John Anochie and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2013] AATA 391
•12 June 2013
[2013] AATA 391
Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION File Number(s)
2012/0466
Re
John Anochie
APPLICANT
And
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
RESPONDENT
Decision
Tribunal Senior Member J F Toohey
Date 12 June 2013 Place Sydney The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides not to exercise the power conferred by s 501(2) to cancel Mr Anochie’s visa.
...........................[SGD]...................................
Senior Member J F Toohey
Catchwords
MIGRATION – visa cancellation – applicant imprisoned for importation of cocaine – serious offence – no prior convictions – whether unacceptable risk of harm to the community – exemplary prison record – applicant on work release – current and former employers willing to employ applicant – non-refoulement obligations under international Conventions – construction of Direction 55 in respect of non-refoulement obligations – decision under review set aside
Legislation
Migration Act 1958 ss 36(2)(aa), 501
Cases
Anochie and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] AATA 234
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Anochie [2012] FCA 1440
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33
Secondary Materials
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Direction No. 55 - Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501, 2012
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member J F Toohey
12 June 2013
Background
John Anochie is a citizen of Nigeria. He arrived in Australia in 2000. In 2003, he was granted a permanent spouse visa. In January 2012, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship cancelled his visa on the ground that, by reason of his conviction and imprisonment for importing cocaine, Mr Anochie did not pass the character test in s 501 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
In April 2012, the Tribunal exercised its discretion not to cancel Mr Anochie’s visa, and set aside the Minister’s decision. As a consequence, Mr Anochie’s visa was restored and he was released from Villawood Detention Centre where he had been held since his release from prison in February 2012.
In December 2012, the Federal Court found the Tribunal had erred in its approach to the principles of international law to be applied in Mr Anochie’s case and remitted the matter for reconsideration: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Anochie [2012] FCA 1440. As the Minister’s decision to cancel his visa was in effect restored, in January 2013 Mr Anochie was taken back into immigration detention.
Legislation
The Minister may cancel a person’s visa if the Minister reasonably suspects that he or she does not pass the character test in s 501(6)(a) of the Act, and the person does not satisfy the Minister that he or she passes the character test: s 501(2).
A person is taken not to pass the character test if he or she has a substantial criminal record. A person has a substantial criminal record if he or she has been sentenced to a term of 12 months imprisonment or more, or has been sentenced to two or more terms of imprisonment totalling two years or more: subs 501(6)(a) and (7).
Mr Anochie concedes that, by reason of having been sentenced to eight-and-a-half years imprisonment for importing cocaine, he has a substantial criminal record and does not pass the character test.
Direction No. 55
The discretion in s 501(2) must be exercised in accordance with Direction No. 55 - Visa refusal and cancellation (Direction 55) which came into effect on 1 September 2012. Direction 55 is made by the Minister pursuant to s 499 of the Act and is binding on the Tribunal: s 499(2A).
Direction 55 supersedes Direction 41, which was in force at the time of the Tribunal’s original decision.
Direction 55 includes principles which it describes as “of critical importance” in furthering the Government’s objective of protecting the Australia community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens: cl 6.2.
The principles, in summary, are as follows:
·being allowed to enter or remain in Australia is a privilege conferred in the expectation that a person will be law-abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community;
·a person who commits a serious crime, particularly against vulnerable members of the community, should expect to forfeit the privilege of remaining in Australia;
·some conduct may be so serious that any risk of similar conduct in the future is unacceptable;
·the degree of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct may be lower or higher depending on the length of time a person has lived in Australia;
·a person on a temporary visa should have no expectation of being allowed to remain in Australia permanently; and
·the length of time that a person has been making a positive contribution to the Australian community, and the consequences of cancellation for minor children and other immediate family members in Australia, are to be considered.
Guided by these principles, the decision-maker must determine whether the risk of harm by a non-citizen is unacceptable. That determination requires consideration of the likelihood of future harm, the extent of the harm should it occur, and the extent to which, if at all, that risk should be tolerated by the Australian community: cl 7.
