BKP17 v Minister for Immigration and Anor

[2020] FCCA 1306

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BKP17 v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2020] FCCA 1306

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Administrative Appeals Tribunal – application for a Protection visa – whether the Tribunal misinterpreted the Protection visa application – whether the Tribunal considered the applicant’s health and injuries – no jurisdictional error made out – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.36, 476

Applicant: BKP17

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Second Respondent: ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

File Number: PEG 188 of 2017

Judgment of: Judge Street

Hearing date: 25 May 2020

Date of Last Submission: 25 May 2020

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 9 June 2020

REPRESENTATION

The applicant appeared in person via video link Microsoft Teams

Solicitors for the Respondents: Ms C Allen, Sparke Helmore, via video link Microsoft Teams

ORDERS

1. The name of the first respondent is changed to “Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs” and the Court dispenses with the need for the filing of any further document in that regard.

2. The application is dismissed

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

PEG 188 of 2017

BKP17

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTRUAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for a Constitutional writ within the Court’s jurisdiction under s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) in respect of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) made on 28 February 2017 affirming a decision of a delegate of the first respondent (“the Delegate”) not to grant the applicant a Protection visa. 

2. The applicant was found to be a citizen of Bangladesh and his claims were assessed against that country. 

3. The applicant was granted a Student visa and arrived in Australia on 1 January 2008. On 31 May 2011, the applicant returned to Bangladesh via Malaysia to visit his parents. The applicant returned to Australia on 16 June 2011 and has not since departed.

4. The applicant’s Student visa ceased on 15 March 2010. The applicant completed a diploma on 12 March 2020. The applicant filed an invalid application for protection on 5 December 2013. A second, valid application was lodged on 27 February 2014. 

5. The applicant claimed to fear harm in Bangladesh because police are suspicious of new people and he fears that he will be targeted and that the authorities will not protect him. 

6. The applicant also claimed to fear harm because of his father’s prior support for Jamaat-e-Islami. The applicant claimed that his father has changed his support to the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (“the BNP”).  The applicant also claimed that two of his brothers had become members of the BNP in the last two to three years and that he may be imputed with a political opinion because his parents do not support the ruling party. 

7. The applicant also claimed to fear harm because of a case filed against his family in relation to a land dispute. 

8. On 29 June 2015, the Delegate found that the applicant failed to meet the criteria for the grant of a Protection visa. The applicant applied for review on 24 July 2015. The applicant was invited to and attended a hearing before the Tribunal on 11 January 2017 to give evidence and to present arguments. 

9. The Tribunal, in its reasons, identified the relevant law and summarised the applicant’s claims. 

10. The Tribunal referred to the applicant’s passport and also an alleged complaint dated 27 April 2010 given to a particular police station. 

11. The Tribunal found aspects of the applicant’s claims to be lacking in detail, vague and unconvincing. The Tribunal identified significant inconsistencies between the applicant’s oral and written evidence. The Tribunal also identified the applicant raising new claims throughout the process and noted that he was unable to give a coherent account of events. The Tribunal identified concerns in relation to the applicant’s credibility and veracity. 

12. The Tribunal in its reasons referred to the hearing in January, however, it is apparent that the applicant was first invited to attend a hearing on 9 December 2016 and that the applicant sent a request for an adjournment because of being hospitalised as a result of an accident in which the applicant suffered burns to multiple parts of his body. It is apparent that it was on that basis that the Tribunal granted the adjournment and sent out a fresh invitation for a new hearing date on 11 January 2017. There is nothing before the Court to suggest that any adjournment was sought in respect of the hearing on 11 January 2017. 

13. Further, the Tribunal’s reasons summarised in detail raising with the applicant its concerns in relation to the applicant’s claims and identified the applicant’s response. It is not apparent that any issue was raised by the applicant with the Tribunal of any inability to participate in the hearing or any difficulty in understanding or engaging with the Tribunal at that hearing. 

14. The Tribunal referred to an alleged incident involving one of the applicant’s brothers and his uncle being attacked, and his uncle informing the police, and the applicant describing the dispute as one with neighbours over land that became a political issue. 

