CUR19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs
[2024] FedCFamC2G 724
•12 August 2024
FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA
(DIVISION 2)
CUR19 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2024] FedCFamC2G 724
File number(s): ADG 256 of 2019 Judgment of: JUDGE LUCEV Date of judgment: 12 August 2024 Catchwords: MIGRATION – Judicial review application – decision of Immigration Assessment Authority – citizen of Sri Lanka of Tamil ethnicity – whether decision inconsistent, illogical or unreasonable – where ground of review makes claims not made before the decision-maker – where ground of review contrary to applicant’s evidence before the decision-maker – whether merits review sought – whether claims made concerning new information – whether jurisdictional error otherwise – whether material jurisdictional error Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 5H, 36, 46A, 473 CB, 473DD, 474, 476
Immigrants and Emigrants Act 1948 (Sri Lanka)
Cases cited: ApplicantWAEE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 184; (2003) 236 FCR 593; (2003) 75 ALD 630
ARO17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 847
AUS17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2020] HCA 37; (2020) 269 CLR 494; (2020) 94 ALJR 1007; (2020) 384 ALR 196
AYC18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 1502
CAQ17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 203; (2019) 274 FCR 477
DAO16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 2; (2018) 258 FCR 175; (2018) 74 AAR 121; (2018) 353 ALR 641
Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 26; (2003) 77 ALJR 1088; (2003) 197 ALR 389; (2003) 73 ALD 321
LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 12; (2024) 98 ALJR 610
Ludgero v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCCA 1060; (2021) 358 FLR 215
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] HCA 18; (2013) 249 CLR 332; (2013) 87 ALJR 618; (2013) 297 ALR 225; (2013) 138 ALD 181
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS [2010] HCA 16; (2010) 240 CLR 611; (2010) 84 ALJR 369; (2010) 266 ALR 367; (2010) ALD 248
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang [1996] HCA 6; (1996) 185 CLR 259; (1996) 70 ALJR 568; (1996) 136 ALR 481; (1996) 41 ALD 1
MZAIB v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 1392; (2015) 238 FCR 158
MZAPC v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2021] HCA 17; (2021) 273 CLR 506; (2021) 95 ALJR 441; (2021) 390 ALR 590
NABE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (No 2) [2004] FCAFC 263; (2004) 144 FCR 1; (2004) 219 ALR 27
SGBB vMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] FCA 709; (2003) 199 ALR 364; (2003) 75 ALD 411
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law Number of paragraphs: 30 Date of last submission/s: 5 August 2024 Date of hearing: 5 August 2024 Place: Perth Applicant: In person by telephone with assistance of interpreter Counsel for the First Respondent: Ms M Pappas Solicitor for the Respondents: Australian Government Solicitor Second Respondent: Submitting appearance, save as to costs ORDERS
ADG 256 of 2019 FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN: CUR19
Applicant
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP AND MULTUCULTURAL AFFAIRS
First Respondent
IMMIGRATION ASSESSMENT AUTHORITY
Second Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
JUDGE LUCEV
DATE OF ORDER:
12 AUGUST 2024
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The name of the First Respondent be amended to read “Minister for Home Affairs, Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Cyber Security and the Arts”.
2.The originating application filed on 19 July 2019 be dismissed.
Note: The form of the order is subject to the entry in the Court’s records.
Note: The Court may vary or set aside a judgment or order to remedy minor typographical or grammatical errors (r 17.05(2)(g) Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth)), or to record a variation to the order pursuant to r 17.05 Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 (Cth).
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JUDGE LUCEV
INTRODUCTION
Before the Court is an application for judicial review (“Judicial Review Application”) made under s 476(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“Migration Act”) in which the applicant, CUR19, seeks judicial review of a decision of the Immigration Assessment Authority (“Authority Decision” and “Authority” respectively) to affirm a decision of a delegate (“Delegate’s Decision” and “Delegate” respectively) of the first respondent, the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (“Minister”) to refuse to grant CUR19 a Safe Haven Enterprise (Subclass 790) visa (“SHE Visa”). The Authority Decision is in the Court Book (“CB”) at CB 187-203.
