HC and MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
[2012] AATA 141
•6 March 2012
[2012] AATA 141
Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION File Number(s)
2011/5579
Re
HC
APPLICANT
And
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal The Hon. Brian Tamberlin QC, Deputy President
Ms J L Redfern, Senior MemberDate 6 March 2012 Place Sydney The decision under review is affirmed
...........[sgd].............................................................
The Hon. Brian Tamberlin QC
Deputy PresidentCATCHWORDS
IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP: Visa cancellation – character test - substantial criminal record - exercise of discretion to cancel applicant's visa pursuant to s 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958 – Direction [41] applied – protection of the Australian community – seriousness and nature of the relevant conduct – the risk conduct may be repeated – Decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 501
Direction [No. 41] - Visa Refusal and Cancellation under section 501
CASES
Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v Batey (1993) 112 ALR 198
Re Stone and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1981) 23 ALN 81
Rosson v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2011) 191 FCR 390
SECONDARY MATERIALS
-
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Hon. Brian Tamberlin QC, Deputy President, Ms J L Redfern, Senior Member
6 March 2012
This is an application for review of a decision by a ministerial delegate on 5 December 2011 who exercised the minister’s discretion under s 501 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) to cancel the Applicant’s class BC Subclass 100 Spouse visa.
In reaching his conclusion the delegate gave significant weight to the extremely serious nature of the Applicant’s sexually based offences against a vulnerable child and placed some weight on forensic psychiatric opinions regarding the Applicant’s mental state. The delegate also considered information in relation to his risk of recidivism in relation to crimes of a sexual nature against children and also that the risk could be lessened after completion of a sexual offenders rehabilitation program in prison. The delegate noted the Applicant’s willingness to participate in such a program and that due to apparent delays he did not take part in such a program. The delegate expressed concerns regarding the Applicant’s overall rehabilitation having regard to probation and parole views as to his understanding of the seriousness of the offence and the delegate found that even if the Applicant’s risk of reoffending was low the seriousness of the offence and the protection of the community outweighed any countervailing considerations including any emotional distress his brother might suffer and also took into account any hardship the Applicant might experience if returned to Lebanon.
The Applicant was born in Lebanon and is 31 years of age. In 1996 one of his brothers, the father of the child victim, moved to Australia and married and subsequently had a family.
In 2001 the Applicant met his wife who was visiting Lebanon and in July 2001 he married her in Lebanon. She returned to Australia in 2001. They maintained their relationship by phone and email.
In March 2003 the Applicant came to Australia to be with his wife whom he had not seen for two years. When he arrived in Australia the Applicant lived with his brother and his brother’s family for about 10 months. A few days after his arrival in Australia the Applicant visited his wife at her parent’s home and discussed their future. After a week their relationship broke up. The Applicant then lived with his brother in a two bedroom house. The brother provided him food and funds and gave him a job. At the time the brother had three children, the oldest of whom was the victim. The Applicant slept in the same room as the victim who was then aged 9 years. The other children at that time were aged about five and another daughter then aged about one year.
The Applicant was charged with 14 offences consisting of three counts of sexual intercourse with a person under the age of 10 years and eleven counts of indecent assault on a victim under the age of 10 years. He was sentenced to a total of eight years imprisonment for his offences by the District Court Judge. The sentences were imposed on 27 January 2006. The series of crimes was described by counsel for the Applicant at the hearing before the Tribunal to have been abhorrent in nature.
The circumstances in which the offences occurred are described in a transcript of evidence and the sentencing remarks of the District Court judge. In relation to two of the 14 offences the judge found there was a degree of physical coercion involved and there was penetration and oral sex. In his remarks the judge said:
Those lengthy facts which I have recited disclose the commission of offences of extreme gravity. It is the primary purpose of the criminal law to protect the community and particularly to protect the most vulnerable in our community. Young children are extremely vulnerable and are particularly vulnerable to sexual exploitation by adults. Children are entitled to be free from defilement and psychological upset, confusion and difficulties in later life. They are often too embarrassed, afraid or inhibited by feelings of guilt to complain about the commission of sexual offences upon them …
The courts have consistently held that general deterrence must be given considerable weight in sentencing offenders for sexual offences against children. The very severe maximum penalties the legislature has set reflect community abhorrence for such offences.
