Re Williams and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2011] AATA 813
•16 November 2011
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2011] AATA 813
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2011/3426
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re Mahanga Williams Applicant
And
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Senior Member A K Britton Date16 November 2011
PlaceSydney
Decision The decision under review is affirmed. .......................[sgd].....................
Senior Member A K Britton
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – visa cancellation – character test – Ministerial Direction – weighing of relevant considerations – decision under review affirmed
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – ss 499, 500(6L), 501
Direction [no. 41] – Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501
Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v Toma (2011) 191 FCR 362; [2011] FCA 91
Rosson v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2011) 191 FCR 390; [2011] FCA 194
Ashnarayan v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] AATA 667
REASONS FOR DECISION
16 November 2011 Senior Member A K Britton
1. New Zealand citizen, Mr Mahanga Williams, challenges the decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to cancel his Australian visa. He is 24 years of age and has been living in Australia since February 2005. Six weeks ago, Mr Williams was released on parole into immigration detention having served 24 months in custody for the offences of Robbery in Company and Affray.
2. Mr Williams does not pass the “character test” on account of having a “substantial criminal record” (ss 501(6) and 501(7) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act)). As a consequence the discretionary power to cancel his visa is enlivened: s 501 of the Act. The issue to be decided is whether that power should be exercised. In making that decision, “Direction [no. 41] — Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501” (the Direction), issued by the Minister under s 499 of the Act, must be applied.
Factors relevant to the exercise of power to cancel Mr Williams’s visa
3. The Direction lists four “primary” and a number of “other” considerations that must be taken into account in deciding whether the power to cancel a person’s visa should be exercised. Set out in cl 10(1) of the Direction, the primary considerations are:
(a) the protection of the Australian community from serious criminal or other harmful conduct, particularly crimes involving violence;
(b) whether the person was a minor when they began living in Australia;
(c) the length of time that the person has been ordinarily resident in Australia prior to engaging in criminal activity or other relevant conduct; and
(d) relevant international obligations, including but not limited to:
(i) the best interests of the child, as described in the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC); and
(ii) the non-refoulement obligations contained in the Convention and the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (the Refugees Convention), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT).
PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS
(a) Protection of the Australian Community
4. Factors relevant to assessing the level of risk of harm to the community of Mr Williams’s continued stay in Australia include: (i) the seriousness and nature of the relevant conduct; and (ii) the risk that the conduct may be repeated: cll 10.1.1 and 10.1.2.
(i) Seriousness and nature of the conduct
5. Since arriving in Australia Mr Williams has been convicted of five offences. His first offence — Possess Prohibited Drug — for which he was fined $500, was committed in October 2006. The remaining offences — Robbery in Company (2) and Affray (2) — were committed on two separate occasions in 2009, six weeks apart.
6. On 5 August 2009, in the company of four other young men, Mr Williams robbed a train passenger after pushing him twice to the ground. Following the robbery, Mr Williams and his co-offenders became embroiled in a melee at a nearby hotel. Mr Williams was convicted of the offences of Robbery in Company and Affray and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months with conditions.
7. On 25 September 2009, Mr Williams and another young man approached a 15 year old youth who was skateboarding with friends, pushed him against a wall, punched him and ordered him to hand over his money and phone. The youth obeyed and fled. Mr Williams was again convicted of robbery in company and affray and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment with a 12 month non-parole period, the effect of which was to increase his total non-parole period to 24 months.
8.Mr Williams was heavily intoxicated on both occasions.
9. There is no argument that the offence of robbery in company constitutes a “serious offence” for the purpose of the Direction. Counsel for Mr Williams pointed out that the sentencing judge identified the following factors that in his opinion reduced the objective seriousness of each of the robbery offences and justified a sentence at the lower end of the permissible range:
·Mr Williams had just turned 21 years of age
·He had little criminal history
·No weapon was used
·There was limited actual violence
·A small amount was taken from the victims
·An early guilty plea was entered
·Neither offence was pre-meditated.
(ii) Risk that the conduct might be repeated
Previous general conduct
10. Tendered in these proceedings were a large number of testimonials provided by friends and family members who attested to Mr Williams’s good character. All described his offending conduct as “out of character”.
