SZOOG v Minister for Immigration
[2010] FMCA 918
•26 November 2010
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZOOG v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2010] FMCA 918 |
| MIGRATION – Review of decision by Refugee Review Tribunal – whether Refugee Review Tribunal’s decision affected by jurisdictional error – whether the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal was affected by bias – whether the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal complied with the statutory regime. |
| Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.5(1); 36(2); 65(1); 65(1)(b); 91R; 91R(3); 424AA; 474; pt.8 div.2 |
| SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs & Anor (2006) 228 CLR 152 Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Durairajasingham (2000) 168 ALR 407 SCAA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 668 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Jia (2001) 205 CLR 507 Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang and Ors (1996) 185 CLR 259 Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510 Minister for Aboriginal Affairs & Another v Peko-Wallsend Ltd & Others (1986) 162 CLR 24 |
| Applicant: | SZOOG |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 1710 of 2010 |
| Judgment of: | Emmett FM |
| Hearing date: | 17 November 2010 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 17 November 2010 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 26 November 2010 |
REPRESENTATION
| Applicant appeared in person assisted by a Mandarin interpreter |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Ms S. Sirtes |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Ms K. Hooper, DLA Phillips Fox |
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 1710 of 2010
| SZOOG |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
This is an application pursuant to s.39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and Part 8 Division 2 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) dated 2 July 2010 and handed down the same day
The applicant claims to be a citizen of the People’s Republic of China (“China”) and a Falun Gong practitioner (“the Applicant”).
The issues raised by the Applicant in this case are whether the Tribunal was biased and whether it complied with the statutory regime in the making of its decision and the conduct of its review. These issues are considered below in the context of considering whether the Tribunal’s decision is affected by jurisdictional error.
Prior to considering the proceeding before this Court, these Reasons provide the relevant procedural background, a summary of the legislative framework, a summary of the Applicant’s protection visa application claims and the decision of the delegate of the First Respondent (“the Delegate”) and a summary of the Tribunal’s review and decision.
Background
The Applicant arrived in Australia on 24 April 2008 having departed legally from Beijing on a passport issued in her own name and a Subclass 580 (Student Guardian) visa issued on 8 April 2008.
On 22 December 2009, the Applicant lodged an application for a Protection (Class XA) visa with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (“the Department”) under the Act.
On 18 March 2010, the Delegate refused the Applicant’s application for a protection visa.
On 22 April 2010, the Applicant lodged an application for review of the Delegate’s decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal.
On 2 July 2010, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Delegate not to grant a protection visa.
On 5 August 2010, the Applicant filed an application in this Court seeking judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision.
Legislative framework
Section 65(1) of the Act authorises the decision-maker to grant a visa if satisfied that the prescribed criteria have been met. However, if the decision-maker is not so satisfied then s.65(1)(b) mandates that the visa application is to be refused.
Section 36(2) of the Act relevantly provides that a criterion for a protection visa is that an applicant is a non-citizen in Australia to whom the Minister is satisfied that Australia has a protection obligation under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol. Section 5(1) of the Act defines “Refugees Convention” and “Refugees Protocol” as meaning the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (“the Convention”).
Article 1A(2) of the Convention relevantly defines a refugee as a person who:
“owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.”
Section 91R of the Act expands on the notion of persecution and serious harm when considering Article 1A(2) of the Convention.
The Applicant’s application for a protection visa
The Applicant provided a statement in support of her protection visa application in which she stated that she feared persecution by the Chinese authorities by reason of being a Falun Gong practitioner.
The Applicant claimed she first started practising Falun Gong in 1997. She claimed that when Falun Gong was outlawed in 1999 she and others intended to appeal to the Provincial Government. She claimed that their car was stopped on the way to appeal by police who threatened that “all your families will be fired” if they did not cease their intention to appeal.
The Applicant claimed that two days later people from the local committee approached her and told her she was required at their office. She claimed that she went with them and instead was arrested and taken to a detention centre.
