2017] FCCA 2608 |
| Catchwords: MIGRATION – Judicial review – Refugee Review Tribunal – Sri Lankan Tamil – whether lack of procedural fairness – whether bias – whether wrong issue identified on basis of wrong question – whether jurisdictional error. |
| Legislation: Immigrants and Emigrants Act 1949 (Sri Lanka) Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.36(2), 46A(2), 65, 91R, 474, 476 Prevention of Terrorism Act 1979 (Temporary Provisions) Act 1979 (Sri Lanka) |
| Cases cited: Applicant WAEE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 184; (2003) 236 FCR 593; (2003) 75 ALD 630 Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 26; (2003) 77 ALJR 1088; (2003) 197 ALR 389; (2003) 73 ALD 321 Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng [2001] HCA 17; (2001) 205 CLR 507; (2001) 75 ALJR 679; (2001) 178 ALR 421; (2001) 65 ALD 1 Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairsv Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; (2001) 206 CLR 323; (2001) 75 ALJR 1105; (2001) 180 ALR 1; (2001) 62 ALD 225 NAHI v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 10 Re Refugee Review Tribunal & Anor; Ex parte H & Anor [2001] HCA 28; (2001) 75 ALJR 982; (2001) 179 ALR 425 WZATI v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2015] FCA 923 WZAVL v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2015] FCCA 2388 | ||
| Applicant: | APV15 | |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
| Second Respondent: | ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | PEG 173 of 2015 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Antoni Lucev |
| Hearing date: | 28 November 2016 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 28 November 2016 |
| Delivered at: | Perth |
| Delivered on: | 27 October 2017 |
REPRESENTATION
| For the Applicant: | In person (with the assistance of an interpreter) |
| Counsel for the First Respondent: | Mr A Burgess |
| For the Second Respondent: | Submitting appearance, save as to costs |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Sparke Helmore |
ORDERS
That the application be dismissed.
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PERTH |
PEG 173 of 2015
| APV15 |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
First Respondent
| ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
On 28 April 2015 the applicant lodged an application for judicial review (“Judicial Review Application”) pursuant to s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“Migration Act”) seeking review of a decision of the then Refugee Review Tribunal, now the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“Tribunal Decision” and “Tribunal” respectively) to affirm a decision of a delegate (“Delegate’s Decision” and “Delegate” respectively) of the first respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (“Minister”) to refuse the applicant a Protection (Class XA) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act (“Protection Visa”). A copy of the Tribunal Decision dated 16 April 2015 is at Court Book (“CB”) 142-183.
Background
The background prior to the time of the Tribunal Decision is as follows:
a)the applicant, a citizen of Sri Lanka, arrived in Australia on 18 July 2012 as an unauthorised maritime arrival. On 21 November 2012 the Minister lifted the bar under s.46A(2) of the Migration Act: CB 1, and the applicant lodged an application for the Protection Visa on 2 January 2013: CB 5-34;
b)the applicant claimed to fear harm upon return to Sri Lanka on the basis of his imputed political opinion, Tamil ethnicity and his illegal departure;
c)the applicant specifically claimed that:
i)his wife's father was abducted in 1992 and remained missing: CB 129;
ii)in 2006, he was the voluntary secretary for the Sri Patarakali Amman Paripalana Sabai temple social group. His normal occupation was a fisherman and he would collect donation money from other vessels: CB 51 at [5]-[6]);
iii)the Criminal Investigation Department (“CID”) accused him of taking some of the money and giving it to the LTTE: CB 51 at [8];
iv)in April 2006, he was stopped while walking home and put in a van and questioned in relation to the money he was collecting. He was beaten and held for 11 days: CB 51-52 at [9]-[19];
v)the CID questioned his friends and others in the community and when he became aware of this he moved to Madagalup: CB 52 at [20]-[21];
vi)while he was in Madagalup his family moved to India, he travelled to India in August and found his family in the Mandapam refugee camp. He stayed with them in the camp for two months and then returned to Sri Lanka: CB 52[23]-[27];
vii)in 2007, a member of a community group whom the applicant worked with was abducted: CB 129;
viii)in 2008, a further member of the group was abducted: CB 129;
ix)in May 2012, "strangers" in the village were asking about the applicant: CB 129; and
x)in 2012 he heard that "there were a lot of kidnappings being conducted by the Sri Lanka army" which made him frightened so he came to Australia for protection: CB 52 at [29]-[30]);
d)on 4 March 2014, the Delegate refused the grant of the Protection Visa: CB 94-111;
e)on 17 March 2014, the applicant lodged an application to the Tribunal for review of the Delegate’s Decision: CB 112-114; and
f)on 16 April 2015, following a hearing on 16 March 2015, the Tribunal affirmed the Delegate’s Decision: CB 135 and 142.
