FTZK and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2012] AATA 312
•23 May 2012
[2012] AATA 312
Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION File Number(s)
2011/2054
Re
FTZK
APPLICANT
And
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal Deputy President J W Constance
Date 23 May 2012 Place Melbourne The decision under review, being the decision of the Minister made 24 May 2011, is affirmed.
........[sgd J W Constance]................................
Deputy President J W Constance
CATCHWORDS
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION – Protection (Class XA) visa – Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees – Article 1F – Article 1F(b) – whether there are serious reasons for considering that the applicant committed the crime or crimes alleged – decision under review affirmed.
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Arquita v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2000) 106 FCR 465; [2000] FCA 1889 (22 December 2000)
Al-Habr and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; [1999] AATA 150
Dhayakpa v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1995) 62 FCR 556; [1995] FCA 1653 (9 November 1995)
United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees Article 1F, 1F(b)
1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees
REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal: Deputy President J W Constance
Date: 23 May 2012
INTRODUCTION
On 8 December 1998 the Applicant applied to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs for a Protection (Class XA) visa under the provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). He had entered Australia from the People’s Republic of China in early 1996 as the holder of a Temporary Business Entry (Class UC) visa, subclass 456.
For various reasons, which are not relevant to the determination of this application, over 13 years later he applied to this Tribunal to review a decision of the Respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, refusing his application for the protection visa. The Minister’s decision was made on 24 May 2011.
For the reasons which follow the decision under review will be affirmed.
BACKGROUND
Australia’s obligation to provide protection to refugees is governed by the provisions of the United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol.
The Convention provides for the exclusion of persons from the application of the Convention in certain circumstances. The applicable provision in this application is Article 1F which relevantly states:
The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that … he has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee.
It is alleged by the Tianjin Public Security Bureau in China that the Applicant committed the crimes of hijacking (the equivalent of the crime of kidnapping under Australian law), extorting and the malicious killing of a 15 year old male. It is alleged that the Applicant committed these crimes in the company of two others in China in December 1995. The Bureau has issued a warrant for the arrest of the Applicant.[1]
[1] Exhibit R5.
THE ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION
The issue for determination is a narrow one – are there serious reasons for considering that the Applicant has committed the crime or crimes alleged.
It is not in dispute that each of the crimes alleged is a serious non-political crime under the terms of Article 1F.[2] I am satisfied this is so.
EVIDENCE
[2] Applicant’s Statement of Facts and Contentions para.24.
Case Summary Report by Tianjin Public Security Office No.5 Team 1[3]
[3] Exhibit R2, annexure EJN-6.
In part, this report states the information set out in the following seven paragraphs.
On 20 December 1996 the Command Centre of the Tianjin Public Security Bureau received a report that a 15 year old male student had been kidnapped on his way to school. A witness had seen the boy dragged into a vehicle. The student’s father reported receiving a telephone call demanding a ransom shortly after the kidnapping. The father attempted to deliver the money to the kidnappers on several occasions as requested but no contact was made.
At 12.15 pm the following day the Centre received a report that a male body had been found in a pond in the area. Police attended the scene and reported that the hands and feet of the body were tied. The body was identified as that of the student.
A mobile phone was found at the scene. It was purchased on 8 December 1996.
Investigations at the scene indicated that a white station wagon was seen parked next to the pond at about 0:30 that day and two people were seen to get out of the vehicle. The vehicle was seen to be driven away about 30 minutes later.
An autopsy revealed that the student had drowned.
The report contains the following statement:
After the case happened, the leaders at all levels paid great attention to it. ... Party Committee of Tianjin Public Security bureau regards the case as the No.1 important case of the city and made a deadline to solve the case.
The report states also:
With the cooperation of all related units and after deep investigation and technical monitoring of the clues collected, on 23rd May 1997, we finally confirm three suspects involved in this case: ZHONG Weidong (male, 28 years old, driver of the administrative office of Tianjin Export Container Company, lives in 602-23 Heyuanli, Hexi District, registered household address at 303-21 Gaofengli, Jizhuangzi, Hexi District), WU Zhijun (male, 24 years old, unemployed, lives in 401-4-2 Jinyuanli, Tongyuan Road, Nankai District), (The Applicant). After a precise disposition, we caught ZHONG Weidong and WU Zhijun on 23rd May and 24th May respectively. The Applicant escaped to Australia in the name of business visit on 31st January this year.