Recognising that persons holding a substantive visa will generally have an expectation that they will be permitted to remain in Australia for the duration of their visa, separate considerations apply to visa holders and visa applicants. In the case of a visa holder, the following are primary considerations, and should generally be given greater weight than other considerations:
(a)protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(b)the strength, duration and nature of the person’s ties to Australia;
(c)the best interests of minor children in Australia;
(d)whether Australia has international non-refoulement obligations to the person.
Other considerations are set out in cl 10 of the Direction. They must be taken into account where relevant. They include, but are not limited to:
(a)effect of cancellation of the person’s visa on the person’s immediate family in Australia if those family members are Australian citizens, permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely;
(b)impact on Australian business interests;
(c)impact of a decision not to cancel a visa on members of the Australian community, including victims of the person’s criminal behaviour, and the family members of the victim or victims where that information is available and the person being considered for visa cancellation has been afforded procedural fairness;
(d)the extent of any impediments that the person may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country) taking into account:
(i) the person’s health and age;
(ii) whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and
(iii) any social, medical and/or economic support available to the person in that country.
The primary and other considerations may weigh in favour of, or against, cancellation, and one or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations: subcll 8(3) and (4).
The evidence
The evidence that was before the Tribunal on the previous occasion remains in evidence in these proceedings. It is set out in Anochie and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] AATA 234 and, unless necessary in order to make these reasons clear, I will not repeat it here.
Additional evidence since the last hearing comprises:
·a further written statement and oral evidence from Mr Anochie;
·a further letter in support from Mr Anochie’s former employer, Mr Richard Carr;
·a further letter in support from Pastor Samuel Abalo;
·a letter from Mr Stephen Amponsah, who also gave oral evidence;
·an affidavit of Ms Louise Buchanan, a solicitor at the Australian Government Solicitor, annexing a cable from the Australian High Commission in Nigeria.
Mr Anochie’s further evidence
In a written statement submitted to the Tribunal, Mr Anochie wrote:
The reason why I was involved in an attempt to import cocaine was my sister in Nigeria was in need of money because she had been diagnosed with cancer. She died while I was in prison. I had had no knowledge of the harm that cocaine could do at that time. In Nigeria there are people who are addicted to drugs, but there is not much information about them. While I was in goal [sic] on remand I saw what drugs were doing to young people. While I was in prison I was head the spraying section [sic] of the workshop in Parklea Goal [sic]. I saw young people on methadone having to have instructions repeated many times because their memories were affected. I am truly sorry now that I had any involvement in attempting to import cocaine into Australia, and I would never do it again.
In cross-examination, Mr Anochie maintained that the only reason he became involved in importing drugs was in order to fund chemotherapy for his sister, who has since died. He gave evidence that her treatment cost approximately $US7,000. Asked when he learned that she had cancer, he could not recall, other than that it was “before 2006” and “not less than two years before she got to the point where she needed money for treatment”.
Mr Anochie was asked why, in a statement dated 26 March 2012 submitted at the previous hearing, he had said “My offending behaviour was driven by a number of factors including the illness of my sister”. (Emphasis added.)
Mr Anochie could not recall making that statement but he was adamant that his sister’s cancer was the sole reason he became involved with importing drugs. He said that, by “a number of factors”, he meant only that his work as a bricklayer was unpredictable because of the weather, which made it difficult for him to send her money.
In cross-examination, Mr Anochie agreed that he was involved in conduct directly associated with drug importation at least from July 2004, and he conceded that his conduct extended over a period of two years until his arrest in 2006. He did not agree that this suggested that his sister’s illness had nothing to do with his offence. Nor did he agree with the proposition that his consistent attempts throughout the criminal and tribunal proceedings to attribute his conduct to his sister’s illness showed he was attempting to minimise the criminality of his conduct.
In his most recent written statement, Mr Anochie said his future in Nigeria would be very harsh, he would not be able to work with the Nigerian government, and he believes Decree 33 is still in operation and could lead to his being punished again for his offence in Australia. Decree 33 is considered below at [50] – [52].
Further letter from Mr Carr
Ten days after his release from detention, Mr Anochie returned to work for his former employer, Mr Richard Carr. He worked for Mr Carr until 9 January 2013 when he was taken back into detention.