Tribunal Decision
In the Tribunal Decision the Tribunal found that:
a)whilst parts of the applicant's claim and evidence were credible there were significant inconsistencies and implausibility in other important parts: CB 151 at [56];
b)in relation to his Tamil ethnicity, the Tribunal found that there had been significant improvements in security, economic and other conditions in Sri Lanka and that country information, on the whole, did not support the conclusion that the applicant faced a real risk of serious harm for reasons of his Tamil ethnicity: CB 152 at [58]; and
c)in relation to the applicant's claimed imputed pro-LTTE political opinion the Tribunal accepted that:
i)the applicant was secretary of the Sri Patarakali Amman Paripalana Sabai Temple Society (“Temple Society”): CB 153 at [63];
ii)the CID investigated whether funds from the Temple Society were being diverted to the LTTE: CB 153 at [63];
iii)the applicant was questioned by the CID: CB 153 at [63];
iv)the applicant faced a degree of mistreatment and bruising and was threatened during the detention: CB 153 at [63];
v)the applicant moved to Madagalup or Batticaloa one week after the CID questioning: CB 153-154 at [67];
vi)the applicant's family left the village in 2006 and went to India: CB 154 at [68]; and
vii)the applicant's father-in-law may have been kidnapped in 1991: CB 154 at [69];
The Tribunal did not accept that:
a)the applicant's release was secured by a person called Chutty: CB 153 at [64];
b)the applicant moved to Batticaloa out of fear of the CID: CB 154 at [67];
c)a secondary motivation of the applicant’s family moving to India was the ongoing interest on the part of the CID in the applicant: CB 154 at [68]; and
d)the authorities began harassing the applicant in 2012: CB 154 at [69];
The Tribunal also found that:
a)the CID concluded that the applicant had been truthful to them and that neither he, nor the Temple Society, had diverted funds to the financial support of the LTTE: CB 153 at [65], and thereafter left the applicant and his family alone: CB 154 at [68]; and
b)the applicant did not face a real chance of serious harm at the hands of the CID, or anyone else, for reasons of an imputed pro-LTTE or anti-government political opinion: CB 154 at [69].
In relation to the applicant's illegal departure, the Tribunal:
a)accepted there was a real chance that the applicant may be arrested and imprisoned for a few days on remand because he departed the country illegally, and accepted that he would be questioned at the airport upon arrival and that he would likely be fined an amount that could represent a high figure for the applicant. It did not however accept that returnees are being mistreated by the authorities at the airport or in remand: CB 157 at [79]); and
b)it was satisfied, in any event, that the illegal departure laws were laws of general application and would not give rise to persecution under s.91R(1)(c) of the Migration Act: CB 158 at [80].
Although not raised by the applicant, the Tribunal further considered any risk of harm as a result of the applicant being a returned failed asylum seeker, and accepted that relevant checks would be made with the authorities in the applicant's home town, however, found that the applicant would not face a real chance of serious harm as a result thereof: CB 158 at [83]-[84].