11. Mr Williams admitted to smoking “Ice” (crystal methamphetamine) on occasion — until charged with possession in 2006 — and cannabis about once a week since the age of 15. He also admitted to drinking heavily in the 12 months or so before the robbery offences. He claims not to have consumed drugs or alcohol while in gaol. When tested for drug use while incarcerated, all results have been negative.
12. Tendered in these proceedings were a number of COPS reports (Computerised Operational Policing Systems) relating to Mr Williams produced by the NSW Police in answer to a summons. They include a report of an altercation in April 2008 between Mr Williams and his then pregnant sister who were both living with their mother. The report records that Mr Williams and his partner had been arguing; his sister intervened complaining about the noise; she and Mr Williams began yelling at each other and in “the heat of the moment” grabbed and pushed each other; Mr Williams retired to his bedroom; his sister attempted to follow; he tried to push her away; she later reported to police that she could taste blood in her mouth but was unsure whether this was the result of the altercation or because she had bitten herself accidentally. Mr Williams’s sister applied for and was granted a three month Apprehended Violence Order (AVO) which Mr Williams consented to without admissions.
13. Mr Williams denied hitting his sister and claimed that they continued to live together without incident for some time after this episode. That account was corroborated by Mr Williams’s former partner. In a statement prepared for these proceedings, Mr Williams’s sister described her brother as “extremely kind, intelligent, dependable, loving, hard-working and extremely dedicated to his family” and stated that she believed him to be “extremely remorseful” for the conduct that led to his convictions. She made no mention of the above incident. She agreed to be available for cross-examination but could not be contacted during the hearing on the mobile phone number provided.
14. The COPS reports also contain an entry made on the day of the second robbery offence, which records Mr Williams arriving unannounced and intoxicated at the home of his former partner’s mother, where his former partner and daughter were living. It refers to “previous [unreported] incidents of domestic violence”. Mr Williams testified that his relationship with his then partner had deteriorated around the time of the birth of their daughter, and they “constantly fought and bickered”. He claimed any fighting “went both ways”. His former partner corroborated that claim and described their fights as “pushing and stuff like that” but denied any domestic violence.
15. The former partner was invited in these proceedings to comment on a COPS entry made shortly after Mr Williams’s arrest in September 2009 which stated that she had reported to police that she wanted to apply for an AVO because she was fearful Mr Williams would arrive at her home intoxicated. She disputed providing that account and furthermore stated that she had never visited the police station where the complaint was said to have been made. A possible explanation for this COPS entry is that the complainant was the former partner’s mother, who had provided a statement about Mr Williams to police (see Exhibit R 1, entry for 11/10/09 narrative 2 of 3).
Evidence of rehabilitation
16. On sentencing Mr Williams for the 2009 Robbery and Affray offences, Judge Blackmore DCJ, remarked:
In relation to Mr Williams, my findings are somewhat different [to those in relation to the co-accused]; he is quite intelligent and articulate. He has been well brought-up, he has substantial family support, he has little by way of criminal history and can be provided with some additional leniency as a result. His mother gave evidence in Court and she is an impressive woman. He also has a child from a former relationship, which his mother described as destructive. I have much more confidence in the future of Mr Williams; he is perfectly capable of getting employment and maintaining that employment, and also of advancing. There is absolutely no reason why this Court should be troubled by his appearing here again. It is regretful that he has involved himself in these two offences, which require a period of incarceration; it is a waste of time for him. I can only hope that he uses this time as productively as possible. The Probation report notes in his case that he would benefit from supervision to address his drug and alcohol issues which would include random urinalysis.
What is common to both offenders is that they were mixing in a group of youths whose only purpose on these occasions was to get as drunk as they possibly could; in that state they both committed these offences. Breaking that habit of drinking to excess is a vital component in their rehabilitation; it is a fact that that [sic] predominantly suggests that a longer period of parole would be worthwhile.