Mr Carr gave written and oral evidence at the previous hearing, strongly supporting Mr Anochie. In a letter dated 18 March 2013 submitted in these proceedings, Mr Carr wrote:
One week after John's release I took him back into employment thinking he would be a permanent fixture of my business. I bought him tools, helped him get set up in a unit by giving him cutlery, plates, a bed, sheets and all normal day necessities. Now this is something that I or anyone wouldn't do to someone they didn't trust.
As the months rolled on John turned into a great asset in the company. It was a shock to me when I was told John had been taken back into custody. It cost me a contract on one house as there was no warning of his detention and I was left no one to complete the job.
I would have no hesitation in re-employing John as he is a trustworthy worker and the importance of John’s employment in my company has not only affected John but also had repercussions on my business and my family.
I am more than willing to give John a 3rd chance if you are.
Further letter from Pastor Abalo
Pastor Samuel Abalo gave written and oral evidence at the previous hearing. In a further letter dated 19 March 2013, Pastor Abalo wrote that, when Mr Anochie was released:
… [he] quickly got back into the service of the church and was actively carrying out his role whilst also working at his job. The leadership of the church, my good self and my wife and family are all prepared to support John as he puts his life back together.
Letter and oral evidence of Mr Amponsah
Mr Stephen Amponsah had not previously given evidence. He gave oral evidence confirming the contents of a letter dated 1 April 2013. He said he met Mr Anochie in 2002 and they worked together at Mr Carr's company for almost a year before Mr Amponsah left take up other employment. Mr Anochie has shared a unit with Mr Amponsah since his release.
Mr Amponsah gave evidence that Mr Anochie has participated in church activities regularly since his release. He is confident that Mr Anochie is a changed man who will never again be involved in criminal behaviour.
In cross-examination, Mr Amponsah said he did not see Mr Anochie regularly after 2003, and never visited him in prison. He saw him again when they started sharing the unit in 2012. When Mr Carr told him about Mr Anochie’s conviction, he was “astonished” because he had always thought highly of Mr Anochie and had seen him as a hard worker with a “strong and very good character”. Asked what he knew about Mr Anochie’s conviction, Mr Amponsah said he knew he had been convicted of a drug offence and imprisoned for something like five years but he did not know the particular drug.
Ms Buchanan’s affidavit
Ms Buchanan’s affidavit concerning the operation of Decree 33 in Nigeria is considered below.
Primary considerations
Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct
Mr Anochie does not dispute that his offence was serious but says the risk of his reoffending is “extremely slight”. His counsel referred in particular to “a number of unusual characteristics” about his case that support this contention:
·Mr Anochie is not a drug user himself, as evidenced by his negative urinalysis tests in prison, and he does not need to reoffend to support a habit;
·he committed no institutional offences while in gaol, and was a model prisoner for over five years;
·while in gaol, he saw the effects of drugs on people in gaol and “his eyes are opened”;
·he is an enthusiastic and committed worker and employee with steady employment;
·he has the unflinching support of an employer who knows of his offence, is completely opposed to illicit drugs, and yet has re-employed him while he was living in the community and while on parole, and would re-employ him again;
·he has the strong support of a number of people who are prepared to vouch for him; and
·he has come very close to being removed and the prospect plainly terrifies him; he is an intelligent man and takes this very seriously.
The Minister submits that the protection of the Australian community strongly favours cancelling Mr Anochie’s visa. He says Mr Anochie has attempted to minimise the criminality of his conduct and the Tribunal can have no confidence that he is genuinely remorseful or has insight into his offending and, therefore, no confidence that he will not reoffend. Further, the Minister says, Mr Anochie’s conduct amounts to a pattern over a period of two years and not a single, minor mistake. Moreover, he says, the fact that Mr Anochie has proven himself to be a good worker, both in the community and in prison, is no basis for confidence that he will not reoffend in future.
In particular, the Minister says:
·Mr Anochie denied opening more than three post boxes when clearly he opened more;
·he denied using mobile phones for drug-related activities even though he had three phones;
·he tried to shift the blame for his offending onto someone else; and
·he tried to explain his conduct by reference to his sister’s illness.
