Kakaponi v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[2001] FCA 1184

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Kakaponi v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1184

MIGRATION - judicial review of Refugee Review Tribunal’s refusal of protection visa - whether applicant fell within the definition of a “refugee” - applicant a citizen of Papua New Guinea from Bougainville - applicant previously held student visa - whether applicant identifiable as a supporter of the Bougainville Revolutionary Army (BRA) - whether genuine fear of persecution - whether real chance of harm in Bougainville or Port Moresby “payback” killings -  Tribunal made adverse findings about the applicant’s credibility - evidence accepted by Tribunal - Court cannot review errors in fact - whether any error of law on Tribunal’s part

Statutes

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 476

Cases

Chan Yee Kin v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379 Referred To

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 Referred to

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 180 ALR 1Cited

RAYMOND MARTIN KAKAPONI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS and REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
Q147 of 2000

KIEFEL J
BRISBANE
27 AUGUST 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q 147 OF 2000

ON APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:

RAYMOND MARTIN KAKAPONI
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

KIEFEL J

DATE OF ORDER:

27 AUGUST 2001

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application is dismissed.

2.        The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q 147 OF 2000

ON APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:

RAYMOND MARTIN KAKAPONI
APPLICANT

AND:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	KIEFEL J
DATE:	27 AUGUST 2001
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant is a citizen of Papua New Guinea (“PNG”).  In August 1997 he travelled to Australian and lodged an application for protection (Class AZ) visa on 5 September 1997.  On 27 November 1997 the Minister’s delegate refused to grant that visa and the Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed that decision on 29 September 2000.  The applicant seeks review of the Tribunal’s decision.

   THE TRIBUNAL DECISION

2. The Tribunal first recounted the matters put forward by the applicant in his application.  The applicant’s family is from Bougainville.  He was separated from his family and moved to Port Moresby in 1991.  In 1994 he was awarded a scholarship to study in Australia.  It was said that people then warned him that he should be careful because the PNG security forces were after him.  On 21 February 1995 he travelled to Australia on a student visa, returning to PNG for the semester break from 15 June 1995 to 2 July 1995, and for holidays from 2 December 1995.  It was at this time that he said that he learned from his host family that there had been threatening calls concerning his whereabouts and enquiries as to when he would be returning to PNG.  He also learned that it was suspected that the PNG security forces had killed two men from Bougainville.  One of them had been killed while in the company of the applicant’s brother-in-law, who was also killed.  He returned to Australia on 7 January 1996, but returned again to Port Moresby on 21 June 1996;  he returned to Australia on 7 July 1996 and travelled back to Port Moresby on 23 November 1996.

3. The applicant said that whilst he was in Port Moresby on this trip he was attacked by about five members of the PNG security forces, two of whom he recognised as soldiers.  They called him names, such as “rebel” and “BRA” (a reference to the Bougainville Revolutionary Army) and said they would return to kill him.  He was not killed then because there were many witnesses to the attack.  He then moved to the safety of a De La Salle Brothers convent and then returned to Australia half-way through the holidays, on 14 January 1997.  He travelled back to PNG again on 19 June 1997. 

4. Whilst in Port Moresby the applicant became aware that he had been expelled from Marist College, Ashgrove, in Queensland and that his scholarship had been cancelled.  Attempts to enrol in another Marist College and obtain a student visa were unsuccessful, because of his expulsion.

5. The applicant said that on 5 July 1997 he was attacked by four members of the PNG Defence Force whilst walking home from a church service in Port Moresby.  He sustained cuts and bruises but “kept quiet about it”.  A close friend and soldier advised him that if he did not leave in a couple of days he would be killed by soldiers who had recently returned from Bougainville.  The friend told him that they knew about the applicant’s relatives’ involvement in the killings of soldiers at Kangu Beach;  about his communication with his relatives who were in BRA;  and his support for the Bougainville Secessionist group.  There was no point reporting the attack and the threats because he said the PNG police were part of the security forces and corrupt, and because it would endanger others.

