Re Ruddock & Anor, Ex parte Pylka

[1997] HCATrans 355

TRANSCRIPT
OF PROCEEDINGS
AUSCRIPT
Victoria
Level 7
451 Little Bourke St
Melbourne VIC 3000
GPO Box 1114J
Melbourne VIC 3001
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
  O/N 4787
  A  9.12.97

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MELBOURNE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRY

No. M 105 of 1997

Re:THE HONOURABLE P RUDDOCK & ANOR

Ex parte:MOSES SHANE PYLKA

HAYNE J (in Chambers)

AT MELBOURNE, FRIDAY, 5 DECEMBER 1997

AT 10.32 AM

MR P.N. ROSE:   I appear on behalf of the prosecutor/applicant in this matter (instructed by Erskine Rodan & Associates).

MR R.S. TRACEY QC:   I appear on behalf of the respondents (instructed by the Australian Government Solicitor).

HIS HONOUR:   Yes, Mr Tracey.  Yes, Mr Rose, I have read the papers and you should assume, therefore, that I am generally familiar with the matter.

MR ROSE:   Your Honour in that case, can I add to the burden briefly.  We did indicate last night that we wanted to hand up an additional affidavit.  It is annexing the deportation order, the AAT proceedings and the notices that are given to the applicant, which service ‑ ‑ ‑ 

HIS HONOUR:   These are the affidavits you sent by fax, I think either last night or this morning.

MR ROSE:   Yes, yes, they were - if I can hand to your ‑ ‑ ‑ 

HIS HONOUR:   I have looked at those as well, but if you could ‑ ‑ ‑ 

MR ROSE:   Can I tender the original, your Honour, the original exhibits.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes, thank you. 

MR ROSE:   Your Honour, with your leave, I would also like to hand up two other documents which my client has brought with him from prison this morning.  One is a letter from Moreland Hall which does a - has a drug education course.  It is dated yesterday, I have shown it to my friend, and it is addressed to your Honour, indicating that he has been undertaking that at Moreland Hall. 

HIS HONOUR:   Do you mind if I look at these things, Mr Tracey?

MR TRACEY:   Yes, my friend has shown them to me, your Honour.  We would submit that they are of no relevance to the issues before your Honour this morning, but we have no objection to your Honour seeing ‑ ‑ ‑ 

HIS HONOUR:   Thank you.  Yes, perhaps if I can see them.

MR ROSE:   And the other is the notice that was given to the applicant.  He instructs me he received it at the end of his sentence.  It deals with the criminal deportation policy, your Honour, and ‑ ‑ ‑ 

HIS HONOUR:   It was referred to, I think, in one of the documents that was served on him, was it not?

MR ROSE:   Yes, your Honour.  The relevance of that is it indicates that he should be informed if he is liable for deportation as soon as possible after sentencing.  He indicates that he did not get it until the end of his sentence, and that goes to the fact that the AAT proceedings are commenced when he gets notice of his impending deportation, and of course he has served his sentence.

EXHIBIT A - LETTER FROM MORELAND HALL DATED 4.12.97

EXHIBIT B - COPY STATEMENT ON AUSTRALIA'S CRIMINAL DEPORTATION POLICY BEARING ANNOTATIONS

MR ROSE:   Thank you, your Honour. 

HIS HONOUR:   Well Mr Rose, why should I embark on these matters?  Why should I not simply remit these matters to the Federal Court for that Court to make the various factual inquiries that at least at first blush, this set of applications seems to me to raise?

MR ROSE:   Well, we had two concerns, your Honour.  Firstly, the power of the Federal Court to deal with matters of habeas corpus, and secondly, the issue ‑ ‑ ‑ 

HIS HONOUR:   Is there not authority that at least in this Court, that indeed the only power that this Court has in respect of habeas is ancillary to its other powers, notably its powers under 75(5) and otherwise?  Would not the same argument apply in relation to the Federal Court?

MR ROSE:   My understanding that the Federal Court has previously indicated that it did not believe it had the power.  It was specifically given the powers for the other prerogative writs, but not for habeas corpus.  That was left out of its Act.  That is one of the reasons we have come here, your Honour, and the other reason is that ‑ ‑ ‑ 

HIS HONOUR:   But in any event, would that problem not go away on remitter, having commenced here, and if it is remitted, would the Court on remitter have power to grant a habeas if that were thought appropriate in all the circumstances?