The Applicant claimed she was detained for about a month and that, whilst in detention, threats were made against herself and her family if she continued to practise Falun Gong. She claimed she was forced to write a “guarantee letter” promising not to practise and not to appeal.
The Applicant claimed that after her arrest, she discovered that a fellow Falun Gong practitioner with whom she had practised was arrested and has now been detained for two years. She claimed that her manager warned her that, if she continued to associate with the practitioner, she would probably have to leave the company, so, in 2003, the Applicant claimed she quit her job and found new work.
The Applicant claimed that, after she had started her new job, the police visited her. She said that they told her that, because her friend and fellow Falun Gong practitioner had attempted to appeal following her release and because the Applicant still practiced Falun Gong at home, the Applicant was required to attend court.
The Applicant claimed that her husband would not let her practise at home and began “not coming home regularly” and her child was sent to his grandmother’s.
The Applicant claimed she could only sleep three or four hours a night without practising Falun Gong and this affected her work performance. She claimed that, in December 2006, she was sent a talisman through a friend of her fellow practitioner telling her to go abroad where Falun Gong is legal.
The Applicant claimed that, having settled her child into study in Australia, she paid a bribe and received her passport on 22 October 2008 and her visa was granted on 8 April 2009.
The Applicant claimed that for some time after arriving in Australia she was unfamiliar and afraid to practise Falun Gong with others. She claimed her health improved.
The Delegate’s decision
The Delegate invited the Applicant to attend an interview on 18 March 2010, by letter dated 11 March 2010. The Applicant did not attend the interview.
On 18 March 2010, the Delegate refused the Applicant’s application for a protection visa on the basis that the Applicant is not a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Convention.
The Delegate noted that the lodgement of the Applicant’s protection visa coincided with the expiry of her Subclass 580 (Student Guardian) visa. The Delegate found her claims to be vague and unsubstantiated. The Delegate was not satisfied that the Applicant was of any interest to the authorities in China for a Convention related reason at the time of her departure from China. Nor was the Delegate satisfied that there was any evidence to indicate that she would be of interest to the authorities for a Convention related reason in the reasonably foreseeable future, if she were to return to China. The Delegate found that the Applicant did not have a genuine fear of harm and that there was not a real chance of persecution occurring. The Delegate, therefore found the Applicant’s fear of persecution to be not well founded.
The Tribunal’s review and decision
On 22 April 2010, the Applicant lodged an application for review of the Delegate’s decision by the Tribunal.
On 10 May 2010, the Tribunal wrote to the Applicant informing her that the Tribunal had considered the material before it but was unable to make a favourable decision on that material alone. The letter invited the Applicant to attend a hearing on 29 June 2010 to give oral evidence and present arguments.
On 29 June 2010, the Applicant attended the Tribunal hearing and gave evidence.
The decision of the Tribunal is accurately summarised by counsel for the First Respondent in her written submissions as follows:
“The Tribunal’s decision
The Tribunal:
Accepted that the applicant is a citizen of China (CB 96 at [91]).
Found the applicant’s claims as to what had occurred to her in China to be inconsistent (CB 96 at [92]) and set out the inconsistencies (CB 96 to 97 at [93] to [98].
Found other aspects of the applicant’s evidence to be implausible including the applicant’s delay in applying for a visa to travel to Australia (CB 97 at [99] to [102] and her delay in seeking protection once she had arrived in Australia (CB 98 at [103]).
Accepted the applicant’s passport had been stolen and that it had been replaced by the PRC Consulate General in Sydney in October 2008. The Tribunal found the applicant's approach to the Consulate to have the passport replaced was inconsistent with the applicant’s claimed fear of Chinese authorities and, moreover, the replacement itself indicated that the applicant was not adversely regarded by the authorities at that time (CB 98 at [104]).
Found the applicant had omitted relevant details from her protection visa application, especially in relation to her claimed detention in China (CB 98 at [105]).