…
I think you heard what I had to say about you, that is my assessment of you; you have got every opportunity to move on. You know, I do not know why you did this, or how you ended up in this situation; it is particularly disappointing. But, you committed two offences obviously you have to serve an additional time; I have allowed for a longer period on parole and I have added six months to the sentence of [co-accused]. So, you end up with total term of two years and you will end up leaving custody next year on 24 September; but, as I said before, I do hope that is the last time we ever see you.
17. An officer of the NSW Probation and Parole Service in a report prepared in June 2011 wrote that, while in custody, Mr Williams had participated in a number of criminogenic and educational programs. The facilitators of those programs reported that he had completed them to a high standard. He concluded:
Given this positive response to his incarceration and the ongoing support of his mother who is able to provide Mr Williams with post release accommodation, it is likely that Mr Williams will be recommended by this Service to the NSW State Parole Authority for release to parole. If Mr Williams continues with his positive attitude like he has in custody, his prospects whilst on parole appear favourable.
18. While in prison, Mr Williams has participated in a number of drug and alcohol rehabilitation courses, including a 12 session program, “Getting SMART - Self Management and Recovery Training”.
19. Mr Williams has been found guilty of four correction misconduct charges including “possess drug” for which he received a reprimand and caution. Mr Williams testified that charge related to an unauthorised Panadol tablet being found in his cell. That claim is consistent with a report made some months after that charge which stated that Mr Williams had remained “drug free (pot)” for over 13 months.
Evidence of breaching judicial orders
20. There is no evidence of Mr Williams breaching judicial orders. He has been in custody since the day he committed his most recent offence.
Protection of the Australian Community: Findings and Conclusions
21. This consideration requires an assessment of both the seriousness of Mr Williams’s offending conduct and the risk that it might be repeated.
22. While Mr Williams’s conduct, taken overall, could not be considered as falling within the most serious category, it is nonetheless serious. The objective of the protection of the Australian community demands that the community be protected from the risk of harm from criminal conduct, including conduct that falls towards the low end of the scale. The robbery offences are crimes of violence which the Direction states are of “special concern” to the welfare and safety of the Australian community: cl 10.1.1(1). Violent crimes perpetrated against “vulnerable persons” such as minors are described in the Direction as “especially abhorrent”: cl 10.1.1(1). The victim of the second robbery was a minor — a 15 year old boy.
23. In assessing the risk that the offending conduct might be repeated, the Direction instructs that the “highly relevant” and “particularly relevant” factors listed in subcll (1) and (2) of cl 10.1.2, respectively must be taken into account: Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v Toma (2011) 191 FCR 362 at 372-373.
24. Under the Direction, Mr Williams’s “general conduct” and “total criminal history” are considered “highly relevant” to his risk of reoffending. Apart from the reports of domestic violence and drug and heavy alcohol use, there is little evidence to contradict Mr Williams’s claim that prior to the commission of his first offence he was not engaging in anti-social activity. Friends and family members attested in these proceedings to his good character. While not independent witnesses, their observations are consistent with Mr Williams’s self-report that he did not engage in anti-social conduct before his early twenties. I agree with the observation made by the sentencing judge, Blackmore DCJ (R v Mahanga Williams 2009/214543 (unreported), 12 November 2010 at p 8)), that Mr Williams’s mother, who gave evidence in these proceedings and at her son’s trial, is an impressive woman. She has worked extensively in a voluntary capacity in the charitable sector and currently works with people with mental and intellectual disabilities. I mention this because it is consistent with the claim made by those who provided testimonials in support of Mr Williams’s claim that he comes from a pro-social family that respects the law and the broader community. It is also relevant to the assessment of whether the family is able and willing to assist Mr Williams on release, a subject to which I shall return.
25. Without further evidence, it is difficult to evaluate the more innocent account given by Mr Williams and his former partner of the incidents recorded in the COPS reports. While these reports are not favourable to Mr Williams, apart from the incident involving his sister, there is no evidence that any one of the reported incidents resulted in injury.
