SINGH v Minister for Immigration and Anor
[2020] FCCA 1366
•3 June 2020
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SINGH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2020] FCCA 1366 |
| Catchwords: MIGRATION – Application for Judicial Review of Decision to Cancel Applicant’s Student (Temporary) (Class TU) Higher Education Sector (Subclass 573) visa – breach of condition 8516 – Tribunal not satisfied that applicant a genuine student in Australia – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed – costs ordered. |
| Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.116, 358, 359A, 360, 360A, 379A(5), 379G, 477, pt.5 div.5 |
| Cases cited: Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v SZLIX [2008] FCAFC 17 MZABP v Minister Immigration & Border Protection [2015] FCA 1391 NAHI v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs[2004] FCAFC 10 |
| Applicant: | SUKHCHAIN SINGH |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS |
| Second Respondent: | ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | MLG 27 of 2016 |
| Judgment of: | Judge C. E. Kirton QC |
| Hearing date: | 22 November 2018 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 22 November 2018 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Delivered on: | 3 June 2020 |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant: | In person with the assistance of an interpreter |
| Solicitor for the Respondent: | Mills Oakley |
| The Second Respondent: | Submitting appearance, save as to costs |
ORDERS
Pursuant to r.7.01 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), the name of the First Respondent be amended to “Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs”.
The Applicant’s application for an extension of time pursuant to s.477(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) be dismissed.
The Applicant pay the First Respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $3,737.
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MLG 27 of 2016
| SUKHCHAIN SINGH |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS |
First Respondent
| ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
By an application filed on 7 January 2016, the Applicant seeks an extension of time in which to seek judicial review of a decision of the then Migration Review Tribunal (Tribunal) dated 25 November 2015. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate (Delegate) of the First Respondent (Minister) to cancel the Applicant’s Student (Temporary) (Class TU) Higher Education Sector (Subclass 573) visa (Visa).
Background
The Minister’s written submissions (at [2]-[10]) filed 3 August 2018 (Minister’s Submissions), accurately set out the factual background to this matter. The Court adopts this summary, with some alterations, as follows.
The Applicant is a male citizen of India[1].
[1] Court Book (CB) 92.
On 1 August 2013, the Applicant was granted the Visa[2]. At that time, the Applicant was enrolled in a Bachelor of Business (Management) at Charles Sturt University. Subsequently in 2014, the Applicant enrolled in a Certificate IV in Hospitality, and in 2015, a Diploma in Hospitality at the South Pacific Institute.
[2] CB 61.
The grant of the Visa was subject to condition 8516 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (Regulations) (Condition 8516)[3]. Condition 8516 provided as follows:
The holder [of the Visa] must continue to be a person who would satisfy the primary or secondary criteria, as the case requires, for the grant of the visa.
[3] CB 60-62.
Section 116(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (Act) empowered the Minister to cancel an applicant’s visa, as follows:
(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), the Minister may cancel a visa if he or she is satisfied that:
[…]
(b) its holder has not complied with a condition of the visa; or […]
On 7 November 2014, the Minister’s department (Department) sent the Applicant by email a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC)[4]. The NOICC stated that it appeared that the Applicant was no longer enrolled in a bachelor’s degree or a master’s degree course, and accordingly, was no longer enrolled in a course of study that was a principal course of a type specified for his Visa by the Minister in an instrument made under reg.1.40A of the Regulations. The NOICC then stated that it appeared that the Applicant had not complied with Condition 8516, as he did not to continue to satisfy sub-cls.573.231 or 573.223(1A) of sch.2 to the Regulations. The Applicant was provided with an opportunity to comment on the ground for cancellation.
[4] CB 2-6.