BACKGROUND
The background to this matter is as follows:
(a)CUR19 is a 58 year old citizen of Sri Lanka who first arrived in Australia on 23 October 2012 as an unauthorised maritime arrival;
(b)the bar under s 46A of the Migration Act having been lifted, on 1 June 2017 CUR19 applied for the SHE Visa;
(c)on 24 May 2019 the Delegate’s Decision was to refuse to grant CUR19 a SHE Visa, finding that CUR19 was not a person of interest to the Sri Lankan authorities for any reason and that he did not, therefore, hold a well-founded fear of persecution;
(d)on 21 June 2019 the Authority Decision was to affirm the Delegate’s Decision; and
(e)CUR19 is a Tamil from the north of Sri Lanka, who claimed that:
(i)during the Sri Lankan civil war he lived and worked in an area controlled by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (“LTTE”);
(ii)after the civil war CUR19 and his family were placed in a detention camp where he was beaten;
(iii)CUR19 left Sri Lanka in 2012 out of concern for his safety, after the Sri Lankan authorities had visited his house searching for him; and
(iv)CUR19 fears harm from the Sri Lankan authorities for reasons of his Tamil ethnicity, assistance he provided to the LTTE, and for departing Sri Lanka illegally.
AUTHORITY DECISION
In the Authority Decision the Authority:
(a)had regard to the material referred by the Secretary under s 473CB of the Migration Act. No additional material was received from CUR19 or obtained by the Authority: CB 188 at [2];
(b)accepted that CUR19 is a Tamil who lived in an LTTE controlled area in the Northern Province and worked as a manager for an LTTE run timber mill during the civil war: CB 189-190 at [6] and [8];
(c)accepted that CUR19 and his family were displaced towards the end of the civil war and placed in a detention camp for about six months: CB 190 at [9];
(d)accepted that CUR19 was mistreated whilst in detention and witnessed the mistreatment of other Tamils in the detention camp: CB 190-191 at [11];
(e)was not satisfied that the Sri Lankan authorities considered CUR19 to be a person of interest at the time when he was released from the detention camp, even though they were likely to be aware of his low-level connection to the LTTE through his work in the timber mill: CB 190-191 at [11];
(f)on the basis of various inconsistencies in CUR19’s evidence between the SHE Visa application and the SHE Visa interview, was not satisfied that the Sri Lankan authorities visited CUR19’s house searching for him, or that CUR19 had come to the adverse attention of the Sri Lankan authorities after his release from the detention camp: CB 191-192 at [12]-[15];
(g)accepted that CUR19 may have had a nephew who was a member of the LTTE and who died in 2010: CB 192-193 at [17];
(h)was not satisfied that CUR19 was of ongoing interest to the Sri Lankan authorities due to his or his family’s LTTE connections: CB 193 at [18]-[19];
(i)following consideration of relevant country information, was not satisfied that CUR19 faced a real chance of harm from the Sri Lankan authorities, paramilitary groups, Sinhalese people generally or anyone else for reasons of his Tamil ethnicity, actual or perceived LTTE links, origins in a formerly LTTE controlled area or his other past history or experiences: CB 196 at [29];
(j)was not satisfied that any treatment CUR19 may possibly face on return to Sri Lanka, including monitoring, stigma and the practical challenges of reintegration, would amount to serious harm: CB 196-197 at [30]-[33];
(k)accepted that CUR19 departed Sri Lanka illegally: CB 197 at [34];
(l)accepted that CUR19 may be questioned at the airport, charged under the Immigrants and Emigrants Act 1948 (Sri Lanka), and face a brief period of detention, but found on the basis of relevant country information that the sanction would likely be a fine, not a custodial sentence, but was not satisfied that the questioning, detention or imposition of a fine amounted to serious harm: CB 197 at [34]-[35];
(m)concluded that CUR19 did not meet the definition of refugee under s 5H(1) of the Migration Act and did not meet s 36(2)(a) of the Migration Act: CB 198 at [37]; and
(n)for essentially the same reasons, concluded that CUR19 did not meet the requirements of s 36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act: CB 198 at [43].
JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION
Grounds
The grounds of the Judicial Review Application filed on 19 July 2019 are as follows:
1. The IAA decision was inconsistent, illogical and so unreasonable
Particulars
a. The applicant claimed his brother was a colonel in the LTTE
b.The IAA wrongfully made an assumption that the application brother was not died by military
c.I will provide more details and information once the court book is prepared
2. Ground
3.The decision was inconsistent. Illogical and so unreasonable to not accept the information associated in processing enmasse
4.The IAA was not satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances to consider this information
Submissions
CUR19
At hearing CUR19 made no submissions about the jurisdictional errors alleged in the Judicial Review Application. CUR19 said he did not know what to say. CUR19 did however say that he was intending to return to Sri Lanka as one of his parents had died and the surviving parent was ill.