6. The applicant travelled to Australia on 8 August 1997 on a false passport because he feared being captured by the PNG security forces and because he knew he would not be granted a visa using his own passport.  On 23 August 1997, whilst in Australia, he learned that members of the PNG security forces had been searching for him and had raided the home of the family he stayed with in Port Moresby.  The family warned him not to return.  The applicant fears that if he did so members of the PNG Defence Force would persecute him.  The authorities cannot protect him because crime is an increasing problem and there are problems with corruption.

7. In the application to the Tribunal further information was provided about his relatives.  He said that most young men from his home village, including his closest relations, are members of the BRA and the village generally supports them.  One of his cousins was killed as “payback” for killings by the BRA at Kangu Beach.  The cousin’s brother had had “bad encounters” with PNG soldiers, and they were awaiting the applicant’s return.  At least six other relatives had been killed, all in payback for killings by their relatives in BRA.

8. In a later submission to the Tribunal the applicant listed the near relatives, described as fourteen cousins and uncles, who had been killed because they were perceived to be partisan to one side or the other, or because of their family relationship to a person so perceived.  He added that another uncle, not listed, had also been killed.  He said that his uncle (Thomas Tari) had been the commander of the BRA force that had been involved at Kangu Beach in 1996 and his cousin Andrew Katou and his uncle Kimui had been killed in a raid which was believed to be payback for the Kangu Beach massacre.

9. So far as concerned his immediate family, the applicant had lost touch with them, but had received information that they were still alive, perhaps in the Solomon Islands.  They had always received threats.

10. In a further submission to the Tribunal the applicant also claimed that people within the PNG Defence Forces had said that they regarded him as a target for payback killing because of his uncle Paul Boby, who had been a BRA commander and was killed either because he was a BRA leader or because he became conciliatory to the government.  At another point he said that it was because he leaked information.  He was also a target because of his father.

11. The applicant listed the bases for his need for protection as including his appearance, as conspicuously Bougainvillean;  that he was known to members of the armed forced because of the media attention he had been given;  that he was from a part of Bougainville known for its support of the BRA;  that his father and close relatives were well known as BRA supporters;  that that exposed him to danger from anti-secession Bougainvilleans as well as the armed forces;  that his own views on Bougainville secession, of support, were well known;  that he had been assaulted by persons who identified him as an enemy because of his ethnicity and because of his political views.

12. At the hearing before the Tribunal he explained that he became well-known in Port Moresby when he received publicity for being a top student.  At this time he identified his father and his village to a journalist.  Members of the Defence Force recognised the applicant in the ensuing publicity.  A person who identified himself as an intelligence officer of the PNG Defence Force telephoned Lucy Guy, his guardian in Port Moresby and the person through whom he maintained family contacts.  He threatened her and her family and said that he would bomb her house if she were hiding the applicant.  He said he would catch the applicant.  These threats occurred between 28 December 1994 and late February 1995.  He had been at Lucy Guy’s house in January when the second of three calls was received.  He was in Australia by the time of the last.  It was because of these threats that he applied for a student visa. 

13. In relation to his return to PNG in this period, he said that two of the De La Salle Brothers, with whom he stayed during his visits, told him that it was the policy of body providing the study grant, AusAID, that he was required to return during school breaks.  Further, with respect to the period of the summer vacation from 2 December 1995 to 7 January 1996, they had told him he would not be allowed to remain in Australia without the permission of a guardian.  He was therefore forced to return to PNG.  He said that he had not obtained the required permission from Lucy Guy because she was not his guardian as far as AusAID was concerned, as he had put his parents’ names on the application for grant.

14. In relation to the one attack upon him, during the period 21 June 1996 to 7 July 1996, outside Lucy Guy’s house, he said that he thought the attackers knew his identity because of the threatening phone calls he had received and because they came straight for him and followed him.  He thought he knew one of them and Lucy Guy said this person was after the applicant for payback for soldiers who had been killed.  In addition to this person he said he feared soldiers who had fought in Bougainville and resistance fighters who came to Port Moresby.