The Applicant responded to the NOICC by emails to the Department on 21 November 2014[5] and 30 December 2014[6], which provided in summary:
a)The Applicant apologised for the “unintentional mistake”.
b)The Applicant said he had received some poor advice from migration agents.
c)If the Applicant’s visa was cancelled, it would affect his parents who had financially invested in his study, and it would affect him mentally.
d)The Applicant had obtained an enrolment in a bachelor’s degree course, being a Bachelor of Business (Hospitality and Tourism Management) at Kaplan Business School, and attached a Confirmation of Enrolment (COE) to the email, dated 30 December 2014[7]. The Applicant had also enrolled in a Diploma of Commerce at Kaplan Business School.
[5] CB 16-24.
[6] CB 31-39.
[7] CB 43-44.
On 27 January 2015, the Delegate made the decision to cancel the Applicant’s Visa on the basis that the Applicant had breached Condition 8516 (Delegate’s Decision)[8]. The Delegate took into account the Applicant’s two responses to the NOICC, however was satisfied that the grounds for cancelling the Applicant’s Visa outweighed the grounds for not cancelling the Visa[9].
[8] CB 58-64.
[9] CB 64.
On 3 February 2015, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the Delegate’s Decision[10].
[10] CB 65-66.
The Applicant was invited to attend a hearing before the Tribunal (Hearing Invitation)[11], and did attend at the hearing on 24 November 2015.
[11] CB 79-82.
Prior to the Tribunal hearing, the Applicant’s then migration agent emailed submissions to the Tribunal on 23 November 2015 (Applicant’s Tribunal Submission)[12], as well as a statutory declaration sworn by the Applicant on 23 November 2015 (Applicant’s Statutory Declaration)[13].
[12] CB 83-87.
[13] CB 88-91.
In summary, the Applicant’s Tribunal Submission and Statutory Declaration made the following points:
a)The Applicant had encountered issues completing his English for Academic Purposes course, and accordingly, was required to defer his Bachelor of Business (Management) course at Charles Sturt University.
b)Following discussions with his parents and coming to the realisation that his English was not at the required level, the Applicant decided to enrol in a Certificate IV and Diploma in Hospitality course. The Applicant believed this course would improve his English language skills to a sufficient level to enable him to complete a bachelor’s degree.
c)The Applicant intended to obtain a bachelor’s degree in Australia to improve his employment prospects upon returning to India.
d)The Applicant was misled by friends and education agents in Australia as to the structure of his studies and visa requirements.
e)The Applicant had unknowingly breached Condition 8516, as he misunderstood the requirements for the Visa.
Tribunal’s Decision
The Tribunal made its decision to affirm the Delegate’s Decision to cancel the Applicant’s Visa on 25 November 2015 (Tribunal’s Decision)[14].
[14] CB 133-141.
The Minister’s Submissions aptly summarise the Tribunal’s Decision (at [11]-[12]), and accordingly, the Court adopts those submissions, with some amendments, as follows.
The Tribunal noted that the Applicant was not enrolled in, nor did he have a COE for a higher degree course from 7 January 2014 until 29 December 2014. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was in breach of Condition 8516 as required for the grant of the Visa[15]. The Tribunal was satisfied that a ground for cancelling the Applicant’s Visa existed pursuant to s.116(1)(b) of the Act[16].
[15] CB 135, at [9].
[16] CB 135, at [10].
The Tribunal considered whether to exercise its discretion to cancel the Applicant’s visa, and had regard to the Department’s “Procedures Advice Manual PAM3”, “General visa cancellation powers”[17].
[17] CB 135-141, at [11]-[27].
The Tribunal extracted in full the Applicant’s:
a)Emails to the Department on 21 November 2014[18] and 30 December 2014[19].
b)The Applicant’s Statutory Declaration[20].
[18] CB 16-24; CB 135, at [12].
[19] CB 31-32; CB 136, at [13].
[20] CB 88-91; CB 88-91, at [14].
The Tribunal expressed significant concerns regarding the Applicant’s intentions regarding his studies in Australia, including that the Applicant never had any intention to study at the higher degree level in Australia[21]. In doing so, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant could not provide a reason to explain to the Tribunal why he wanted to open a business in the future. The Tribunal expressed concern that the Applicant chose the Bachelor of Business course with no knowledge of its subjects or why the degree may assist him in the future, aside from the vague answers that the Applicant provided.
