SZHAA v Minister for Immigration - [2007] FMCA 433

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZHAA v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2007] FMCA 433

MIGRATION – RRT decision – former resident of Yugoslavia – refugee claim made after NATO attack – claim not pursued before Tribunal – no new claim made based on particular social group – no finding without evidence – no breach of s.424A – application dismissed.

Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s.8
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.414, 415, 424A(1), 424A(3)(b), 474, 483A
Migration Litigation Reform Act 2005 (Cth), Sch.1 cl.41

Applicant S v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (2004) 217 CLR 387
Applicant S v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1411
NABE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (No 2) (2004) 144 FCR 1
Re Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte ApplicantsS134/2002 (2003) 211 CLR 441

Applicant:

SZHAA

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number:

SYG2325 of 2005

Judgment of:

Smith FM

Hearing date:

19 March 2007

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

19 March 2007

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr B Zipser

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Lewis Law Solicitors

Counsel for the First Respondent:

Mr S Lloyd

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Blake Dawson Waldron

ORDERS

The application is dismissed.
The applicant must pay the first respondent’s costs in the sum of $7,500.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
SYDNEY

SYG2325 of 2005

SZHAA

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(revised from transcript)

This is an application filed on 23 August 2005 under s.483A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Migration Act”), in which relief is sought by way of judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) dated 27 February 2002 and handed down on 21 March 2002. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate made on 23 August 1999, refusing to grant a protection visa to the applicant.
Under s.483A of the Migration Act the Court has the jurisdiction of the Federal Court under s.39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). Section 483A was repealed in 2005, but the repeal does not affect the continuance of this proceeding (see Migration Litigation Reform Act 2005 (Cth), Sch.1 cl.41, and Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s.8). The Court’s jurisdiction is limited by s.474 of the Migration Act, so that I do not have power to set aside the Tribunal’s decision and send the matter back to the Tribunal unless I am satisfied that its decision was affected by jurisdictional error. I do not have power myself to decide whether the applicant is a refugee, nor whether he qualifies for a protection visa or any other permission to stay in Australia.
The significant delay of more than three years between the Tribunal’s decision being handed down and the commencement of this proceeding gives rise to a point taken by the Minister. This is that, if jurisdictional error were found to affect the Tribunal’s decision, relief should be refused because of unwarranted delay. The delay is addressed by affidavits filed by both parties, and further affidavits were foreshadowed by both parties at the commencement of today’s hearing. However, the applicant had not arranged for an interpreter to enable his cross‑examination, and with the consent of both counsel I first heard argument on whether the Tribunal’s decision was affected by jurisdictional error, without investigating the question of delay. For reasons which will follow, I have not found it necessary to adjourn the hearing to allow that issue to be addressed.
The applicant arrived in Australia in October 1998, and presented an application for a protection visa on 7 July 1999. In the application, he explained that events in his country of former residence, Yugoslavia, after his travel to Australia to attend family celebrations, gave rise to a fear of return for reasons which were covered by the Refugees Convention. This was explained:
36Why did you leave that country?
On the 2.10.1998 I arrived in Australia on a Visitors Visa to attend the wedding of my nephew [name] (11.10.1998) and the wedding of my daughter [name] & son‑in‑law [name]. This was also an opportunity for me to visit my elderly parents [names], my brothers [names], their family and my sisters [names] and their families. My intention was to return to [location], Yugoslavia to my family, my wife and son [name] and back to my workplace ([company] where I worked fir 18 years as Lab Technician).
In April 1999 due to the political situation I had to stay in Australia. I strongly believe that I will be forced to work in the manufacturing of explosives, which I am obliged under martial law (war time). If I would refuse my obligation, I would be persecuted like many of my work colleagues already as I have heard.