15. The applicant told the Tribunal that Lucy Guy and her family had received further threatening phone calls regarding him in 1996 and 1997.  He would be referred to as a “BRA rebel” and people would want to know where he was.  Towards the end of 1997 and in early 1998, the house of some people with whom he had stayed between June and August 1997 was broken into, but nothing was stolen.  After he arrived back in Australia in August 1997 Lucy Guy telephoned him and told him that three men claiming to be undercover police had searched her house when she was not there.

16. When asked whether he actively supported the BRA, the applicant said that he did not think he did anything actively to show that he was a supporter.  Later he said that if he returned to PNG he would be killed because the police and army members know he is a BRA supporter and that his family is heavily involved in it.  He feared the security forces in general.  He did not know whether the soldiers would know that he had been in contact with his family.  He had asserted this in his application form.  He assumed they must. 

17. The applicant also tendered documents in support of his application:  from a solicitor Mr Robb, who lived in Bougainville in 1977 and 1978 and in Port Moresby from 1992 to 1997, and who said that the applicant would be in considerable peril;  from a De La Salle Brother who confirmed that the applicant’s family had been involved on both sides of the civil war and that he had stayed with the Brothers or expatriate families in Port Moresby in his holidays.  He had stayed with them because members of his extended family were said to have been killed.  The applicant also produced a letter from Mr Havini, International Representative of the Bougainville Interim Government/BRA stating that his fears for his life both in South Bougainville and in Port Moresby were well founded.  The sources of danger were both the PNG armed forces and other clans.  Ms Lucy Guy provided a letter explaining that the persecution of him had commenced when he was a well-known student around Port Moresby and his story had been published.  She confirmed the threatening call from the person describing himself as an Intelligence Officer of the PNG Defence Force.  It was for these reasons that she and her husband encouraged him to apply for aid to study in Australia.  Her account confirmed the applicant’s story in other respects.

18. The Tribunal accepted that the situation in Bougainville was risky and unstable;  but considered that he was resident in Port Moresby.  The applicant was not accepted as a truthful witness.  The Tribunal considered his evidence to be implausible and inconsistent and vague, and gave examples:

    ·His evidence concerning the publicity he received about his academic results in 1994 was inconsistent and unconvincing.  The applicant had said that the name of his father and his village were published in 1994.  It was as a result of this publicity, he and Ms Guy said, that he began to be persecuted, indeed she had predicted that would occur.

    However, the articles shown to the Tribunal did not name his father or his village.  They also publicised the achievements and origin of his relative, John Tsiparau.  If that relative had received threats as a result of the publicity, the applicant would have heard of it.  The Tribunal therefore inferred, from the lack of evidence, that the relative had not been threatened.  As a result the applicant’s story was unconvincing.  The Tribunal therefore found that he did not receive threats and he did not come to Australia in February 1995 because of them.

    ·The evidence of the applicant and Ms Guy about telephone threats was inconsistent.  Their evidence about the three telephone threats - on 28 December 1994, 5 January 1995 and late February 1995, was precisely the same and the applicant said he was at Ms Guy’s house in January when that call was received.  However in his earlier application for the protection visa he had said he first learned of telephone threats when he returned to PNG on 2 December 1995.  The Tribunal was not satisfied that any telephone calls had been made between late 1994 and August 1997.

    ·At various points in the process the applicant had said that his support for the secessionist group was well known, but at the hearing he said that his support had been in accompanying his father when he conducted training at a time when the applicant was 12 years old or younger and that he did not think he had done anything to demonstrate to people that he was a BRA supporter.  The Tribunal did not accept that he was known to be a BRA supporter or pro-secessionist or that others would have been aware of his political views.  It followed that he had not been threatened or assaulted for these reasons.

    ·The evidence he gave about two attacks upon him was inconsistent with the evidence given at the hearing, which was limited to one.  These discrepancies led the Tribunal to disbelieve that he was attacked at all.  That attacks by security forces in Port Moresby were implausible followed from the Tribunal’s other findings - that there was no reason for them.