26. Of the “particularly relevant” factors listed at cl 10.1.2, the following support Mr Williams’s contention that he now poses a low risk of reoffending. First, the rehabilitation he has undertaken while in prison. On all reports, Mr Williams’s participation has been positive and there is nothing to suggest that he was simply “going through the motions”. Second, prison authorities have commented favourably on his conduct, notwithstanding the institutional misconduct charges. Consistent with the penalties imposed, all related to relatively minor infractions of prison rules and did not involve violence, intimidation or drug or alcohol use. Third, on release Mr Williams will have the benefit of a supportive family, which will assist him to build on the gains he has made in prison. I accept his mother’s claim that she is willing and able to take on that role for “as long as it takes”. Also relevant is the evidence that she will not be alone in that undertaking. Her brother, for example, has volunteered to mentor and provide support to Mr Williams (see Exhibit A9). Fourth, the weight of opinion from “authoritative sources” is to the effect that his prospects for rehabilitation are good. The sentencing judge believed that Mr Williams has “every opportunity to move on”. Similarly, the NSW Probation and Parole Service believed “if Mr Williams continues with his positive attitude like he has in custody, his prospects whilst on parole appear favourable”. Fifth, there is no history of Mr Williams breaching judicial orders or the like.
27. Counting against Mr Williams is the fact that his last offence was committed just over two years ago and, as the Minister points out, his propensity to reoffend and abuse alcohol in the community is, as yet, untested. The latter is relevant because of the apparent link between Mr Williams’ offending conduct and heavy alcohol use.
28. While the possibility that Mr Williams will reoffend and/or relapse into heavy alcohol use cannot be excluded and is as yet untested, the weight of evidence in my opinion suggests that the risk of reoffending is low.
(B) Age when began living in Australia
29. Mr Williams was 17 years and 10 months old when he arrived to live in Australia. Under the Direction, while favourable consideration is to be given if the visa holder was a minor when they began living in Australia, less weight is to be given if, as in Mr Williams’s case, they were close to attaining adulthood on arrival.
30.This consideration weighs in Mr William’s favour but only to a small extent.
(C) Time resident in Australia
31. The Direction states:
Reflecting the fact that the longer a period of residence in Australia the greater the likelihood of significant ties to the Australian community, more favourable consideration is to be given the longer the person has been ordinarily resident in Australia prior to engaging in criminal activity or activity that bears negatively on their character”: cl 10.3(1).
32. Mr Williams has resided in Australia for six and a half years and of that period has spent 24 months in custody. His first offence was committed about 20 months after he started living in Australia. His mother, brother and sister reside in Australia and his father visits frequently. In addition, Mr Williams has a large and close extended family who reside in Australia. There is no evidence of Mr Williams having any business or other interest in Australia.
33. The Minister contends that this factor should count against Mr Williams, citing in support Rosson v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2011) 191 FCR 390 and Ashnarayanv Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] AATA 667 at [49] where this consideration was held to weigh against a visa holder who had been resident in Australia for about the same period as Mr Williams before engaging in criminal activity.
34. In Rosson, Rares J held that the Tribunal had not erred in finding that this consideration weighed against the visa holder:
There does not seem to be any legal or other reason why, in weighing a person’s entitlement to be granted or refused a visa, a decision-maker should not have regard, in considering the primary consideration in cl 10(1)(c), to the fact that the person had been ordinarily resident in Australia for a short period prior to engaging in the criminal or other relevant activity as an unfavourable, rather than a favourable, or neutral matter.
35. Rosson however cannot, as the Minister’s submissions suggest, be elevated to authority for the proposition that this consideration must weigh against a person who has been ordinarily resident in Australia for a relatively short period before commencing to engage in criminal activity.
36. While the focus of this consideration is the length of time a visa holder has been “ordinarily resident” in Australia before engaging in criminal activity, it also requires consideration of the visa holder’s ties with Australia:
Reflecting the fact that the longer a period of residence in Australia the greater the likelihood of significant ties to the Australian community.
37. In this case, unlike the visa holder in Ashnarayan, Mr Williams has significant family ties with Australia which have been maintained throughout incarceration. While the relatively short period he was resident in Australia before commencing to engage in criminal activity means that this consideration cannot assist Mr Williams, given the strength of his ties to Australia, this factor in my opinion does not count against him but rather is neutral to the assessment of whether his visa should be cancelled.