Found the applicant did not appear to have knowledge and understanding of Falun Gong commensurate with her claimed experiences and practice of it (CB 98 to 99 at [106] to [107]) and noted that the applicant’s claim to be a dedicated Falun Gong practitioner was inconsistent with her not having contacted other practitioners in Australia (CB 99 at [108]).
Noted there was little independent evidence that the applicant had practiced Falun Gong in China, found that the applicant had sought to gain her knowledge about Falun Gong once she arrived in Australia, and was of the opinion that the applicant had missed her Department interview in order to allow herself further time to gain knowledge of Falun Gong (CB 99 at [112]).
Was satisfied that the applicant had engaged in conduct of attending Falun Gong practice sessions for the purposes of gaining knowledge about Falun Gong and thereby strengthening her claims to be a refugee. The Tribunal therefore disregarded that conduct (CB 99 to 100 at [113]).
Was not satisfied that the applicant had a well founded fear of persecution in China for a Convention reason (CB 100 at [114] to [115]).”
The proceeding before this Court
The Applicant was unrepresented before this Court, although had the assistance of a Mandarin interpreter.
On 7 October 2010, the Applicant attended a directions hearing before me. The Applicant confirmed that she wished to continue with her judicial review application. The Applicant was given leave to file and serve an amended application giving complete particulars of each ground of review relied upon, together with any further evidence by way of affidavit, including any transcript of the Tribunal hearing.
At the directions hearing, the Applicant was referred to the Court’s Legal Advice Scheme for free legal advice. The Applicant has participated in the Court’s Legal Advice Scheme and received free legal advice. The Applicant was also provided with the contact details of legal services providers and interpreting and translation services in documents headed in her own language.
At the commencement of the hearing, the Applicant confirmed that she relied on the grounds contained in an application filed on 5 August 2010 as follows:
“1. The procedures required by law to be observed in connection with the making of the decision were not observed.
2. The making of the decision was an improper exercise of the power conferred by the enactment.
3. There was no evidence or other material to justify the making of the power conferred by the enactment.”
Each of the grounds was interpreted for the assistance of the Applicant and the Applicant was invited to make submissions in support of each of the grounds and in support of the application generally.
The Applicant confirmed that she had not filed any amended application or submissions in support of her application and that she had no further documents to present to the Court this morning in support of her application.
On 25 October 2010, the Applicant filed an affidavit, affirmed 22 October 2010. At the hearing, the solicitor for the First Respondent, Mr Markus, objected to the affidavit being read on the grounds of relevance. The first paragraph of the affidavit was rejected. The second paragraph was read, ultimately, without objection. It states as follows:
“After I made oath, the tribunal member asked me if I filled up the form myself. I answered yes. He asked me if I know English. I answered “a little bit”. Then he suddenly throws the materials to me and asked me “what is the question number 6”. But I did not know the word “pregnant”. So I did not know how to answer it. But actually, when I filled up the form, I looked up the word I don’t know in the dictionary. So, his behaviour made my thought very confused. I didn’t know what to say. I only wanted to end the conversation with him as soon as possible. I wanted to leave that place.”
I explored with the Applicant what she meant by the complaint raised in her affidavit. She did no more that repeat what was in the affidavit and asserted the Tribunal Member was biased.
When I asked the Applicant in what way was the Tribunal Member biased, she answered that he asked her if “this” is true. I understood her to be referring to her protection visa application form. She said she answered, “yes”, whereupon the Tribunal Member threw the document at her across the table because she did not know the word “pregnant”. The only other matters she raised about the Tribunal hearing were that the Tribunal Member asked her a lot of questions about her residential address, her work unit, information provided in support of her Student Guardian visa and asked if her child was going to stay in Australia. She said that the only visa she could obtain to come to Australia was a Student Guardian visa. Otherwise the Applicant made no relevant or meaningful submission in support of her new allegation of bias. I was unable to draw anything further from the Applicant by way of any more detailed explanation about her complaints.