    ·The Tribunal did not accept his evidence at the hearing that he had been warned by “certain sources” that three soldiers were waiting for him.  Had this been the case it expected he would have attempted to ascertain the identities of the three soldiers and the reason why they were looking for him.  Further, the warning if made would have been included in his earlier written submission.

    ·The evidence about threats against members of his immediate family was vague and general.  At no time did he particularise the assertion that they “have always received threats”.

    ·The Tribunal considered the evidence about the possibility that members of the Defence Force intended to kill him, because of his contact with family members, to be implausible.  In his visa application he had said that one of the reasons why PNG soldiers would kill him was that they knew about his communication with relatives in BRA.  In the application to the Tribunal he said he had lost contact but received information about them.  At the Tribunal hearing he said he had contacted his family through Ms Guy.  When asked how it would be known that he had contacted them, he said he assumed they did because they attacked him.  The Tribunal considered it unlikely that the Defence Force would have known of such indirect contact.

    ·The evidence of both the applicant and Ms Guy was found to be “vague, unconvincing and inconsistent” in relation to the break-in of the house of the friends who had earlier accommodated him.   There was no reason given why they would be looking for evidence that he had stayed there.  The applicant’s evidence was that he was not staying there when the break-in occurred at the end of 1997 and in January 1998.  Ms Guy’s evidence had him staying with them when it occurred between June and August 1997 and coming to stay with her because of it.

    ·The evidence of Ms Guy and the applicant was also inconsistent with respect to the date when her home had allegedly been raided.  They both said at the hearing that it occurred on 10 August 1997, two days after he arrived back in Australia.  In his visa application he had nominated 23 August 1997.  The application was lodged shortly after this time (5 September 1997) and the Tribunal considered it therefore unlikely that he would be mistaken about the date.  The Tribunal considered the claim to have been fabricated to enhance the applicant’s claim for protection.

    ·The Tribunal did not accept his explanation as to why he had returned to PNG at the semester breaks and vacations.  Prior to the hearing he had not claimed to be fearful of returning on all these occasions.  The explanation he provided when questioned was implausible.  It was unlikely that he would have been forced to return to PNG had he genuinely feared harm.  Evidence from AusAID was that students were occasionally permitted to remain in Australia and each case was considered on its own merits.  The Tribunal did not accept that he attempted avoiding return to PNG on any of the five occasions.

    ·In his application to the Tribunal the applicant had said that five of seven relatives had been killed in payback for BRA killings, but his submission to the Tribunal showed that no more than three of those relatives had been killed for that reason.

    ·The evidence about the deaths of relatives was also unconvincing or unclear.  It was unclear which side had killed Paul Boby;  a cousin, John Pareu was said to have been killed with Premier Miruing at an undisclosed location, but a newspaper reported that the Premier was killed whilst dining with his family in his village and no other person was mentioned as also having been killed.  He said that Ephraim Makis was presumed to have been killed by anti-secessionists but said also that he had been outspoken in his opposition to secession.  

    ·The Tribunal did however accept the evidence about the deaths of his uncle Kimui and Andrew Katou and that they were payback for killings of PNG Defence Force members in the Kangu Beach massacre in 1996, as this evidence was supported by independent reports.  The Tribunal also accepted the evidence about the killings of two other relatives, as the applicant’s evidence was not considered to be inconsistent.

1. With respect to the deaths of the fifteen relatives, upon which the applicant relied to support his case, the Tribunal found three had been killed by the BRA;  one was killed indiscriminately;  three were killed by anti-secessionists in 1998;  and four were killed in payback in 1995 and 1996.  Twelve of those killed were killed in the village of Buin, including those killed in payback. There were however no reports of payback killings in recent times.  They occurred in the context of the Bougainville conflict between 1989 and 1997.  The Tribunal did not then accept evidence about the relatives said to have been victims after 1997.

2. The Tribunal did not accept that his physical characteristics or his place of origin identified him as a supporter of the BRA.  Further, the Tribunal did not accept that he belonged to a social group, defined as a family of BRA leaders and supporters, but rather that he belonged to a family from Buin involved in both sides of the Bougainville conflict.  It was held that there was not a real chance of being persecuted for either reason, since there had not been payback killings in this context since 1997.

