SFZB v Minister for Immigration
[2004] FMCA 505
•17 August 2004
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SFZB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION | [2004] FMCA 505 |
| MIGRATION – Review of decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming a decision of the delegate of the Minister refusing to grant a protection visa – no reviewable error disclosed – application dismissed. |
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2004, Part 21 Rule 21.10
Plaintiff S157 of 2002 vs Commonwealth of Australia (2003)
195ALR 24 and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs: ex parte applicant 134 of 2002 (2003) 195 ALR 1
Craig vs South Australia (1995) 184 CLR 163 (per McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ at 179)
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Yusef (2001) 180 ALR (1 at 21)
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; ex parte Durairajasinghan (2000) 74ALJR 405)
| Applicant: | SFZB |
| Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS |
| File No: | AZ202 of 2002 |
| Delivered on: | 17 August 2004 |
| Delivered at: | Adelaide |
| Hearing dates: | 14 October 2002, 30 June 2003 |
| Judgment of: | Mead FM |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Nil |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Nil |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr Tredrea |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Sparke Helmore |
ORDERS
That the application be dismissed.
That the applicant pay the respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of FOUR THOUSAND DOLLARS ($4,000) pursuant to Part 21 Rule 21.02 (2) (a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE |
AZ202 of 2002
| SFZB |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFARIS |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
This is an application for a review of a decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal (“The Tribunal”) which affirmed the primary decision of a delegate of the respondent refusing under section 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Commonwealth) (“The Act”) to grant the application of the applicant for a protection visa on the basis that the criteria for the grant of that visa was not met.
The application is brought pursuant to section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903.
The applicant arrived in Australia on 30th June 2001.
On 31st July 2001 he lodged an application for a protection (class XA) visa with the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs under the Migration Act 1958 (“The Act”).
On 26th March 2002 a delegate for the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs refused to grant a protection visa and on 5th April 2002 the applicant applied for a review of that decision.
On 5th June 2002 the Tribunal handed down its decision affirming the delegates decision.
In a statement prepared in support of his application for a protection visa, the applicant claimed to be 25 years old and a citizen of Afghanistan. He claimed to be married with four children with his wife and children still being in Afghanistan, his ethnic group being Pashtu and his religion Muslim Sunni. He claimed that approximately 2 ½ months before making his statement the Taliban took two people from a nearby village who subsequently disappeared and some days later the Taliban approached his cousin and his brother wanting to take them to the front line. He alleged his brother and cousin had an argument with the Taliban and as a result of the argument the Taliban shot his cousin who died instantly and started shooting at his brother as he was running away. He claimed his brother was shot on his left shoulder but survived.
He claimed that as a result of his fear of the Taliban his father sought assistance for him to leave Afghanistan, that he paid money to someone and three weeks after the death of his cousin, he met a person who accompanied him to Lahore via Quetta and that he then flew to Singapore, Indonesia and then came to Australia. He claimed that he did not seek assistance from the UNHCR in the transit countries because he was not aware of their presence and was restricted in his movements by the smuggler and claimed to have no rights to return to all of the countries that he transited.
He claimed that he could not go back to Afghanistan because of fears he would be killed or forced to go to the front line and that he was frightened that the Taliban authorities would harm or mistreat him if he returned. He said that he was opposed to going to the front line and that he knew that he would be killed by the Taliban if he was forced to return. He said that in light of what happened to his cousin and his brother, the same thing may happen to him if he returned to Afghanistan. He said that if he returned, the Taliban, on the basis that he had left Afghanistan illegally would come up with “all sorts of excuses to have me killed” and that they would accuse him of running away from them.
He said that it was his political opinion that he did not want to go to the front line because he did not want to kill or be killed. He claimed that he did not believe the Taliban authorities would protect him because he ran away from them and that it was the Taliban who were after him and there was no-one else to protect him.