The Minister does not dispute that Mr Anochie’s sister had breast cancer and died in 2007. However, he says, Mr Anochie’s claim that that he was importing drugs solely in order to fund his sister’s treatment cannot be accepted. I agree.
It is not clear when Mr Anochie learned of his sister’s diagnosis. It appears, from his evidence, to have been around 2004, around the time when he is first known to have engaged in contact associated with drug importation (that is, opening post office boxes). His evidence is that he learned of her illness about two years before she required treatment. If so, he cannot have been motivated by her need for treatment when he became involved – even if indirectly – in drug importation.
Further, the Minister says, Mr Anochie raised much more than the $US7,000 needed for his sister’s treatment. As the evidence at the previous hearing showed, inquiries by the Australian Federal Police revealed that Mr Anochie sent amounts between several hundred dollars and several thousand dollars, totalling approximately $77,000, to addresses in Brazil, Nigeria and Pakistan between February and August 2006, the year before he was arrested. Mr Anochie claimed he made the transfers on behalf of a man who paid him about $50 each time, and that none had any connection to drug importation or money laundering.
I find it implausible, in all the circumstances, that Mr Anochie transferred these amounts merely to help someone out, and that none of the transfers had any connection to drug activities. As noted previously, there are several reasons for concluding that Mr Anochie played a greater part in the importation of drugs than he claims. In any event, he apparently had access to sums well in excess of what his sister needed for treatment.
In my previous decision, I concluded that I was satisfied that Mr Anochie had shown genuine remorse. His assertion, which he repeated in these proceedings, that he was motivated by his sister’s illness alone, is troubling. However, I do accept that, in circumstances where he was convicted of one offence, he might be reluctant to say any more, or to open up now about different motivations.
Mr Anochie’s lack of frankness about the motivation for his conduct weighs against him because it suggests a lack of insight into his offending, or remorse, or both. Although there is no independent evidence before me to this effect, I accept the Minister’s submission that genuine insight or remorse is likely to reduce the risk of re-offending.
Weighing in Mr Anochie’s favour is his excellent work record and the confidence in him that Mr Carr has shown, which is considerable. It is true that Mr Carr has always been impressed by Mr Anochie as a worker, including throughout the time he was involved in criminal activity. However, Mr Carr was an impressive witness when he gave evidence before the last hearing and he has had no reason to change his mind. Indeed, he has gone well beyond what most people would do to support Mr Anochie.
Mr Anochie’s clean record while in custody between 2006 and 2013, and the very positive report of the NSW Probation and Parole Service in June 2011 (referred to at paragraphs [36] – [40] of the earlier decision) also weigh in his favour.
In my view, in light of the very serious nature of his offence, this consideration is very finely balanced in favour of, and against, permitting Mr Anochie to remain in Australia.
The strength, duration and nature of the person’s ties to Australia
Mr Anochie has no family in Australia but submits that his ties to Australia are strong as evidenced by the number and strength of letters submitted in his support, and the evidence of people who were prepared to visit him in prison (described in paragraphs [41] – [46] of the earlier decision).
The Minister contends that Mr Anochie’s ties to Australia are extremely weak and amount to no more than that he has a good relationship with his employer, and is clearly an asset to his employer's business. Against that, the Minister says:
·Mr Anochie did not arrive as a young man, he was 32 at the time he arrived in Australia;
·he has spent approximately half of his time here in prison;
·the first documented activity related to drug importation was in July 2004, less than four years after he arrived;
·he has no family in Australia, although he has the support of Pastor Abalo and he has some friends here.
I accept that Mr Anochie appears to be a valued and respected in his community despite his offence but I am not persuaded that his ties to Australia are particularly strong. I agree with the Minister that nothing about this consideration weighs in Mr Anochie’s favour.
The best interests of minor children in Australia
Mr Anochie has a child in Nigeria but there is nothing to suggest that the best interests of any child in Australia would be adversely affected by his removal. This consideration does not arise in his case.