15. The Tribunal identified the inconsistency in the applicant’s evidence in relation to whether it was one of his brothers or two of his brothers that were attacked, raising concerns as to the veracity of these claims. 

16. The Tribunal also referred to the information provided by the applicant in which he had stated that it was his father and his four uncles that inherited and leased some property and that the lessees refused to pay their rent and that his uncle filed a complaint with the police. The applicant also stated that his uncle is a member of the BNP and president of a particular organisation. 

17. The Tribunal referred to the police complaint by the applicant’s uncle, provided by the applicant dated 27 April 2010. The Tribunal referred to discussing the document with the applicant and the applicant’s claims that when the complaint was filed the police did nothing. The Tribunal identified the applicant indicating that the complaint was true and from a police file. The Tribunal explored with the applicant whether the complaint was made before or after the attack and the applicant contended it was made after. 

18. The Tribunal summarised the substance of what was identified in the complaint in relation to the inheriting of land and having leased the same.  The complaint also identified that the lessee abused the applicant’s uncle in foul language. The complaint refers to someone going to the uncle with ‘some terrorists’ and threatening and abusing him in foul language.  The complaint also indicates that the uncle received a telephone call at his home and that a neighbour saved his younger brother from the terrorists and refers to the request in relation to the possibility of daily life being in danger being entered in the General Diary of the police station. 

19. The Tribunal found that the complaint does not indicate that either of the applicant’s brothers was attacked let alone that one was badly injured or the other hurt. The Tribunal identified further difficulties with the complaint and the absence of any other documents to support the applicant’s claims. 

20. The Tribunal referred to a new claim by the applicant in relation to a dispute over property and that a case could be filed against him. The Tribunal referred to discussing these claims with the applicant and the applicant providing evidence that the case is still pending. The Tribunal referred to asking the applicant why he had not provided any evidence in relation to that case and the applicant indicated that his brothers could not go there.

21. The Tribunal did not accept the applicant’s explanation as to why the applicant had not provided any evidence in support of his alleged court case. In these circumstances, the Tribunal found it implausible that a case could be filed against the applicant and added to an existing case when he is not the owner of land and has nothing to do with the dispute. 

22. The Tribunal identified other claims advanced in relation to the applicant’s two brothers and discussing the same with the applicant. The Tribunal took into account that the applicant gave evidence that he has never supported or been a member of a political party in Bangladesh.  

23. The Tribunal referred to a new claim by the applicant in relation to security forces going to his home and that if they find his brothers, they will be imprisoned. The Tribunal identified raising with the applicant why he did not mention these new claims during the interview on 5 December 2014. The Tribunal referred to the applicant’s assertions that such claims had been raised.

24. The Tribunal found that if these new claims had substance, the applicant would have raised these matters in his Protection visa application and during the interview with the Department on 5 December 2014. The Tribunal referred to raising the credibility concerns with the applicant in light of what was in the interview and was of the view that the new claim in relation to a court case over the land dispute had been fabricated for the purpose of advancing the applicant’s refugee claims.

25. The Tribunal referred to new claims in relation to the applicant alleging he was harassed by police in 2006 and 2007 when drinking tea with friends in a tea shop. The Tribunal sought to explore with the applicant further details in relation to the claims and the police taking him in their van, and referred to the account given by the applicant and the applicant’s assertion that the same thing happened again.

26. The Tribunal was of the view that if these incidents had occurred, the applicant would have mentioned them either in his Protection visa application or during his interview with the Department on 5 December 2014. The Tribunal also found it implausible that the applicant would have gone back to the same coffee shop if he had experienced the first alleged incident. The Tribunal also found the applicant’s evidence in relation to having lived in a particular location for seven years is not consistent with his assertion that he lived at a particular village from June 1977 to December 2007. 

27. The Tribunal referred to exploring with the applicant whether he personally experienced problems when he visited Bangladesh in 2011 and referred to the applicant’s claims that his brothers were not able to stay at home for a period of time. 

28. The Tribunal raised with the applicant the failure to mention these new claims and did not accept the applicant’s explanation that he was not asked for details. 