In the course of his sentencing remarks, the judge decided that the offences fell just below the mid range of seriousness. He found there was a pattern of sexual molestation and that there was emotional harm caused to the victim but on the available evidence he was unable to find that the harm was substantial. He remarked that the degree of emotional harm may have not been discernible for some years. The sentence imposed was that the Applicant was sentenced to imprisonment until at least 5 April 2012.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Under s 501(2) of the Act the Minister may cancel a visa granted to a person if the Minister reasonably suspects the person does not pass the character test. In this case it is common ground that the Applicant does not pass the character test because he has a substantial criminal record.
In deciding whether to exercise the discretion to cancel the Applicant’s visa the Minister was bound by the Ministerial Direction [no.41] which provides for matters to be taken into account in exercising the discretion.
Under the Direction the Tribunal must have regard to a series of considerations. These are divided into Primary Considerations and Other Considerations set out in the Direction.
In this case the first and most relevant primary consideration is the protection of the Australian community. The direction states in paragraph (10.1.1(1)) that crimes involving violence against vulnerable persons such as minors are especially “abhorrent” to the whole community. The examples of serious categories of offences in the Direction made specific reference to all offences perpetrated against a child (particularly sexually based offences). The Direction also indicates that the sentence imposed for a crime is considered indicative of the seriousness of the offender’s conduct against the community.
In considering the protection of the Australian community further regard must be had to the risk that the conduct may be repeated. Regard must be given in considering the sentence to the extent of the person’s criminal record including the number and nature of the offences, the period between the offences and the time elapsed since the last offence.
Consideration must be also given to any judicial comments, professional psychological reports, pre-sentence reports, parole reports and victim impact statements and the like and any mitigating factors. In assessing any risk of reoffending the previous conduct and criminal history must be considered.
The other primary factors include whether the person was a minor when he or she began living in Australia; the length of time that the person has been ordinarily resident in Australia prior to engaging in criminal activity, any international obligations or the best interests of the child.
The other considerations which are to be taken into account but, which should generally be given less weight than that given to the primary considerations, include family ties, the nature and extent of any relationships; the person’s age; the person’s health; links to the country to which they would be removed; hardship likely to be experienced by the person or their immediate family or other persons lawfully resident in Australia and the level of education of the Applicant.
THE EVIDENCE
In addition to the extensive documentary evidence, oral evidence was given by the Applicant, his sister-in-law and mother of the victim, and his brother, the father of the victim.
The mother of the victim gave evidence about the Applicant coming to live with them and about learning about the “horrible” acts of sexual assault towards her daughter. Her daughter complained about the Applicant and the mother set up a video camera in her daughter's bedroom to show her husband on his return from Lebanon. She was concerned he would not believe the complaints. The sexual assaults were discovered when the daughter took the tapes to her school headmistress. The police were called and the family were separated from their father for over a year by authorities. According to a victim’s impact statement referred to by the sentencing judge, the family was separated “in response to reports of the verbal aggression and intimidation by the victim's natural father”.
The victim’s mother gave evidence of a vague, general, hearsay nature that the daughter loved her father very much and her daughter knows that her father would never do anything to hurt her. She says the daughter has come to accept that her uncle is very regretful. The daughter is now 16 years of age but was not called to give evidence. The mother of the victim has been married to the brother of the Applicant for 17 years and together that have six children although for long periods of time they have not been living together and at present they are living apart.
The brother of the Applicant described the circumstances in which his brother came to live with them on the breakup of the Applicant’s marriage. He said that he had difficulty understanding what had happened. Initially he could not accept that the Applicant had engaged in such conduct but later accepted that it had occurred. He feels a strong sense of duty to protect the Applicant. As his only brother in Australia he had to support him notwithstanding what his brother had done. He repeats hearsay statements from the Applicant to the effect that his brother is willing to do anything to get his forgiveness and that he wants to apologise to the victim. At least until his daughter turns 18 the father will not allow the Applicant to have any dealing with her because he is concerned about her feelings. He says that his brother was not in the right frame of mind when the sexual assaults took place. He asserts that his daughter has accepted the situation as a bad moment of her life. He says he will help his brother rehabilitate himself if allowed to remain. He believes his brother has learnt from his mistakes.
