Chalise v Minister for Immigration
[2016] FCCA 1358
•1 August 2016
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| CHALISE & ORS v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2016] FCCA 1358 |
| Catchwords: WORDS AND PHRASES – Nominated Skilled Occupation – Closely Related Skilled Occupation. |
| Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.93, 94 Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) |
| Bhanot v Minister for Immigration [2014] FCA 848; (2014) 223 FCR 454 Bhanot v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2014] FCCA 864 Biyiksiz v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCA 814 Constantino v Minister for Immigration (2013) 139 ALD 567 Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Mutton (1988) 90 FLR 454 El Ess v Minister for Immigration (2004) 142 FCR 43 Jaravaza v Minister for Immigration (2013) 276 FLR 32 Qantas v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2008] NSWSC 1049 Xue Fan v Minister for Immigration (2010) 240 CLR 318 |
| First Applicant: | NIRMAL CHALISE |
| Second Applicant: | CHANDRA KALA LAMSAL |
| Third Applicant: | NIRMAAD CHALISE |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
| Second Respondent: | ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 28 of 2015 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Driver |
| Hearing date: | 3 June 2016 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 1 August 2016 |
REPRESENTATION
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Mr C Guan of Paul Guan & Associates |
| Counsel for the Respondents: | Mr M Cleary |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Ms N Blake of Clayton Utz |
ORDERS
The application as amended on 17 May 2016 is dismissed.
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 28 of 2015
| NIRMAL CHALISE |
First Applicant
| CHANDRA KALA LAMSAL |
Second Applicant
| NIRMAAD CHALISE |
Third Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
First Respondent
| ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction and background
This is an application to review a decision of the former Migration Review Tribunal, now the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal). The decision was made on 19 December 2014. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicants Skilled Independent (Permanent) visas.
The following statement of background facts is derived from the submissions of the parties.
On 24 March 2014 the first applicant, Mr Chalise, was invited to apply for a skilled visa to work in Australia as an electronics engineer. In order to obtain a skilled visa Mr Chalise had to meet the points required as set out in clause 189.214 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Migration Regulations). Under clause 189.214 Mr Chalise needed 60 points to satisfy the pass mark.
The delegate, and subsequently the Tribunal, found that Mr Chalise was only entitled to 55 points and refused to grant points in the “Overseas Employment Experience” category. This was on the basis that Mr Chalise’s employment as a teaching assistant and electronics lab-in-charge from 21 May 2009 to 25 November 2012 was neither his “nominated skilled occupation” nor in a “closely related skilled occupation” within the meaning of Part 6D.3 of Schedule 6D of the Migration Regulations.
The definition of “skilled occupation” is set out in regulation 1.15I, which states that:
(1)A skilled occupation, in relation to a person, means an occupation of a kind:
(a)that is specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing to be a skilled occupation; and
(b)if a number of points are specified in the instrument as being available – for which the number of points are available; and
(c)that is applicable to the person in accordance with the specification of the occupation.
Regulation 1.15I subsection (2) states that:
the Minister may specify in the instrument any matter in relation to an occupation… including… (a) that an occupation is a skilled occupation for a class of persons.
The relevant written instrument is IMMI 14/049. Paragraph 1 of that instrument specifies that each occupation contained in Schedule 1, Column A (Skilled Occupation List) is a “skilled occupation that is applicable to the person” applying for a subclass 189 visa. “Electronics Engineer” is on that list.
Schedule 2, Column B (Consolidated Sponsor Occupation List) outlines a more extensive list of occupations deemed by paragraphs 3-6 of IMMI 14/049 to apply to other visa subclasses. Both “University Lecturer” and “University Tutor” are on that list.
Had Mr Chalise been awarded points under the “Overseas Employment Experience” category, he would have obtained the requisite points for the grant of a skilled visa.
The delegate refused to grant the visa because Mr Chalise could not meet the points required in the “Overseas Employment Experience” category pursuant to clause 189.214.
The applicants sought review of that decision in the Tribunal.