37What do you fear may happen to you if you go back to that country?
During my stay in Australia the situation in Yugoslavia has tragically and dramatically become worse. My home town of [location] has been repeatedly bombed and the factory where I worked for nearly 20 years has been targeted, bombed and completely destroyed. My fear amounts from the anger & discrimination against my race, nationality & political opinion against Yugoslavia. As I am a Serb, I fear that because of my nationality, race & religion I will be a target or one of them of the assault of Yugoslavia.
I am of military service age & as a civilian supervisor in a military factory I fear for my life & the lives of my spouse and dependent 14 y.o. son. Also, if I do not agree to oblige by the government’s demand of military service, I will be persecuted & God knows what else.
38Who do you think may harm/mistreat you if you go back?
My main concerns of harm/mistreatment would be:
1)Yugoslav Government if I refuse to join the military service (marshall law – war time).
2)The foreign forces attacking & bombing Yugoslavia (air raids & bombings).
39Why do you think they will harm/mistreat you if you go back?
The main reasons for my concern about harm/mistreatment of me or my family are:
1)I am placed at a very high risk due to my profession working with explosives & the Yugoslav government.
2)I will become a likely target of NATO bombing of all of Yugoslavia.
3)I will be called to military service therefore risk the likelihood of confrontation with NATO forces or Albanian Separatists.
40Do you think the authorities of that country can and will protect you if you go back? If not, why not?
At the moment the country is in total disarray.
There is no guarantee that anyone can and will protect me if I go back to my country.
There is a sense of lawlessness and there are so many firearms at hand that anyone can take the law in their own hands which I fear most.
The applicant had indicated in his body of his application that he was a “chemical technician (explosives)” by occupation, and had worked as a supervisor of production in an explosives plant for the last 18 years.
A delegate refused the application on 23 August 1999, and provided reasons for refusing the application. The delegate said:
However, events subsequent to him departing his country and making this application meant that the circumstances he fears in relation to compulsory call‑up to military service and the state of Martial Law no longer exist. Serbian armed forces have now withdrawn from Kosovo, to be replaced by NATO peacekeeping forces, and Yugoslavia officially ended its state of war (and therefore its associated martial law powers) on 27.6.99.
The applicant’s appeal to the Tribunal was lodged on 16 September 1999 by a firm of migration agents, George Lombard Consultancy Ltd. The application said: “a detailed statement will be provided. The decision is incorrect”. However, no further material in support of a claim for refugee protection was ever presented to the Tribunal. Apart from the visa application, the Tribunal had no other such material before it.
The applicant attended a hearing to which he was invited on 10 January 2002. At the hearing he presented some supporting references from Australian supporters, and shortly before the hearing the Tribunal was given a letter signed by the applicant’s agent, Mr Lombard, who also attended the hearing. It said:
I refer to the review of a protection visa decision which is being heard this morning in respect of [the applicant], a national of Yugoslavia.
Please note that [the applicant] is not pursuing this claim with respect to the Refugee Convention and is simply seeking a decision of the Tribunal so that he may approach the Minister under s.417 of the Migration Act. [The applicant] acknowledges that the changes in Yugoslavia since he lodged his application are profound and apparently durable.
Therefore we would be grateful if the Tribunal would take this into account in hearing this matter. I am sorry that we were not able to advise the Tribunal of this earlier, however [the applicant] is very keen to be heard by the Tribunal and does not have a well‑formed insight into the nature of the proceedings. We are sure that the Tribunal will extend him the courtesy of allowing him to explain his situation, should his explanation go beyond the confines of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
In its statement of reasons the Tribunal gave a short description of the hearing:
However, on the day of the hearing, before its commencement, the Tribunal received a letter from his adviser, written on his behalf, stating that the applicant acknowledged that the changes in Yugoslavia since he lodged his application were profound and apparently durable. Consequently, he was no longer pursuing his claims. However he asked the Tribunal’s indulgence to go ahead with the hearing, after which it was his intention to approach the Minister for humanitarian consideration, under s.417 of the Migration Act. The Tribunal agreed.