The Autopsy Report[4]
[4] Exhibit R2, annexure EJN-3.
The autopsy report states that the student was alive when he was thrown into the pond.
Investigation Transcript – Mr Wu [5]
[5] Exhibit R2, annexure EJN-4.
The transcript purports to record an interview conducted by an investigator from the Public Security Bureau Office on 24 May 1997.
According to the transcript Mr Wu admitted taking part in the kidnapping and killing of the student. He stated that the Applicant and a Mr Zhong planned and carried out the kidnapping.
When asked for details of the Applicant Mr Wu replied, “male, 24 or 25 years old, lives behind the Heping District Bureau of Industry and Commerce. I know the place but I don’t know his exact address. He used to be a security guard of the Jili Building, and now he lives in Australia. He went there before the Spring Festival this year. …”
Mr Wu stated that the Applicant was involved in purchasing the mobile phone used to contact the student’s father, in the planning of the kidnapping and the means of collecting the ransom. He said that the Applicant pulled the student from his bicycle and pulled him into a van driven by Mr Zhong and that the Applicant took part in trying to contact the student’s father to collect the ransom. He said also that he and the Applicant wished to release the student but that Mr Zhong opposed this and it was then decided to throw the student into the pond. He said that the Applicant and Mr Zhong did this.
Mr Wu stated further that he met the Applicant once after these events and that on that occasion the Applicant told him to forget about what had happened.
Further Investigation Transcript – Mr Zhong[6]
[6] Exhibit R2, annexure EJN-10.
This document records that Mr Zhong was questioned for the first time on 23/24 May 1997. He admitted taking an active role in the kidnapping.
Mr Zhong stated that he was an employee of the company of which the student’s father was the Vice-Manager. He said that the plan to kidnap the student was initially discussed between himself and Mr Wu and that later Mr Wu introduced him to the Applicant.
The description of the actual kidnapping was similar to that given by Mr Wu. However Mr Zhong said that Mr Wu and the Applicant threw the student into the pond. He said also that after the kidnapping and “before he left” the Applicant came to his home and asked him to get him a job.
Arrest warrant[7]
[7] Exhibit R2, annexure EJN-5.
On 26 May 1997 the Tianjin People’s Procuratorate Second Branch issues a warrant for the arrest of the Applicant as a criminal suspect.
The Applicant’s statement 13 October 2011 [8]
[8] Exhibit A1.
The Applicant denies any involvement in, or knowledge of, the kidnapping and murder. Hu says that he does not know Mr Wu and Mr Zhong and cannot explain why they named him in their statements to the investigators.
The Applicant said that he did not obtain his passport illegally but admits that the information on his application for a visa was incorrect. He said that his family was told by an agent that the inclusion of this incorrect information was the only way he could obtain a visa and that his family was worried for his safety and did everything they could to get him out of the country because he had been detained previously and beaten by the police.
In relation to his religious beliefs, the Applicant said that he was raised in the Catholic faith in China and that his parents were Catholic. He joined a Jehovah Witness Church in Australia but ceased to attend this Church in about 2002 when he realised it was not a Catholic Church. When he was in detention (from February 2004 until May 2005) the Applicant attended a Catholic Church and continued to do so when he was released into the community.
When he arrived in Australia the Applicant understood that he could stay in Australia for only three months on his existing visa. He then applied for a long term business visa subclass 457.[9] He set up a company in order to increase his chances of success in his application. In December 1998 the Applicant applied for a protection subclass 866 visa. At the time he did not know the outcome of his application for the subclass 457 visa.
[9] Had it been granted this visa would have allowed the Applicant to remain in Australia for four years (see exhibit A18 p.3).
In 1999 the Applicant’s application for a protection visa was refused and he applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal to review this decision. The Applicant admitted that, on the hearing of his application for review, he gave false evidence to the Refugee Review Tribunal. He said that he did so because he was afraid that what he said to the Tribunal would become known to the Chinese Government.