In relation to the complementary protection criteria the Tribunal found:
a)as it was not satisfied the applicant would be perceived to be an LTTE supporter, and there was no reliable evidence that failed asylum seekers were being persecuted under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1979 (Sri Lanka) (“POT Act”), the applicant did not face a real risk of significant harm due to a perception of being an LTTE supporter: CB 159 at [88];
b)the applicant did not face a real chance or real risk of mistreatment in the process of being determined not to be a person of interest to the authorities: CB 159-160 at [89];
c)there was not a real risk that the death penalty would be carried out or that the applicant would be tortured or subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment or degrading treatment or punishment: CB 160 at [90]; and
d)the relatively short period the applicant would spend in remand did not amount to an act or omission by which severe physical or mental pain or suffering is intentionally inflicted: CB 161 at [96].
Grounds of the Judicial Review Application
The Judicial Review Application sets out the following unparticularised grounds of application:
1.Jurisdictional error
2.Bias based on conscious or unconscious prejudice by ignoring relevant material.
3.Identifying a wrong issue based on a wrong question.
Applicant’s further affidavits
Applicant’s 2 September 2015 Affidavit
The applicant filed an affidavit on 2 September 2015 (“Applicant’s September 2015 Affidavit”) in which he set out his submissions as follows:
I am the Applicant in this case and I wish to make the following submissions for a fresh inquiry to be held to determine my application to stay in Australia:
1. Reference is made to paragraphs 22, 23, 30, 31, 43, 44, 46, 53, 55, 56, 58, 64, 68, 71, 72, 75, 76, 77, 78, 83, 87, 88, 92 of the Decision Record of the Refugee Review Tribunal of 16 April 2015.
2. I submit that in terms of paragraph 23 my seeking protection on the basis of my Tamil ethnicity. My submission is the Sri Lankan Tamils have over the years since the British left the country in February 1948 being subject to human right violations and an attempt at ethnic genocide proved by the riots of 1958, 1983 and the human rights violations committed on the Sri Lankan Tamils in 2009, which is now being investigated by the UNHCR.
3. The Prevention of Terrorism Act no 48of 1979 was a law enacted in response to Tamil revolt against operation. I annex herewith a fact book with a report from the International Commission of Jurists, which clearly points to this fact.
4. Paragraph 30 the Tribunal has accepted that the CID had questioned me as to whether the temple society money was going to the LTTE. This was a common practice by the LTTE to collect funds. The CID therefore had a suspicion that 1 had a connection with the LTTE. The second respondent due to his bias and prejudice did not accept my submissions.
5. This prejudice was also seen in his comments in paragraph 31 where he did not accept my evidence.
6. In paragraph 42 the Second Respondent had stated that I was not suspected of people smuggling. This is not correct as l had assisted in piloting the boat that I came in, and I stated this in my initial interview. I submit herewith a copy of my certificate issued in Sri Lanka that point to the fact that I can pilot fishing boats.
7. I submit herewith a copy of page 1 of the Immigrates and Emigrates Act 20 of 1948 amended up to 2006. Under this as a suspected person who assisted persons to leave Sri Lanka I will be subject to severe punishment in Sri Lanka.
8. In regard paragraphs 44, 46, 58, 72, 73, 75, 76, 83, 87, 88 and 92 are based on an error as to the real situation in Sri Lanka as regards the ethnic Tamils, and those in this community who are perceived to have connections with the Tamil revolt which was crushed in 2009. I submit herewith a report filed by Julian Burger Diplomatic Editor from London who clearly states that this abuse and torture of Tamils under suspicion yet continues.
9. The statement that only high profile Tamils with links to the LTTE are subject to torture is not correct. Any Tamil in Sri Lanka who is perceived to have connections with the LTTE is subject to the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
10. I submit that the Second Respondent was subject to bias and therefore did not have a fair procedure in assessing my claims by basing his views on the report of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and being subject to the directions given by the First Respondent on persons like me who have sought asylum by arriving in boats.
My application therefore is that you direct that a new inquiry be held as an asylum seeker in Australia, free from prejudice and bias.
