Mikhail and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2008] AATA 498
•17 June 2008
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 498
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2007/5350
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )
Re Gamal MIKHAIL
Applicant
AndMinister for Immigration and Citizenship
Respondent
DECISION
TribunalProfessor GD Walker, Deputy President
Date17 June 2008
PlaceSydney
DecisionThe decision under review is affirmed.
............[sgd]..................................
Professor GD Walker
Deputy President
CATCHWORDS
IMMIGRATION – Citizenship – whether applicant meets hardship requirements – personal wants do not generally constitute hardship - applicant’s grounds for hardship found to be based on misapprehensions or matters of personal preference – decision under review is affirmed.
…
RELEVANT ACT/S:
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (the AAT Act):37, 42A
Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Act 2007 (Cth) (the Transitional Act): 5B
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the new Act): 21, 22
Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth) (the HES Act):36-10, 90-1, 90-5
…
CITATIONS
Makita (Australia) Pty Limited v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705
…
AUTHORITIES
Australian Citizenship Instructions (ACI): Chapter 5
…
REASONS FOR DECISION
17 June 2008
Professor GD Walker, Deputy President
Basic facts
1. The applicant Mr Gamal Amgad Abd El-Sayed Mikhail was born in Egypt on 9 June 1964 and is a citizen of that country. He qualified as a solicitor in Egypt and practised there for 15 years before coming to Australia on a tourist visa on 3 October 2002. On 18 November 2002, he lodged a protection visa application, which was refused by a delegate on 4 March 2003. An application for review by the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) was also rejected, on 11 March 2004.
2. The applicant then appealed to the Federal Magistrates’ Court, and the matter was remitted to the RRT by consent on 2 August 2006. By decision dated 29 December 2006, the RRT remitted the matter for reconsideration with the direction that the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention. A subclass 866 visa entitling the applicant to permanent residence was granted on 2 April 2007.
3. The applicant made an application for Australian citizenship on 28 September 2007, which was refused on 24 October 2007. The applicant then applied to this tribunal on 2 November 2007 for review of the delegate’s refusal.
4. The applicant also sought review in relation to his children’s applications for citizenship. By inadvertence, however, the delegate made no decision in relation to the children and their applications were still being processed at the time of the hearing of this application. Consequently, following argument at the hearing, it became apparent that there was no reviewable decision in relation to the children. The applications in relation to them were therefore dismissed for want of jurisdiction under s 42A(4) of the Administrative Appeals TribunalAct 1975 (Cth) (the AAT Act).
5. At the hearing, the applicant appeared in person, while the respondent was represented by Mr Greg Johnson, solicitor, of DLA Phillips Fox. The documents before the tribunal comprised the documents produced pursuant to s 37 of the AAT Act (the T documents), taken into evidence as Exhibit R1, together with the other documents tendered by the parties at the hearing. The applicant gave oral evidence in person with the assistance of an Arabic interpreter.
6. In his opening remarks at the hearing, Mr Johnson said that the applicant's citizenship application was rejected because of his failure to meet the residence requirements. As the applicant had obtained permanent residency in April 2007 and had applied for citizenship in September 2007, he did not meet the requirements of s 5B of the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Act 2007 (Cth) (the Transitional Act), which requires persons in Australia as a permanent resident for a total period of at least one year in the two years before the date of the citizenship application, and a total period of at least two years in the five years before that day. The delegate had considered the question of hardship or disadvantage within the meaning of s 22(6) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the new Act), but found that the applicant had failed to make out a case on that ground. He would be able to satisfy the residence requirements in April 2009.
Issue
7. The issue for the tribunal to determine in this application is whether the tribunal is satisfied that the applicant will suffer significant hardship or disadvantage unless it counts time the applicant has spent in Australia otherwise than as a permanent resident as time he has spent in Australia as a permanent resident, pursuant to s 22(6) of the new Act.
Applicant’s evidence
8. At the hearing the applicant adopted his statements of 18 January and 30 April 2008 (Exhibit A1) and gave oral evidence with the assistance of an Arabic interpreter.