Tribunal’s decision
On 19 December 2014, the Tribunal member made his decision.
At the hearing of the review Mr Chalise told the Tribunal he only sought to challenge the delegate’s finding regarding the “Overseas Employment Experience” criterion. The Tribunal put to Mr Chalise a “University Lecturer” or ‘University Tutor” were not on the Skilled Occupation List and were therefore not “skilled occupations”.
Mr Chalise submitted to the Tribunal that University Lecturer and Tutor were “closely related skilled occupations” as they were on the Consolidated Sponsored Occupation List. Mr Chalise relied on PAM3 to make this submission.
The Tribunal considered that, in this regard, PAM3 “goes beyond the scope of the legislation and is inconsistent with the legislation”[1]. Instead the Tribunal found that IMMI 14/049 clearly limited the application of the Consolidated Sponsored Occupational List to circumstances that were not applicable to the present case[2]. The Tribunal concluded that University Lecturer and Tutor were not “skilled occupations” within the meaning of regulation 1.15I(1). Accordingly, the Tribunal awarded no points under this criterion and affirmed the delegate’s decision[3].
[1] Court Book (CB) 140 [23]
[2] see para 3-5 of IMMI 14/049
[3] CB 140 [24]
The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the delegate not grant a skilled visa to the first applicant.
The present proceedings
These proceedings began with a show cause application filed on 6 January 2015. The applicants now rely upon an amended application filed on 17 May 2016. There are two particularised grounds in that application:
1. The second respondent has made a jurisdictional error by misconstruing the meaning of ‘a closely related skilled occupation’ used in the item 6D31(b) of Schedule 6D Part 6D.3 to the Migration Regulations 1994.
Particulars
a. The second respondent held that ‘a closely related skilled occupation’ must be also one of the occupations on the Skilled Occupation List (SOL) applicable to the applicant’s nominated occupation. That is, it must be found on the list before it is required to determine whether they are closely related (as per reasoning in the Tribunal Decision at [20]-[23]).
b. The construction is contrary to the relevant judicial legal authorities: Bhanot v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 848; Bhanot v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2014] FCCA [864].
c. These judicial decisions imply that ‘a closely related skilled occupation’ simply means the occupation actually employed by the applicant when it is closely related to the applicant’s nominated occupation. It is irrelevant that whether the actual occupation is on the relevant List or not: Bhanot v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 848; Bhanot v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2014] FCCA [864].
2. The second respondent erred by asking itself a wrong question in determining whether the applicant had been employed in ‘a closely related skilled occupation’ as per item 6D31(b) of Schedule 6D Part 6D.3 to the Migration Regulations.
Particulars
a. According to the judicial decisions, the issue should be assessed in this way – applying a test to necessitate – “…the making of an evaluative judgment having regard to all of the facts in the individual case relating to the person’s occupation as a whole.” As per Perry J, Bhanot v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 848 at [28]; cf Constantino v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2013) 139 ALD 567.
b. The second respondent has made a finding of the applicant’s duties and responsibilities for his employment at the Pokhara Engineering College and came to find that his employment occupation was a University Tutor or University Lecturer, an occupation on the Consolidated Skilled Occupation List (CSOL) but not on SOL.
c. The second respondent then refused to assess further.
d. So, it has failed to do as required by law and has not discharged its duties.
I have before me as evidence the court book filed on 15 March 2015. I was also provided by the representatives of the parties with extracts from the relevant legislation and legislative instruments as well as the Policy Advice Manual relied upon by the applicants.
Consideration
It is necessary first to explain briefly the legislative context in which the issue for determination arises.
Mr Chalise applied for a subclass 189 Skilled (Independent) visa. Before such a visa can issue, an applicant must demonstrate that he or she satisfies the criteria prescribed by the Migration Regulations when the application is made.
The criteria relevant here are set out in Part 189 of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations. It also includes the criteria set out in item 1137 of Schedule 1 to the Migration Regulations.