Whether Australia has international non-refoulement obligations to the person
As to any non-refoulement obligations, cl 9.4 of Direction 55 relevantly states:
1In cases where claims which may give rise to international non-refoulement obligations are raised by the person or are clear from the facts of the case, they must be given consideration if the person is in Australia.
2The power to cancel a visa is a fundamental exercise of Australian sovereignty. The existence of a non-refoulement obligation does not preclude cancellation of a person's visa. This is because Australia will not necessarily remove a person, as a consequence of the cancellation of their visa, to the country in respect of which the non-refoulement obligation exists. However, any non-refoulement obligation should be weighed carefully against the seriousness of the person's criminal offending or other serious conduct in deciding whether or not the person should continue to hold a visa.
3Australia has non-refoulement obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol (Refugees Convention); the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT); and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and its Second Optional Protocol. The provisions of section 36 and related provisions of the Act reflect Australia's interpretation of those obligations and, where relevant, decision-makers should follow the tests enunciated in those provisions. Specifically, Australia has non-refoulement obligations:
(a)under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol (s36(2)(a)). Article IF and Article 33(2) contain exclusions and exceptions as to when persons can claim the benefit of protection under the Convention; and
(b)where there are substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the person being removed from Australia to a receiving country there is a real risk that the person will suffer significant harm. A person will suffer significant harm if:
-the person will be arbitrarily deprived of his or her life; or
-the death penalty will be carried out on the person; or
-the person will be subjected to torture, or
-the person will be subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or
-the person will be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.
The above test is contained in subsections 36(2)(aa) and 36(2A) of the Migration Act. There are circumstances where there should be taken not to be a real risk: s36(2B). These provisions reflect Australia's interpretation of its non-refoulement obligations under the CAT and ICCPR. Section 36(2C) affects eligibility for a protection visa, but does not otherwise affect whether Australia has a non-refoulement obligation in cases of significant harm as defined.
The earlier decision concerning Mr Anochie was set aside by the Federal Court and remitted to the Tribunal on the ground that I had erred in my approach to the principles or international law to be applied in Mr Anochie’s case by applying the real chance test in the Refugees Convention in these proceedings.
Since then, in an unrelated matter concerning the interpretation of s 36(2(aa) of the Migration Act1958, the Full Federal Court has said that the risk threshold articulated in s 36(2)(aa) is relevantly identical to the question whether there is a real chance that the person will face significant harm as defined by s 36(2A) of the Act: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZQRB [2013] FCAFC 33, per Lander and Gordon JJ, Besanko and Jagot JJ concurring at [296]; Flick concurring at [342].
The Minister makes the formal submission that SZQRB is not correctly decided but does not dispute that, as the law presently stands, the Tribunal must apply that decision in interpreting s 36(2)(aa).
The risk of significant harm that Mr Anochie says he faces if returned to Nigeria concerns Decree 33 of 1990. The evidence concerning Decree 33 was set out in paragraphs [62] to [72] of the previous decision. In response to further inquiries on behalf of the Minister with the Australian High Commission in Nigeria, further information concerning Decree 33 is now in evidence. The inquiries and responses are set out in full below:
(a)Is Decree 33 of 1990 still in force in Nigeria?
Yes, it is still in force. In 1990, Decree 33 was established by the (then) Federal Military Government of Nigeria. It was an amendment to Decree 48 (1989), the main Decree which established the National Drug Law Enforcement Authority. Under the 1999 Nigerian Constitution, Decree 33 was not repealed but was recognised as an existing law in accordance with Section 315 of Nigeria’s Constitution. Accordingly it was deemed an Act of the National Assembly (not, technically, a decree) and hence law. We understand that the law is listed for repeal in Section 15 of the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency Amendment Act 2005. To date it has not been repealed.
(b)In your cable dated 29 March 2012 … information was provided that, since 1 April 2003, no repatriated Nigerian nationals have been prosecuted under Decree 33 of 1990. Can you provide information on whether any repatriated Nigerian nationals have been arrested or detained in relation to an alleged offence under Decree 33 of 1990 since 1 April 2003? If anyone has been so arrested or detained, how long were they detained? Are repatriated Nigerian nationals currently being arrested or detained in relation to alleged offences under Decree 33 of 1990?