9. In his statements he declared that he suffered hardship and disadvantage because he would like to travel overseas immediately but was unable to do so without an Australian passport, because if he encountered unforeseen difficulties while overseas, he would not be entitled to any assistance from Australian diplomatic missions. Egypt would not grant him any assistance because of his refugee status.
10. Similarly, his children had no Australian passports and because they were born in Australia, they would be unable to obtain Egyptian passports as it would be necessary for them to travel to Egypt in order to do so. He could not take them there because of his refugee status.
11. He also considered that as a matter of pride, he would prefer to deal with Sydney airport staff as an Australian citizen.
12. Since his arrival in Australia in October 2002, he had never been outside New South Wales for a holiday. For that and other reasons, he was suffering from depression, as was corroborated by two psychologists, Dr Makram Girgis and Mr Hugo Rodriguez. He is receiving prescription medication because of those psychological difficulties.
13. Not being an Australian citizen, he is unable to study as a HECS student and lacked the funds to undertake tertiary studies himself with a view to qualifying to practise law in New South Wales. He explained at the hearing that he has not worked at all since coming to Australia in 2002 and is receipt of Social Security payments as his sole source of income. His wife, however, is working as a carer.
14. In cross-examination he acknowledged that he had not considered any options other than obtaining Australian passports for himself and his family and did not know whether they would be eligible to receive any other kind of Australian travel document.
15. As regards the problems he expected to encounter at Sydney airport, he said he had never been to the airport as a permanent resident, and in fact had never travelled outside Sydney. That had been one of the sources of his anxiety. Asked why he had not been able to take a holiday in Australia, he said there had been no time because of the claims and appeals he was pursuing through the courts. Further, he did not know where to go in Australia, there were floods in some parts of the country and he did not know which areas would be “nice”. While there might be “nice places” to visit in Australia during the summer, there were none during the winter. He would find it more relaxing to travel overseas, for example to Germany, which he had visited previously. He thought it would cost him the same to take a holiday in Germany as in Australia and he would obtain a loan for that purpose. He had given no thought as to whether anyone would lend him the money, because he had not yet obtained citizenship.
16. He had been on medication for anxiety and depression since 2004 after receiving the first decision (presumably the RRT affirmation). His mental state improved after he received his protection visa but he is still on anti-depressants and has been so continuously since 2004.
17. As regards education opportunities in Australia, he believed he could obtain HECS funding if he had Australian citizenship, but would only remain eligible until the age of 45, and he is now 44. Without citizenship he could only obtain a Commonwealth-sponsored loan to study law but could not enrol in a law course because he would need to repay the loan by instalments and was unable to do so.
18. He had not considered the possibility of part-time study and had made no enquiries on that subject. He had simply asked a receptionist at the University of Sydney, who had told him about eligibility for scholarships and HECS and had said his position would be better if he were an Australian citizen.
19. Asked if he would be eligible as a permanent resident to apply for HECS, he replied that the receptionist at Sydney University said that HECS was available only for citizens.
20. He said he had not sought work because until he obtained permanent residency, his visas did not give him permission to work. As a permanent resident he could undertake paid employment, but he had held that status for only one year. In any event he would not seek employment outside the law because he would be like a fish out of water. If unable to obtain New South Wales legal qualifications, he would be prepared to work as a paralegal or in a humanitarian organisation.
21. The applicant also relied on a number of letters and reports from Dr Girgis, of Campsie, who describes himself as a consultant psychiatrist. He also describes himself as a consultant physician and as a specialist neurologist. It is not altogether clear what his medical qualifications may be, as he lists his degrees as MA (Cambridge) and PhD (London).
22. His letter dated 18 September 2004 (T p63) addressed to the immigration minister is essentially a character reference but also includes this statement:
…
I have, from a psychiatric point of view assessed Mr Mikhail's condition, and I believe beyond any doubt that this man deserves to be granted this status. …
He gives no further details of his examination, observation or diagnosis.
23. In a letter dated 17 January 2007 addressed to a Dr A Salim (T p65), who apparently referred the applicant to him, he states that a mental status examination showed that Mr Mikhail had made great progress since he was suffering from depression some three years ago. “He is now in good spirit [sic] and not at all depressed. This is particularly so, after he was told the good news that a decision was made that he will be granted ‘immigration visa’”.