MR ROSE:   I know on the one other occasion when I tried to seek habeas corpus in the Federal Court, and I went directly there, I was told I could not have it and was told I should read the Act.  It is some years ago, your Honour, that it happened to me.  But we had another problem, and that is the AD(JR) Act problem.  If under sections 23 of the Federal Court Act and section 15 of the AD(JR) Act, the Federal Court had power, if they were seeking to rely on the AD(JR) Act, we are concerned that the new section 476 of the Migration Act, which has certain restrictions on grounds of review, in particular, natural - breaches of natural justice and unreasonableness, that we may lose the ability to do that.  Can I take you to 476?

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.

MR ROSE:   It is - and I am dealing, your Honour, and I hope you got notified, with re-print number 6, which is the ‑ ‑ ‑ 

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.

MR ROSE: The latest one. You will see that you can have an application to review in judicial reviewable decisions on a number of grounds, and then specifically under sub-section (2) of 476, the following are not grounds upon which you can make an application: a breach of rules of natural justice, or an exercise of power that was so unreasonable. Now, your Honour, I did not want to get into a problem in respect of that, and that is why we have come straight here and tried to get you to invoke section 75(5) of the Constitution.

HIS HONOUR:   Well, my first impression, and it is no more than a first impression, Mr Rose, should perhaps be exposed so that you can deal with it as you see fit, is that on the material presently available, there is a deportation order made.  The basis of the challenge to that order may depend on whether it is appropriate to take account of the subsequent conviction in determining whether to deport the man for - on account of his earlier convictions.  The basic challenge that is sought to be made, as I understand it, is that this man's connections in this country and his future intentions and chances of, what in other jurisdictions would be called reformation and the like, are such that he ought not to be deported.  Now, does that capture the essence of it?

MR ROSE:   Yes, your Honour, but of course we are not here arguing that issue.  We come on the separate, distinct issue as to whether or not he should be released pending that. 

HIS HONOUR:   And why should I order release when he is, on the face of it, held pursuant to an order?  Why should I embark on the factual inquiry about whether or not to release him?

MR ROSE:   We would say for the grounds enumerated in Msilanga.  I do not know if your Honour has had the opportunity of reading that.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.

MR ROSE:   Could I take you to that decision?  I have made a photocopy, your Honour, if it assisted you to ‑ ‑ ‑ 

HIS HONOUR:   Too late, he cried.  I have one in front of me, Mr Rose, so ‑ ‑ ‑ 

MR ROSE:   I had notified the Registry yesterday I had made photocopies for your Honour, and if my friend needs them, I will give them to him.

HIS HONOUR:   No, not to worry.  I was in Canberra yesterday and the photocopy needed to be in Canberra.

MR ROSE:   All right, well there are ‑ ‑ ‑ 

HIS HONOUR: But it is 34 FCR 169.

MR ROSE:   That is the one, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.

MR ROSE:   And you will see there that - if I can just take you briefly to it, your Honour - at page 172, the - Beaumont J addresses the primary Judge and the way he dealt with the matter, and he deals, about two-thirds of the way down the page, with what the primary Judge said were the issues that had to be dealt with on an application for interlocutory relief:

The Court has to consider two questions:  first, whether the substantive issues, there is a serious question to be tried, and secondly, if the question is resolved in favour of the applicant, where the balance of convenience lies.

HIS HONOUR:   But in what proceeding will you now seek interlocutory relief?

MR ROSE:   In the ‑ ‑ ‑ 

HIS HONOUR:   The interlocutory relief being that he be discharged from custody and allowed to go at large on, presumably, conditions.

MR ROSE:   Conditions.  Well, that is what we want, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes, I know that, but in what proceeding?

MR ROSE:   Well, the - the only proceeding that is on foot, apart from this application here, is the AAT proceeding.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.

MR ROSE:   But what we are seeking to do is to in effect review a decision, a discrete decision to refuse release.  And as we understand the three cases that I put in or as I understood them, your Honour, the Court has the power to treat that distinct and separate decision, which is made by a Federal officer or in fact the Minister on the Minister's behalf, as a decision, and we can review that decision.  And we are saying, in essence, that that has been unreasonably exercised to refuse this man what would, in effect, be bail, when he has a hearing.  And it is not dissimilar, in many ways, your Honour, to an appeal to the Federal Court in respect of a deportation order. 

