Qazi and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenou S Affairs
[2003] AATA 1236
•9 December 2003
Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 1236
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N2003/179
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re Maria Qazi Applicant
And
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Mr RP Handley, Deputy President Date9 December 2003
PlaceSydney
Decision The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the matter to the Respondent with a direction that the discretion to not refuse the grant of a visa under s 501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 should be exercised in the case of Muhammed Sohail Ahmed Qazi.
...............................................
RP Handley
Deputy President
CATCHWORDS
IMMIGRATION – subclass 309 (provisional) spouse visa – refusal of visa on character grounds – past and present general conduct – character test – concession that Visa Applicant does not pass the character test – discretion that the Tribunal may exercise where the Visa Applicant fails the character test – necessity to balance the expectations and protection of the Australian community against the hardship to the Applicant – held discretion should be exercised in favour of Visa Applicant – decision of the Respondent set aside.
Migration Act 1958 ss 499, 501, 501(6)(c)(ii)
Rokobatini v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1999) 90 FCR 583
Wan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2001) 107 FCR 133
Vaitaiki v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1998) 150 ALR 608
REASONS FOR DECISION
9 December 2003 Mr RP Handley, Deputy President Summary
1. Mr Muhammad Sohail Ahmed Qazi, who is aged 32 and currently living in Singapore, applied for a subclass 309 spouse (provisional) visa to live in Australia with his spouse, Maria Qazi (the Applicant) and their son, Muhammad Ziraq Qazi who is now aged 18 months.
2. A delegate of the Respondent refused Mr Qazi’s application on the ground that he is not of good character because of his past and present general conduct. In particular, the delegate stated that Mr Qazi had made false claims and produced fabricated documents in relation to his protection visa application, that he remained in Australia and worked without permission after the expiry of his bridging visa, and that he provided false and misleading information in relation to his subclass 309 application.
Background
3. The Applicant, Maria Qazi, was born in Singapore on 12 July 1974 and is aged 29. She is a citizen of the Republic of Singapore. On 14 February 1992, she married Kawal KK Singh. The marriage was annulled on 1 March 1993. On 29 August 1996, she married Mark Dexter Duncan and migrated to Australia with him arriving on 25 October 1996. That marriage ended in divorce on 30 July 1999, no children having been born of the relationship.
4. The Visa Applicant, Muhammad Sohail Ahmed Qazi (known as Sohail Qazi), was born in Karachi, Pakistan, on 27 November 1971 and is aged 32. On 19 September 1995, he arrived in Australia on a visitor visa valid for one month. On 16 October 1995, Mr Qazi lodged an application for a protection visa with the then Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (S p1) and was granted a bridging visa A permitting him to work. He stated in that application that he left Pakistan because of his “severe involvement in ‘Muhajir Qomi Movement (MQM)’” and that “Government agencies or Haqiqi group would kill me or at least disable me” if he were to return to Pakistan (S p17).
5. On 22 April 1996, a delegate of the Respondent refused Mr Qazi’s application for a protection visa. On 16 May 1996, Mr Qazi lodged an application for a review of this decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal (“RRT”) which on 23 October 1997 affirmed the decision. The RRT stated that it did not find Mr Qazi a credible witness; he lied with regard to his involvement in the MQM; he provided a fabricated document to the RRT; and did not have a well-founded fear of persecution. Accordingly, the RRT found that he was not a person to whom Australia owed protection obligations under the Refugees Convention (S p25). On 4 November 1997, Mr Qazi or his representative requested Ministerial intervention which was refused on 4 June 1998.
6. On 27 November 1997, or more probably after the refusal of Ministerial intervention on 4 June 1998 – it is not clear from the T Documents – Mr Qazi’s bridging visa A expired, after which he remained in Australia illegally and worked without permission.
7. In November 1997, Mr Qazi and Ms Qazi met at a Spanish restaurant in Sydney (T p92). At that time, Ms Qazi was still married to Mr Duncan (T p40). In August 1999, having been divorced from Mr Duncan, Ms Qazi began living with Mr Qazi (T p42) and, on 27 March 2001, they were married at the Islamic Centre at Rooty Hill, Sydney (T p35).