24. The applicant also tendered some more recent letters from Dr Girgis (Exhibit A2). A report dated 7 February 2008 states that he is a patient and a very close friend to Dr Girgis’s extended family and that he is suffering from severe anxiety/depression and panic disorder. In reaching that conclusion he had used the Multiaxial Assessment System. The report states by way of conclusion that:
…, it is clear to me that Mr Mikhail is in a severe state of depression and confusion.
It will be most useful if he can change atmosphere, for example, if he can spend a short trip overseas. This will indeed be of great help in his overall treatment as the present medications and counselling do not seem to has [sic] helped much. This is particular so because he has been here almost six years and he did not go overseas or even [outside] the area where he lives in Sydney.
…
25. A hand-written report dated 28 April 2008 states that the applicant came to see him as he had become anxious and unable to sleep as a result of a letter he had received from the respondent’s solicitors. Dr Girgis had therefore prescribed strong anti-depressants.
26. Finally, in a letter that is dated “12-11-12” (Exhibit A2), but may have been written in January 2008, Dr Girgis said the applicant had been suffering from high depression and panic since arriving in Australia. He had been very happy after receiving permanent residency, but after the rejection of his citizenship application he had again become depressed:
… I discussed his situation with him and I found out that he will be better if he changed the atmosphere if he travelled overseas for a short holiday, …
He said he has three kids who have no travel documents. Accordingly, I strongly recommend that he be granted Citizenship to help him to feel better and then he will respond to the treatment. …
…
Dr Girgis did not give oral evidence.
27. The applicant also tendered a letter from a physiologist, Mr Hugo Rodriguez, dated 14 January 2008 (Exhibit A2). Mr Rodriguez states that the applicant is undergoing psychological counselling at his rooms and is recovering from symptoms of anxiety and depressed moods, reportedly triggered by the stress associated with his application for Australian citizenship:
…
Mr Gamal reported that his children, who were born in Australia, are still under the protection of refugee visas, and this upsets him greatly; he worries about the future repercussions this may have on the children as they grow up.
…
28. Mr Rodriguez expressed his support for the application on the basis that it would be beneficial for his recovery.
Applicant's submissions
29. The applicant submitted that he satisfied all the conditions laid down in s 21(2) of the new Act but now wished to correct the situation in relation to residence. He acknowledged that he had to satisfy the requirements as at the time of the delegate’s decision.
30. The applicant said he was suffering hardship because he was unable to pay the university fees for law study because if he obtained a loan for the purpose he would be expected to repay it by instalments and he could not do so. He would need to borrow only about $5,000 to undertake his intended overseas trip, whereas $10,000 would be needed for him to undertake tertiary study. He was suffering from depression and felt “stuck” without Australian citizenship. He had lost his earlier citizenship and could not return to Egypt.
31. It would take him a year to recover from the prescription drugs he was currently taking once he was able to do so. He would then be in a more calm frame of mind. But it would be difficult to overcome the effects of the medication; he would need a year of observation and treatment.
Relevant law and policy
32. The new Act, which introduces new residency requirements for citizenship applications, came into effect in July 2007. The basic requirements are set out in s 21 of the new Act, as follows:
…
21.Application and eligibility for citizenship
(1)A person may make an application to the Minister to become an Australian citizen.
…
General eligibility
(2)A person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person:
(a) is aged 18 or over at the time the person made the application; and
(b) is a permanent resident at that time; and
(c) satisfies the residence requirement (see section 22), or has completed relevant defence service (see section 23), at that time; and
(d) understands the nature of an application under subsection (1); and
(e) possesses a basic knowledge of the English language; and
(f) has an adequate knowledge of Australia and of the responsibilities and privileges of Australian citizenship; and
(g) is likely to reside, or to continue to reside, in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia if the application were to be approved; and
(h) is of good character at the time of the Minister’s decision on the application.