A like-minded mission following this issue closely advises that it remains the case that since 1 April 2003, no repatriated Nigerian nationals have been prosecuted under Decree 33. The NDLEA do not provide statistics on detention without charge.
(c)In your cable dated 29 March 2012 … information was provided that two Federal High Court cases which were decided in 2000 and 2001 and which considered whether Decree 33 constitutes double jeopardy have been appealed to the Nigerian Court of Appeal but the appeals have still not been decided. Can you provide further information on whether these appeals have now been decided?
Both decisions remain listed before the Court of Appeal, which has not yet made a ruling. The Act has therefore not been tested or repealed.
(d)Can you provide any other information in relation to the status of Decree 33 of 1990 in Nigeria?
Post would be pleased to assist with any further specific enquiries.
On 10 April 2013, the Minister’s representative received further information from the Australian High Commission in Nigeria in response to a request for clarification as to whether the post was aware of any reports of persons being detained under Decree 33. The response stated:
I have put your question to the lead officer at the British High Commission. This is not to abdicate post’s responsibility, but to reflect the fact that they may have a dedicated team working on immigration issues where we do not. The answer to your question is: the National Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) have confirmed to British Officials verbally that yes, they would detain people under decree 33, not for the purposes of prosecution, but for the purposes of debriefing – including in the course of seeking information that might relate to other ongoing trials. We are advised that the use of the conditional tense (the ‘would’ rather than ‘do’ detain) is reflective of the way the NDLEA phrase it. There are no other sources that have reported detention on these grounds of which we, or our UK colleagues, are aware.
A formal, written request for clarification on the government’s intent regarding decree 33 was lodged one year ago by the British High Commission, but has not received a response.
For your background, the UK currently deport [sic] Nigerian drug offenders to Nigeria, but as a result of decree 33, they refuse to inform the Nigerian authorities about the exact nature of the offence. They refer to drug offenders as ‘immigration offenders’. This may become a more complicated issue for the UK in the near future as they negotiate a Prisoner Transfer Agreement.
At paragraphs [83] to [86] of the earlier decision, I set out why, in my view, there is a real risk that Mr Anochie will face significant harm if returned to Nigeria by virtue of the application of Decree 33 and why his removal would put Australia in breach of its non-refoulement obligations under the ICCPR. Nothing about the additional information changes that view; if anything, it tends to strengthen that view.
Other considerations
In his recent letter to the Tribunal, Mr Carr stated that Mr Anochie has been a considerable asset to his business and that his absence when he was taken back into custody cost him a contract on a house because he was unable to replace Mr Anochie at short notice. I accept that, in this regard, Mr Anochie has been making a positive contribution to the Australian community.
For Mr Anochie it is submitted that Mr Carr’s business would be adversely affected by his removal. That may be so, but Mr Carr could no doubt find someone else in time. I do not think any weight can be attached to this consideration.
Conclusion
The considerations for and against cancelling Mr Anochie’s visa are finely balanced. Only two are of any real significance in his case: the protection of the Australian community, and Australia’s international obligations. For the reasons set out above, none of the other primary, or other, considerations weighs particularly for or against his removal.
It will never be possible to say with certainty that a person poses no risk of harm to the Australian community but I am satisfied, on the evidence before me, that Mr Anochie does not pose an unacceptable risk of harm to the Australian community. Added to that, I find that his removal would put Australia in breach of its international non-refoulement obligations. The weight of those considerations leads me to the conclusion that his visa should not be cancelled.
The decision under review is set aside and in substitution the Tribunal decides not to exercise the power conferred by s 501(2) to cancel Mr Anochie’s visa.
I certify that the preceding 57 (fifty -seven) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member J F Toohey. .................................[SGD]..............................
Associate
Dated 12 June 2013
Date(s) of hearing 22 April 2013 Date final submissions received 3 May 2013 Counsel for the Applicant Mr L Karp Counsel for the Respondent Mr A Markus Solicitors for the Respondent Australian Government Solicitor
5
2
0