The Applicant expressed the view that the official who signed the warrant for his arrest was corrupt and was known by others to be so.
The Applicant said that by 2003 he no longer feared returning to China as he believed that he had been out of the country for sufficient time for the police to have ceased looking for him. He said also that he believed there would not be a risk in returning as he had not argued strongly against the government. He says that he first learned of the kidnapping and murder allegations against him in June 2004 when he was being interviewed by authorities whilst in detention.
The Applicant’s statement dated 26 March 2012 [10]
[10] Exhibit A2.
This statement was made after the Applicant had considered the documents provided by the Chinese authorities (part of exhibit R2).
The Applicant annexed to his statement a copy of an Australian travel document which indicates that his passport was issued on 24 July 2004. He says he lost his passport sometime before 2004.
The Applicant stated that the first time he was told of the allegations against him was on 23 June 2004, at which time he was in detention. He spoke to his mother in China and informed her of the allegations. Later she told him that she had attended a local police station to make enquiries concerning the allegations but she had been ignored.
The applicant further stated that he does not know anyone by the name of Zhong Weidong or Wu Zhijun. He has not been shown photographs of either of them to give him the opportunity to determine if either of them is familiar to him. He is not related to anyone of the same name as either of them.
The Applicant says that the buildings mentioned in the documents are between three and five kilometres from his family home where he lived prior to coming to Australia. The Applicant is aware of the Tianjin Export Group Company as it was located in the area in which he lived. He says that the restaurant referred to is about 1.5 kilometres from the building, not opposite as is suggested in the document. He had attended the restaurant on occasions.
The Applicant denies that he ever worked as a security guard in the Jili Building as is stated in the documents. He was employed as a sales person by a security sales company.
The Applicant’s evidence before this Tribunal
The Applicant gave evidence. He verified the statements referred to above.
The Applicant also relied upon a statement dated 6 June 2008 which he provided to the Refugee Review Tribunal.[11]
[11] Exhibit A14.
The Applicant was cross-examined as to his involvement in the crimes alleged. He denied any involvement in, or knowledge of, the matters alleged against him. He denied any knowledge of Mr Wu and Mr Zhong. He said that the kidnapping occurred at least five kilometres from his home.
The Applicant gave evidence that he had been detained by the Chinese government for seven months in 1996 during which time he had been tortured and mistreated. He had been detained for two months in 1995. He said that the reason for his being treated in this way was because of his religious activities. His parents paid “a lot of money” to enable him to leave China because they were worried for his safety and the police were coming for him.
The Applicant applied for his first visa on 16 January 1997. He left China on 1 February 1997, knowing that he had falsely stated in his visa application that he was an engineer. He was aware that the visa he held permitted him to stay in Australia for a period of three months. He said that at the time he arrived in Australia he intended to return to China “in a short time”[12] and did not plan to stay here for a long time. It was after he arrived that friends told him he could apply to extend his visa.
[12] Transcript 10.4.12 p.42.
Between mid-1997 and September 1998 the Applicant applied for a short stay business visa and a long stay business visa. Both were refused, the latter after he applied for a review of the initial refusal. He was granted a bridging visa while his application for a long stay visa was being considered. He gave evidence that he was unclear whether he knew that once his application for a long stay visa was refused he could not stay in Australia unless he could obtain another visa.
In December 1998, approximately three months after his application for a long term visa was refused, the Applicant applied for a protection visa.
The Applicant gave evidence that in his application[13] for a protection visa he made the following statements which, at the time, he knew were false:
·that his profession was that of an engineer;
·that the only address at which he had lived in Australia was an address in Geelong 3220;
·that he had worked at a clothes factory in China;
·that he had worked in a rubber factory for the period September 1991 to February 1995;
·that he had converted to the beliefs of the Jehovah Witnesses while in Australia.
The Applicant admitted that he omitted reference to his employment by a security company in China in his application.
The Applicant said that he made these false statements because he did not want to go back to China as he had been persecuted and was very afraid of the Chinese authorities. He said that the reason for his persecution was that he had been copying and distributing pages of the Bible.
[13] Exhibit R1.