The Applicant also gave evidence dealing with the circumstances in which he came to Australia and in which the sexual assault occurred. He now expresses regret and says he was not surprised that his visa was cancelled because of the seriousness of the offences committed by him. He says he would never do anything like that again and was determined to show he was a “good” man. He has no problems with strict conditions being placed upon him while out on parole including engaging in a suitable sexual offenders program and consultations with a psychiatrist on a regular basis. He also gave evidence that on many occasions during the period of his incarceration he asked about going on sexual offenders programs but due to administrative delays this did not take place. If released into the community he expected to find work with one of his cousins and would rent a unit. He understands that he would not be allowed to see or talk to the victim. He refers to his many certificates whilst in prison in various courses of training.
ISSUE
The issue for determination is whether the correct or preferable decision in the circumstances is to exercise the discretion to cancel the Applicant’s visa.
CONSIDERATION
It is clear that the crimes involve violence against vulnerable persons including a very young minor. The offences were against a child and were strongly sexually based. It is within the category of a serious offence. This is reinforced by the sentence imposed for the crimes in question. The offences took place over a period of two years and one month. They involved breaches of trust placed in the Applicant by the victim and her parents and their family. They involved the victim complaining of sexual offences but no effective action was taken over this lengthy period until a very late stage when the child victim produced evidence to her school headmistress.
The remarks of the sentencing judge took into account all the relevant mitigating circumstances at the time. He reached the conclusion that there was community abhorrence of such offences. The objective seriousness of the offences was found to be mid-range in relation to sexual intercourse of a child and just below the mid-range in relation to the indecent assault matters. Of particular importance is the fact the judge considered the offences could not be considered isolated or opportunistic offences and that they were aggravated because they involved a serious breach of trust. The total sentence of eight years imprisonment commencing on 6 October 2007 is to expire on 5 October 2015 with a non-parole period which could lead to release on 5 April 2012. This is a heavy sentence.
Although the Applicant did not have a prior criminal record it is important to consider the number and nature of the offences and the period between them. There were numerous offences, they were continuous and there was physical coercion for two of the offences. There has been no repetition since the most recent offence. The Applicant has been in custody for most of that time. As regards mitigating factors, these are referred to in the sentencing remarks. The Applicant stated that he felt sorry for the victim and asserted that he understands how she felt as he had been sexually abused on one occasion and he did not why he engaged in the conduct.
Further, as a mitigating factor the Applicant refers to his disturbance at the breakup with his spouse a few days after his arrival in Australia and he asserted that he felt like something was pushing him. There was some indication based on the Applicant’s account of the history to the Doctor, a forensic psychiatrist, in 2005, that the Applicant was suffering depressive symptoms after being rejected by his fiancée. There were other possible stresses of adjusting to a new society. The Doctor’s views expressed in his report were based on the Applicant’s untested assertions. He noted that the offender did not manifest any symptoms consistent with psychotic disorder or significant anxiety disorder.
A central issue in this case is the risk of repetition of the conduct having regard particularly to evidence of the extent of rehabilitation.
Evidence as to rehabilitation and prospects of reoffending was given by the Doctor. He saw the Applicant and made a report in 2005 which was considered by the sentencing judge. He also provided another report after a further interview with the Applicant of about an hour and a half. This report was obtained at the request of the Respondent.
In his psychiatric report the Doctor recounts the history given to him by the Applicant and he viewed a bundle of relevant documents. His approach was to adopt both a “clinical” and an “actuarial” approach. He points out that the quality of expert opinion is limited and that any opinion on risk of recidivism is more professional than scientific and that there are real limitations in assessing the prospects of recidivism.
In relation to the actuarial method he considered statistics as to prediction of recidivism in Canada and the United Kingdom using an actuarial score known as Static-99. He placed the Applicant in a “low risk” group, statistically speaking, for future sexual recidivism. He states that these figures are simply a general guide that must be cautiously and judiciously applied to each particular individual. The statistics only provided a general background. He describes the risk of future recidivism as being low when compared to the risk of recidivism of the “average sexual offender”. In oral testimony he pointed out that there are limits on generalised statistical estimations or assessments.