The Applicant’s September 2015 Affidavit annexes various attachments as part of the submissions.
Applicant’s October 2016 Affidavit
The applicant filed an affidavit on 26 October 2016 (“Applicant’s October 2016 Affidavit”) in which he set out further submissions as follows:
2) In furtherance of my application I submit the following two documents:
a)Marked I an article appearing in the Tamil Net dated 7th October 2016, which points to the action of the Sri Lankan armed forces in the Northern Province of Sri Lanka.
b) Document marked II appearing in the Tamil Net dated 4th October 2016.
3) These documents, along with the other documents I submitted earlier point to the real country situation.
4) The Second Respondent had not paid due diligence to the problems faced by the Sri Lankan Tamils like me in Sri Lanka.
5) The Second Respondent had also not given attention to the fact that I had been arrested and detained by the Sri Lankan armed forces on suspicion
6) The Second Respondent had also not paid attention to the fact that my close relations had been suspected of having close links with the LTTE.
Consideration
The requirement for jurisdictional error
The Tribunal Decision is only liable to be set aside upon review if it involves jurisdictional error: Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth of Australia [2003] HCA 2; (2003) 211 CLR 476; (2003) 77 ALJR 454; (2003) 195 ALR 24; (2003) 72 ALD 1 at [76] per Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ. Further, an error by the Tribunal, will only constitute jurisdictional error if the Tribunal:
a)identifies a wrong issue;
b)asks the wrong question;
c)ignores relevant material; or
d)relies on irrelevant material,
in such a way that the Tribunal’s exercise or purported exercise of power is thereby affected resulting in a decision exceeding or failing to exercise the authority or powers given under the relevant statute: Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; (2001) 206 CLR 323; (2001) 75 ALJR 1105; (2001) 180 ALR 1; (2001) 62 ALD 225 at [82] per McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ.
Ground 1
The failure to particularise a ground of review is sufficient to warrant dismissal of a ground of review. In WZAVW v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2016] FCA 760 at [35] per Gilmour J (“WZAVW”) the Federal Court observed as follows:
Ground two is, I agree, an unparticularised assertion of jurisdictional error and is vague and meaningless. It does not specify what the nature of the jurisdictional error allegedly committed by the Court below is. Failure to particularise a ground of review is sufficient basis for it to be dismissed: WZATH v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCCA 612 at [60] and upheld in WZATH v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[2014] FCA 969.
In this case, the applicant has failed to particularise ground 1 and that is sufficient to warrant its dismissal: WZAVW at [35] per Gilmour J, and the cases there cited. See also AQN15 v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2016] FCCA 58 at [33]-[35] per Judge Howard. WZAVL v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2015] FCCA 2388 at [26] per Judge Lucev.
Ground 2
In this matter, the applicant appears to point to paragraphs 22, 23, 30, 31, 42, 43, 44, 46, 53, 55, 56, 58, 64, 68, 71, 72, 73, 75, 76, 77, 78, 83, 87, 88 and 92 of the Tribunal Decision to support the allegation of bias.
At paragraphs 22, 23, 30, 31, 42, 43, 44 and 46 of the Tribunal Decision the Tribunal recounted evidence given at the Tribunal hearing as well as the country information and concerns discussed.
At paragraphs 53 and 55 of the Tribunal Decision, the Tribunal set out the relevant case law in relation to credibility and at paragraph 87 set out the terms of s.36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act.
At paragraphs 56, 58, 64, 68, 77, 78, 83, 88 and 92 the Tribunal then reached its findings. The Tribunal's findings in those paragraphs were made on the basis of an assessment of the applicant's evidence, and submissions, as well as country information.