It is slightly different in that this man has had his ten years of residence.  It is because of the criminal offences and section 200 and 201 of the Migration Act he has a right of appeal to the AAT, and under 253(9), there is a discretion to release, either on condition or not. 

HIS HONOUR:   But why should I embark on that factual inquiry of whether the decision to release was so unreasonable as not to be open to the decision-maker, and indeed, on the material presently available, why should I conclude that there is a prima facie case that the decision not to release was unreasonable?

MR ROSE:   The first issue, as I understand it, your Honour, that we have to show is that there is a prima facie case.  Once we do, the onus shifts, and the custody or detention in custody has to be justified.  We pick up, your Honour, and how we would try and argue it is the way that was put by the third Judge in the Msilanga case.

HIS HONOUR:   It is Burchett J, is it?

MR ROSE:   Yes, Burchett J at page 188, where he quotes at some length from what Lord Scarman said in the case of Khera, K-h-e-r-a, v The Secretary of State and Home Department.  I am starting about a third of the way down the page, your Honour:

Lord Scarman went on to say:  if Parliament intends to exclude effective judicial review of the ...(reads)... the legislation intended it should, in the appropriate case, into the arena of the Court.  

Here we would interpose:  this has gone to the AAT, which is the arena they are talking about.  Then going down to the - missing the next paragraph:

It would be a dangerous regression indeed if decisions of the Minister, often made in fact ...(reads)... new or amplified evidence, which in many cases will be available at an interlocutory hearing. 

It is that type of principle that we are trying to espouse, here, your Honour.  That is, we say that this man should not just be detained in custody.  He is in a peculiar position; he has served his sentence, he is therefore in immigration custody, not criminal custody, and the only explanation we get as to his not release, is that there is a threat to the Australian community.  That, you will see, is referred to in the letter, exhibit CJR2 to the first affidavit of Christine Rodan.  That is the letter - I will give your Honour a moment to get it.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.

MR ROSE:   That is the letter where the decision-maker, Trish Whitmore from the Compliance Branch, writes to my instructing solicitor, points out what the section says, says she is a delegate for the purposes of section 253, considers the matter set out in the request, the support offered by the de facto spouse, and has decided against release:

... in light of his criminal conviction, which includes trafficking hard drugs of addiction.  The release is an unacceptable risk to the Australian community.

That test, your Honour, is in effect, one of the matters that the policy requires the AAT, when it finally comes to hear and determine whether or not this man remains in Australia or not, that is a balance of convenience test weighing the threat to the Australian community against the other factors.  It is not the test that would apply to release.  Release involves different considerations, your Honour, the first being whether or not this man is likely to offend, another being whether or not he will turn up to face the hearing.  Another is whether or not he is being kept with criminals, and that is one of our other concerns, your Honour, that this man, having served his sentence, is now retained in the prison system; he has not been sent to immigration detention, the centre out at Maribyrnong, but he has been - remains in prison. 

[10.49am]

Your Honour, in Msilanga again, if I can go back to page 175 where there is a consideration of the - what we say are the matters that have got to be taken into account.  There, there is a discussion of what the original cases of Piroglu and Unlugenc said, and at page 175 there is reference to Unlugenc at the second top paragraph, and third paragraph:

If the prohibited non-citizen -

which our man is now -

seeks to challenge his status as a prohibited non-citizen in orders including deportation orders made against him, he bears the civil onus of convincing this Court that he should be released from custody pending the hearing of this proceeding.  The commencing point for the Court must, however, be that the applicant is unless - until this Court says otherwise, a prohibited non-citizen and liable to all the consequences that flow. 

In my opinion, a prohibited non-citizen ought not to be released from custody unless he satisfies the Court firstly, that it is unlikely that he will be absorbed into the community;  secondly, that he will observe any conditions including conditions as to reporting and notifying changes of address, and the like, which the Court may impose in ordering his release;  and thirdly, as to any other matters which the Court may consider relevant in the particular circumstances of the case. 