…
33. As the applicant applied for citizenship in September 2007, or less than three years after the commencement date of the new Act, his application is governed by s 5B of the Transitional Act, which preserves the shorter residence requirements of the pre-2007 law:
…
5BCitizenship by conferral – persons who are permanent residents at commencement
If:
(a)a person is a permanent resident (worked out under the old Act) immediately before the commencement day; and
(b)the person makes an application under subsection 21(1) of the new Act within the period of 3 years beginning on the commencement day;
then, for the purposes of that application, subsections 22(1) to (2), (4A) and (5A) of the new Act do not apply and the following subsections of section 22 of the new Act apply instead:
(1)For the purposes of section 21, a person satisfies the residence requirement if the person has been present in Australia as a permanent resident for:
(a) a total period of at least 1 year in the period of 2 years before the day the person made the application; and
(b) a total period of at least 2 years in the period of 5 years before that day.
…
34. Pursuant to the new Act, a period of presence in Australia otherwise than as a permanent resident may be accepted for the purposes of the residence requirement if the minister is satisfied that person “will suffer significant hardship or disadvantage” otherwise:
…
22.Residence requirement
(6)For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), the Minister may treat a period as one in which the person was present in Australia as a permanent resident if:
(a) the person was present in Australia during that period (except as a permanent resident or an unlawful non-citizen); and
(b) the Minister is satisfied that the person will suffer significant hardship or disadvantage if that period were not treated as one during which the person was present in Australia as a permanent resident.
…
35. Chapter 5 of the Australian Citizenship Instructions (ACI) provides guidance on the manner in which the discretion in s 22(6) of the new Act is to be exercised:
…
Chapter 5 – Citizenship by conferral
Ministerial discretion – person in Australia would suffer significant hardship or disadvantage Subsection 22(6)
(6)For the purposes of paragraph (1)(c), the Minister may treat a period as one in which the person was present in Australia as a permanent resident if:
(a) the person was present in Australia during that period (except as a permanent resident or an unlawful non-citizen; and
(b) the Minister is satisfied that the person will suffer significant hardship or disadvantage if that period were not treated as one during which the person was present in Australia as a permanent resident.
Periods of lawful residence, other than permanent residence, can be treated as periods of permanent residence if the applicant can demonstrate that they would suffer significant hardship or disadvantage if those periods were not treated as periods of permanent residence. This subsection makes explicit reference to paragraph 1(c) of the Act. However section 5B of the Australian Citizenship (Transitionals and Consequentials) Act 2007 does not provide that the subsection does not apply to applicants who are permanent residents on commencement of the Act. The benefit of the apparent inconsistency should therefore be given and the subsection applied, as appropriate.
People who are permanent residents before commencement of the Act are also subject to the policy that applied immediately prior to commencement of the Act. That means that for people who are permanent residents before commencement of the Act, who are only required to meet residence requirements of two in five and one in two, this discretion would normally be exercised only if the applicant has 12 months continuous permanent residence in Australia prior to the date of application.
Guidance on what would constitute significant hardship or disadvantage is at Attachment B.
…
Attachment B – Significant hardship and disadvantage
Definitions according to The Macquarie Concise Dictionary and Collins Concise English Dictionary, Australian Edition:
Significantof consequence;
important or momentous
Hardshipconditions of life difficult to endure;
something that causes suffering or privation
Disadvantage an unfavourable circumstance, thing, person;
injury, loss or detriment
People would normally be required to demonstrate some or all of the following circumstances:
·inability to gain employment on the grounds that the employment is restricted to Australian citizens, and that comparable or alternative employment is not reasonably available;
·difficulty of international travel because the person cannot obtain a passport from their country of nationality/citizenship, or are unable to use a passport issued by that country for safety or similar reasons;
·academic (e.g. research, academic scholarship) or other (sporting etc) potential is being limited or restricted, because the opportunities to reach that potential is available only to an Australian citizen, to the extent that it causes significant hardship.
Decision makers will need to assess each application on its merits. While policy is not to be applied inflexibly, it must be applied, unless there are special circumstances that would warrant consideration outside that policy.
Evidence of significant hardship and disadvantage is required e.g. a statement in writing, with appropriate supporting documentation to demonstrate how they meet the legal and policy requirements.
The onus is on the applicant to provide the evidence to support the application.
Decision makers must be mindful of the difference between personal needs and personal wants.
Personal needs relate to situations which would give rise to significant hardship or disadvantage if a person could not meet that need. For example, if a person could not find any employment, and was unable to adequately financially support themselves or their family.