(D) best interests of the child
38. Mr Williams’s two-and-a-half year old daughter was born in Australia and currently lives in New Zealand where she moved with her mother — Mr Williams’s former partner — in mid-2010. The child’s mother testified that she hopes to return to Australia and has been offered work in a mining company “somewhere in Northern Australia” past Townsville, but “not as far as Darwin”, to start in June next year. She claims to be “98 per cent sure” that she and her new partner will take up that offer.
39. The parties agree that the interests of the child are relevant to the assessment of whether Mr Williams should be permitted to stay in Australia, but disagree on whether it constitutes a “primary consideration” (cl 10.4.1), as Mr Williams contends, or an “other consideration” (cl 11(3)), as the Minister contends. This characterisation determines the weight to be given to the child’s interests, because the Direction instructs that “other considerations” should generally be given less weight than “primary considerations” (cl 11(2)).
40. The Convention on the Rights of the Child is one of four international obligations specially mentioned by the Direction. The Direction states:
10.4 International obligations
(1) Reflecting Australia’s obligations under the CROC, if there is a child in Australia who is potentially affected by a visa refusal or cancellation decision, decision-makers must have regards to the best interests of the child. [emphasis added]
…
10.4.1 The best interests of the child
(1) This consideration applies only if the child is, or would be, under 18 years old at the time when the decision to refuse to grant or cancel a visa is expected to be made.
41. The Minister contends that the use of the present tense “a child in Australia” indicates that this consideration can only apply if the subject child is living in Australia at the time the decision to cancel the visa under s 501 of the Act, is made. Counsel for Mr Williams urges me to give a “practical construction” to the Direction.
42. The Convention on the Rights of the Child defines “child” to mean “every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier” (Article 1 of the Convention). Self-evidently, the Convention is not confined to children “in Australia”. The issue raised is whether the “best interests of the child” consideration extends to the subject child given that she is not currently residing in Australia.
43. I agree with Counsel for Mr Williams that an overly narrow and technical construction of the Direction should be avoided. To do otherwise could lead to absurd results, for example, not applying this Consideration where the subject child is an Australian citizen who has been resident in Australia since birth but happens to be holidaying overseas when the decision to cancel their parent’s visa came under review. Nonetheless, proper regard must be given to the words of the provision. The Direction determines the extent to which the Convention applies. While Australia is a signatory to the Convention, the Convention does not form part of its domestic law. It follows that effect must be given to the phrase “in Australia” contained in cl 10.4(1) of the Direction. While a narrow approach should be avoided it could not reasonably be argued in my opinion that the consideration extends to the subject child who, while born in Australia, has lived overseas for nearly half her life; whose parents are not Australian citizens and whose mother, the custodial parent, hopes to, but is yet to return to live in Australia.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
44. The Direction specifies a number of “other considerations” that must be taken into account, if relevant.
Family and other ties
45. As noted, a large number of Mr Williams’s family, especially on his mother’s side, now reside in Australia. The family is close and its members have stated that they are prepared to support Mr Williams on his release.
46. Mr Williams is not currently in a marital relationship.
Age and health
47.Mr Williams is young and in good health.
Links to New Zealand
48. As noted, Mr Williams was educated in New Zealand and lived there until shortly before turning 18 years of age. His father, brother and a grandfather live in New Zealand. His brother is married with a family. His father visits Australia on a regular basis. The grandfather apparently suffers from dementia.
49. Mr Williams claims that he has a few other family members living in New Zealand but is not close to any of them. That claim is supported by his mother.
Hardship likely to be experienced by Mr Williams’s immediate family resident in Australia
50. I accept that the members of Mr Williams’s family resident in Australia, particularly his mother, are likely to suffer emotional hardship if he were to be deported. None however are, or have been, financially or otherwise dependent on Mr Williams.