At the hearing, the applicant confirmed what was stated in the adviser’s letter. His brothers [names] and friend [name] addressed the Tribunal in regard to the applicant’s character, the uncertain economic conditions in Serbia and the fact that he wanted to remain in Australia with the large number of his relatives living here, including his elderly parents (who were among the 10 family members present as observers in the hearing room, with the Tribunal’s somewhat trepidatious approval; happily, however, OH and S concerns were allayed thanks to the relative brevity of the hearing). He was very concerned also to bring his wife and child to Australia.
The adviser acknowledged on the applicant’s behalf that these issues did not come under the ambit of the Convention. However, he asked that the applicant’s case be considered on humanitarian grounds. He was aware that this was at the Minister’s discretion. The Tribunal undertook to include a reference to this request in its decision.
It is clear from this narration, that the Tribunal completed the hearing under the opinion that the applicant had personally “confirmed what was stated in the adviser’s letter”. Whether he in fact did so is a matter which the applicant now puts in issue.
The applicant tenders an affidavit by a person who claims to have transcribed the English parts of the hearing conducted by the Tribunal. She claims to have “reviewed the transcript and corrected typing errors”. Her affidavit and the attached transcript was read without objection from counsel for the Minister. It purports to be a complete transcription of the whole of the hearing. It is apparent that an interpreter was present and was sworn in to assist the applicant’s understanding of the proceedings. The transcript also shows that the applicant was also accompanied by numerous relations and supporters, some of whom gave evidence in English. Many people were present in the hearing room, and there are suggestions that some or all of them had participated with the applicant in discussions with Mr Lombard prior to the hearing as to how to present his case.
At page 5, the Tribunal reports the following exchange with Mr Lombard and the applicant:
Member:Now Mr Lombard ah I have received your letter just a few moments ago. Ah Mr [Applicant] I received a letter from your advisor a few moments ago, which says that you are not pursuing your claim for a protection visa application. In other words that you are no longer pursuing a claim that you are a refugee. Is that correct? Do you understand?
Mr Lombard:         Yeah …
Member:That is correct?
Mr Lombard:         Yes that’s correct.
Member:Right let me just, let me just repeat that. You are not pursuing a refugee claim?
Applicant:
(Interpreter)          No.
Member:That’s correct I see, good thank you. According to the letter the reason is that you acknowledge that since you lost your application in 1999 the situation in Yugoslavia has profoundly changed in a durable way.
Applicant:
(Interpreter)          Yes.
Member:Right thank you. Mr [Applicant] you should understand that the only thing which this Tribunal can do, the only thing which it is legally able to do is to determine whether or not you are a refugee.
Member:If you no longer wish to pursue refugee claims I have no other jurisdiction.
However I would like to hear from you anything that you would like to tell the Tribunal this morning about your circumstances.
Member:What is it that you are hoping to achieve?
Applicant:
(Interpreter)          Can I speak now?
Member:Yes of course.
Applicant:
(Interpreter)          Um sir, I’m in a very delicate situation. Um I brought my members of family here, which is unpleasant. We are honest and we follow all the rules and regulations. We don’t want anything which belongs to others or forcefully and that’s the way we have been raised by our parents. Um what we want is what we work hard to enjoy and to follow the rules in um as we did before and now in this um, beautiful country. But I found myself now in a very difficult situation with no way out. I came to Australia to attend the wedding of my brother’s son. Because there um a lot of family here I extended my visa to one year. In the meantime um the evil happened and um there is um Americans um bombed my country. I was working in an army um factory. I was working in the section where they were producing the high explosives. According to our rules when engaged in that type of employment. Um according to the rules we all have to sign a contract. In the case of war or any danger no matter where you are in the world you are under obligation to return back to um work. Um there was no change of getting the employment in that factory unless