8. On 21 December 2001, Mr Qazi applied for and was granted a bridging visa E which entitled him to remain in Australia until 3 January 2002 subject to a “no work” condition (T p45). He was subsequently granted further bridging visas E which entitled him to remain until 25 March 2002 (T p49). On 20 December 2001, a migration agent sought Ministerial intervention on behalf of Mr Qazi relying on compassionate grounds (S p42).
9. On 9 February 2002, Mr Qazi left Australia and went to Singapore where he has been residing on a temporary basis with Ms Qazi. On 24 February 2002, Mr Qazi lodged an application for a subclass 309 spouse (provisional) visa with the Australian High Commission in Singapore. Mr Qazi was notified of the refusal of his request for Ministerial intervention on 4 June 2002. On 25 June 2002, Ms Qazi gave birth to a son in Singapore, Muhammad Ziraq Qazi, who is a citizen of the Republic of Singapore by birth (T p55).
10. On 22 October 2002, a delegate of the Respondent advised Mr Qazi that she was considering refusing his application on the basis that he was not of good character (T13 p63) and inviting him to comment as to why his visa application should not be refused. Mr Qazi responded by letter of 19 November 2002, stating that he feared persecution at the hands of the Pakistani police, and admitting that he had overstayed his visa in Australia and worked without permission, of which he was ashamed and deeply regretted (T14 p66).
11. On 17 December 2002, a delegate of the Respondent decided to refuse the grant of a visa to Mr Qazi on the ground that he is not of good character because he demonstrated no respect for Australia’s immigration laws, noting that his recent visit to Pakistan was inconsistent with his earlier claim of persecution in that country (T2 p9). On 31 January 2003, Ms Qazi lodged an application for a review of this decision with the Tribunal (T p1).
12. At the hearing, Ms Qazi was represented by Samir Dalla, Solicitor, of Samir’s Multiculture Legal Services, and the Respondent was represented by Murray Allatt, Solicitor, of the Australian Government Solicitor’s office. The evidence before the Tribunal comprised the documents produced pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (“the T Documents”) together with supplementary documents (“the S Documents”) and documents tendered by the Applicant. At the hearing, Ms Qazi gave evidence in person (having returned from Singapore shortly before the hearing) and Mr Qazi gave evidence by conference telephone from Singapore.
Relevant Law and Policy
13. Under s 501(1) of the Act, the Minister may refuse to grant a visa to a person if the person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test. The character test is set out in s 501(6), which provides that a person does not pass the character test if one of a number of grounds are met. The relevant ground in the current matter is paragraph (c), as follows:
Having regard to either or both of the following:
..
(ii)the person’s past and present general conduct;
the person is not of good character;…
14. Under s 499(1) of the Act, the Minister may give directions to a person or body performing functions or exercising powers under the Act, with which, in accordance with s 499(2A), the person or body must comply. This includes the Tribunal: Rokobatini v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (1999) 90 FCR 583. However, s 499(2) states that s 499(1) “does not empower the Minister to give directions that would be inconsistent with this Act or the regulations”..
15. On 23 August 2001, the Minister, exercising his powers under s 499(1) of the Act, issued Direction No 21, Visa Refusal and Cancellation under s 501. The preamble to the Direction states that it “provides guidance to decision-makers in making decisions to refuse or cancel a visa under section 501” of the Act. The Direction provides guidance on application of the character test and on the considerations to which decision-makers must have regard when, notwithstanding that a person does not pass the character test, exercising the discretion to decide whether or not the non-citizen should be permitted to enter or remain in Australia.
16. The issue for the Tribunal to determine in this case is, therefore, whether Mr Qazi is not of good character having regard to his past and present general conduct, so as to be precluded from the grant of a subclass 309 visa. If the Tribunal decides he is not of good character, it must consider whether to exercise the residual discretion in s 501(1) to not refuse the grant of a visa.
Evidence
Sohail Qazi
17. Mr Qazi said that when he first came to Australia it was as a tourist: he did not intend to stay permanently – rather he just wanted to get away from Pakistan for a while. However, when he arrived in Australia and was told by friends and a migration agent that he could extend his stay by applying for a protection visa, he decided to so “because things were still heated back there in my country”. There was some basis to the claims made in the protection visa application in so far as he did have some fear of returning to Pakistan. However, he acknowledged that his claims were exaggerated.