I explained to her that she had been given an opportunity to file an amended application making any new complaint that she wished and to file evidence in support of her application, including any transcript of the Tribunal hearing. I also reminded her that she had been directed on 7 October 2010 that, if she wished to rely on the recording of the Tribunal hearing, she must give notice to the Court and to the First Respondent. She neither gave that notice, nor brought the tapes to the hearing.
The Applicant then sought an adjournment to be able to have a transcript prepared or to obtain the tapes for tender.
I explained to her that the complaints that she had particularised to the Court, as referred to above, had little or no prospect of establishing that the Tribunal was biased. Further, the Applicant had been given the opportunity to file material and further documents in support of her application to this Court. She has participated in the Court’s legal advice scheme and received free legal advice in accordance with that scheme. She was also provided at the first court date with the contact details of legal service providers and translating and interpreting services in documents headed in her own language.
In the circumstances, her application for an adjournment was refused.
Thereafter, the Applicant had nothing further to say in support of any of the grounds of her application or in support of her application generally.
The grounds of the application are otherwise unsupported by particulars, evidence, oral submissions or written submissions, save for the complaint referred to by the Applicant in her affidavit affirmed 22 October 2010 and filed 25 October 2010.
Ground 1 appears to allege that the Tribunal failed to observe the procedures required under the Act. Such a complaint cannot be made out, having regard to the documents that formed the Court book marked Exhibit 1R and the Supplementary Court book marked Exhibit 2R.
Exhibit 1R makes clear that, on 10 May 2010, the Tribunal wrote to the Applicant informing her that the Tribunal had considered the material before it but was unable to make a favourable decision on that information alone. The letter went on to invite the Applicant to come to a hearing on 29 June 2010 to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in her case. The letter requested that the Applicant complete the enclosed Response to Hearing Invitation form and invited her to send any further information, documents or written arguments that she wished the Tribunal to consider. On 18 May 2010, the Applicant returned the Response to Hearing Invitation form to the Tribunal. On the form she answered, “no”, to the question, did she request the Tribunal to take oral evidence from another person.
The Tribunal’s decision record makes clear that the Tribunal explored the Applicant’s claims with her at the hearing and put to her concerns it had about various aspects of her claims. In particular, the Tribunal gave to the Applicant information it found to be inconsistent with the Applicant’s claims. That information was contained in the Applicant’s Student Guardian visa. The Tribunal noted the Applicant’s responses. The Tribunal noted that it asked the Applicant if she required any further time to respond to the information. The Tribunal noted her response that she did not require any further time and simply stated that “all she had said about the circumstances were true”.
The Tribunal also gave her information referred to in a notorial certificate that the Applicant had provided in support of her Student Guardian visa application that stated that she had no criminal record in China; whereas her statement in support of her Protection visa application stated that she had been detained for offences and was under investigation. Again, the Tribunal noted that the Applicant did not seek the additional time offered to her by the Tribunal to respond to the information. The Tribunal noted her response to its concerns.
The Tribunal also noted that it put to her that she had not applied for a visa to come to Australia until January 2008, despite having a passport in August 2007. The Tribunal put to the Applicant that such conduct suggested there was no urgency in her leaving China which implied that she was not at risk of persecution. The Tribunal explained why the information was relevant and again noted the Applicant did not request further time to respond.
The Tribunal also explored with her why she had failed to attend the interview before the Delegate. The Tribunal put to her that it would have expected someone who is genuinely in fear of persecution to have taken every opportunity to advance her case for protection. The Tribunal noted the Applicant’s response that her migration agent had only told her about the invitation a couple of days prior to the scheduled interview and that she had been nervous at the time and not feeling well. She said that her agent told her that she would have a second opportunity, so she elected not to attend the interview with the Delegate.