29. The Tribunal also explored with the applicant his claims concerning fears because the police are suspicious with new people. The Tribunal noted that if the applicant were to return to the village where he lived for most of his life, he would not be a ‘new’ person. The Tribunal also took into account the fact that the applicant had not provided any material to support his claims in relation to suspicion of new people by the police. 

30. The Tribunal also explored with the applicant what had occurred with his eldest brother.

31. The Tribunal identified that the applicant had made no mention of the court case against his family having an impact on him and that the claim was first made during the interview on 5 December 2014.  The Tribunal referred to the lack of any documents to support the alleged land dispute and the applicant alleged that he could not get the papers because of his injury and he could not get in touch with his family for quite a long time. The Tribunal did not accept that explanation and provided six logical reasons in support of the same. 

32. The Tribunal referred to raising with the applicant the land dispute not being one falling within a Refugee Convention ground. 

33. The Tribunal referred to the applicant’s migration history and his delay in making an application for protection. The Tribunal did not accept the applicant’s explanation for that delay which was taken into account in the adverse credibility findings. In these circumstances, the Tribunal found that the applicant is not a witness of truth and that he had fabricated his material claims for the purpose of obtaining a Protection visa.

34. The Tribunal did not accept that any of the applicant’s family members were supporters or members of the BNP and did not accept the applicant’s claims in that regard or that the applicant would be imputed with the political opinion because of his parents not supporting the ruling party. 

35. The Tribunal did not accept that one or other of the applicant’s brothers and his uncle were attacked in 2010. 

36. The Tribunal accepted that there was an inheritance of land and a dispute with their neighbour over the land. The Tribunal did not accept that a case had been filed against the applicant’s family in relation to the land dispute. The Tribunal did not accept that a case would be filed against the applicant because he is part of the family. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant is at risk of serious harm or significant harm because of the land dispute if he returns to Bangladesh now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. 

37. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant is at risk of being arrested, imprisoned and made the subject of false charges being filed against him by the police. The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant is at risk of being targeted by police on suspicion that he is related to Islamic extremists groups. 

38. The Tribunal was not satisfied that there is a real chance that the applicant would suffer serious harm for any of the reasons claimed if he returns to Bangladesh now or in the reasonably foreseeable future. 

39. Having considered the applicant’s claims individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal found that the applicant does not have a well-founded fear of persecution for a Refugee Convention reason. Accordingly, the Tribunal found that the applicant does not meet the criteria in s 36(2)(a) of the Act. 

40. The Tribunal was not satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the applicant being returned to Bangladesh from Australia, there is a real risk that the applicant will suffer significant harm. The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the criteria in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act and affirmed the decision under review. 

Before the Court

1. These proceedings were commenced on 29 March 2017. On 21 June 2017, a Registrar of the Court made orders giving the applicant an opportunity to file an amended application, affidavit evidence and submissions. No such documents were filed. 

2. At the commencement of the hearing the Court explained to the applicant the nature of the hearing and the applicant confirmed that he understood the nature of the hearing as explained by the Court. 

3. From the bar table the applicant then sought an adjournment. The applicant explained that he had a mental condition and that he wanted an adjournment because of COVID-19 issues and the inability to obtain representation. 

4. The Court asked the applicant why he had not had an ample opportunity to obtain legal representation if he was able to do so given that the proceedings were commenced on 29 March 2017. The applicant provided no satisfactory explanation in that regard. 

5. The applicant referred to having sent an email to the Court registry seeking an adjournment. That email attached the document from a counsellor, Jojo Scekic, dated 23 April 2020 that identified the applicant benefiting from counselling sessions and would continue to do so. Nothing in that letter supported any basis on which the applicant was unable to meaningfully participate in the hearing. 

6. The adjournment application was opposed by the first respondent. 

7. The counsellor’s document did not identify a proper basis upon which an adjournment should be granted. The applicant has had an ample opportunity, if he was able, to obtain legal representation and has not been able to do so.

8. Further, there was no other evidence to support the applicant having any mental condition in respect of his ability to participate in the hearing.  The applicant’s engagement with the Court in the course of the hearing, in which the Court reserved its decision, identified that the applicant was able to understand and meaningful participate in the hearing. 