18. Mr Qazi said he had been a member of MQM in Pakistan and supported the movement but he had no official status in the organisation. The letter from MQM produced to the RRT (S p24) was obtained for him by his uncle. Mr Qazi did not himself fabricate the letter although he acknowledged that the claims in the letter were exaggerated.
19. Mr Qazi said he does not remember applying for Ministerial intervention in November 1997. He is puzzled because he did not intend to take further action after receiving the RRT decision. He does, however, recall the request for Ministerial intervention made by him and his wife in December 2001 relying on compassionate grounds (S p42).
20. Mr Qazi said after his bridging visa A expired, he had no choice but to work in order to survive. He also had no understanding of the severity of the law. The situation is very different in Pakistan where the law is often not enforced. He and Ms Qazi had no money then and he thought it better that he should work rather than have Ms Qazi claim Social Security benefits. They also needed money to enable him to leave the country in order to try and regularise his status. Mr Qazi said now that he has a better understanding of the legal system in Australia, he would rigorously abide by the law.
21. Mr Qazi said apart from the exaggerated claims in his protection visa application and overstaying his visa and working without permission, he has not broken the law. He acknowledged that he had committed some traffic offences when he was working as a taxi driver but he has now paid all his fines. If he is permitted to come to Australia, he will work hard to support his wife and son. If he is not granted a visa, he is too scared to even think of the consequences. Although his wife’s background is Pakistani, she was born in Singapore and has never been to Pakistan. She “would not survive there”.. She suffers from asthma and he would be concerned about her health because of the pollution.
22. Mr Qazi said he is also worried for his son. Medical facilities in Pakistan are poor as is the educational system and the security situation. Bombings and terrorist acts are commonplace. Mr Qazi said he went to a private school where educational standards were better. His father was reasonably well off at the time because he was working in Libya. He subsequently lost his job and the family financial situation deteriorated.
23. Mr Qazi said he just asks to be with his wife and son. He has learned from his mistakes and has paid heavily for them. His wife has also suffered as a result. He asks for a second chance to prove to the Government and himself that he can live a respectable and law-abiding life. He cannot stay permanently in Singapore and cannot afford to keep coming and going. Moreover, his wife and son cannot live in Pakistan.
Maria Qazi
24. Ms Qazi said she is not currently working and is reliant on Social Security payments. When her husband left Australia on 9 February 2002, he flew to Pakistan while she flew to Singapore and organised a visitor visa for him to join her in Singapore which he did after a few days. She was pregnant at the time and remained in Singapore for 10 months, giving birth to her son there. Ms Qazi said she has had difficulty obtaining visitor visas for her husband to enable him to be with her in Singapore, but has managed to persuade the Singapore Immigration Authority to issue him with a visa on the basis that she needs him with her.
25. Ms Qazi said she returned to Australia after 10 months in Singapore, spending four to six months here during which time she rented a room from a family friend. She and her husband had owned a house before they left Australia but it was sold while they were in Singapore because they could not maintain the mortgage payments. Ms Qazi said she had also previously had a real estate business in Sydney, established using funds from her family with a view to its also supporting her sister who is married and lives in Australia. However, the business “went bust through inexperience and incompetence”.
26. While Ms Qazi was in Australia during these four to six months, Mr Qazi returned to Pakistan. Then when Ms Qazi returned to Singapore, after some difficulty (A3), she was again able to obtain a temporary visa for him, this time valid for six months and enabling him to work. However, she has been told that no further visas will be granted when his current visa expires in January 2004. Ms Qazi said she tried to obtain permanent residence for her husband in Singapore with the assistance of a relative. The relative set up a company to run a restaurant and sought to sponsor Mr Qazi’s residence in Singapore so that he could work in the restaurant. However, the application for an “Approval-In-Principle Employment Pass” was rejected on 23 May 2003 (A4).