At paragraphs 71, 72, 73, 75 and 76 the Tribunal set out country information in relation to the issue of illegal departure. It is evident from a review of the Tribunal Decision that the Tribunal did not rely solely on country information prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (“DFAT”). Rather, the country information at Attachment B to the Tribunal Decision at CB 166-283 at [119]-[160] discusses a wide array of sources of country information. Ultimately, however, the selection and weight given to country information is a matter for the Tribunal: NAHI v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 10 at [11]-[13] per Gray, Tamberlin and Lander JJ (“NAHI”).
The applicant's bias claim cannot be established because the applicant has made no attempt to comply with the requirement that a serious allegation, bias, be firmly and distinctly made and clearly proven: Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng [2001] HCA 17; (2001) 205 CLR 507; (2001) 75 ALJR 679; (2001) 178 ALR 421; (2001) 65 ALD 1; CLR at 531 at Gleeson CJ and Gummow J, (“Jia Legeng”). In any event, there is no evidence:
a)that the Tribunal member had a pre-existing state of mind which disabled him from undertaking or rendered him unwilling to undertake any proper evaluation of the relevant materials before him which were relevant to the decision to be made: Jia Legeng CLR at [35] and [72] per Gleeson CJ and Gummow J; or
b)upon which a fair-minded lay observer, properly informed as to the nature of the proceedings, the matters in issue and the conduct of the Tribunal, might reasonably apprehend that the Tribunal member may not have brought an impartial mind to the resolution of the question to be decided: Re Refugee Review Tribunal & Anor; Ex parte H & Anor [2001] HCA 28; (2001) 75 ALJR 982; (2001) 179 ALR 425 at [27]-[28] per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron and Gummow JJ.
In Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v SZNPG [2010] FCAFC 51; (2010) 115 ALD 303 North and Lander JJ said at [18]:
It is a rare case in which a Court will find that a decision maker has breached the natural justice hearing rule by exhibiting bias based simply upon the decision maker's reasons: SBBS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2002) 194 ALR 749 at [441 The same is the case in relation to apprehended bias. Ordinarily a party would need to show some conduct on the part of the decision maker, apart from the decision maker's expression of the decision maker's reasons, which would indicate that the decision maker has been guilty of pre-judgment or was in any way biased.
No conduct by the Tribunal of the requisite kind is pointed to by the applicant.
The applicant's complaint of bias constitutes no more than a request for impermissible merits review based on the applicant's dissatisfaction with the Tribunal’s findings: Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang& Ors (1996) 185 CLR 259; (1996) 70 ALJR 568; (1996) 136 ALR 481; (1996) 41 ALD 1; CLR at 272 per Brennan CJ, Toohey, McHugh and Gummow JJ (“Wu Shan Liang”); Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1; (1990) 64 ALJR 327; (1990) 33 IR 263; (1990) 93 ALR 1; CLR at 35-36 per Brennan J (“Quin”).
In the above circumstances no jurisdictional error is revealed by ground 2.
Ground 3
Subject to exercising its power in a manner which does not manifest jurisdictional error, it is for the Tribunal to consider the claims made by the applicant: Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] HCA 26; (2003) 77 ALJR 1088; (2003) 197 ALR 389; (2003) 73 ALD 321, and to identify the material that it finds relevant to its reasoning and to give it appropriate weight: Tran v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 297 at [5]-[7] per Kiefel, RD Nicholson and Downes JJ; Applicant WAEE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 184; (2003) 236 FCR 593; (2003) 75 ALD 630 at [46] per French, Sackville and Hely JJ.
The Applicant’s September 2015 and October 2016 Affidavits appear to advance this ground further by contending that the Tribunal:
a)did not pay due diligence to the problems faced by Tamils in Sri Lanka;
b)did not consider the fact that the applicant had been arrested and detained by the Sri Lankan armed forces;
c)did not consider the fact that close relations of the applicant had been suspected of having close links with the LTTE; and
d)failed to consider that the applicant assisted in piloting the boat upon which he came to Australia;
These grounds amount to a request for impermissible merits review. Wu Shan Liang CLR at 272 per Brennan CJ, Toohey, McHugh and Gummow JJ; Quin CLR at 35-36 per Brennan J.