Subitem 1137(4) of Schedule 1 of the Migration Regulations[4] provides that the applicant must have been invited, in writing, by the Minister to apply for the visa, and the applicant must nominate a skilled occupation:
a)that is specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this item as a skilled occupation at the time of invitation to apply for the visa; and
b)that is specified in the invitation as the skilled occupation which the applicant may nominate.
[4] >
That is, it specified that an applicant for a skilled visa must, among other things, “nominate a skilled occupation for the applicant”[5].
[5] subparagraph (4) 4 of item 1137
When Mr Chalise applied for a 189 visa, he was required to satisfy the requirements of “invited, in writing, by the Minister to apply for the visa”[6], “relevant assessing authority has assessed his skills as suitable for his nominated skilled occupation”[7].
[6] clause 189.211
[7] clause 189.212
Clause 189.214 required that an applicant's score, when assessed in relation to the visa under Subdivision B of Part 2 Division 3 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Migration Act), [8]:
·is not less than the score stated in the invitation to apply for the visa.
·is not less than the qualifying score for that Subdivision.
[8] >
The points system pursuant to which this clause was made is established by Subdivision B of Part 2 Division 3 of the Migration Act. Specifically, under s.93 of the Migration Act, the Minister must make an assessment by giving an applicant a prescribed number of points for each prescribed qualification that the applicant meets.
The applicant is deemed to have a “qualifying score” pursuant to s.94(1) of the Migration Act if an applicant’s score exceeds or is equal to the pass mark specified by the Minister[9]. The pass mark applicable to Mr Chalise was 60 points[10].
[9] Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s.94
[10] Legislative Instrument IMMI 12/017
Mr Chalise nominated “Electronics Engineer” as his skilled occupation. As the Tribunal set out at [8] of its reasons, the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO) code for the specified occupation is “233411”. The relevant instrument specifying skilled occupations is Legislative Instrument IMMI 14/049 regarding the “specification of occupations, a person or body, a country or countries (various provisions)”.
Subregulation 2.26AC(2) specified that each qualification specified in an item of Schedule 6D is prescribed as a qualification in relation to the grant, to the applicant, of: (a) a Subclass 189 (Skilled — Independent) visa.
Relevantly, Item 6D31 in Part 6D.3 - Overseas employment experience qualifications specified that the applicant can be awarded five points if he:
had been employed outside Australia in:
(a) the applicant's nominated skilled occupation; or
(b) a closely related skilled occupation;
for a period totalling at least 36 months in the 10 years immediately before that time
The dispute arose as to whether Mr Chalise could be eligible to the five points for his overseas employment experience he gained as a teaching assistant and lab-in-charge at the Pokhara Engineering College, Nepal.
Mr Chalise was awarded 55 points without dispute. So, if he could be accepted as eligible to the disputed points, he would have the qualifying score and have the score no less than the score stated in the invitation.
Proceedings before the tribunal
Mr Chalise gave the evidence that he was employed as a teaching assistant and lab-in-charge at Pokhara Engineering College from 31 May 2009 to December 2012[11].
[11] CB [26]-[28]
Mr Chalise intended to claim five points for the overseas employment experience, as he believed that he had been employed in a closely related skilled occupation for 36 months in the period of 10 years at the time of invitation to apply for the visa as per Item 6D31 of Schedule 6D.
The Tribunal considered his evidence and found that “the applicant was employed outside Australia in the occupation of University Tutor (ANZSCO 2421-13) or University Lecturer (ANZSCO 2421-11)”[12].
[12] CB 140, the Tribunal's Decision Record at[20]
However, the Tribunal did not accept that he was employed in a closely related skilled occupation for the period of time and he was not entitled to the points he claimed as per the Item[13], because “the Tribunal finds that the occupations of University Tutor or University Lecturer are not 'skilled occupations' as defined in r.1.5I(1)”[14].