27. Ms Qazi most recently returned to Australia shortly before the hearing. She said she first came to Australia with her previous husband in August 1996 when he obtained employment here. She obtained permanent residence in late 1998/early 1999 and became an Australian citizen in February/March 2003. Ms Qazi said while she retains her Singapore citizenship, she has been away for seven or eight years and, apart from her family, has lost touch with everything there including her friends. She wants to live with her husband and child in Australia. She is confident her husband will get a job as a taxi driver, for which he still has a current Australian licence.
28. Ms Qazi said although she is of Pakistani Muslim background, she has never been to Pakistan, does not speak the language and is not a practising Muslim. She has only met her husband’s family in Singapore and even then had difficulty communicating with them. They classify her as a “westerner” and her mother-in-law said Ms Qazi would have great difficulty living in Pakistan because of cultural differences, the difference in the standard of living and the difficulty of obtaining employment. Ms Qazi said she is an independent person and would not want to live with her in-laws, as is customary in Pakistan. She does not want to conform with the usual expectations of Muslim women. She wants to be able to speak her mind. Ms Qazi said her husband’s family are very conservative and follow Moslem religious practices strictly. Although her husband has asked her to follow such practices, he has not pressured her and she has not done so.
29. Ms Qazi is also concerned about living in Pakistan because of her asthma. Moreover, her son has recently been suffering from bronchitis and has been using a nebuliser. Ms Qazi is worried about the health services in Pakistan and whether her son could get appropriate treatment. She wants him to have the benefit of living in Australia and, in particular, its health and education services.
30. Ms Qazi suffers from depression (T p36). She is very stressed as a result of her current situation and takes anti-depressant medication.
Consideration of the Law and Findings
31. At the hearing, both the Applicant and Mr Qazi conceded that Mr Qazi does not pass the character test as a result of his past general conduct. Mr Qazi acknowledged that the claims made in his protection visa application were exaggerated and that the letter from MQM produced for the RRT hearing (S p24), which was obtained by his uncle, contained exaggerated claims and false information: while he was a member of MQM, he had no official status in the movement and, although he had some fear of returning to Pakistan, the consequences of his returning as stated in the letter, were exaggerated. Mr Qazi also acknowledged that he remained in Australia after the expiry of his bridging visa A and worked without permission.
32. The Tribunal therefore turns to the second issue for determination, namely, notwithstanding that Mr Qazi fails the character test, whether the Tribunal should exercise the residual discretion in s 501(1) of the Act to not refuse the grant of a visa. However, before doing so, it is appropriate for the Tribunal to set out its findings.
33. The Tribunal finds, contrary to the findings of the delegate (T p7), as the Respondent now acknowledges, that Mr Qasi did have permission to work in Australia pursuant to the bridging visa A granted to him on lodging his protection visa application. It is not clear from the evidence before the Tribunal when that bridging visa expired, but it seems likely that this was after the request for Ministerial intervention made on behalf of Mr Qazi was refused in June 1998. However, the Tribunal notes Mr Qasi’s evidence that he cannot recall making this request because he did not intend taking further action after the RRT decision. Since none of the documents relevant to this request for intervention were provided to the Tribunal, it is unable to make any more specific finding about this.
34. Nevertheless, the Tribunal finds that after the expiry of his bridging visa A, Mr Qazi remained in Australia unlawfully and worked without permission. Mr Qazi said neither he nor Ms Qazi had any money at that time and he had to work to support them and to save sufficient money to enable him to leave the country in order to try and regularise his status. He also said he did not appreciate the significance of his misconduct because of his lack of understanding of the legal system in Australia.
35. The Tribunal finds that on 21 December 2001, after being in Australia and working unlawfully for approximately two and a half years, Mr Qazi applied for and was granted a bridging visa E, subject to a “no work” condition. Further bridging visas E were granted covering the remaining period prior to Mr Qazi’s departure from Australia on 9 February 2002.
36. On 22 February 2002, Mr Qazi lodged an application for a subclass 309 visa. The Tribunal finds that although this application revealed that Mr Qazi had previously applied for a protection visa, it failed to declare that he had held bridging visas E and to that extent the application therefore contained false information (T p86).