By letter dated 11th October 2001 the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs drew to the applicant’s attention a linguistic analysis of his taped interview concluding that he used typical Pakistani words in his speech which indicated that he had probably been living in Pakistan for some time. The applicant was advised that that information would be taken into account in determining the credibility of his claims of continued residence in Afghanistan and may lead to a reconsideration of his claims to be a citizen of Afghanistan. The applicant was invited to make representations or comments about the analysists’ conclusion.
By further letter dated 18th January 2002 the applicant was advised, together with all Afghan asylum seekers awaiting decision on their protection visa applications, that in light of the substantial change in the situation in Afghanistan in the previous months, processing of Afghan applications by the Department had been continuing and would continue but decisions on protection visa applications that would depend on assessment of conditions in Afghanistan were not being made by the Department because of the lack of reliable information and the ongoing changes in Afghanistan. The applicants were asked to consider whether they wished to return home or to another place where they may have a right of residence or whether they wished to continue with their application.
By letter dated 1st February 2002 further submissions were made by the applicant setting out his concerns. In that letter the applicant advised that although the Taliban were no longer in control of Afghanistan they had not been completely defeated and he expressed a belief that they would regroup and try to take control again. He expressed a continuing fear as to returning due to insecurity and because of tribal animosity in his home area. He stated that the people in his area were against anyone who travelled to countries perceived to be against the Taliban and gave an example of his uncle and his family being killed some 12 years previously after they had travelled to Russia, with the killers allegedly leaving a note saying that the family had been killed because they had been to Russia. He said he was afraid the same thing might happen to him if he was forced to return to Afghanistan because he had been to Australia which was a country that had taken an active role to get rid of the Taliban. He was concerned that Pashtuns would accuse him of being an infidel for coming to Australia and as there were many Pashtuns living in Kandahar his life would be made more difficult. He said that as a result of the many guns in his home area of Kandahar he feared going back to Afghanistan and feared persecution at the hands of Muslim Shia’ residing in Kandahar, some of whom would want to revenge for what the Taliban did to other Muslim Shia’.
He claimed to have faced harassment in the camp at the hands of fellow detainees and on numerous occasions having been accused by Hazaras of being Taliban.
He said that in the past two months there had been two fights between Pashtuns and Hazaras because of their religious difference, and that such fighting was a glimpse of the troubles that awaited him in Afghanistan.
He went on to refer to the current situation in Afghanistan with reference to Kandahar Province and referred to various country information and RRT Decisions. The emphasis of that information was on the lawlessness generally of the area and the fact that the Taliban was still allegedly roaming the streets of Kandahar.
He went on to claim that he could not relocate to any other part of Afghanistan because all of his relatives live in Kandahar and that as a result of his accent he would face many problems in a new area. He supported that submission by material contained in a DEFAT circular dated December 2001.
On 26th March 2002 the Minister’s delegate refused his application for a protection visa.
By letter dated 18th April 2002 the applicant made further submissions, this time to the RRT, as to the grave dangers he considered he would face if he returned to Afghanistan and he also provided certain country information to the Tribunal.
On 18th April 2002 the Refugee Review Tribunal wrote to the applicant requesting that he provide detailed reasons for disagreeing with the decision under review, any submissions that he wished the Tribunal to consider about the current situation of Pashtuns in Kandahar Province and any other submissions that he wished the Tribunal to take into account.
By letter dated 24th April 2002 to the presiding member, Refugee Review Tribunal Sydney, further submissions were made on behalf of the applicant by Australian Migration Program and Investments. In that correspondence the reasons that the applicant believed that he still met the criteria for refugee status under the Refugee’s Convention were set out as were submissions regarding ethnic violence against Pashtuns, the security situation in Kandahar, the security situation in Spinboldak and issues concerning the interim government and effective protection. Further written submissions on behalf of the applicant were made by him in writing to the Tribunal in correspondence dated 26th April 2002.
By letter dated 24th May 2002 he was invited to a tribunal hearing on the 3rd June 2002 in Woomera. He indicated in a response to the hearing invitation that he wanted to attend at the hearing and that he needed a Pashtun interpreter. He did attend at the hearing.
On 5th June 2002 the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant a protection visa.