In relation to his clinical assessment he details a number of factors that (i) relate to the increased risk of sexual recidivism, (ii) that are ambiguous factors, and (iii) factors associated with a risk of recidivism which appeared to him to be absent. He did not consider that the Applicant suffered from psychosis, but presented as an individual with a capacity to plan and he considered that he had some motivation for going into treatment. He considered that the Applicant met criteria for a diagnosis of “paraphilia” disorder, namely, paedophilia both heterosexual and intra-familial. His behaviour was characterised by arousal involving a child aged under 13, and he has a vulnerability to younger children and as a consequence would require a sex offender rehabilitation program to assist him to control his underlying propensity which needed to be addressed. He says that the Applicant would be regarded as an “incest” offender and the risk of recidivism was lower than for other sex offenders but noted that before the offences in this matter the Applicant had no contact with the victim, and was not in any parental or sibling relationship with her and this may be relevant to that assessment. Importantly, he noted that falling into a low risk group does not denote “no risk” because the Applicant has demonstrated a propensity to such sexual offending and that this suggests a prudent course in the future would be to develop his capacity to manage this propensity by completing a sex offender program, which he had not been able to pursue up to the present time. The Doctor said the Applicant was likely to engage well in such a program, which would also provide more information about the risks, but agreed the Applicant’s prospects “remains unclear”.
In relation to the circumstances surrounding the Applicant’s relationship with his ex-wife the Doctor expressed no opinion because he could not resolve the factual matters in that relationship. In relation to the clinical assessment the Doctor referred to three factors associated with the increased risk of sexual recidivism which applied to the Applicant and a further six factors that were ambiguous. In addition, he referred to what he believed at the time of the report were factors associated with increased risk of sexual recidivism which appeared to be absent. However, when it was pointed out to him, he accepted that there had been some physical coercion at the time of offending. He considered this would need to be added to the factors indicating a risk. This appears from the sentencing remarks of the District Court judge. In addition he accepted that there was a “chronicity” of offending which the Doctor had assumed to be absent. This factor would tend to support the view that the danger of recidivism was more possible.
The conclusion which we draw from the evidence of the Doctor is that there is a real risk to the Australian community which could possibly be reduced if a future course of treatment was undertaken. However we consider it is impossible to predict whether this would be successful. As at the present time no such course has been undertaken.
Counsel for the Applicant submitted that in the absence of the Applicant having completed the sex offender’s program we could not make an assessment of his prospects of rehabilitation and therefore the risks of him re-offending. This was not the Applicant’s fault. He had been ready and willing to undertake the program since 2008. It was highly probable the Applicant would be required to complete the program before or during his parole and there would be little prospect of him re-offending during this period. Counsel submitted that the Tribunal should set aside the decision of the Minister to cancel the Applicant’s visa in these circumstances because the Minister could always review the matter after the Applicant had completed the program.
While it is possible the risk may be reduced or the program may produce more information from which to assess the risk, these matters are speculative. Given the deep-seated nature of the propensity referred to by the Doctor and regardless of whether the Applicant completes the sex offender’s program, we consider that the risk of recidivism is significant to a degree that it must be given great weight in exercising the discretion given in the Act. There is in our conclusion a real risk that the conduct may be repeated and that this would be a real and significant danger to the Australian community. A real risk of recidivism is one which is not far-fetched or fanciful and can include a low or minimal risk: Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v Batey (1993) 112 ALR 198.
The Direction provides that due consideration should be given to the Government's objectives set out in Part 1, paragraph 5 of the Direction. According to paragraph 5.1, the Government “seeks to protect the Australian community from an unacceptable risk of harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens” and “is especially mindful to protect the safety of the community’s more vulnerable members, including minors, the elderly and the disabled”. In this case, the offences committed by the Applicant are serious and involved, and have the potential in the future to involve, the community’s more vulnerable members. According to the Doctor there is evidence of an underlying paedophile tendency and while he notes that the Applicant falls into the low risk category of recidivism, he acknowledges there is risk. In our view, the comments of Davies J in re Stone and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1981) 23 ALN 81 are apposite.
The seriousness of the crime is an important consideration. The more serious the offence the greater the affront there has been to the community and the greater the necessity there is to preclude recidivism.