[21] CB 138-139, at [17]-[18].
The Tribunal accepted that the Applicant’s poor English results led to the Applicant’s Bachelor of Business (Management) course being cancelled[22].
[22] CB 139, at [19].
The Tribunal noted that the Applicant did not enrol in a higher degree course as soon as he was informed by the Tribunal that he was in breach of his Visa conditions, as he claimed[23].
[23] CB 139, at [20].
With respect to the Applicant’s enrolment in the Bachelor of Business (Hospitality and Tourism Management) course, the Tribunal asked the Applicant what he would be studying in this course, and why he would study this course for his future. The Tribunal did not accept that this course would assist the Applicant in gaining employment in a bank, as the Applicant claimed[24].
[24] CB 139, at [21]-[22].
The Tribunal considered that the Applicant’s enrolment in the Bachelor of Business (Hospitality and Tourism Management) and Diploma of Commerce courses were entered into solely for the purpose of meeting his Visa requirements. The Tribunal considered that the Applicant had no intention of actually studying these courses[25].
[25] CB 139, at [22].
The Tribunal had concerns as to whether the Applicant was a genuine student in Australia, particularly given the Applicant’s evidence that the Certificate IV in Hospitality was an 18 month course, however 11 months into the course, the Applicant had only completed 8 of the 33 units. The Applicant then gave inconsistent evidence to the Tribunal and could not recall which 5 units of study he was undertaking at the time. The Tribunal noted its concerns with his evidence in this respect, and did not accept that he had issues with recollection in general. Rather, the Tribunal reiterated its concerns with the Applicant’s genuineness as a student in Australia[26].
[26] CB 140, at [23].
The Tribunal considered the Applicant’s claim that he was misled by friends and education agents as to his studies. The Tribunal however noted that the Applicant did not accept that the fault of the breach of his Visa conditions rested solely with the advice he had received. The Tribunal noted that it was the Applicant’s responsibility to ensure that he complied with his Visa requirements[27].
[27] CB 140, at [24].
The Tribunal considered the reasons advanced by the Applicant as to why his Visa should not be cancelled, including the financial loss that his parents would suffer, the disappointment it would bring to his parents, and the affect it would have on the Applicant’s future[28]. The Tribunal found that the personal issues that the Applicant would face upon return to India did not outweigh the Tribunal’s concerns[29].
[28] CB 141, at [25]-[27].
[29] CB 141, at [27].
The Tribunal concluded that in the circumstances as a whole, the Applicant’s Visa should be cancelled, and it affirmed the Delegate’s Decision[30].
[30] CB 141, at [28]-[29].
Application before this Court
The Applicant filed his application for judicial review on 7 January 2016 (Application), and an affidavit deposed to by the Applicant, on the same date (Applicant’s Affidavit).
By Orders of a Registrar of this Court, dated 8 June 2016 the Applicant was given the opportunity to file an amended Application, any affidavits in support of his Application and written submissions. Despite this, the Applicant has not filed any further or amended material in these proceedings.
The Minister prepared a Court Book numbering 141 pages, filed on 21 June 2016, and the Minister’s Submissions.
When the matter was heard by the Court, the Applicant appeared in person and an interpreter in the Punjabi and English languages was available to assist the Applicant. The Applicant informed the Court that he could understand English sufficiently and therefore did not require everything to be interpreted. The Applicant was content to proceed on the basis that if he required something interpreted, he would request an interpretation.
Extension of Time
In the Application, the Applicant seeks an extension of time pursuant to s.477(1) of the Act to file his application for judicial review. The Applicant was required to file the Application within 35 days of the Tribunal’s Decision, that being by 30 December 2015. The Applicant was therefore eight (8) days’ late in filing the Application.