The application for review was filed in the Federal Court, South Australian District Registry on 4th July 2002 wherein the applicant sought a review in the Federal Court of Australia pursuant to section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Commonwealth). The application sought the order of constitutional writs.
The application was supported by an affidavit of Elizabeth Boxall who deposed to be acting as agent for the solicitors for the applicant, and in paragraph 3 Ms Boxall stated that the applicant sought relief under section 39B of the Judiciary Act on the grounds that the Refugee Review Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in making its decision to affirm the respondent’s decision and constructively failed to exercise its jurisdiction in arriving at its decision. It was clearly the complete lack of particularity in the application and affidavit that led to His Honour Justice von Doussa making an order on 8th August 2002 requiring the applicant to file and serve further particulars of the application by Monday 16th September 2002, for the applicant if so advised to file and serve a supplementary book of documents by Monday 16th September 2002 and to file and serve contentions of fact and law by no later than Monday 16th September 2002. The applicant did not comply with any of those orders.
When the matter came on for hearing on 5th September 2002, the applicant attended in person by video link and advised the Court that he had not known of the hearing date until the previous evening. By consent the hearing was adjourned to 14th October 2002 at 3.15pm. On that occasion the applicant again attended in person by video link.
Notwithstanding the lack of particularity in the application, counsel for the respondent made no application for the application to be struck out and the Court afforded the applicant an opportunity to make submissions as to the basis of his review application. The Court was assisted by written submissions on behalf of the respondent.
The applicant told the Court that he respected Australia law but from his point of view when leaving his country to save his life and come to Australia, it didn’t look right to him. He said that he was an illiterate person about the law and rules and regulations but had heard that Australian people are very good people and that refugees knew about their feelings on humanitarian grounds which was why they came to Australia. He said that in Afghanistan people do not have the freedom to argue both sides of a case and in his society he is not free to speak as he is in Australia. He said that everyone says the Taliban are now not in Afghanistan and that there is peace and security in the country, but referred to an assassination attempt approximately one month prior to the hearing in Kandahar Province against a prominent politician and referred to other news about the instability in Afghanistan as reported in the media. He submitted there was no peace in Afghanistan.
He said Kandahar was the centre of Taliban and although the United States claimed that all the Taliban ran away from Afghanistan, he couldn’t believe that because the Taliban were a huge number of people in Afghanistan and he believed that they lived in every single house because they had been oppressed previously and that led them to becoming Taliban.
He said that the atrocities that had happened to him previously were not from another ethnic group and that each ethnic group has its own problems within that group. He suggested for example that when Pashtuns had been oppressed or beaten it was other Pashtuns who were carrying out those abuses and it was not a matter of other ethnic groups coming to carry out the abuses.
He said everyone has arms in Afghanistan and he didn’t know what his crime was to lead to his detention in Australia.
Mr Tredrea of counsel for the respondent made submissions in general terms in relation to the principles to be applied by the Court in accordance with the law as it stood at that time in respect of review applications pursuant to the Migration Act and submitted that the applications for review did not allege any errors by the Refugee Review Tribunal which would found relief under the provisions of the Judiciary Act. He submitted that there was no error reviewable or otherwise disclosed by the reasons and the application should be dismissed with costs.
Mr Tredrea submitted that the applicant had fled from Afghanistan fearing persecution from the Taliban but with the removal of the Taliban as the governing body in Afghanistan the applicant’s claim for refugee status had been rejected.
He submitted that the tribunal had found that the applicant had no longer had a well founded fear of persecution for convention reasons and submitted that the Tribunal had correctly addressed that question at Court Book page 80. He submitted that the applicant had not made out any case that would sustain a finding by the Court that there had been a reviewable error.
Between the hearing of the matter and judgment being delivered, the High Court considered the issues relating to privative clauses in Plaintiff S157 of 2002 vs the Commonwealth of Australia (2003) 195ALR 24 and Minister for Immigration and Multiculatural Affairs: ex parte applicant 134 of 2002 (2003) 195 ALR 1.