The nature of the offence is of particular significance in the case of an immigrant who, in substance, seeks to remain in Australia so as to become fully absorbed into the Australian community. Yet, by the nature of his crime, he may have placed himself among the class of persons whom Australia will not accept for entry. The community may prefer to deport the criminal because he no longer meets the criteria which the community, having a choice as to who will and who will not become members of its community, has laid down for entry to Australia.
Given these matters, the consideration of the protection of the Australian community weighs heavily in favour of cancelling the Applicant’s visa.
In relation to the other primary considerations the position is that the Applicant was not a minor when he began living in Australia. He had not been ordinarily resident in Australia for any significant period of time before engaging in the relevant conduct. An interview with the victim suggests the conduct commenced from the time the Applicant first arrived in Australia and a number of the offences of which he was convicted cite this date as the commencement of a period in which certain offences occurred. The Applicant does not concede this and the sentencing remarks do not make this clear. However, the undisputed evidence is that the Applicant commenced his offending within 9 months of first arriving in Australia.
In our view, this counts against the Applicant and this is consistent with the view expressed by Rares J in Rosson v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2011) 191 FCR 390 at [23]:
… commonsense would suggest that it might be a particularly relevant factor that a person had embarked upon criminal activity very shortly after arriving in this country, in determining whether it was in the national interest that the person be allowed to remain here with a visa granted by the government of the country under the Act.
In relation to relevant international obligations there are no significant considerations which would weigh in favour or against cancellation. The Convention and Protocol relating to the status of refugees is not relevant in this matter. Nor are there any other relevant international considerations.
In relation to the consideration of the best interests of the child, the Applicant has no children. There is no evidence of any significant bond with any children in Australia. There is no evidence of any relationship with the victim that, if it did exist, would weigh in his favour.
The Minister submitted, and we do not understand that the Applicant disputes, this consideration is broad enough to contemplate the Tribunal taking into account any benefit to a child if the Applicant’s visa is cancelled. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that cancellation may cause further distress to the victim and the other children in the family because the brother of the Applicant would be upset. The dislocation to the family when the offences were first discovered was distressing and disruptive. It was also suggested by the Applicant that if he is sent back to Lebanon, this would not only focus more attention on him but importantly the victim and this may damage her reputation. The Minister contended there is a risk the Applicant may reoffend if he is allowed close contact with his brother’s other children. Furthermore, it was contended that even if contact with the victim was not allowed, she may be fearful for herself or her siblings and any decision of the Tribunal in favour of the Applicant may be seen as an affirmation of the initial denial by her father.
There is no evidence from the victim about this, other than the hearsay evidence of her parents, on which we can place little weight. There is no recent expert evidence about the possible impact on the victim and neither party, for reasons that we accept, sought to call the victim to give evidence. There is expert evidence about the effect on the victim in a victim’s impact report as follows:
[The victim] feels responsible for the disruption of the family and is extremely disheartened by her father's actions in choosing to support the offender. [The victim's] perception is that her father is disbelieving of her and the guilty plea by the offender failed to ameliorate this perception. [The victim] is cognisant of her mother being depressed and reports having observed and heard her crying of the night. [The victim] interacts with her siblings in a parentified manner and I have observed her feeding, comforting and supervising the younger children. [The victim's] brother[] has been aggressive towards [the victim] stating, "It's your fault we left home".
[The victim] possesses persistent and intrusive fears that the perpetrator will do something to her. The prospect of having to give evidence at court and in the same complex with the offender has previously been the source of much anxiety for [the victim].
[The victim] is easily startled and is reduced to tears by seemingly minor or trivial incidents. This is in my opinion a product of the cumulative stress, instability and upheaval experienced by [the victim] and her family.
Six years have passed since this report and the victim is now 16 years old. It is possible she no longer feels the anxiety described by the social worker in the report but it is impossible to know whether the release of the Applicant and allowing him to remain in the community will revive these fears or re-open old wounds. The Doctor said he could not offer an opinion. The victim’s mother said her daughter was receiving counselling until two years ago. While this suggests the victim may have recovered to some degree, the fact she was receiving counselling for five years is significant. To the extent any weight can be given to the views expressed by her parents about her current attitude, it is possible those views may be explained by a desire to avoid conflict, lessen her parent’s anxiety or comply with her father’s wishes. As noted in the report, the victim felt responsible for the disruption of the family and may still feel this responsibility. Given the evidence of harm and distress and the need for long term counselling, it is more likely than not that the victim will be affected if the Applicant remains in the community.