[13] CB 140, the Tribunal's Decision Record at [25]
[14] CB140, the Tribunal's Decision Record [24]
A ‘closely related skilled occupation' is not defined in the Migration Act or Regulations. However, the term “skilled occupation” is defined in regulation 1.15I(1) of the Migration Regulations to mean an occupation of a kind that is specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing to be a skilled occupation. In this case, the relevant instrument is Legislative Instrument IMMI 14/049.
Mr Chalise was applying for a subclass 189 visa. The skilled occupation for subclass 189 visas are set out in Column A of Schedule 1 to the Instrument, which is known as the Skilled Occupation List (SOL).
The Tribunal's reasoning in essence as follows.[15] As Mr Chalise claimed that he was employed in a closely related skilled occupation, he must demonstrate that his employment occupation was a skilled occupation applicable to his visa category applied, that is, which must be one of the occupations in SOL. Once it has been found that his employed occupation is on the SOL, the Tribunal will further determine whether the occupation is closely related to his nominated occupation. If not, “therefore, it is not necessary for the Tribunal to determine whether they are closely related to the nominated skilled occupation”[16].
[15] CB140, the Tribunal's Decision Record [20] to [24]
[16] CB140, the Tribunal's Decision Record [24]
University Tutor and University Lecturer are the occupations set out in Column A of Schedule 2 to the Instrument IMMI 14/049, which is known as Consolidated Skilled Occupation List (CSOL) but not on SOL[17].
[17] >
The applicants contend that the Tribunal misconstrued Item 6D 31 of Schedule 6D because the Tribunal’s interpretation is not consistent with Departmental policy or previous interpretation of provisions said to be analogous.
I am unable to accept the applicants’ contentions and I prefer the submissions of the Minister.
The Tribunal’s reasoning is relevantly set out at [18]-[23] of its decision record[18]:
The Tribunal put to the applicant that a university lecturer or tutor was not a skilled occupation as it was not on the Skilled Occupation List as specified by the Minister in a legislative instrument. The applicant claimed that in order to teach engineering you had to have engineering qualifications and it should be considered a skilled occupation.
The applicant’s representative submitted that the applicant had been employed in a closely related skilled occupation and referred to case law discussing the meaning of ‘closely related’. The representative referred to Departmental Policy which states that a closely related skilled occupation also included occupations on the Consolidated Skilled Occupation list.
The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence at the hearing as to the tasks and duties he undertook at the Pokhara Engineering College from 21 May 2009 to 25 November 2012. Based on the applicant’s evidence and the written references, the Tribunal finds that the applicant was not employed in the nominated skilled occupation of Electronics Engineer. The Tribunal finds that the applicant was employed outside Australia in the occupation of University Tutor (ANZSCO 2421-13) or University Lecturer (ANZSCO 2421-11). The Tribunal must now determine whether these occupations are ‘skilled occupations’.
‘Skilled occupation’ is defined in r.1.15I(1) as an occupation that is specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing to be a skilled occupation. In this case the relevant instrument is Legislative Instrument IMMI 14/049. The skilled occupations for Subclass 189 visas are set out in Column A of Schedule 1 to the Instrument (the Skilled Occupation List or SOL). Neither University Lecturer (ANZSCO 2421-11) nor University Tutor (ANZSCO 2421-13) are on this list. The Tribunal therefore finds that the occupations of University Lecturer and University Tutor are not skilled occupations that are specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing.
The applicant claims that the occupations are skilled occupations as he needed to have engineering qualifications to teach other students. This does not establish that the applicant was performing a skilled occupation. As stated above, University Lecturer (ANZSCO 2421-11) nor University Tutor (ANZSCO 2421-13) are not skilled occupations as specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing.
The representative has referred the Tribunal to Departmental Policy which states that a closely related skilled occupation also included occupations on the Consolidated Skilled Occupation List (CSOL). In this instance, the CSOL in Column A of Schedule 2 to the Instrument includes University Lecturer and University Tutor. The Tribunal does not agree with this interpretation and considers that the Department’s Policy goes beyond the scope of the legislation and is inconsistent with the legislation. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of the Instrument clearly state that the CSOL only applies in relation to a person nominated by a State or Territory government agency; for the purposes of r.5.19(4)(i)(A) and r.186.234(2)(a) (Direct Entry Employer Nomination Scheme). None of those circumstances apply in this case.