Invitations were extended to both parties to make any further submissions they may be advised in light of the decisions in those cases.
On 2nd June 2003 the applicant attended in person by video link with Mr Tredrea of counsel appearing for the respondent and the matter was adjourned to 3pm on 30th June 2003 to enable the applicant to consider the respondent’s further written submissions and to refresh his memory as to his original submissions to the Court. A copy of the transcript of those submissions was obtained by the Court and forwarded to the applicant.
On that day the applicant submitted that 26 days prior to the hearing forty six Taliban had been killed in Kandahar as well as two people from Germany some seven days previously and that in April 2003 two rockets had been fired in Kandahar. He said that according to newspaper reports conditions were now worse in Afghanistan than had been the case under the Taliban and that when he came to Australia he thought he would be accepted because of Australia’s human rights history but he was then put in gaol.
He said that for the last twenty-five years there had been domestic fighting in Afghanistan, that now it was international fighting and that every day families were killed in Afghanistan and there was no peace. He said he had decided to come to Australia for a better life. He said that he had heard some five days previously on the BBC that forty Taliban had been killed in Kandahar and that those things would happen every day. He said the Taliban were still present, that they had not been removed or destroyed but rather, had simply shaved their beards.
He submitted that everybody knows about their own country and that he knew about Afghanistan and the people and their behaviour and how they deal with each other. He said that since he had been in Australia he had been between difference judges and lawyers and had said everything he had to say and that he was illiterate. He said he knew nothing else about Australia but thought he would come to this country because of its record as regards human rights, but said that during the two years he had been in Australia he had no idea as to the whereabouts of his parents or his wife and four children. He said that the Court was unaware how people like him and his family suffer with no contact and no news.
The applicant submitted that when he came to Australia he thought it was a good place for refugees and that seventeen years previously when his uncle had gone to Russia he had been killed on his return. The applicant submitted that everyone in Afghanistan knows that he has come to Australia and that although two thousand dollars was being offered by the Department for Immigration for him to return to Afghanistan, one million dollars would not be enough because if he went back who would guarantee his life.
He said that the detainees all listen to the media every day and they heard that every day people were dying, everywhere in Afghanistan where there was conflict between everyone, but in Australia everyone was saying there was peace in Afghanistan and that he did not know who was lying.
Mr Tredrea repeated his submissions that in light of the changed circumstances in Afghanistan because of the removal of the Taliban, the applicant had to fail in terms of his application before the Refugee Review Tribunal. He said that as the applicant’s case had evolved before the Refugee Review Tribunal there had been three further claims for which consideration had been necessary and that all those issues had been considered by the Refugee Review Tribunal. He submitted there was no failure by the tribunal to consider any elements and there was therefore no error going to the Refugee Review Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Tribunal findings
The Tribunal considered the applicant’s claims and found [CB84] “the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant’s fears about persecution in Afghanistan are well founded……. Having considered the evidence as a whole, the tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol. Therefore the applicant does not satisfy the criteria set out in Section 36 (2) of the Act for a protection visa….. the Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant a protection visa”.