9. The applicant’s reference to the COVID-19 pandemic does not identify a proper basis upon which an adjournment should be granted. This Court has been regularly hearing cases by video link and by audio link and the existence of the pandemic is not of itself a proper basis upon which an adjournment should be granted. 

10. The Court does not accept that the applicant’s reference to his mental state and/or his reference to potential difficulties recently obtaining a lawyer identify any proper basis upon which an adjournment should be granted. The applicant has had ample time to obtain representation if he was able to do so.  The Court is not satisfied that an adjournment would give rise to the applicant being represented. 

11. Further, the Court has also taken into account the lack of substantive merit in relation to the grounds identified by the applicant in the applicant’s application and affidavit. 

12. In these circumstances, the Court is not satisfied that an adjournment is warranted in the interests of the administration of justice. It was for these reasons that the Court made an order refusing the application for adjournment. 

13. From the bar table, the applicant identified that he disagreed with the adverse findings by the Tribunal in rejecting his claims on credibility grounds. 

14. The Tribunal provided comprehensive, cogent and logical reasons in support of the adverse credibility findings, which have been summarised above. The inconsistencies, implausibility and delay in the application for protection support the finding by this Court that the adverse findings cannot be said to lack an evident and intelligible justification. The applicant’s disagreement with the adverse findings do not identify any jurisdictional error. 

15. From the bar table, the applicant sought to proffer explanations as to why he had been unable to provide documentation.  The explanations advanced are not consistent with what was put to the Tribunal but, in any event, it was for the applicant to provide sufficient evidence to establish his claims. The want of documentation in relation to the applicant’s claims was a logical and rational matter for the Tribunal to take into account. 

16. The applicant’s disagreement with the adverse finding in relation to the land dispute and in relation to the alleged complaint to the police station does not give rise to any jurisdictional error in the conduct of the review. 

17. The applicant maintained that he could not safely return to Bangladesh.  This, in substance, was an invitation to this Court to engage in impermissible merits review. 

18. On the face of the Tribunals reasons the Tribunal made dispositive findings in respect of the whole of the applicant’s claims. There is no integer identified of the applicant’s claims that the Tribunal failed to address. On the face of the material before the Court, the applicant had a real and meaningful hearing before the Tribunal and the Tribunal had a genuine intellectual engagement with the applicant’s claims and evidence in the making of dispositive findings that were open to the Tribunal for the reasons summarised above. 

19. Nothing said by the applicant from the bar table identified any jurisdictional error. 

20. The application has two grounds referred to under interlocutory relief, as follows:

    1.The Tribunal made an error of law by misinterpreting my protection visa application.

    2.Due to my fire burn injury I am still on treatment. I have to carry on to Fiona Stanley hospital minimum on year.

1. There is no identification of any error or misinterpretation made in relation to the applicant’s protection claims. Paragraph 1 of the interlocutory relief is no more than an invitation to engage in merits review and does not identify any jurisdictional error. 

2. In relation to paragraph 2 of the prayers for interlocutory relief, it is apparent that the Tribunal granted the applicant an adjournment as a result of the injury that he suffered and it is not apparent, on the evidence before the Court, that any further issue was raised by the applicant after the adjourned hearing in relation to his ability to participate. . 

3. Given the reasons of the Tribunal concerning the conduct of the hearing the Court is satisfied the applicant was able to meaningful participate in the hearing before the Tribunal and no jurisdictional error rises by reason of the applicant’s reference to his burn injuries.

The grounds

1. The application contains three grounds, as follows:

   1.The Tribunal made some error.

   2.Tribunal does not consider my current fire burn sickness.

   3.It makes me humiliated an insulted.

Ground 1

1. In relation to the first ground, there are no errors identified that were made by the Tribunal.  Without particulars this ground is incapable of making out any error.

2. On the face of the material before the Court the Tribunal complied with its statutory obligations in the conduct of the review and there is no apparent error in the conduct of the review.