3. The Tribunal did not accept that the applicant was at risk of harm in Port Moresby.  His evidence that security forces had there killed “Sean Billy Tokome”,  a Bougainvillean who had publicly criticised the actions of PNG soldiers, was taken to refer to the killing of “Jon-Bili Tokome”, but that was reported as having been carried out by a criminal gang.  The Tribunal did not consider the applicant faced any more than a remote chance of being harmed by members of the PNG security forces or other groups in Port Moresby.  Evidence accepted in another case before a differently constituted Tribunal was here discounted because of other advice from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, that BRA supporters from Bougainville were not harassed or mistreated in provinces other than Bougainville.  The expert (Mr Brunton) had given evidence that he was aware of only one case of payback- related assault of a Bougainvillean person in Port Moresby and that there was a “wildcard factor” amongst soldiers and police.  This evidence did not suggest that there was a significant risk.  The Tribunal then found that he did not face more than a remote chance of being harmed by members of the PNG forces or anti-secessionists in Port Moresby because he is a Bougainvillean, because he supported the BRA, or because he was a secessionist. 

4. Another expert, accepted by the Tribunal, said that there were several thousand people from Bougainville living in Port Moresby and he was aware of “several” instances of payback and “occasional” attacks on them by PNG security forces. The Tribunal inferred that the applicant did not face a real chance of being harmed.  To that it reiterated the finding that there have not been payback killings or violence in this context since 1997.

5. The Tribunal also took into account the delay of twenty-four months between the applicant’s first arrival in Australia and his application for a protection visa as further evidence that he did not have a genuine fear.  His expulsion from Marist College, and his subsequent difficulties in re-entering Australia, were not coincidental.

   THE APPLICANT’S CASE ON REVIEW

6. The issue for the Tribunal was whether the applicant was a “refugee” as defined by the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees.  Relevantly that required a finding that the applicant had a “well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion …” and for that reason was outside his country and unwilling to return to it.

7. In the original grounds for review, apart from unparticularised allegations, it was contended that the Tribunal had not directed itself to the correct question.  The basis for his fear of persecution was his political opinion (and inferentially not his membership of a social group).  The Tribunal’s findings extend to this and were adverse to the applicant and the ground was not taken up on the hearing.  The other ground, that even if he was safe in Port Moresby, where the Tribunal found he resided, he could be said to suffer from persecution because he could not return to Bougainville, was also not pursued.

8. The Applicant’s submissions on the hearing, in summary, were as follows.  The Tribunal proceeded upon the basis that the adverse findings regarding the applicant’s credibility concluded the matter.  What it was obliged to do, and did not, was to consider on the facts that it had found in his favour, whether he fell within the definition of “refugee”.  That evidence supported a conclusion that there was a real chance that the applicant would be persecuted:  Chan Yee Kin v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379, 429. The applicant also attacked some of the positive findings against the applicant as unsupported by the evidence (or as being illogical).

9. The applicant identified, in submissions, the evidence or findings standing in his favour and unaffected by the findings concerning his credit.  The Tribunal had found that Bougainville remains risky and unstable.  It had also accepted that his uncle had been a commander in the BRA force that was involved in the killings at Kangu Beach in 1996 and that two of his relatives were then killed as payback for BRA killings, either by the Defence Force or anti-secessionists, in 1995.  The applicant also pointed to the evidence of Mr Brunton, Mr Robb and Mr Havini, which the Tribunal, it was contended, had not rejected.

10. It has recently been confirmed that the grounds for review provided for by s 476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) do not recognise an obligation on the part of the Tribunal to provide findings other than those findings upon which the Tribunal acts:  Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 180 ALR 1. As I understand the applicant’s case it does not pursue such a contention. Rather it submits that the Tribunal did not address its own findings which themselves might support the requisite conclusion. If it is the case that the Tribunal has not addressed the correct question, as the applicant contends, an error of law, one going to jurisdiction, might be made out: Yusuf [84].