When asked whether he had told the Refugee Review Tribunal in 1999 that he had converted to the beliefs of the Jehovah Witnesses before coming to Australia, the Applicant said he thinks he did, but that he cannot remember clearly.
The Applicant agreed that in 1999 he told the Refugee Review Tribunal that the last time he was detained in China was in March 1996 for a period of one or two days and that he told the Tribunal on subsequent occasions that he had been detained for six to seven months. He said that his reason for not telling the truth to the Tribunal was that he did not trust it.
The Applicant denied that after his application for a long term visa was finally refused he knew that he was staying in Australia without a visa. His bridging visa expired on 14 January 2000.[14] He said that at the time his lawyer said that he would write to the Minister. He said also that until he was detained in 2004 he thought he was lawfully staying in Australia.
[14] Exhibit A18 p.3.
In 2004 the Applicant told Departmental officers that there was no reason he could not return to China. He gave evidence that at that time he did not fear returning to China as he was unaware that a warrant for his arrest had been issued by the Chinese authorities.
In March 2004 the Applicant applied for a bridging visa. His application was refused, as was his application for review by the Migration Review Tribunal. Twelve days after the Tribunal’s refusal the Applicant attempted to escape from migration detention. He said that his reason for doing this was to re-establish a relationship with a girlfriend and to recover some money owed to him.
Report of Dr Nesossi, Post-Doctoral Research Fellow [15]
[15] Exhibit A12.
Dr Nesossi is a researcher into China Justice issues, in particular miscarriage of justice in the criminal justice system, human rights and social justice.
Dr Nesossi prepared her report for the purpose of this application. She was asked to review the transcripts of the confessions, to indicate any anomalies or procedural issues and to comment upon their reliability. She was asked also to comment upon the practice of criminal investigations in China and the quality of confessions, particularly preceding an execution.
Dr Nesossi noted the following concerns in relation to the transcript of the interview of Mr Wu:
(a)the length of interrogation (five hours and 15 minutes without breaks);
(b)the lack of clarity as to the conditions under which the interrogation took place and the lack of external supervision;
(c)the transcript does not record the place and condition of storage.
Dr Nesossi noted also some anomalies and procedural issues in the transcript. None of these are sufficient to cause me to conclude that the veracity of the contents of the transcript should be discounted.
Having considered the transcript of the interview of Mr Zhong, Dr Nesossi noted some procedural issues which again I do not regard as significant in this application. She reported the following concerns:
(a)the length of questioning (ten hours without breaks);
(b)the questioning took place at night;
(c)the location of the questioning is not recorded;
(d)the name of the person responsible for the questioning is not recorded;
(e)the transcript does not record the place and condition of storage;
(f)the conditions of questioning are not recorded and there is no record of external supervision of the interrogation.
In relation to the practice of criminal investigations in China, Dr Nesossi expressed the following conclusions:
(i)On the practice of criminal investigation in the PRC:
·The quality of investigation varies significantly from place to place.
·During the investigation stage, criminal suspects and defendants are generally kept in custodial detention under the MPS (the very same organ responsible for investigation).
·Working targets based on conviction rates hamper significantly the level of professionalism of investigative authorities.
(ii)On confession:
·Confession is considered central to the work of criminal investigation.
·Criminal policy is based on the principle of “leniency to those who confess and severity for those who resist”.
(iii)On the right to silence and the privilege against self-incrimination:
·Not provided by law.
·The law emphasise the importance of “truthful answers” to be given by the criminal suspects and defendants.
(iv)Coerced confession:
·Very common in investigative practice – acknowledged by Chinese domestic scholars, officials, lawyers and the media, and international commentators.
·Lack of statistics.
·Long-standing practice of using evidence extracted thought torture in criminal proceedings.
(v)Criminal investigations during “Strike Hard” crime campaigns:
·“Strike Hard” campaigns against serious crime took place in China in 1996-1997 including Tianjin City.
·During “Strike Hard” campaigns, criminal justice institutions work together against crime.
·During “Strike Hard” serious criminals are punished severely and cases are handled swiftly. Criminal proceedings are adapted accordingly.
·Execution rates increase significantly.
·Extensive use of torture and illegal means in order to obtain confession from criminal suspects, to secure conviction and severe [sic] punishment. [16]
[16] Exhibit A12, pp.18-19.