you come from an honest background. Um when I gave my application um for the job they accepted it um after checking my background, my family and myself. When the bombing started I had to make a decision what to do since I was getting um called by telephone and letter to return back. I had a family meeting similar to here now and everybody collectively made a decision there is no way I under any circumstances return back home because the way um at the time they didn’t like the politics or certain number of people. Um they made a promise and a commitment that they will sustain and help me and my wife and my daughter and son. At that time during the bombing, I made an application for refugee visa, which was refused. I don’t know what reason, maybe I didn’t um attach enough documentation or whatever.
Later, the applicant also referred to his concerns about returning to Yugoslavia. He said:
Applicant:
(Interpreter)          When that happened. Okay um in meantime um the politics they changed and new people came in to power. They were just new people but the problems for me and the rest of my family, which is there um because there are … laws.
Member:Sorry still what laws?
Applicant:
(Interpreter)          Barbarian. Um in my old um ah employment position there were some, there were other people working now. Because it was army factory it was bombed. Some of the employees were killed. I feel sorry for some of them. Um you don’t know what they think there and um you don’t know who can um kill you or what they’re going to do because they’re saying there that I did not return there and I pushed somebody else to work instead of me. Sir I hope you will understand and look at um that I’m really anxious and here in this country I’m being taken care of completely. I don’t have to work, I don’t have to worry about the food or accommodation or anything. All my family, which is brothers and sisters and everybody, are committed to looking after me. The only thing I wish and need for is to bring my wife and my children here.
(Observer)One child sorry.
Member:Could you just stick with one interpreter please?
Interpreter:           He did say children I think the daughter is married. Okay one child here to be so we can be all together.
Member:Okay.
Applicant:
(Interpreter)          Because of what my family here has decided that it is the best for me to stay here. If I go back there my life is in danger and so is my wife and my child and the way I feel I would rather drown than do that and return and then the um family will suffer. I would like at the end to employ [sic: implore?] you as a person and a parent that I would be permitted to stay here under, without any psychological pressure so that I can continue to have a normal life and contribute with my work and be able to um look after my existence. Please could I have a little break because I am unable to continue?
Member:Yes of course. Yes quite. I’ll just ask your advisor to advise exactly what you understand to be the status of [the applicant’s] claims.
The evidence from the … table it’s difficult because [the applicant] um has a profound belief that there are problems to support him if he goes back to Yugoslavia. Will you translate what I said?
Interpreter:           Yeah.
As is apparent from the above extract, the applicant was receiving the assistance of interpretation not only from the interpreter present but also at least one “observer”. Following the applicant’s reference to a concern that “my life is in danger”, the Tribunal invited the applicant’s agent to reconsider how the applicant presented his case. Mr Lombard then explained to the Tribunal that he had formed a view that “on the basis of the law and recent changes that we can’t bring it within the Refugees Convention … and we have discussed this”. He indicated to the Tribunal that one reason for not pursuing the refugee claims in the Tribunal was that “we” did not wish to “risk the possibility that you might form an adverse conclusion to his credibility”. However, Mr Lombard said to the Tribunal:
… you have a responsibility and not mine but if you do believe that there is a Convention ground which is available, then we’ll respectfully withdraw that letter that the best advice I have is that it would not be possible on the basis of this claim as expressed today to claim if the Convention would apply under Australian law.
The Tribunal responded:
Thank you very much. I tend to agree with you. Where I can’t … see a Convention claim there.
The Tribunal then noted a request that the Tribunal “devote a paragraph or two to the humanitarian concerns that have been raised”, and it was on that basis that the Tribunal was invited to take evidence from witnesses. Evidence was taken from the applicant’s two brothers, whose statements in no way addressed refugee claims under the Convention. A friend was also called, who referred to visiting the applicant’s wife in Belgrade:

Mrs J:
(Interpreter) I saying last year on the 6^th August I was over there and I was in Belgrave [sic: Belgrade] and I went to visit his wife and son. She told us about the situation there and we also saw it ourselves. That um there life is poor and they are um the standard is low. The wife doesn’t work, there is no income only what they get from the daughter here and family that’s all. They would love for him to come back but they also know that um there is a danger for him if he does. A lot of people have died in the factory and they don’t feel good about it because he was here while things were happening there and people died in his place doing the job and it is dangerous for him to go back.

Following that evidence, the Tribunal invited further submissions from both the agent and the applicant. The agent maintained that the applicant did not make Convention claims. The Tribunal then turned to the applicant and said:
Mr [Applicant] I’s going to conclude the hearing now but before I do, is there anything else that you would like to say to the Tribunal before we finish? I think your situation is very clear but if you have any last thought.
The applicant answered:
I have nothing to say. I would like to thank you my brothers for support, which shows what I said that they are there to support me and thanks for their money support we have been living even to the present. If you could allow my wife and daughter to come here. It’s better to be alive than be under threat of that there and that’s the situation. I would like to thank you very much and that you are very honest and I thank you.
In its statement of reasons, under the heading “Findings and Reasons”, the Tribunal referred to an uncertainty as to the applicant’s nationality arising from the transition from the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“SFRY”) to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (“FRY”), and from the expiry of the applicant’s SFRY passport. The Tribunal addressed this point and gave its reasons for affirming the delegate’s decision in two paragraphs:
The Tribunal is not able to glean with reasonable certainty from this information whether, given that the applicant’s SFRY passport has expired, he could go ahead and apply for FRY citizenship, assuming he has the required documentation. Therefore, the Tribunal is not able to be satisfied that at the current time, the applicant is not stateless. Yugoslavia is, of course, his country of former habitual residence as well as his country of reference.
The Tribunal endorses the applicant’s acknowledgment that, with the end of the NATO campaign in mid‑1999, he no longer faces any risk of harm from that quarter. As he conceded, he no longer has a subjective fear of persecution. Hence, he does not have a well‑founded fear of persecution if he returns, for any Convention‑related reason.
The applicant’s amended application contains three grounds:
1.The RRT failed to identify and consider the relevant claims for the applicant’s fear of persecution and failed to take into account the relevant considerations. This failure amounts to a jurisdictional error.
2.The RRT failed to exercise its jurisdiction by making a finding for which there was no evidence. This failure amounts to a jurisdictional error. (Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v VOAO & VOAP [2005] FCAFC 50 (1 April 2005)).
3.The RRT failed to perform its imperative duties in accordance with section 424A of the Migration Act as decided by the High Court in SAAP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCA 24 (18 May 2005).
In relation to Ground 1, counsel argued that the claim to fear persecution for a Convention reason which was not addressed by the Tribunal arose from the applicant’s concern about his safety arising from the deaths in the NATO bombing of his work colleagues. The evidence of the friend suggested that the applicant’s wife also had a concern that “it is dangerous for him to go back”. It was submitted that these statements raised a claim to fear persecution as a member of a particular social group.
Counsel for the applicant defined the relevant social group as being “Serbians who worked in industry related to the military and then left Serbia during or before the war and did not return”. It was acknowledged that no material was before the Tribunal suggesting that such a group existed as a recognisable social group distinguished from society at large (cf. Applicant S v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (2004) 217 CLR 387 at [36]). It was argued, however, that the existence of such a group was implicit in the applicant’s brief reference to his concern in his statements to the Tribunal.
I have difficulty identifying in the applicant’s statements any concern based on his being a member of a particular social group, and being likely to suffer harm by reason of that association or perceived association. Rather, his fears expressed to the Tribunal appear to indicate concerns of harm directed at him as an individual and arising from his particular situation in relation to his former employment. I therefore do not consider that the statements of the applicant raised a Convention claim with a “potential” requiring consideration by the Tribunal (cf. Applicant S (supra) at [13] and [50], adopting the findings of Carr J at first instance in Applicant S v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1411 at [42]‑[48]).