[18] CB 140
Ground 1
In the first ground of review the applicants assert the Tribunal misconstrued the meaning of “a closely related skilled occupation” used in item 6D31(b) of Schedule 6D, Part 6D.3 of the Migraiton Regulations and thus committed jurisdictional error. In the applicants' written submissions they assert that the Tribunal’s construction was not correct for two reasons:
a)first reason: the Tribunal’s findings are not consistent with PAM3;
b)second reason: the Tribunal’s findings are contrary to the Federal Court judgment in Bhanot v Minister for Immigration (2014) 223 FCR 454 per Perry J (Bhanot).
I reject both reasons.
Applicants’ first reason why the Tribunal’s construction of Item 6D31(b) is incorrect
The applicants first assert the Tribunal was incorrect in finding that PAM3 is inconsistent with the Migration Regulations.
On the contrary, the Tribunal member was correct to find that PAM3 exceeds the scope of, and was thus inconsistent with, regulation 1.15I(1) of the Migration Regulations. PAM3 is one of a class of policy documents made pursuant to the Migration Act, to which the Tribunal must have regard but is not bound by. PAM3 is merely an aid to decision making.[19] It is well established now that decision-makers may not have regard to policy considerations which are inconsistent with applicable statutory instruments.[20] In terms of the role of PAM3 in administrative decision-making.[21]
[19] Bhanot v Minister for Immigration (2014) 223 FCR 454
[20] Xue Fan v Minister for Immigration (2010) 240 CLR 318; El Ess v Minister for Immigration (2004) 142 FCR 43; Biyiksiz v Minister for Immigration [2004] FCA 814
[21] see Jaravaza v Minister for Immigration (2013) 276 FLR 32
In the present case the applicants seek to rely upon PAM3 to interpret the test of “closely related skilled occupation” to include occupations on the Consolidated Skilled Occupation List. Unless the contrary intention can be demonstrated, the reference in IMMI 14/049 to “skilled occupation” is presumed to employ the phrase in its defined sense, limited to occupations “specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing to be a skilled occupation”[22].
[22] Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) 1.15I(1)(a)
This presumption may only be displaced where the legislation expresses a contrary intention, where the context suggests the definition should not apply, where the definition would hamstring the operation of a particular provision, or where it was not parliament’s intention to employ the phrase in its defined sense[23]. Such a finding must not be made without “good reason”[24].
[23] Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Mutton (1988) 90 FLR 454 at 456-8
[24] Qantas v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2008] NSWSC 1049 at [38]
There a number of reasons why the phrase “skilled occupation” should be interpreted in its defined sense. These reasons are as follows:
a)note 1 to clause 189.1 references the definition of “skilled occupation” contained in regulation 1.03 and thus to regulation 1.15I of the Migration Regulations;
b)to employ the definition in the context of Part 6D.3 does not frustrate, nor undermine, the operation of the “closely related skilled occupation” test;
c)the plain language of paragraphs 4-6 of IMMI 14/049 limits the scope of the Consolidated Skilled Occupation List to subclass 186, 190, 402 and 442 visas. Such a reference is contained in the same legislative instrument as the Skilled Occupation List, which is expressed to apply to subclass 189 visas;
d)no other use of the phrase “skilled occupation” in the Migration Regulations is suggested to be subject to uncertainty. This suggests that Parliament was consistent and clear in its intention when employing the phrase.
As a result, to be eligible for the award of points for “Overseas Employment Experience” two requirements must be met. They are:
a)that the overseas employment was in a “skilled occupation” as defined in regulation 1.15I; and
b)that the “skilled occupation” was “closely related” to the applicant’s “nominated skilled occupation”.