Statement of Dr Sapio, Visiting Scholar[17]
[17] Exhibit A13.
Dr Sapio is a visiting scholar at the Centre for Rights and Justice, Faculty of Law, The Chinese University of Hong Kong. Her area of expertise is the criminal justice of the People’s Republic of China.
Dr Sapio provided a report as to the criminal process in China as it existed between 1996 and 1998. She was asked to comment upon similar issues to those referred to in relation to the report of Dr Nesossi.
Dr Sapio expressed the following relevant opinions:
a) The police records received by the Ministry of Public Security are incomplete. The five key pieces of evidence on the December 20 kidnap and murder case (hereinafter the 20.12 case) are inconsistent and contradictory. They do not allow an understanding of whether ZHONG Weidong and WU Zhijun and the Applicant really engaged in criminal conduct.
b) I believe the statements by ZHONG Weidong and WU Zhijun (EJN -4, EJN-10, EJN-13) have either been constructed by the police, or obtained through torture.[18]
[18] Exhibit A13, p.2.
Dr Sapio referred to other documents, such as arrest warrants and witness lists, which have not been produced by the Chinese authorities. She is also of the opinion that there would have been other transcripts of the interrogation of Mr Wu and Mr Zhong. She refers to a number of anomalies in the evidence and provides a detailed analysis of the evidence.
As to the process of investigation, Dr Sapio is of the opinion that “torture is often used to obtain an admission of guilt from criminal suspects, regardless of whether the crimes they are suspected of are punishable with the death penalty or with imprisonment.” [19]
[19] Exhibit A13, p.9.
Evidence of the good character of the Applicant
A Notarial Certificate dated 10 May 2005, obtained from the Heping District Notary Public Office, Tianjin, certifies that the Applicant was not subject to criminal punishment during his residence in China.[20] This is stated also in a further certificate (of unknown source) dated 18 September 2006[21] and in a document entitled “Verification” issued by the Tianjin Public Security Bureau Heping Branch on 1 August 2007.[22]
[20] Exhibit A3.
[21] Exhibit A4.
[22] Exhibit A5.
The Applicant also relies upon statements of several persons who have known him since he arrived in Australia and who believe him to be a person of good character.[23]
[23] Exhibits A7, A8, A9, A10 and A15.
CONSIDERATION
The Federal Court has set out a number of principles which are relevant in deciding the issue in this application.
These principles can be summarised as follows.
1)The provisions of the Convention are beneficial and should not be construed narrowly, however the provisions of Article 1F are protective of the order and safety of the State in which refuge is being sought.[24]
2)It is not necessary that the Tribunal be satisfied that the alleged crime has been committed.[25]
3)Strong evidence that the person has committed the alleged offence is sufficient.[26]
4)The evidence need not be of such weight as to meet either the criminal or civil standard of proof.[27]
[24] Dhayakpa v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1995) 62 FCR 556, 565; [1995] FCA 1653 (9 November 1995) [29].
[25] Dhayakpa v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (supra) 563.
[26] Dhayakpa v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (supra).
[27] Arquita v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2000) 106 FCR 465, 478; [2000] FCA 1889 (22 December 2000) [54].
It was argued by Counsel for the Applicant that all of the evidence must be examined in minute detail. She referred me to the approach taken by this Tribunal in Al-Habr and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs.[28] I agree that this is the approach that should be taken, bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegations against the Applicant. However this does not mean that in deciding whether there are serious reasons for considering that the Applicant committed the alleged crimes I should take into account evidence as to how the Applicant may be dealt with should he be required to stand trial in China. This evidence is not relevant in determining the issue raised in applying Article 1F(b) and I have disregarded it.
[28] [1999] AATA 150.
Having considered all of the evidence I have decided that there are serious reasons for considering that the Applicant has committed the crimes of hijacking, extortion and unlawful killing in China in 1995. I have reached this conclusion on the basis of several findings I have made on the evidence before me. I have taken into account these findings in assessing the strength of the evidence, and therefore the seriousness of the reasons, in this application.