3. No jurisdictional error is made out by ground 1. 

Ground 2

1. In relation to ground 2, the reference to the Tribunal not considering the applicant’s fire burn sickness assumes that such an issue was further raised at the adjourned hearing. There is no evidence before the Court that any issue was raised at the adjourned hearing of the applicant’s ability to meaningfully participate.  Further, it is apparent that the Tribunal had earlier granted an adjournment as a result of the accident by the applicant involving burn injuries. No separate claim was made on the face of the material before Court nor on a fair reading does any claim arise in respect of the applicant’s burns.  No jurisdictional error as made up by ground 2. 

Ground 3

1. In relation to ground 3, the assertion that the Tribunal’s decision was made to humiliate and insult the applicant is without any basis. The Tribunal was required under the statutory regime to conduct a review on the merits and provide reasons in support of the Tribunal’s decision. The provision of those reasons does not identify of itself any conduct by reason of which a fair minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the Tribunal might not bring an independent and impartial mind to the determination of matter on its merits. 

2. The Tribunal is required under the legislative regime to consider the applicant’s claims and it was open to the Tribunal to make the adverse findings for the reasons given as summarised above. No jurisdictional errors made out by ground 3. 

3. The applicant’s affidavit also includes what is said to be a ‘statement of grounds’, as follows: 

   The statements of grounds

   1

   The honourable member misunderstanding me. she explain, I provided an attachment with hand bandage; but that was very badly life threaten fire burn jury photograph & Royal Perth hospital discharge letter which occurred on 2nd December 2016 to case officer, I am not able to attend hearing on 11th December 201'- On that situation I needed to admit Fiona Stanly hospital burn unit forgetting operation further treatment and doctor talk to case officer that I ruhul is not in condition to attend 11th December 2016 hearing. In this way the AAT postponed my hearing 11th December 2016. I think the member insulted & humiliated me about my serious illness condition she thought it as fabricated.

   2

   The member mention about study in Australia. Everyone come to Australia from less development country to get quality education to enhance their knowledge and possible migration in the developed country like Australia to get a hassle-free, fearful fee country. She also made a misconception regarding this.

   3

   In general in Bangladesh people reluctant to go to people to avoid any kind of harassment and bribe. When they got attack, they helpless but there is no other way to go to police for complaining whether people know the could be harassed. so obviously people , after getting attack police go to the police.

   4

   The member didn't consider the social and political scenario of Bangladesh the member depended on some online information which is not true facts and scenario.

   5

   In 28

   The member said about the evidence, still I am trying to get the court evidence.

   My father is more than 70 years old. He goes out in very less in general due to his agedness. my brothers are struggling for their normal leading way of life because of fearness due to possible attack.

   6

   The member mention that my I was never supported or member of any political group, but my family being supported & brother is a member of BNP, for being of member of BNP supporter family the suspicion also pointed to me which triggered me to be a possibility of ruling party member and law enforcement agency.

   7

   In Bangladesh the most fearful and dangerous things when some incident turn into apolitical issues, so its become a very easy to harass or threat to opponent. In this matter its happened and the land dispute also being politicized, in this regards there is a threat to my life and liberty

   8

   The member wanted the evidence of supporter of opposition party but I did not get if you support or vote how can someone will prove it. my brother member of BNP, I am still trying to get it from him.

   9

   The member claimed about police suspicion for new arrival person in the city which document I didn't present but I attached the copy from national newspaper THE DAILY INQULAB when I applied in 2013. I HAVE ALSO ATTACHED THE RECENT REPORT FROM THE NEWS PAPER.

   10

   The member raised the land dispute case documents, in Bangladesh most of the court hearing date issued by the judge, the honorable judge noted it down and inform the lawyer ,so it takes too much time to collect. that why am unable to present but still I am trying to.

   11

   The member claim that I was evidence of lands dispute case hearing evidence but I mentioned that my brother who try to collect he was away for police harassing, and by this time I also being fire burn injury, so I was not in condition to deal with this matter. and it was first time for me to be in hospitalized which made me afraid and worried. my main concern was how to come round because that makes me mentally upset and depressed.