Minister’s submissions
The Minister submitted that the grounds of the Judicial Review Application did not establish jurisdictional error in the Authority Decision, and that the Authority Decision correctly applied the relevant legal principles to factual findings which were open on the evidence and materials before the Authority.
Consideration
Material jurisdictional error
For present purposes it suffices to observe that the Court may set aside a decision of the Authority upon judicial review if it is affected by material jurisdictional error: Migration Act, ss 474 and 476; Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth [2003] HCA 2; (2003) 211 CLR 476; (2003) 77 ALJR 454; (2003) 195 ALR 24; (2003) 72 ALD 1; MZAPC v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2021] HCA 17; (2021) 273 CLR 506; (2021) 95 ALJR 441; (2021) 390 ALR 590 at [2] per Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane and Gleeson JJ. In LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] HCA 12; (2024) 98 ALJR 610 (“LPDT”) at [15]-[16] per Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson and Jagot JJ the High Court said that:
15.What must be shown to demonstrate that an established error meets the threshold of materiality will depend upon the error. In some cases, it will be sufficient to show that there has been an error and that the outcome is consistent with the error having affected the decision. Where the error is a denial of procedural fairness arising from a failure to put the applicant on notice of a fact or issue, the court may readily be able to infer that, if fairly put on notice of that fact or issue, the applicant might have addressed it by way of further evidence or submissions, and that the decision-maker would have approached the applicant's further evidence or submissions with an open mind. In those cases, it is “no easy task” for the court to be satisfied that the loss of such an opportunity did not deprive the person of the possibility of a successful outcome. Importantly, a court called upon to determine whether the threshold has been met must be careful not to assume the function of the decision-maker: the point at which the line between judicial review and merits review is crossed may not always be clear, but the line must be maintained. This case affords an example.
16.In sum, unless there is identified a basis on which it can be affirmatively concluded that the outcome would inevitably have been the same had the error not been made, once an applicant establishes that there has been an error and demonstrates that there exists a realistic possibility that the outcome of the decision could have been different had that error not been made, the threshold of materiality will have been met (and curial relief will be justified subject to any issue of utility or discretion).
Not merits review
The Court’s role is not to review the merits of the Authority Decision: Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang [1996] HCA 6; (1996) 185 CLR 259; (1996) 70 ALJR 568; (1996) 136 ALR 481; (1996) 41 ALD 1 (“Wu Shan Liang”). The “line between judicial review and merits review…must be maintained”: LPDT at [15] per Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson and Jagot JJ, and the reasons of the Authority are not to be over-zealously scrutinised in a search for error: Wu Shan Liang, CLR at 272 per Brennan CJ, Toohey, McHugh and Gummow JJ; ApplicantWAEE 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.
Ground 1
Ground 1 contends that the Authority Decision was “inconsistent, illogical and so unreasonable”, and relies upon three particularised matters (as set out at [4] above].
For the Authority Decision to be found to be affected by jurisdictional error on the ground of unreasonableness or illogicality, the Authority Decision must be one that no reasonable decision-maker could arrive at on the same evidence, or one without an evident and intelligible basis: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS [2010] HCA 16; (2010) 240 CLR 611; (2010) 84 ALJR 369; (2010) 266 ALR 367; (2010) ALD 248 (“SZMDS”) at [130], [131] and [135] per Crennan and Bell JJ. Further in order for jurisdictional error to be found a finding must reach a threshold of “extreme illogicality”: DAO16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 2; (2018) 258 FCR 175; (2018) 74 AAR 121; (2018) 353 ALR 641 (“DAO16”) at [4] and [30] per Kenny, Kerr and Perry JJ.
CUR19 asserts that the Authority erred by finding that CUR19’s brother was not killed by the Sri Lankan military. CUR19 never claimed that his brother was killed by the military. When asked at the SHE Visa Interview if any of his family members were involved in the LTTE, CUR19 said “no”. CUR19 never claimed his brother was a colonel in the LTTE. Subsequently CUR19 claimed that his nephew was a member of the LTTE, who worked in intelligence, but that he did not have a high profile with the LTTE and was killed in 2010. The Authority gave proper consideration to those claims, accepted that CUR19 may have had a nephew in the LTTE, but was not satisfied that CUR19 would have a profile of interest to the authorities on the basis of his nephew’s LTTE membership: CB 192-193 at [17]-[18]. The Authority was entitled to, and did, proceed on the basis of that evidence, and the findings it made were open to the Authority for the reasons it gave.