37. With regard Mr Qazi’s entry into Australia, the Tribunal accepts Mr Qazi’s evidence that it was not his initial intention to try to remain permanently in Australia. His intention changed after arriving in Australia when he was told he could extend his stay by applying for a protection visa. The Applicant has acknowledged that while there was some basis to his protection visa application, it contained exaggerated claims, as did the MQM letter produced for the RRT (S p24). Although it was not raised at the hearing, the Tribunal relies on the decision of the RRT in finding that Mr Qazi lied to the RRT in giving evidence by exaggerating his fear and the consequences of his returning to Pakistan (S p25).
38. Mr Qazi was forthright in acknowledging his past misconduct and expressing his remorse. The Tribunal finds Mr Qazi is currently in Singapore on a temporary visa, which expires in January 2004. The Tribunal accepts Ms Qazi’s evidence, which is corroborated by a letter of refusal from the Singapore Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (A3), that Mr Qazi is unable to obtain permanent residence in Singapore and will have to leave Singapore in January 2004 with little likelihood of being granted further temporary visas.
39. The Tribunal finds that although Ms Qazi is of Pakistani background, she was born and brought up in Singapore in the “western tradition” and has never been to Pakistan. The Tribunal accepts her evidence that it would be very difficult for her to live with her husband in Pakistan because of cultural differences and her inability to speak the language. Ms Qazi has dual Singaporean and Australian citizenship. Her and Mr Qazi’s son, who is aged 18 months, was born in Singapore and is a Singaporean citizen. Because he was born before his mother acquired Australian citizenship, he is not an Australian citizen.
40. The Tribunal accepts that both Mr and Ms Qazi have suffered hardship as a result of their current situation. However, Ms Qazi must have been aware of Mr Qazi’s status at the time they commenced their relationship.
41. Having made the above findings, the Tribunal must make its determination on whether or not to exercise the residual discretion in s 501(1). In exercising this discretion, the Tribunal had regard to Part 2 of Direction No 21. Paragraph 2.2 provides that a decision-maker should have regard to three primary considerations and a number of other considerations:
Decision-makers must have due regard to the importance placed by the Government on the three primary considerations, but should also adopt a balancing process which takes into account all relevant considerations.
Paragraph 2.3 sets out the primary considerations:
In making a decision whether to refuse or cancel a visa, there are three primary considerations:
(a) the protection of the Australian community, and members of the community;
(b) the expectations of the Australian community; and
(c) in all cases involving a parental or other close relationship between a child or children and the person under consideration, the best interests of the child or children.
43. With regard to the protection of the Australian community, paragraph 2.4 states:
The Government seeks to take reasonable steps to protect the Australian community from the actions of criminals and to take action to lessen the risk of crime and disorder within the Australian community…
Paragraph 2.5 identifies the factors relevant to an assessment of the level of risk to the community of the entry or continued stay of a non-citizen which include:
(a) the seriousness and nature of the conduct;
(b)the likelihood that the conduct may be repeated (including any risk of recidivism); and
(c)whether visa refusal or cancellation may prevent or discourage similar conduct (general deterrence).
Examples of offences considered by the Government to be serious include serious crimes against the Migration Act 1958 which in turn include “presenting false or forged documents or making a false or misleading statement in connection with entry or stay in Australia”.. Paragraph 2.8 requires decision-makers, when exercising the discretion, to take into account any relevant factors provided by the non-citizen as mitigating factors.
44. With regard to paragraph 2.5(b), likelihood that conduct may be repeated (including any risk of recidivism), the extent of rehabilitation is a relevant factor in making an assessment, and paragraph 2.5(c), general deterrence, “aims to deter other people from committing the same or a similar offence”.
45. With regard to the first of the primary considerations, as stated above, Mr Qazi has acknowledged that his protection visa application contained exaggerated claims and that the MQM letter produced for the RRT also contained exaggerated claims. The Tribunal has found, moreover, that Mr Qazi lied in giving evidence to the RRT when perpetuating and expounding on these claims. Mr Qazi also remained in Australia unlawfully and worked without permission for a period of about two and a half years and failed to disclose in his subclass 309 visa application that he had held bridging visas E. Such misconduct should be regarded as serious although the Tribunal suspects that the failure to disclose the bridging visas E was inadvertent since nothing was to be gained by such non-disclosure.