It is also relevant to consider the obviously close relationship between the Applicant and his brother. The brother and his wife have been separated for about six months but the brother is hopeful he and his wife will reconcile. While the brother said he would not allow the Applicant to have contact with the victim unless she consents, there is a real possibility of contact with the victim and her younger siblings given the close family relationship. The Applicant’s brother and his sister-in-law are the only family the Applicant has in Australia and both have given evidence of their support of the Applicant. The submission of Counsel for the Applicant, with some support from the Doctor, was that knowledge of the Applicant’s paedophilic tendencies should put the parents on notice, thereby reducing the risk of recidivism for their children. However, the evidence of the brother is that the Applicant was “not in his right state of mind at the time the sexual assaults took place”. His sister-in-law stated “people make mistakes, but we all have to learn from them and move on”. This evidence raises concern about whether the brother and his wife appreciate the seriousness of the Applicant’s underlying tendencies, as found by the Doctor.
Even if it could be satisfied the Applicant would not reoffend if exposed to interaction with his brother’s children, it is relevant to note that it is not only the victim who may suffer but her younger brother, who was present at the time one of the offences was committed in the Applicant’s unit.
Having regard to these matters, we are of the view this consideration weighs in favour of cancelling the Applicant’s visa. The removal of the Applicant from Australia could have a beneficial effect in relation to the children of his brother. Most of them are still of tender age and bearing in mind that the Applicant’s condition is deep-seated and there is some possibility of incestuous behaviour, his removal will eliminate this possibility. This is in favour of cancellation. Moreover, so far as the victim is concerned, it is possible her anxiety would be reduced on removal of the Applicant and the reactivation of the memories of the greatly distressing events would be diminished, if not removed. The same could be said for her younger brother. In addition, if the removal takes place by reason of the action of the Tribunal standing the shoes of the Minister, there is less reason to associate the deportation with the victim.
With respect to other non-primary considerations there does appear to be a strong family tie between the Applicant and his brother. The evidence is, also, that he does belong to a substantial family group in Lebanon. He has no significant ties to the Australian community. There is no presently relevant marital or defacto relationship with an Australian citizen. He is 31 years of age and appears to be in good physical health. He has strong links to the country to which he would be removed, namely Lebanon where he was brought up by reason of his language, education and cultural ties. There is no significant evidence of hardship likely to be experienced by any person or immediate family members lawfully resident in Australia except for the bond with his brother. He has a reasonable level of education as evidenced by his certificates whilst in prison and his ability to converse in English together with some experience in technology. He has made efforts to improve his education. There are no other significant considerations.
The Applicant asserts his family in Lebanon will reject him, but it is unclear whether this would be the case. He does not believe his family know the true facts and if they did, he said he would become a pariah. However, we have concluded that might be the case regardless of whether he was deported. Nonetheless, we accept that if the Applicant is deported and his family in Lebanon reject him, there would be hardship and this would weigh against cancellation, but not significantly so given the other considerations.
Weighing all the relevant considerations in this matter the Tribunal considers that the decision of the Minister should be affirmed. We have had regard to the abhorrence of the Australian community to the offences, the deep seated nature of his underlying propensity with the breaches of trust toward his family in Australia, the real risk of recidivism, the circumstances of the offending so soon after his arrival, the possible benefits to his nieces and nephews in his removal and the absence of any strongly countervailing considerations. We conclude that the correct and preferable decision, therefore, is that the decision of the Minister should be affirmed.
I certify that the preceding 50 (fifty) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of The Hon. Brian Tamberlin QC, Deputy President, Ms J L Redfern, Senior Member.
...........[sgd].............................................................
Associate
Dated 6 March 2012
Dates of hearing 28 February and 2 March 2012 Counsel for the Applicant Mr R J Young Solicitors for the Applicant Simon Diab & Associates Solicitors for the Respondent Mr Lenny Leerdam, DLA PIPER AUSTRALIA
0
2
0