Moreover, the applicant’s statements to the Tribunal concerning this concern cannot be divorced from the context in which he made them to the Tribunal. That context, in my opinion, was correctly perceived by the Tribunal as being one where the applicant had accepted advice from his agent not to pursue “this claim with respect to the Refugee Convention”. Reading the transcript passages which I have extracted above, in my opinion, the Tribunal properly concluded that the applicant was aware of and affirmed to the Tribunal the contents of his agent’s letter. I consider that it was therefore open to the Tribunal to proceed to deal with the matter before it on the basis of an apparent concession made by the applicant himself that he was “not pursuing a refugee claim”.
The transcript shows that the Tribunal accepted that it had an independent responsibility to assess the claims that were before it, and that it had a duty under ss.414 and 415 itself to consider whether it was appropriate to affirm the delegate’s decision on the material before it. However, plainly that material included the concessions made by the applicant. In that context, in my opinion it was open to the Tribunal to treat the stated fears by the applicant as not raising any new claim to fear persecution for a Convention ground which it was required to address.
I consider the situation falls clearly within the statement in NABE v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (No 2) (2004) 144 FCR 1 at [60]:
[The Tribunal] is not obliged to deal with claims which are not articulated and which do not clearly arise from the materials before it.
And at [62]:
Whatever the scope of the Tribunal’s obligations it is not required to consider criteria for an application never made.
See also: Re Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte ApplicantsS134/2002 (2003) 211 CLR 441 at [28] and [31].
Turning to Ground 2 of the amended application, the finding which is argued to have been made without evidence is identified from the sentence of the Tribunal: “as he conceded, he no longer has a subjective fear of persecution”. Counsel argued that this sentence completely overlooked the applicant’s expressed fear of return to Yugoslavia, arising from the deaths of his co‑employees during the NATO bombing.
However, in my opinion that statement by the Tribunal should not be so read. As the history of matter which I have recounted above indicates, the applicant’s concern was not presented to the Tribunal, nor perceived by it, as a claim giving rise to Refugees Convention considerations. It is clear, in my opinion, that the reasoning provided by the Tribunal in its last paragraph of its reasons addressed only the refugee claims which had been made in the original visa application. The Tribunal referred to the applicant’s acknowledgement that the situation in Yugoslavia had changed. Its reference to his concession that he “no longer has a subjective fear of persecution” was a reference to the applicant’s concession that the fears of persecution for Convention‑related reasons which had been presented were no longer held by him.
I therefore do not consider that the Tribunal made a finding for which there was no evidence.
In relation to Ground 3 of the amended application, the “information” which formed a part of the reasons for the Tribunal affirming the delegate’s decision, and which counsel for the applicant argued showed a duty under s.424A(1) which was not performed, was:
i)the agent’s statement in his letter that the applicant “is not pursuing this claim with respect to the Refugee Convention”,
ii)the agent’s statement to the Tribunal in the course of the hearing in the presence of the applicant, when answering “yes” to the question addressed to the applicant: “you are no longer pursuing a claim that you are a refugee”, and
iii)the agent’s statements to the Tribunal that he himself was of opinion that the applicant could not bring himself within the Refugees Convention.
In relation to the last of these pieces of information, I do not read the Tribunal as relying on information as to the agent’s beliefs. Indeed, in my opinion the transcript and the statement of reasons of the Tribunal indicate that it addressed the applicant’s claims on their merits, taking into account the applicant’s own concessions. I do not consider that the agent’s opinion itself formed one of the reasons for the Tribunal affirming the delegate’s decision.
In relation to the information by the agent that the applicant was not pursuing any refugee claim, in my opinion a proper reading of the transcript suggests that this was information also given by the applicant himself to the Tribunal at the hearing, when he answered the questions of the Tribunal seeking to discover whether the applicant confirmed the concession in the agent’s letter. The Tribunal clearly formed the opinion that the applicant did make that concession. I would not read the transcript as indicating that he did not. I therefore consider that the first and second particularised items of information argued by counsel for the applicant fell clearly within the exemption in s.424A(3)(b).
As a result of making the above findings, I do not need to enter into authorities to which I was referred by counsel for the Minister concerning the conveying of information to the Tribunal by an applicant’s agent.
For the above reasons, I do not consider that the applicant has made out any of his three grounds of review. The consequence is that I am not satisfied that the Tribunal’s decision was affected by jurisdictional error, and I must dismiss the application.

I certify that the preceding thirty‑one (31) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Smith FM

Associate: Lilian Khaw

Date: 5 April 2007