First I have taken into account the allegations contained in the documents provided by the government of China. On the basis of the evidence of Ms Nance,[29] I am satisfied that these documents were so provided. The documents include the two transcripts of the interrogation of Mr Wu and Mr Zhong. This is direct evidence, albeit of possible accomplices, implicating the Applicant in the crimes. Each of those persons interviewed implicated the Applicant and there is nothing in the evidence to suggest that they conspired to name him.
[29] Exhibit R2.
Secondly, on the basis of the evidence of the Applicant I am satisfied that he left China shortly after the crimes were committed and that he provided false information to the Australian authorities in order to obtain a visa to do so. I am satisfied also, again based on the evidence of the Applicant, that he deliberately provided false information when applying to the Australian authorities for a protection visa in 1998.
Thirdly, I am satisfied that the Applicant was evasive when giving evidence as to his religious affiliations in Australia and China and I am satisfied that he was not detained and tortured in China as he alleges. I am satisfied that his evidence in this regard was fabricated in order to strengthen his claim to remain in Australia. The Applicant was unable to explain satisfactorily why, when giving evidence to the Refugee Review Tribunal, he did not inform that Tribunal of what he now alleges happened to him before he left China.
Fourthly, I have taken into account also that the Applicant attempted to escape from detention in 2004, shortly after his application for a long term business visa was refused. I am satisfied that in attempting to escape he intended to return to live unlawfully in the Australian community. I am satisfied of these facts on the basis of the Applicant’s evidence. I am not satisfied that his stated reasons for attempting to escape were accurate. I am satisfied also that the Applicant remained in Australia from January 2000 to February 2004 without lawful permission to do so. In view of his experience in applying for various visas beforehand, I do not accept his evidence that he believed he was entitled to remain in Australia during this period. There is no evidence which suggests that an application was made to the Minister by, or on behalf of, the Applicant during his period of unlawful residence.
The conclusion I have reached is based on the totality of the evidence I have referred to above. Any one of the various factors would not have been sufficient to establish serious reasons; it is the combination of factors which gives rise to reasons of sufficient seriousness to satisfy Article 1F of the Convention.
I have given careful consideration to the statements of Dr Nesossi and Dr Sapio. Their opinions were unchallenged and, with one proviso, I accept that both of them were well qualified to express the opinions they did. I do not accept the opinion expressed by Dr Sapio that the Applicant did not commit the crimes alleged. In my view she did not set out the evidence upon which she relied in reaching this conclusion.
I do not consider that the opinions expressed are sufficient to diminish the seriousness of the reasons I have stated. It may be that the legal system in China in the late 1990’s had all of the features described, although I make no finding that this was so. Even if the system was as described there is insufficient evidence to find that any of these features affected the investigation into the crimes alleged against the Applicant. At its highest the arguments put by the experts to the contrary were based on speculation as to what may have happened.
The argument put on behalf of the Applicant in support of a finding that serious reasons have not been established is based in part on the proposition that the two transcripts of the interrogation were deliberately falsified by a person or persons in authority or, alternatively, that both those being interrogated had been persuaded to make false allegations against the Applicant. Counsel for the Applicant referred me to the many inconsistencies between the two transcripts.
Again, this argument is based on speculation rather than on the evidence. There are many inconsistencies between the transcripts, but none that cause me to disregard either or both of them.
Counsel argued also that the Chinese government has not produced all the documents in relation to the investigation. I accept that this is probably so. However I am not satisfied that failure to do so detracts from the status of the documents produced. In any event, I am unaware of any reason to expect that the authorities would have produced all documents. I am not satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to justify a finding that the reasons I have set out should be determined to be not serious.
CONCLUSION
The decision under review, being the decision of the Minister made 24 May 2011, will be affirmed.
I certify that the preceding 79 (seventy nine) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President J W Constance.
.......[sgd].....................................................
Associate
Dated 23 May 2012
Dates of hearing 10, 11 and 12 April 2012 Counsel for the Applicant Ms N Karapanagiotidis Advocate for the Applicant Ms J Williamson Solicitors for the Applicant Asylum Seeker Resource Centre Counsel for the Respondent Mr S Donaghue SC Advocate for the Respondent Ms E Nance Solicitors for the Respondent Australian Government Solicitor
4
0