51. Mr Williams’s former partner plans to return to Australia next year with their daughter. She testified that she would be happy for the child to spend weekends or holidays with Mr Williams. Mr Williams claims that after separating from his partner, the child generally spent the weekends in his care until he was incarcerated. He claims that he is deeply attached to the child and while in prison maintained regular phone contact. His former partner and mother support that claim and in addition claim that he is a loving and attentive father. At this stage, it is difficult to assess the likely effect of deportation on the child because of the uncertainty surrounding where she will be living. If, as planned, she returns to Australia for the foreseeable future and Mr Williams also remains in Australia, she will continue to live some considerable distance from her father, as he will be living in Sydney and she will be with her mother whose job offer will require her to live somewhere in northern Queensland. The time and cost of travelling between that location and Sydney is probably comparable to that of travelling between New Zealand and Sydney.
52. I accept that it would be in the child’s best interests to have the opportunity to develop and maintain a relationship with her biological father. On current plans, even if Mr Williams is able to remain in Australia, for the foreseeable future the child will be living some significant distance from her father. There is nothing to indicate that Mr Williams’s former partner would not allow the child to visit him if he were living in New Zealand.
53. If Mr Williams were to be deported, the only practical difference in terms of maintaining a relationship with his daughter would be that it would not be an option for him to travel to visit his daughter if the move to Australia eventuated. To that limited extent, the child would suffer some hardship if he were to be deported.
Hardship likely to be experienced by Mr Williams
54. I accept that Mr Williams would suffer a degree of hardship if he were to be deported, primarily as a consequence of living apart from, and being denied the support of, his family. He claims that his New Zealand-based brother would not be in a position to assist him with accommodation and the like. He reports that the relationship with his father is somewhat strained.
55. In addition, as discussed above he would be restricted to an extent in seeing his daughter.
56. Nonetheless, the degree of hardship should not be overstated. Mr Williams would be returning to a country where he has lived for most of his life, there are no language or cultural barriers and which, like Australia, has a developed social infrastructure. There is no reliable evidence to suggest that he would be unable, or less likely, to find work in New Zealand or that his qualifications would not be accepted.
Notification of possible deportation
57. Prior to being notified in May 2011, Mr Williams had not been warned that his criminal conduct might result in his visa being revoked.
DECISION
58. In deciding whether to exercise the discretionary power to cancel Mr Williams’s visa, I must take into account both the “primary” and “other” considerations and undertake a balancing exercise. In doing so, I must be guided by the overarching general principle set out in the objectives to the Direction — that is, the protection of the Australian community. Of the four primary considerations two weigh against Mr Williams, one does not apply and one — his age on arrival in Australia — while favourable, is only so to a small extent. Of the other considerations, the most significant in my opinion is the disadvantage Mr Williams, his family and in particular, his daughter would suffer if he were to be deported. While Mr Williams has a strong preference to remain in Australia and, due to his family links and their likely support of him, objectively assessed would probably be better off if he were to remain, in my opinion he would not suffer hardship to any great extent. He does not suffer from any disability on account of age or health that might make resettlement difficult. Further, he will be returning to a country where he spent his formative years and which he left only six years ago.
59. The issue raised here is whether, in circumstances where none of the primary or other considerations count heavily for or against Mr Williams, the power to cancel his visa should be exercised. The Direction requires proper regard to be given to all considerations — primary and other — and any other relevant factor. The only guidance provided by the Direction as to the relative weighting of each consideration is the instruction that greater weight should generally be given to the primary considerations over other considerations. In making a decision under s 501, it seems to me that a crude arithmetical approach to the application of the Direction should be avoided. The balancing exercise required by the exercise of the power conferred by s 501 requires more than simply counting the number of factors for and against the visa holder and calculating the result. There will be cases where the preferable decision will be to not cancel a person’s visa notwithstanding that only one consideration weighs in their favour. The converse might also be the case. In this case there are no factors weighing heavily or even significantly in favour of not cancelling the visa. Furthermore Mr Williams would suffer no great hardship if he was to be deported. I have decided that in these circumstances the preferable decision is to exercise the discretionary power to cancel the visa notwithstanding my assessment that Mr Williams poses a low risk of reoffending.
I certify that the 59 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member A K Britton
Signed: ........................[sgd]........................
Associate to Senior Member A K BrittonDates of Hearing 24 October 2011
Date of Decision 16 November 2011
Counsel for the Applicant: Ms S Cirillo
Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr D McLaren
0
3
2