The Applicant outlines the following in the Application as his ground for his application for an extension of time:
IMMIGRATION HAD PROVIDED EXTRA TIME TO PROVIDE PROOF OF LODGMENT. I CONFUSED IT WITH THE DATE (DUE) FOR LODGEMENT. THERE WERE ALSO THE HOLIDYAY PERIOD. I SINCERELY BELIEVE THAT MY APPLICATION WILL BE SUCCESSFUL. THUS I REQUEST FOR EXTENTION OF TIME (1 WEEK).
(Without alteration)
The Minister opposes the extension of time application. However in fulfilling its role as model litigant, the Minister submitted as follows:
a)The Court has the power to allow the extension of time pursuant to s.477(2) of the Act if satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of the administration of justice for time to be extended.
b)In determining whether to exercise its discretion pursuant to s.477(2) of the Act, the Court will be guided by the following factors[31]:
i)The length of the delay and the reason for the delay, including whether the Applicant has provided an acceptable explanation for the delay;
ii)The merits of the substantive judicial review application; and
iii)Whether the respondents would suffer any prejudice.
[31] SZMNO v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FCA 797, at [14]; SZQBT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 1281, at [14]-[16].
The Minister did not contend that there was any prejudice by the late filing, other than to say that the absence of prejudice, by itself, does not warrant the grant of an extension of time[32]. I agree with the Minister. Accordingly, I will not deal further with that factor.
Consideration
[32] SZQCZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 91, at [19].
Length, Reason and Explanation for the Delay
As outlined above, the Applicant filed his application in this Court eight days out of time. The Applicant’s ground for an extension of time is to the effect that he confused the due date for filing “with the date (due) for lodgement.” The exact meaning of this is unclear to the Court. The Minister submits that the confusion was with the date for a concurrent extension of time to provide evidence in relation to another visa application. There has been no evidence of any concurrent application by the Applicant to the Department tendered by the Applicant to support this contention.
The Applicant further relies on the fact that it was the holiday period. The Court is unclear as to how a delay due to the holiday period is relevant, given that the Applicant has already explained that he was confused by the due date. Again, the Applicant has provided no evidence with respect to any delays actually experienced by him as a result of the holiday period.
However, the Minister conceded that the delay in filing by the Applicant was relatively short, and submits that the Applicant’s explanation for the delay is credible in light of the short delay.
In light of the Minister’s concession, the Court accepts that the delay in filing was minimal and the explanation is acceptable, and the Court gives some weight to these matters.
Merits of the Substantive Application
The Grounds of Review as set out in the Application are:
1. LACK OF PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS.
2. LAW INCORRECTLY APPLIED.
3. LACK OF NATURAL JUSTICE.
(Without alteration)
It is well established that if an application has no prospect of success, an extension of time – even for a short period – may be refused: SZQCZ v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCA 91, at [23] per Murphy J;SZOZG v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCA 756, at [24] per Flick J; SZSDA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship[2012] FCA 1319, at [39] per Foster J. However, the Court must consider the grounds at a reasonably impressionistic level and give weight to matters which are “arguable”: MZABP v Minister Immigration & Border Protection [2015] FCA 1391, at [62].
For the reasons set out below, the Court does not consider that the Applicant’s Grounds of Review have any merit.
Ground 1- Lack of Procedural Fairness and Ground 3 – Lack of Natural Justice
The Applicant’s Grounds of Appeal were not particularised in any manner. However, the Applicant’s Affidavit included the following statements (at [3]-[4]):
3. I was called for a hearing on the 24th November 2015 and I went there with my migration agent where I presented all my arguments. I had also presented my eCOE for the Bachelor degree and Certificate IV, Diploma course. Unfortunately the AAT decided against me and my appeal was unsuccessful.
4. Thus I believe Immigration & the Tribunal were wrong in cancelling my visa and I would like to appeal my case at the court as I believe the law was not correctly interpreted in my case.