The Tribunal’s findings and reasonings were set out from pages 80 to 84 inclusive of the Court Book The Tribunal found:-
a)That the applicant was Pashtun, a Sunni Muslim and a citizen of Afghanistan;
b)Was not satisfied that the applicant’s brother had been shot at and wounded by the Taliban, having regarded as significant the variation in the applicant’s description of his brother’s alleged wounds and having not accepted that the applicant’s statement would be in error both as to the side of the body and the part of the body on which the alleged wound was located;
c)Notwithstanding the its lack of satisfaction in that regard, was prepared to accept that the applicant was motivated to flee Afghanistan by fear of the Taliban;
d)Found it would not be surprising that someone such as the applicant might wish to avoid conscription by leaving the country in light of the common knowledge that the Taliban often did forcibly recruit young men;
e)Found that although the applicant’s personal fears about the Taliban were quite possibly well founded at the time he left Afghanistan, that such fears had been overtaken by the extent and nature of recent political changes in Afghanistan which were matters of public record;
f)Found that after the setting up of the broad based interim authority to govern Afghanistan in December 2001 and the setting up of a security force by the United Nations Security Council to maintain security in Kabul, surrounding areas and potentially other areas of Afghanistan, there had been an unprecedented level of international commitment to rebuilding Afghanistan and to the establishment of a representative and effective government in Afghanistan;
g)Found some individuals who exercised local authority under the Taliban administration, had retained similar positions of authority on behalf of the new regime;
h)Was nevertheless satisfied that the Taliban has been effectively eliminated as a political and military force in Afghanistan and no longer governs or administers Afghanistan;
i)Made that finding notwithstanding that there is ongoing mopping operations against fugitive remnants;
j)Found that there was a very significant underpinning to the changes in Afghanistan by the continuing economic political military and humanitarian commitment of the international community;
k)Found that the government included representatives of all major ethnic groups including a significant proportion of Pashtuns including the leader of the new interim government;
l)Noted reports cited by the applicant and his agent of claims by the Taliban that they intend to re-group for further offensives;
m)Did not accept that the Taliban retain effective power or that there is any real possibility of them regaining power in the foreseeable future given the military commitment of the interim government and its US lead allies;
n)Considered UNHCR reports that although there are still some concerns about security in Afghanistan, voluntary returns to Afghanistan of displaced people were running at a rate of approximately 50,000 per week;
o)Distinguished the applicant’s late uncle’s situation from his own on the basis of the applicant’s assertion that his uncle was actually involved in politics and a member of a communist style party;
p)Noted the applicant’s claim that it could become known that he had been in Australia and thus he would be regarded as a enemy of the Taliban;
q)Did not consider that the applicant would be targeted for that reason, particularly in his own area where his travel was arranged by the village head man, in the context of the thousands of people known to have fled overseas to escape the fighting and the recent drought in Afghanistan;
r)Did not accept the applicant’s claim that he would be obliged to leave his village and go to Kandahar to work;
s)Referred to his ability to live and support his family in his home village and noted the applicant’s evidence that he had only been to Kandahar once in his life some fifteen years previously;
t)Was not satisfied that the applicant’s brother was wounded by the Taliban so was not satisfied that the applicant’s brother would no longer be able to work in the village and therefore, did not accept the applicant’s argument that there was an economic imperative for him to leave;
u)Against that background, was not satisfied that the applicant would face a real chance of persecution from the Taliban or others associated with them on return to Afghanistan whether because of his failure to fight for the Taliban or because of his fact of travel to Australia;
v)Noted reports cited by the applicant of violence by some elements of the Northern Alliance against ethnic Pashtuns;
w)Referred to that violence having been in the northern parts of the country where the Alliance dominates and Pashtuns do not form the majority and found that situation does not apply in Kandahar Province;
x)Accepted that although Pashtuns are divided into various tribes and sub-tribes, the population of Kandehar Province is overwhelmingly Pashtun and Sunni, and referring to various ethnic maps cited by the Tribunal which they conceded were quite general and did not give detail down to a district level, said it appeared that Spin Boldak district would contain fewer non-Pasthun’s than Kandahar city or other Kandahar districts;
y)Took into account that information, noted the applicant’s evidence that his village is over an hour’s drive from Spin Boldak on a road that does not go to any other villages, and that all families of the village are from the Achikzai sub-tribe including the applicant’s own subordinate sub-tribe;
z)Found that there was no real chance of the applicant facing revenge for reasons of his ethnicity and/or religion if he were to return home, by anyone who might perceive him to be a supporter of the Taliban;
aa)Noted the point made by the applicant’s agent that travel through parts of Afghanistan could be dangerous;
bb)Stated that it did not need to make a finding in relation to the generality of Afghanistan;
cc)Considered it would be possible and reasonable for the applicant to return to his home via Pakistan, crossing directly into Spin Boldak district, essentially going back the way he went out;
dd)Noted that there were thousands of people gathering at Chaman for just that purpose;
ee)Found that by entering directly into that district he would be immediately in an overwhelmingly Pashtun area;
ff)Took into account the applicant’s claims as to his whole family being suspected of communist sympathies in light of his uncle’s political situation some thirteen years ago at a time when a Russian Communist Government was in power;
gg)Found that if the applicant or his family as a whole were at a risk because of his uncle’s politics, they would have been expected to have been targeted at that time;
hh)Found that the applicant is not now at risk of persecution because of his uncle’s association with the Communists and would not be so in the foreseeable future;
ii)Was not satisfied that the applicant’s fears about persecution in Afghanistan are well founded;
jj)Found that having considered the evidence as a whole, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention (as amended by the Refugees Protocol) and that therefore the applicant did not satisfy that criterion set out in section 36 (2) of the Act for a protection visa and affirmed the decision not to grant a protection visa.