The position that we put forward, your Honour, is that in the affidavit put in on his behalf in the letter that is sent on his behalf, it is indicated that he has got support from a de facto, and it is also indicated that he is prepared to observe any reporting conditions.  The power to grant relief, as I understand it, in the Msilanga case, although it was dealing with section 23 of the Federal Court Act and 15 of the AD(JR) Act, was not disputed by the Minister, it was not the Courts lacked the power to grant interim relief, but whether or not it should be granted in the circumstances, was how that case was argued and that is set out ‑ ‑ ‑ 

HIS HONOUR:   Perhaps unless Mr Tracey later submits that I have no power to grant interim relief, the focus of debate might more usefully be on whether I should embark on consideration of the exercise of that power or remit the case.  Second, if I should embark on consideration of that, why I should exercise the power.  Now, as to the former, do you point to any defect or difficulty that your client would suffer if I were to remit the case to the Federal Court for further hearing?

MR ROSE:   We have the two concerns, your Honour.  They are one, that the Federal Court does not have the power to deal with habeas corpus matters.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.

MR ROSE:   And secondly, that the ‑ ‑ ‑ 

HIS HONOUR:   Though on any view the Federal Court would have power, would it not, to make an interim order releasing him from custody?

MR ROSE:   Yes, it would, your Honour, but it would have to proceed on the basis of section 23 of the Federal Court Act and it would be - I think we would have to acknowledge, your Honour, that we believe that would be enough;  but certainly the cases went further than that and dealt with section 15 of the AD(JR) Act, and what we did not want to do was end up in a situation of having a fight over those issues, and that is why we came here.  Because we dealt ‑ ‑ ‑ 

HIS HONOUR:   So, there is first the query about the power to order a habeas.  You said there were two points.  The second point?

MR ROSE:   The second point is whether or not the AD(JR) powers, the ones I have just - are excluded, and therefore issues such as unreasonableness and natural justice cannot be looked at, if this is a reviewable decision.  Now, what we do know or we do believe, your Honour, is that this Court has the power, and that is why we have come here.  Normally - it has become a significant difficulty in immigration cases.  Your Honour, there are issues about that have been, I think on their way to the High Court now, dealing with the question of section 420 of the Migration Act which deals with substantial justice and the like in decision-making. 

I believe that that is only in relation to the Refugee Review Tribunal.  We cannot find anything that would necessarily say that we have the powers here that would let the Federal Court review.  Now, if I am wrong in that and if section 23 of itself, of the Federal Court Act is wide enough, your Honour, that may well be the answer, but we were more concerned that we not be caught out and - with a man in custody with obviously limited resources, and I think I say this from the Bar Table:  there being no Legal Aid or anything of that nature for this type of application, we felt we only had one shot at it and we did not want to get tied up in a legal wrangle, your Honour.  And that is why we are here.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.

MR ROSE:   So that is how we put the first issue.

HIS HONOUR:   Perhaps subject to anything you may say, I propose to hear Mr Tracey on that first issue first, and then according to the outcome of that, we might then go on to the second issue if that becomes necessary.

MR ROSE:   Yes, thank you.

HIS HONOUR:   Well Mr Tracey, what do you say about remitter?

MR TRACEY:   Well only this, your Honour:  that there has to be something that is worthy of remitter, and we submit that what is before the Court is not worthy of remitter, that the material does not support the application for the granting of orders nisi.  That ‑ ‑ ‑ 

HIS HONOUR:   There are two features of it that you might perhaps give attention to, then, in that regard, Mr Tracey, and you understand I express no view on these.  First, it strikes me as a feature of this case that when first sentenced to a term of more than 12 months, a deportation order was made and upset.  He is now sentenced for his re-offending to a term less than the, if I may put it this way, the qualifying period - it is an unfortunate expression, perhaps - and he is ordered to be deported now.  It is an unusual feature in the matter.  The second feature of it is the reference in CJR2 fastened upon by Mr Rose to release, posing an unacceptable risk to the community. 

Precisely what kind of risk or kinds of risk that may be intended to encompass; is it a risk of re-offending, it is a risk of failure to be available for deportation if the order were later to be upheld?  What kind of risk is it?  These are matters that may or may not require some factual inquiry.  I simply do not know at the moment, and I draw them to your attention so that you may perhaps deal with them. 