46. The Tribunal notes Mr Qazi’s remorse and considers it unlikely that he would repeat such misconduct. With regard to deterrence, while refusing a visa in such circumstances could deter others from similar misconduct, this is not a conclusive factor in itself.
47. The second primary consideration is the expectations of the Australian community. Paragraph 2.12 states there is an expectation that non-citizens should obey Australian laws while in Australia. In the Tribunal’s view, the Australian community would take a compassionate view of Mr and Ms Qazi’s situation and would not refuse the grant of a visa.
48. The third primary consideration is the Best Interests of the Child. The Tribunal notes the decision of the Full Federal Court in Wan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2001) 107 FCR 133, following the decision of the Full Federal Court in Vaitaiki v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1998) 150 ALR 608. In Wan at paragraph 32, the Court made it clear that the approach to be adopted in cases involving children is, first, to identify what are the best interests of the child or children with respect to the exercise of the discretion not to refuse the grant of a visa, and, second, “to assess whether the strength of any other considerations, or the cumulative effect of other considerations, outweigh the consideration of the best interests of the children understood as a primary consideration”.
49. Mr and Ms Qazi have a son who is now aged about 18 months. He is apparently not an Australian citizen because Ms Qazi acquired her Australian citizenship after his birth. Paragraph 2.15 of Direction No. 21 recognises that “in general terms, the child’s best interest will be served if the child remains with its parents”. To date, for most of the child’s life, Mr and Ms Qazi have been together in Singapore. The Tribunal has found that Mr Qazi’s temporary visa will expire in January 2004 and he is unlikely to be able to obtain further temporary visas. If he is not granted a visa to enter Australia, he will presumably have to return to Pakistan where Ms Qazi does not want to live for the reasons referred to above. The Tribunal accepts that given the current political, economic and security situation in Pakistan, the child’s future is better served in Australia than Pakistan.
50. With regard to the other considerations to which a decision-make is directed by Direction No 21, paragraph 2.17 states that, where relevant, “it is appropriate these matters be taken into account but that generally they be given less individual weight than that given to the primary considerations”. These other considerations include: the extent of disruption that the visa refusal or cancellation would cause to the non-citizen’s family; genuine marriage to an Australian citizen, bearing in mind the circumstances under which the relationship was established and whether the Australian partner knew that the non-citizen’s character was of concern at the time of entering into the relationship; the degree of hardship caused to immediate family members; the family composition of the non-citizen’s family, both in Australian and overseas; and any evidence of rehabilitation and any recent good conduct.
51. The Tribunal has no doubt that the relationship between Mr and Ms Qazi is a genuine marital one and that the refusal of a visa to Mr Qazi has caused and would in the future cause significant disruption to their family and significant hardship. The Tribunal notes, however, that Ms Qazi would have been aware of Mr Qazi’s status in Australia early in their relationship. Ms Qazi is now an Australian citizen with a sister living in Australia, although other members of her family live in Singapore where she is a citizen by birth. Mr Qazi’s family live in Pakistan. The Tribunal has found that Ms Qazi suffers from depression as a consequence of her current situation. She also suffers from asthma which the Tribunal accepts could be exacerbated by the pollution to which she is likely to be subjected in Karachi.
52. The Tribunal has already referred to Mr Qazi’s regret and remorse at his past misconduct. The Applicant submitted a bundle of references (A5), mostly from family members, as to his good character and regret for his past mistakes. The evidence points to Mr Qazi’s rehabilitation.
53. Weighing up the primary and other considerations, in the Tribunal’s view, Mr Qazi does not constitute a threat to the Australian community and the risk of further misconduct is minimal. The Australian community would be likely to take a compassionate view of his and Ms Qazi’s situation and not refuse the grant of a visa. Moreover, their child’s best interests lie in his being with his parents in Australia which accords with the other considerations referred to above. Thus, the discretion in s 501(1) of the Act should be exercised in favour of Mr Qazi so as not to refuse the grant of a visa.
I certify that the 53 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr RP Handley, Deputy President
Signed: .......................................................................................
AssociateDate of Hearing 25 November 2003
Date of Decision 9 December 2003
Solicitor for the Applicant Mr S Dalla
Solicitor for the Respondent Mr M Allatt
5
0