(Without alteration)
It is unclear as to what the Applicant claims gave rise to a denial of procedural fairness and, or alternatively a denial of natural justice. This is particularly so in circumstances where the Applicant, in his own Affidavit, states that he was invited to a hearing before the Tribunal, attended with his migration agent, and presented all of his arguments. In any event, the Court will consider the Applicant’s Grounds 1 and 3 in some detail.
The Tribunal’s procedural fairness obligations are set out in pt.5 div.5 of the Act.
The Minister submits, and the Court agrees, that the Applicant was invited to attend a hearing before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision under review in accordance with to s.360 of the Act. The Hearing Invitation notified the Applicant of the hearing date, time and place in accordance with s.360A of the Act, and was sent by email to the Applicant’s migration agent as the Applicant’s authorised recipient, in accordance with ss.379A(5) and 379G of the Act. The Tribunal’s s.359A obligations were not enlivened in the circumstances.
Prior to the Tribunal hearing, the Applicant, through his then migration agent, provided the Tribunal with the Applicant’s Tribunal Submission and the Applicant’s Statutory Declaration.
At the Tribunal hearing on 24 November 2015, the Applicant appeared with the assistance of a migration agent. The Applicant had elected not to utilise an interpreter and there is nothing in the Tribunal’s Decision to indicate that the Applicant had any difficulty communicating with the Tribunal. At the hearing, the Tribunal raised the pertinent issues under review with the Applicant, as is clearly evident at [17] to [27] of the Tribunal’s Decision record. The Tribunal provided the Applicant with the opportunity to respond to these issues, and properly considered the Applicant’s responses.
There is nothing before the Court that suggests that the Applicant was denied procedural fairness, or that there has been any denial of natural justice. The Applicant was given ample opportunity to present his case.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Grounds 1 and 3 of the Applicant’s Application for judicial review have no reasonable prospect of success.
Ground 2 – Error of Law
The Applicant’s Grounds include no particulars. The Court refers again to [3]-[4] of the Applicant’s Affidavit set out in full above at [43]. The Court therefore interprets the Applicant’s Ground 2 of “law incorrectly applied” as being that the Tribunal made an error of law.
The Applicant made the following submissions at the hearing, in summary form:
a)The Applicant agreed with the Delegate’s Decision that his enrolment in the Bachelor of Commerce (Management) at Charles Sturt University was cancelled on 7 January 2014 because he failed the English course required to remain enrolled in a bachelor’s degree four times.
b)The Delegate’s Decision recorded that the Applicant “suspended” his higher education level course, however the Applicant submitted that he was forced to cancel his degree due to the English requirements.
c)The Applicant enrolled in vocational study, as recorded in the Delegate’s Decision, on 17 January 2014 because he had no other study.
d)The Applicant was misguided by a migration agent who told him to enrol in a Diploma (among other things), because he was new to Australia and did not know which migration agents were good. It was only after he received the NOICC that he received proper migration advice to enrol in a bachelor’s degree.
e)The Applicant has two or three other examples of applicants who had received a notice of cancellation from the Department pursuant to s.116 of the Act, subsequently enrolled in a bachelor’s degree course, and their visas were ultimately not cancelled.
At the hearing, the Minister made submissions in reply, that are summarised as follows:
a)The Applicant’s submissions were with respect to the Delegate’s Decision, which this Court has no jurisdiction to review.
b)The Applicant disputes that he was not enrolled in a higher education course, which is effectively asking this Court to engage in an impermissible merits review of the Tribunal’s decision.
c)The Tribunal is not bound by its decisions in other matters.
In the Minister’s Submissions, the Minister submits that there was no error in the Tribunal’s application of the law. In particular, the Minister submits that the Tribunal was correct in finding that a ground for cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa existed under s.116(1)(b) of the Act. It was submitted that the Applicant had an ongoing obligation to remain a higher education student in accordance with Condition 8516, and that the Applicant was in breach of Condition 8516 between 7 January 2014 and 29 December 2014 by not remaining enrolled in a master’s or bachelor’s degree during this time.