MR TRACEY:   Certainly, your Honour.  Well, as to the first, we would submit it does not arise.  It might arise if the challenge was a challenge to the making of the deportation order.  This is not such a challenge.  This is a challenge that is ‑ ‑ ‑ 

HIS HONOUR:   To the failure to release.

MR TRACEY:   Indeed, no more than that.  Now, as to the second point, your Honour, the ‑ ‑ ‑ 

HIS HONOUR:   May not though, on the failure to release, there be some collateral challenge?

MR TRACEY:   Well ‑ ‑ ‑ 

HIS HONOUR:   It would be unusual.

MR TRACEY:   Yes, your Honour, and it is certainly not sought in the order nisi that has been prepared in draft form.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.

MR TRACEY:   Your Honour, the second point relates more squarely to the issue that is raised by the draft order nisi, and as to that, we direct your Honour's attention to these matters:  firstly as to the grounds that are relied on for the order nisi, your Honour, they do not include unreasonableness.  They are really ‑ ‑ ‑ 

HIS HONOUR:   Though they do include natural justice, procedural fairness.

MR TRACEY:   Yes, yes.  My friend has reminded me, your Honour, that I am - he is intending to raise unreasonableness by 2C, so I ‑ ‑ ‑ 

HIS HONOUR:   2C.

MR TRACEY:   Yes, I accept that.  Yes, your Honour, that is certainly right, and then there is natural justice and there is relevant and irrelevant considerations.  Now, your Honour, the application for release which is contained in the letter written by my friend's instructors on 25 November and which is the exhibit 1, states that release ought to occur for various reasons.  Notably lacking from those reasons are some of the reasons that our friend sought to rely on in argument this morning that come from the Federal Court cases, but I mention that and pass on. 

HIS HONOUR:   But the essential case made was he has support in the community, particularly from his partner. 

MR TRACEY:   Yes, yes.

HIS HONOUR:   He intends to be drug-free.

MR TRACEY:   Indeed, and your Honour, the response to that, which is (2), and which has to be read as a whole, is yes, I have taken all those matters into account, I have particularly taken into account the support offered by the de facto spouse, however I have decided against release in the light of criminal convictions which include trafficking in hard drugs of addiction:

In my view, his release would pose an unacceptable risk to the Australian community. 

Now, it is that sentence to which your Honour draws attention and in our submission, when read in context, it is plainly a reference to the history of this man in engaging in trafficking in hard drugs, which in our respectful submission is ‑ ‑ ‑ 

HIS HONOUR:   Does the material identify what those drugs were?  There were references ‑ ‑ ‑ 

MR TRACEY:   Yes.

HIS HONOUR:   References in there to Ecstasy, but has ‑ ‑ ‑ 

MR TRACEY:   Yes, your Honour, I have had the advantage of reading the Departmental file and what I just want to make sure that I am ‑ ‑ ‑ 

HIS HONOUR:   What is in the material, rather than what you have read.

MR TRACEY:   Yes, that I am not telling your Honour something that is not in the materials.  Certainly there was Ecstasy.  Yes, I think, your Honour, that the reference to Ecstasy is in the context of what he himself was taking, and that is in exhibit 14.

HIS HONOUR:   I could not identify from the material what the drugs were that were the subject of the earlier charges. 

MR TRACEY:   No, I think that is right, your Honour, and - although your Honour may infer from the length of the sentence that it was not what might be described as a drug falling into the soft category, but no, I think that is right, your Honour, and I ‑ ‑ ‑ 

HIS HONOUR:   You really do invite me to re-visit all my yesterdays in the Court of Criminal Appeal, do you not, Mr Tracey?

MR TRACEY:   I am relying heavily on that, your Honour.  Yes, I do not think on the material, your Honour, there is anything that would tell your Honour, but of course, equally, that absence makes it impossible for the applicant to gain, say, the accuracy of what the delegate has said in that regard.  And it is certainly no part of the applicant's case that the delegate erred in a factual way in making that statement. 

HIS HONOUR:   Well, understanding as I do that you say that there is not a sufficient case to warrant remitter ‑ ‑ ‑ 

MR TRACEY:   Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   What happens if I am against you on that and order remitter?