As the occupations of University Lecturer and Tutor were not contained on the Skilled Occupation List, the Tribunal was correct to find that they were not “skilled occupations”.
Applicants’ second reason why Tribunal’s construction of Item 6D31(b) is incorrect
The applicants assert that the Tribunal’s construction of Item 6D31(b) is incorrect because it did not follow the decision of Perry J in Bhanot. I reject that argument.
The applicants’ reliance upon the Federal Court decision in Bhanot is misplaced. Amongst other things, it concerned a different regulation, a different class of visa (a subclass 885 “Skilled – Independent” visa) and a different Legislative Instrument relevant to that visa subclass, namely, IMMI 12/068. Further, Bhanot is clearly distinguishable from the Tribunal decision in the present case as it primarily related to the operation of the “closely related” limb of the test as identified above, and not to the issue of the first limb, whether the nominated overseas occupation(s) were in a “skilled occupation” within the meaning of regulation 1.15I(1).
In Bhanot Perry J found that the Tribunal had committed jurisdictional error by asking itself the wrong question in relation to the particular item in Schedule 6B of the Regulations relevant to the visa in that case, namely item 6B51. In Bhanot at [27] Perry J impugned the Tribunal’s approach which entailed first, identifying what it considered to be the appellant’s “primary role”, and, having found that role to be a Retail Customer Service Manager, then finding that any tasks performed by him that related to accounting were incidental to that role. Then secondly, the Tribunal in Bhanot narrowed its inquiry so as to consider whether the appellant exercised substantially the same skills in his nominated occupation as in his “role” as Retail Customer Service Manager only. In other words, Perry J, so far as determining “a closely related skilled occupation” impugned the Tribunal’s adoption in that case of an approach which compared the relationship of the applicant’s nominated occupation with their “primary role” in their current occupation, and not in comparison to the “person’s occupation as a whole”. This reasoning is not material to the present case.
The Tribunal in the present case adopted an approach that accorded with the proper construction of regulation 1.15I. In the present case the Tribunal considered whether the Mr Chalise was able to satisfy the first limb of the relevant test; namely, whether the nominated overseas occupations of University Lecturer and Tutor were ones “specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing to be a skilled occupation”[25]. In answer to that question the Tribunal found that neither of the nominated overseas occupations (of University Lecturer and Tutor) were “skilled occupations” as specified by the Minster in IMMI 14/049[26].
[25] Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) 1.15I
[26] CB 140 [24]
It is for this reason the Federal Court decision of Bhanot is not relevant to the disposition of the present case.
For these reasons I reject Ground 1.
Ground 2
In the second ground of review the applicants assert that the Tribunal erred by asking itself the wrong question in determining whether the applicant had been employed in “a closely related skilled occupation” as per item 6D31(b) of Schedule 6D, Part 6D.3 of the Migration Regulations.
I also reject this argument. It misunderstands the Tribunal’s reasons. The Tribunal did not ask itself the question asserted by the applicants. Rather, at [21]-[26], the Tribunal member addressed the correct legal question that was required by the application of regulation 1.15I(1), namely, whether Mr Chalise’s nominated overseas occupations (University Lecturer and Tutor) were contained in the Skilled Occupation List (being an occupation that was one: “specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing [e.g. IMMI 14/049] to be a skilled occupation”).
In answer to that question it found that as neither of the nominated overseas occupations (either University Lecturer or Tutor) were “skilled occupations” as specified by the Minster in IMMI 14/049, it was not necessary for the Tribunal to determine whether they were closely related to the nominated skilled occupation of Electronics Engineer. There was nothing objectionable in this approach by the Tribunal. It was done in accordance with regulation 1.15I(1). No jurisdictional error was committed.
For these reasons I reject Ground 2.
Conclusion
The applicants have failed to establish that the decision of the Tribunal is affected by a jurisdictional error. The decision is therefore a privative clause decision and the application must be dismissed. I will so order.
I will hear the parties as to costs.
I certify that the preceding sixty-four (64) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Driver
Date: 1 August 2016
0
11
3