The Minister submitted that there was nothing unreasonable in the Tribunal’s exercise of its discretion to cancel the Applicant’s Visa. The Minister submitted that the Tribunal had an unconfined discretion in its decision making, and that the factors to which the Tribunal had regard and its subsequent findings were relevant and open to it.
The Court agrees with the Ministers submissions. Firstly, this Court has no jurisdiction to review the Delegate’s Decision, as the Applicant appears to be seeking by his oral submissions[33]. Secondly, it is the role of this Court to review whether the Tribunal has engaged in jurisdictional error, not to assess the merits of an applicant’s case. The Applicant, by his various submissions, is simply seeking this Court to engage in an impermissible merits review: NAHI v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 10, at [10]; Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang [1996] HCA 6.
[33] The Act, ss.476(2) and (4).
It is clear from the Tribunal’s decision that it considered the Applicant’s claims and evidence closely, as contained in the Applicant’s emails sent to the Department, the Applicant’s Tribunal Submission and the Applicant’s Statutory Declaration, as well as evidence and submissions given in person at the hearing[34].
[34] CB 138-139, at [17]-[27].
The Court finds that the Tribunal clearly considered the relevant question before it, and made findings open to it. The Tribunal considered that based on the evidence before it the Applicant was not enrolled in a higher education degree course for a period of time. Having found as such, the Tribunal then turned to properly consider the exercise of its discretion.
The Tribunal considered the information before it as a whole, and concluded that the Applicant’s Visa should be cancelled[35]. This was largely as a result of the Tribunal’s serious concerns that the Applicant was not a genuine student in Australia. This conclusion was clearly open to the Tribunal, was based on the Applicant’s own evidence and does not demonstrate any legal unreasonableness.
[35] CB 141, at [28].
At the hearing, the Applicant raised issue with the “guidance” of his agents. Before the Tribunal, the Applicant appeared to suggest that an “education agent” had assisted the Applicant to enrol in a higher education degree, and that his friends had also misadvised him. The Tribunal addressed this concern at [24] of its decision. The Tribunal appeared to accept that the Applicant may not have received the “best advice”, however it determined that the Applicant himself bore responsibility of ensuring that he was aware of his Visa requirements. This was a reasonable conclusion to draw in light of the Applicant’s evidence he had read his Visa requirements. Further, the Applicant’s claim at the hearing was not an allegation of fraud. As is clear from the materials before the Court, the Applicant was, at its highest, a victim of poor advice. This does not give rise to jurisdictional error: Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v SZLIX [2008] FCAFC 17.
Finally, the Applicant referred to him knowing other persons who had received a notice of cancellation from the Department pursuant to s.116 of the Act, subsequently enrolled in a bachelor’s degree course, and their visas were ultimately not cancelled. Simply put, these other matters are irrelevant to the Applicant’s case. Each matter must be determined on its individual circumstances. This is particularly the case where, cancellation is made pursuant to s.116(1)(b) of the Act, and the discretion with respect to the cancellation of a visa is fact-specific.
The Court finds that Ground 2 the Applicant’s Application and the oral submissions also have no reasonable prospect of success.
Conclusion
The Court weighs the Applicant’s short delay in filing against the finding that the Applicant’s substantive application has no merit. It is this Court’s view that the Applicant does not have any real prospect of a successful judicial review of the Tribunal’s Decision, had he been granted an extension of time.
The Court is not satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice pursuant to s.477(2) of the Act to extend the time limit contained in s.477(1) of the Act.
Accordingly, the Court refuses to grant the Applicant an extension of time pursuant to s.477(1) of the Act. The Applicant’s Application for an extension of time is dismissed.
At the hearing, the Minister sought costs fixed in the sum of $3,737 in the event that the Application was dismissed. This amount is calculated in accordance with pt.3 div.1 item 3 of sch.1 to the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth).
In these circumstances, there will be a further order that Applicant pay the Minister’s costs fixed in the sum of $3,737.
I certify that the preceding sixty-seven (67) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge C. E. Kirton QC
Associate:
Date: 3 June 2020
0
8
3