   12

   The member raised the claims why I did not I lodge the protection visa in 2010, on that time the land dispute case was not in politicized , in late 2013 when there was a huge political clash getting worse it was easy to make life treat and harass by law enfocement agency and ruling party and who are targeted on that time still get into harassment and life threat .this types of situation leaded to deprive from usual capability of earnings which could be threaten to capability to subjected to remain normal life and survived myself.

   13

   The member concerned about my visiting in Bangladesh may 2011 for 14 days , I was like to stay more than months but my parents insist me not to go out myself freely which make me anxiety about my safety concerns for freely moving which might significant harm for my liberty of life.

   14

   The member made a doubt about any future ill-treatment or Torture might be carried out to extract "confessions", for extortion or to punish political opponents or supporter family members by law enforcement agency and the government. in most recent law enforcement agency targeting new faces in any area in suspicion of link to radical Islamic group supporter according to special power act law group. I am living in Australia for more than nine years, so could be easy for them to do this. my recent fire burn also making me more mentally sick.

   Because now I always face a nightmare which is fire related. And another major things is that I did study in commercial cookery and worked as a chef but now I always get frightened and afraid to go to any fire related source. So it being so difficult for me to carry two mental pressure and survive myself normally.

4. In relation to the statement ground 1, it is apparent that the Tribunal did give the applicant a postponement of the proposed hearing on 9 December 2016 by the letter sent on 14 December, inviting the applicant to attend a hearing on 11 January 2017.  For the reasons already given, it is not apparent that any further issue was raised by the applicant at the adjourned hearing in respect of his ability to participate in that hearing. 

5. The assertions of the Tribunal member insulting and humiliating the applicant are, on the material before the Court, unfounded. 

6. The applicant’s reference in that regard to his illness condition and that the Tribunal thought it was fabricated is not supported by any evidence.  Further, it is apparent that the Tribunal member gave the applicant an adjournment as a result of the injuries received by the applicant. 

7. No jurisdictional error is made up by statement ground 1 in the affidavit.

8. In relation to statement ground 2, the applicant made reference to his study in Australia. This was in the context of the delay in the adverse credibility findings of the applicant applying for protection. That was a logical and rational matter for the Tribunal to take into account. There is no misconception by the Tribunal that has been identified by the applicant in respect of the applicant’s claims and evidence.

9. No jurisdictional error is made out by statement ground 2 in the affidavit. 

10. In relation to statement ground 3, this, in substance, advances the applicant’s claims to fear harm and does not identify any basis upon which the Tribunal’s decision could be said to be the subject of jurisdictional error. It is apparent that the Tribunal considered the applicant’s claims concerning a fear of harm from the police and made adverse findings dispositive of the applicant’s claim that were open to the Tribunal. 

11. No jurisdictional error arises by reason of statement ground 3 in the affidavit. 

12. In relation to statement ground 4, it is apparent that the Tribunal did take into account the applicant’s claims and the lack of political activity by the applicant and made adverse findings that were open. The assertion that the adverse findings were not true facts reflects the disagreement with the adverse findings and does not identified any jurisdictional error. 

13. No jurisdictional error arises by reason of statement ground 4 in the affidavit.

14. In relation to statement ground 5 this again seeks to address the adverse findings in respect of want of documentation. It was open and logical for the Tribunal to take into account want of documentation. Ground 5 otherwise refers to the applicant’s claims and invites impermissible merits review. 

15. No jurisdictional error arises by reason of statement ground 5 in the affidavit.

16. In relation to statement grounds 6 to 12 the Tribunal considered the applicant’s claims as summarised above and these statement of grounds are no more than a disagreement with the adverse findings inviting merits review. It was for the applicant to provide sufficient evidence to establish his claims. The Court does not have power to review the merits. Material being more recent country information that was not before the Tribunal as to the merits is not capable of making out any jurisdictional error.

17. No jurisdictional error arises by reason of statement grounds 6 to 12 in the affidavit.

18. As the application fails to make out any jurisdictional error and as no jurisdictional error arises by reason of the grounds in the affidavit or anything said by the applicant, the application is dismissed. 

I certify that the preceding eighty-six (86) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Street

Associate: 

Date: 9 June 2020