MR TRACEY:   Well, your Honour ‑ ‑ ‑ 

HIS HONOUR:   Is the applicant thereby disadvantaged in a way which would invite me therefore to exercise the powers?

MR TRACEY:   Your Honour, if you remit, as we understand, the provisions of the Judiciary Act, the consequence will be that the Federal Court will be seized of precisely the same powers that this Court would have had in dealing with this matter.  Now ‑ ‑ ‑ 

HIS HONOUR:   Well, I doubt Mr Rose has heard that and you might have those words referred to if other views were sought to be advanced at some later point. 

MR TRACEY:   Well, I think there is some learning on the points, your Honour, that would make it impossible for us to argue the contrary. 

HIS HONOUR:   Well, I express no view, Mr Tracey.  In particular, I express no view against that. 

MR TRACEY:   Your Honour, as to the particular point as to habeas corpus, I have got to confess that I had not researched that point, but ‑ ‑ ‑ 

HIS HONOUR:   I cannot give you the authority, but there is, I think, a decision of Griffith CJ, back in about the '20s - volume 20s of the Commonwealth Law Reports that refers to habeas as being a power of the High Court, in effect only as ancillary to its other powers.  And it may be that there are other considerations in relation to the Federal Court; I simply do not know.  But habeas, in effect, is the minor premise rather than the major premise, is it not?

MR TRACEY:   Indeed.  Now, your Honour, the other basis of disadvantage that is alleged is that the Federal Court would be constrained by section 476 of the Migration Act in the grounds that it could apply.  Your Honour, it does not appear to us that 476 would operate in the way our friend suggests, because it is confined to judicially reviewable decisions.

HIS HONOUR:   Which are defined in 475 and at least on the face of it, I could not see which part of 475 bit on this decision.

MR TRACEY:   No, well, we do not think that this is a judicially reviewable decision for the purposes of Part VIII of the Migration Act, so that problem would not arise. 

HIS HONOUR:   Are there then any other practical problems that from your end of the Bar Table, are going to be put in the way of this man in having this application dealt with in the Federal Court promptly?

MR TRACEY:   No, your Honour. 

HIS HONOUR:   Yes, well, yes.  Well now, Mr Rose, having heard what has been said by your opponent ‑ ‑ ‑ 

MR ROSE:   I should not be troubling the High Court, should I, your Honour?

HIS HONOUR:   I would not wish you to - or your client to leave this Court thinking that that is what you have done.  I make no criticism at all in this case of the application that has been made; that should not be interpreted by those who instruct you or hear it, as some carte blanche generally.  It is not.  But it is, I think, important to say, not to you so much as to those who sit behind you, that it is better that this thing go to the Federal Court rather than to the High Court, if only so that the matter can be investigated to the extent necessary at trial, and thereafter, there be the usual appellate procedures open.

If it stays in this Court, the consequence of it staying in this Court would be perhaps to restrict the available appeal procedures that would be open, as well also as to require this Court to undertake an inquiry in part of a detailed, factual nature, which this Court simply does not have the available resources to deal with.

MR ROSE:   One of our concerns about that, your Honour, if I may be so bold as this, is that what we do not want is the prospect of release rendered nugatory because we end up in the Federal Court without being able to get somebody to hear it.   Appeals are really a moot point, given that this will come on eventually in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

HIS HONOUR:   Well, I assume that from what Mr Tracey has said, that there will be no barrier in your way from the other end of the Bar Table.  Yes, of course there will be the practicalities of getting on in the Federal Court, but I do not understand there to be any significant barrier in that way. 

MR ROSE:   No, it was more the - that your Honour was using the appeal, the prospect of appeal.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.  Well, is there anything else then, Mr Rose?

MR ROSE:   No, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   There will then be an order of remitter in common form, and the costs will be in the discretion of the Court to which the proceeding is remitted.  I will certify for the attendance of counsel.  I will adjourn.

AT 11.10 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED
INDEFINITELY

INDEX

LIST OF WITNESSES  Page

EXHIBITS/MFIs  Page

EXHIBIT A - LETTER FROM MORELAND HALL DATED 4.12.97   3

EXHIBIT B - COPY STATEMENT ON AUSTRALIA'S CRIMINAL DEPORTATION POLICY BEARING ANNOTATIONS..........................................................   3

KEY WORDS  Page

NONE REQUESTED