The Tribunal Decision demonstrates that it had regard to:
a)the claim that the applicant had been detained by the CID: CB 143 at [7], 146-148 at [24]-[35] and 153-154 at [63]-[67];
b)the applicant's evidence in relation to any links of he and his family to the LTTE: CB 146 at [22], 152 at [62] and 154 at [69]; and
c)the applicant's evidence that he had never committed any crimes including people smuggling: CB 149 at [42] and 157 at [77].
In this matter the Tribunal considered the claims made by the applicant, and in so doing did not identify a wrong issue based on a wrong question, and nor did it ask itself the wrong question. Rather, the Tribunal:
a)set out, considered and made findings in relation to the applicant’s claims, evidence and materials in a very detailed manner;
b)set out and referred to relevant country information throughout the Tribunal Decision;
c)correctly identified the relevant law; and
d)drew conclusions that were reasonably open to it on the evidence and materials before it, for the reasons it gave.
Insofar as the applicant seeks to rely on country information dated October 2016 (in the Applicant’s October 2016 Affidavit), the applicant cannot do so.
On an application for judicial review of a decision of the Tribunal it is not open for this Court to have regard to material which was not capable of being put before the Tribunal because it post-dated the Tribunal Decision. To do so would be to embark upon fact-finding, and not judicial review, in respect of material which because of its post-Tribunal Decision origins, cannot give rise to jurisdictional error in the Tribunal Decision. The choice of country information and the factual findings arising from it, where those factual findings are, as here, open on the available material, are matters solely for the Tribunal as the finder of fact: NAHI at [11] per Gray, Tamberlin and Lander JJ. The Tribunal cannot commit jurisdictional error by failing to have regard to relevant material which was not in existence at the time of the Tribunal Decision, and the Court cannot have regard to such material: WZATI v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2015] FCA 923 at [70] per Barker J. On this basis, the Court cannot have regard to the October 2016 country information referred to in the Applicant’s October 2016 Affidavit.
In the above circumstances no jurisdictional error is revealed by ground 3.
Written submissions tendered at hearing
At the hearing of the matter the applicant tendered a written submission dated 28 November 2016 in the form of an affidavit sworn 27 November 2016, (together marked as MFI 1), but which essentially makes the following submissions or comments (albeit under cover and in the form of an affidavit):
2)I have already submitted documents and I wish to make the following comments:
a)The situation in Sri Lanka remains the same for persons like me who are perceived to have had links with the LTTE.
b)The armed forces are in control of the Northern and Eastern Provinces of Sri Lanka and there is no proper civil authority as they act under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
c)There might have been certain contradictions in my statements due to the stress I suffered due to the circumstances I had to go through. This should not be taken to assess my core credibility as a witness.
d)The UNHCR is presently undertaking an investigation into human rights abuses committed by the Sri Lankan government and its armed forces and this context my presence in Sri Lanka as a failed asylum seeker will be adversely accepted by the relevant authorities.
3)I have therefore a well-founded fear of returning to Sri Lanka for fear of persecution.
The above submissions essentially seek to re-argue the case on the merits, and to re-state the asserted well-founded fear of persecution on the part of the applicant if returned to Sri Lanka. These matters all amount to a request for impermissible merits review: Wu Shan Liang CLR at 272 per Brennan CJ, Toohey and Gummow JJ; Quin CLR at 35-36 per Brennan J. No jurisdictional error is alleged, and none can be established by the applicant’s request for impermissible merits review.
The document presently marked MFI 1 should be put on the electronic court file and marked as submissions filed in Court by the applicant on 28 November 2016.
Conclusion and orders
The Court has concluded that no jurisdictional error is established by the various grounds and matters put forward by the applicant. It follows that the Judicial Review Application must be dismissed. There will be an order accordingly.
The Court will hear the parties as to costs.
I certify that the preceding thirty-eight (38) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Antoni Lucev
Associate:
Date: 27 October 2017