11. The balance of the applicant’s submissions do however attack some of the findings made, on the basis that they were not open or did not follow from other findings.  I accept that there are instances where the Tribunal has extrapolated to a finding that something did not occur at all, on the basis of disbelief on another topic.  The findings relating to the evidence of the alleged publicity and its connexion with whether threats were made was one such example.  However, these submissions venture into the impermissible area of reviewing for error in fact, not in law.

12. It is hardly necessary to reiterate that Tribunal reasons are not to be scrutinised for inadequacy of expression:  Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259, 272, nor is it sufficient that they be difficult in some respects to understand. In each case it is necessary to analyse them to ascertain the process of reasoning.

13. The evidence and the findings made were not dealt with according to the questions to which they were addressed.  Nevertheless it is easy to identify that the Tribunal was concerned with whether there had been past killings with which the applicant was in any way connected, from which a view of the future might be formed;  whether the applicant himself had been subject to threats or attacks and if so the basis for them;  whether the applicant was perceived as having a particular political view or as being associated with a group that did;  and whether he had been and was now genuinely afraid to return to PNG.  The Tribunal did not accept the applicant’s story of his own experiences.  That left the question whether he might nevertheless be harmed because of his family connexions.

14. It can be seen from its reasons that the Tribunal remained aware that there had been some killings of relatives, such as those identified in the applicant’s submissions here.  The motive for them, it accepted, was likely to have been payback for killings involving the Defence Force.  However these killings had all taken place prior to 1997 and the evidence was that there had been none since 1997.  It would follow that there was not now a real chance of him being harmed for this reason.  The Tribunal also drew a distinction between Bougainville and Port Moresby, in connexion with the prospect of attack.  The evidence accepted showed that, whatever the position in Bougainville, there was no real risk in Port Moresby.  Mr Brunton’s evidence was considered in this connexion.  It was not thought to support a conclusion that there was a real risk of harm, since he identified only a “wildcard” factor and one payback case in Port Moresby.

15. The reasoning of the Tribunal to this point concluded the question whether the applicant had a real chance of being harmed if he returned to Port Moresby, on account of his family associations.  In view of the way in which this was approached, which accepted that he belonged to a family on both sides of the struggle but to whom payback was once relevant, the various findings about whether he was perceived to be a BRA supporter are perhaps of little importance.

16. Whether the applicant had a genuine fear of persecution was however relevant to the possibility that there might exist some basis for it.  In this respect the applicant was again disbelieved.  The Tribunal did not accept that he was told that he was obliged to return and could not stay in Australia during the semester breaks and vacations.  It clearly inferred he was not concerned until he needed to be.  I should add that a point was raised in submissions concerning the Tribunal’s acceptance of evidence, about whether he might have been allowed to stay during vacations, which it is said to have obtained after the hearing.  I take it that it is suggested that the applicant was given no opportunity to deal with that suggestion, either in evidence or in argument, but that raises a ground which is not reviewable in this Court.

17. Having regard to the Tribunal’s reasoning it may be seen that it has in fact considered the question whether there was a real chance of persecution given what had happened to the applicant’s relatives in the past.  There was no other question which it could be said it was obliged to address such that failure to do so amounted to jurisdictional error.  The additional evidence pointed to, of Mr Robb, Mr Havini and Mr Brunton, does not give rise to such a question.  The most that could be said is that the Tribunal might not have taken that evidence into account, or given it little weight.  Were that the case, there would still be no ground for review.  However, it seems to me that it was dealt with in the reasons:  the evidence of Mr Brunton, in the other case, was considered and dealt with in the way I have referred to above;  Mr Havini’s assertion that payback killing was rampant in Bougainville was expressly rejected;  Mr Robb’s own opinion about the applicant’s safety in Port Moresby was, impliedly, not accepted.

    CONCLUSION

18. For these reasons the application will be dismissed, with costs.

I certify that the preceding thirty-six (36) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Kiefel .

Associate:

Dated:             27 August 2001

Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr J Griffin QC
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Quinn & Scattini
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr D Kelly
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Blake Dawson Waldron
Date of Hearing:	23 March 2001
Date of Judgment:	27 August 2001