The Tribunal clearly analysed the applicant’s claims in detail between pages 80 and 84 inclusive of the Court Book. The claims were considered against the background of all of the material referred to herein.
Following the High Court decision of S157 of 2002 vs Commonwealth of Australia (2003) HCA2, I must determine whether there was an error on behalf of the Tribunal which would enliven the entitlement to an order under section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) notwithstanding section 474 of the Migration Act. In that case the High Court determined that the privative clause as defined in section 474(1) of the Migration Act, properly constructed, is a valid enactment. It also found however that if there is a jurisdictional error or a failure to comply with the principles of natural justice, the decision cannot properly be described as a decision made under the Migration Act and is thus not a privative clause decision.
In Craig vs South Australia (1995) 184CLR 163 (per McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ at 179) the Court found “an Administrative Tribunal exceeds its power and thus commits a jurisdictional error if it identifies a wrong issue, asks itself a wrong question, ignores relevant material, relies upon irrelevant material or in some circumstance, makes an erroneous finding or reaches a mistaken conclusion in a way that affects the exercise or purported exercise of the Tribunal’s power”.
In Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs vs Yusef (2001) 180ALR (1 at 21), the Court found that such a list of jurisdictional error was not exhaustive and that those kinds of error may well overlap.
The Tribunal is required to consider the elements of each of the claims made by the applicant. The Tribunal is empowered to exercise all the powers and discretions that are conferred by the Migration Act to consider a valid visa application made by the applicant and in doing so to have regard to all information required to be taken into account under the code of procedure, in Part 2 Division 3, Sub Division (ab) of the Migration Act.
As the applicant was self represented I considered whether the Tribunal’s reasons for decision and other material before me revealed any reviewable error. However, no such error is apparent. The applicant effectively took issue with the merits of the decision of the Tribunal. Such findings however are a matter for the Tribunal and are not open to challenge in this Court.
It is apparent from the Tribunal reasons for decision that the Tribunal considered all of the factors it was required to consider. There is no indication of bad faith or bias or anything to suggest that there was a lack of procedural fairness. The Tribunal applied the correct legislation and asked itself the right questions. It invited the applicant to comment on adverse information and in other respects afforded the applicant procedural fairness. The decision was open to the Tribunal on the evidence before it.
In so far as the decision was based on the credibility of the applicant, this is a matter for the Tribunal par excellence (re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; ex parte Durairajasinghan (2000) 74ALJR 405).
The Tribunal came to its conclusion concerning the safety of returnees to Afghanistan on the basis of factual findings as to the applicant’s own evidence and findings arising from documentary evidence relating to country information.
I find the Tribunal to have considered all matters central to its task, being a proper assessment of the applicant’s case.
In all of the circumstances I am unable to find any grounds upon which the applicant can support a claim that this decision should be the subject of judicial review. I do not find that there has been any jurisdictional error.
As there is no reviewable error apparent in the decision or proceedings of the tribunal, I dismiss the application and order that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs assessed in the sum of $4,000 pursuant to Part 21 Rule 21.02 (2) (a) of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.
I certify that the preceding fifty-seven (57) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Mead FM
Associate:
Date:
0