The Authority did not err by failing to consider a matter that was not raised and which directly contradicted evidence CUR19 gave on the relevant topic: NABE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (No 2) [2004] FCAFC 263; (2004) 144 FCR 1; (2004) 219 ALR 27 (“NABE (No 2)”) at [55] and [68] per Black CJ, French and Selway JJ. To put it a little differently, the Authority’s function was to respond to the case that CUR19 advanced: Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 26; (2003) 77 ALJR 1088; (2003) 197 ALR 389; (2003) 73 ALD 321 (“Dranichnikov”) at [78] per Kirby J; SGBB vMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] FCA 709; (2003) 199 ALR 364; (2003) 75 ALD 411 (“SGBB”) at [17] per Selway J, and CUR19 never claimed that his brother was killed by the military.
In relation to the particular (b), CUR19’s complaint appears to be that the Authority should have reached different findings on the basis of the evidence and materials before it. As set out at [11] above there was sufficient evidence and country information to support the Authority’s findings. To differ from those findings, which is what the second particular seemingly invites the Court to do, because it “made an assumption that … [CUR19’s] brother was not died by military” is no more than an invitation to the Court to engage in impermissible merits review: Wu Shan Liang, CLR at 272 per Brennan CJ, Toohey, McHugh and Gummow JJ.
Particular (c) states that more details and information will be forthcoming “after the court book is complete”. Particular (c) is not a particular but a statement of intent by CUR19 to provide further particulars after the CB was filed. It alleges no error on behalf of the Authority. In any event the Court notes that:
(o)the CB was filed on 25 October 2019 (so almost five years ago);
(p)following the matter being docketed to the presently presiding Judge in February 2023 a directions hearing was held on 31 March 2023, at which CUR19 did not appear, and at which the Court made orders (“Court’s March 2023 Orders”) that allowed CUR19 to file any amended Judicial Review Application, further affidavits and an outline of submissions by 21 September 2023;
(q)the Court’s March 2023 Orders were sent to CUR19’s address for service on 31 March 2023; and
(r)notwithstanding (a), (b) and (c) above, CUR19 has not provided further particulars or any amended Judicial Review Application, or otherwise sought to file any further documents in these proceedings.
Conclusion – ground 1
To adopt the language used in SZMDS at [135] per Crennan and Bell JJ, it cannot be said that the Authority’s reasons “were unintelligible or that there was an absence of logical connection between the evidence as a whole and the reasons for decision” and “[n]or could it be said that there was no probative material which contradicted the … claims [of the visa applicant]”.
In relation to legal unreasonableness it is fair to likewise observe that the Authority’s reasoning was not unintelligible or illogical, and that its findings fell within the area of decisional freedom afforded to an administrative decision-maker: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] HCA 18; (2013) 249 CLR 332; (2013) 87 ALJR 618; (2013) 297 ALR 225; (2013) 138 ALD 181 at [28] per French CJ; see also at [66] per Hayne, Kiefel and Bell JJ. Ground 1 does no more than seek to impermissibly cavil with findings of fact and the weighing of country information made by the Authority: AYC18 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 1502 at [63] per Banks-Smith J.
CUR19 has not shown that the Authority Decision was one which no reasonable decision-maker could make on the same evidence, nor that any particular finding made in the Authority Decision was illogical, let alone extremely illogical: DAO16 at [4] and [30] per Kenny, Kerr and Perry JJ. Rather, the Authority Decision was based upon the Authority’s assessment of CUR19’s claims in light of the evidence and materials and country information which were before it.
For the reasons set out above the findings made in the Authority Decision were logical and reasonable and involved no inconsistency, and it cannot be said that there was a constructive failure (or any failure) to exercise jurisdiction by the Authority. It follows that ground 1 of the Judicial Review Application does not establish jurisdictional error in the Authority Decision.
Ground 2
Ground 2 is self-evidently not a ground of review and does not establish jurisdictional error in the Authority Decision.
Grounds 3 and 4
Grounds 3 and 4 appear to complain about the Authority’s treatment of alleged new information for the purposes of s 473DD of the Migration Act. An insuperable difficulty for CUR19 is that he did not seek to provide the Authority with any new information.