Personal wants are aspirations and generally do not constitute hardship i.e. the right to vote, election to Parliament, HECS availability, representing Australia internationally in academics or sport.
Australian citizenship is not a requirement to study in Australia. Australian universities are permitted to admit students who are not Australian citizens. Permanent visa holders are eligible for a Commonwealth supported place (previously known as a Higher Education Contribution Scheme) or a domestic fee-paying place. The requirement to be an Australian citizen is only relevant to students who wish to access a loan under the Australian Government’s Higher Education Loan Programme (HELP) for their student contribution or tuition fee. Further information is available from the Department of Education, Science and Training at makers should also be aware of situations where it appears that a person takes a course of action for the sole purpose of availing themselves of the exercise of this discretion.
…
Consideration
36. The respondent conceded that the applicant's application for citizenship faced no ineligibility factors except his failure to meet the residence requirements at the time of the delegate’s decision. He would, however, be able to satisfy the residence requirement as well in April next year.
37. The tribunal could, however, treat an earlier period of residence as one in which the applicant was present in Australia as a permanent resident if he was present in Australia during that period (as he was) and the tribunal is satisfied that he would suffer significant hardship or disadvantage if that period were not treated as one during which he was present as a permanent resident (s 22(6).
38. The applicant based his case of hardship and disadvantage on four grounds.
39. First, he wished to travel overseas immediately for a holiday, preferably to Germany, but could not do so unless he and his family were Australian citizens so that they could obtain Australian passports. He could not use his Egyptian passport, because if he were to encounter problems while overseas, the Egyptian embassy would not help him. His children could not obtain Egyptian passports until they had spent a month in that country, and he could not take them there because of his refugee status.
40. Difficulty of international travel because a person cannot obtain a passport from his or her country of citizenship, or is unable to use it for safety or similar reasons, is a circumstance that the ACI treat as relevant. The applicant’s evidence was, however, that he has an Egyptian passport which he is able to use for international travel but he prefers not to do so because he doubts whether he could obtain consular assistance from the Egyptian authorities while overseas. Nevertheless, he could use it, and any unwillingness to do so is really a matter of his personal preference. He states that his children could not as a practical matter obtain Egyptian passports and therefore could not travel at all.
41. There is no legal impediment to overseas travel by non-citizens who have Australian permanent residency. The applicant has made no enquiries about the possibility of obtaining some other form of Australian travel document recognised by overseas authorities.
42. His claim that as he has never been outside Sydney, he does not know of any suitable places to take his family for a holiday within New South Wales or Australia, and that in any event there are no “nice places” in Australia to visit during the winter is an assertion of preference rather than personal need within the meaning of the ACI. Similarly, his statement that he has not had time to investigate holiday destinations within Australian is implausible coming from someone who has not worked for six years and does not strengthen his argument for hardship and disadvantage.
43. Secondly, he said that as a matter of pride he would prefer to deal with Sydney airport staff as an Australian citizen. He did not, however, suggest that he would be subjected to any discrimination or other disadvantage, and conceded that he had not been to Sydney airport since his arrival in Australia. That ground, too, constitutes a matter of preference rather than hardship or disadvantage.
44. Thirdly, he argued that not having Australian citizenship prevented him from undertaking university study in law because he would not be eligible for a HECS place unless he were an Australian citizen, and if he obtained funding from another source to pay university fees, he would have to make repayment instalments, which he would be unable to do. Restriction of educational opportunities can constitute hardship or disadvantage under the ACI.
45. The applicant’s enquiries on this subject do not seem to have been exhaustive and were apparently limited to asking a receptionist at the University of Sydney who, he said, told him that he would be in a better position if he were an Australian citizen. There may have been some misunderstanding due to language barriers, but in any event he was under a misapprehension. As was noted above, the policy statement makes it clear that “Permanent visa holders are eligible for a Commonwealth supported place (previously known as a Higher Education Contribution Scheme) or a domestic fee-paying place”. The Higher Education Support Act 2003 (Cth) (the HES Act) provides that permanent resident visa holders are eligible for HECS and the Higher Education Loan Program (HELP) assistance on the same basis as Australian citizens; ss 36-10(1) and (2), 90-1, 90-5. In any event, the applicant might have other options, such as part-time study, which he conceded that he had not investigated.