The High Court considered the nature of the procedural duties under s 473DD of the Migration Act in AUS17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2020] HCA 37; (2020) 269 CLR 494; (2020) 94 ALJR 1007; (2020) 384 ALR 196 (“AUS17”). In AUS17 the High Court held that performance of the procedural duty in s 473DD of the Migration Act requires:
(a)the Authority:
(i)first, to assess new information against the criteria specified in ss 473DD(b)(i) and (ii) of the Migration Act; and
(ii)if satisfied that one or both criteria are met, to take the outcome of that assessment into account in its assessment of exceptional circumstances under s 473DD(a) of the Migration Act: AUS17 at [11]-[12] per Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane and Gordon JJ and [23] per Edelman J; and
(b)that if neither criterion under s 473DD(b) of the Migration Act is met, that the Authority is prohibited from considering the new information and that there is no need to assess that information against the criterion in s 473DD(a) of the Migration Act: AUS17 at [11] per Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane and Gordon JJ and [23] per Edelman J.
No “formulaic consideration” of s 473DD is required: ARO17 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 847 at [64] per Wigney J, and the Authority was under no obligation to provide reasons for the formation of the states of satisfaction required by s 473DD of the Migration Act: CAQ17 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 203; (2019) 274 FCR 477 at [119] per Derrington and Steward JJ.
Ground 3 contends that the Authority Decision was inconsistent, illogical and unreasonable and that was it was an error for the Authority not to accept “the information associated in processing enmasse”. As noted above, no new information was given to the Authority and so it had no cause to consider any new information under s 473DD of the Migration Act. Otherwise, in the absence of particulars, what is contended for in ground 3 is unclear. The information the Authority allegedly refused to accept is neither identified by CUR19 nor apparent. Insofar as the Authority dealt with what might occur if CUR19 were to be returned to Sri Lanka that is dealt with in the Authority Decision at CB 196-197 at [30]-[36] and 198-199 at [40]-[42], and in the Delegate’s Decision at CB 146 and 152-153. It does not appear that any claims were made by CUR19 as to “en masse processing” of returnees or the effect thereof, and nor is it apparent that CUR19 provided any information in relation thereto to the Delegate. As noted above CUR19 did not seek to put new information concerning any matter before the Authority. The Authority did not err by failing to consider a matter that was not raised by CUR19: NABE (No 2) at [55] and [68] per Black CJ, French and Selway JJ, or a case that CUR19 did not advance: Dranichnikov at [78] per Kirby J; SGBB at [17] per Selway J. It follows that ground 3 of the Judicial Review Application does not establish jurisdictional error in the Authority Decision.
Ground 4 contends that the Authority was not satisfied of exceptional circumstances to consider information, presumably under s 473DD of the Migration Act. As noted above, no new information was given to the Authority by CUR19 and so the Authority had no cause to consider any new information under s 473DD of the Migration Act. The contention is misconceived and it follows that ground 4 of the Judicial Review Application does not establish jurisdictional error in the Authority Decision.
Conclusion – grounds 3 and 4
Grounds 3 and 4 do not therefore establish jurisdictional error in the Authority Decision.
Jurisdictional error otherwise
The Court considers that:
(a)all of the factual findings made in the Authority Decision were open to the Authority on the evidence and materials before it;
(b)the Authority was not obliged to accept CUR19’s claims uncritically: Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 52 FCR 437; (1994) 35 ALD 1; (1994) 124 ALR 265 at 278 per Beaumont J; and
(c)the Authority correctly understood and applied the correct legal principles in arriving at its conclusions that CUR19 did not meet s 36(2)(a) and (aa) of the Migration Act.
The Court is cognisant that CUR19 was self-represented, and that in those circumstances the Court must endeavour to remain independently alert to the possibility of a jurisdictional error having been made by the Authority: MZAIB v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 1392; (2015) 238 FCR 158 at [100] and [112] per Mortimer J; Ludgero v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCCA 1060; (2021) 358 FLR 215 at [26] per Judge Lucev. Save however for the matters otherwise considered in these Reasons for Judgment, it is not evident to the Court that some other form of possibly arguable legal error, and in particular possibly arguable jurisdictional error, arises in relation to the Authority Decision.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
CUR19 has failed to establish any jurisdictional error in the Authority Decision. It follows that the Judicial Review Application must be dismissed. There will be an order accordingly.
There will also be an order that the name of the first respondent be amended to read “Minister for Home Affairs, Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Cyber Security and the Arts”.
The Court will hear the parties as to costs.
I certify that the preceding thirty (30) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judge Lucev. Associate:
Dated: 12 August 2024
0
30
2