46. The applicant's case on this point is therefore based on erroneous premises, and even if it were not, it would not be a question of personal needs. As the ACI make clear, “Personal wants are aspirations and generally do not constitute hardship ie the right to vote, election to Parliament, HECS availability, representing Australia internationally in academics or sport”. It would be otherwise if the applicant's educational opportunities were limited or restricted because academic opportunities were available only to an Australian citizen.
47. Fourthly, the applicant submits that he is suffering depression and anxiety, which would be relieved by exemption from the residence requirement. The evidence in support of that proposition consists of letters and reports written by Dr Girgis and Mr Rodriguez. They are not in the form of statutory declarations and neither practitioner gave oral evidence. While they would not qualify for admissibility as opinion evidence within the principles stated by Heydon JA (as his Honour then was) in Makita (Australia) Pty Limited v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705, they are admissible in this tribunal, which is not bound by the laws of evidence.
48. The weight to be accorded to them is affected by a number of factors, some of which would be conditions of admissibility in a court. For example, Dr Girgis’s qualifications and expertise are not clearly set out. Some of the letters appear to be more in the nature of character references than of expert evidence, and the letter of 18 September 2004 (T pp63-64) was apparently used for that purpose. The process of reasoning whereby Dr Girgis arrived at the conclusion that overseas travel would be necessary for the applicant’s recovery was not revealed or explained and leaves a substantial logical gap. Dr Girgis does not explain why an overseas trip is the only possible option for an unemployed man without funds, as against a holiday within Australia. He does not indicate whether he considered any other possible strategies whereby the applicant could improve his mental state, such as perhaps finding work. There is no explanation as to why it would be detrimental to the applicant’s mental health to wait 11 months until he met the residence requirements.
49. Further, there are inconsistencies between the various letters in relation to the onset and course of the applicant’s depressive state. In his letter of 17 January 2007 (T p65), Dr Girgis reported that the applicant had “made great progress since he was suffering from ‘depression’ some three years ago [ie, in 2004] … He is now in good spirit and not at all depressed …”. On the other hand, in May 2007 Dr Girgis wrote that the applicant would be “a happier man … When this problem is solved his depression will no doubt be reduced” (T p75). His letter of 7 February 2008, however, states that he has known the applicant since his arrival in Australia in 2002 and that “From the day when I met him it appears to me that he is suffering from severe anxiety/depression and panic disorder”.
50. Dr Girgis’s letters do not detail the number of consultations he had with the applicant, the applicant's symptoms or diagnosis, or any treatment regime planned or undertaken.
51. Mr Rodriguez in his letter of 14 January 2008 states that exemption from the residence requirements would be beneficial for his recovery but does not reveal the reasoning process leading to that conclusion. Nor does he appear to be aware that the applicant will be able to meet the residence requirement in April 2009.
52. Neither Dr Girgis nor Mr Rodriguez provides any support for the applicant’s claim that after ceasing to take anti-depressants he would need a further year to recuperate. Beyond that, however, the medical and psychological evidence does not greatly assist resolution of the issues and does not establish that his being on medication constitutes hardship or disadvantage within the meaning of s 22(6) of the new Act.
53. The applicant is not labouring under any financial hardship or disadvantage, being supported by Centrelink payments over a long period.
54. I conclude that all four of the grounds advanced by the applicant, to the extent that they are not simply based on misapprehensions, relate to matters of personal preference and do not go to hardship or disadvantage.
55. The applicant has thus failed to demonstrate that there are cogent reasons for the tribunal to depart from official policy and exercise the significant hardship and disadvantage in his favour.
56. The delegate’s decision to refuse the applicant's application for conferral of citizenship should be affirmed.
I certify that the 56 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Professor GD Walker, Deputy President
Signed: ........................[sgd].................................................
Renee Wallace, AssociateDate/s of Hearing: 30 April 2008
Date of Decision: 17 June 2008
Solicitor for the Applicant: Self-represented
Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr G Johnson, DLA Phillips Fox
3