The Tribunal noted that it explored with the Applicant her knowledge of Falun Gong and put to her that she appeared only to have a very superficial understanding of Falun Gong. The Tribunal put to her that the things she had spoken about were matters that one could learn with minimal research on the internet. However, the Tribunal noted that she was able to recite certain verses to the first and third Falun Gong exercises. The Tribunal also noted that she was also able to demonstrate the second exercise of Falun Gong and give a basic description of the “Falun”.
The Tribunal noted that the Applicant told her that she practised Falun Gong regularly at Darling Harbour, had attended Central Station and also practised in other parks. The Tribunal noted that it put to the Applicant that the level of knowledge she displayed at the hearing did not appear to be commensurate with that of a person who claimed to have been practising for some 13 years. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant had been in Australia for more that 2 years and some 6 months had elapsed since she applied for protection. The Tribunal noted that there was nothing to show that the Applicant had any significant knowledge of Falun Gong at the time she applied for protection.
Before the Tribunal closed the hearing, the Tribunal Member invited the Applicant to say anything else she wished to draw to the Tribunal’s attention and noted the Applicant’s answer that she did not know what else she could say.
The Tribunal’s decision record identifies with particularity the country information to which it had regard.
Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected comprehensively the Applicant’s claims of having been a Falun Gong partitioner in China or having been persecuted, arrested or detained for that reason. In the circumstances, the Tribunal did not accept that the Applicant was of interest to authorities at the time she left China, nor, would she be of interest if she were to return to China.
The Tribunal stated that, “In summary, it does not accept any of her claims which are based on the alleged discovery of her practise of Falun Gong”.
The Tribunal found that her knowledge of Falun Gong was gained after arriving in Australia. The Tribunal also found that her delay in seeking protection did not suggest that her fear was genuine. The Tribunal was not satisfied that her attendance at Falun Gong practice sessions was for any reason other than to strengthen her claims to be a refugee and, accordingly, pursuant to s.91R(3) of the Act, disregarded that conduct.
The Tribunal’s decision record makes clear that the Tribunal complied with all the relevant statutory requirements in the conduct of its review and the making of its decision. The Tribunal put to the Applicant, in accordance with s.424AA, information in her Student Guardian visa application inconsistent with her evidence to the Tribunal and may therefore be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review. The Tribunal also considered the Applicant’s practice of Falun Gong in Australia and the motivation for that conduct. Having not been satisfied that it was for any reason other than for strengthening her claims to be a refugee, the Tribunal properly did not have further regard to that conduct.
It was open to the Tribunal not to accept explanations given by the Applicant about concerns that the Tribunal put to the Applicant during the hearing in respect of her claims. In particular, it was entitled to have regard to the inconsistencies that the Tribunal found to exist in the Applicant’s claims and the information provided by her in her Student Guardian visa.
There was no issue that was raised by the Tribunal in respect of which the Applicant could not reasonably have been expected to be on notice. (see SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs & Anor (2006) 228 CLR 152).
The reasons for the Tribunal affirming the decision under review was because of the adverse credibility findings it made in respect of the Applicant’s evidence. Those findings were open to the Tribunal, including its adverse findings and for the reasons it gave. Credibility findings are a matter par excellence for the Tribunal (Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Durairajasingham (2000) 168 ALR 407 at [67] per McHugh J).
Accordingly, Ground 1 is not made out.
Ground 2 asserts that the Tribunal’s “decision was an improper exercise of the power conferred by the enactment”. Again, that ground was not supported by particulars, evidence, oral or written submissions. It is entirely unclear to me the nature of the Applicant’s complaints in this ground.
Counsel for the First Respondent, Ms Sirtes, in her written submissions suggested that the ground may be seeking to allege bias of some kind in accordance with the complaint made by the Applicant in her affidavit filed on 25 October 2010. If that is intended to be a part of the Applicant’s complaint in Ground 2, such a complaint is not made out and has been dealt with above in these reasons in Ground 1.
However, for completeness, the Tribunal stated in its decision record;
“The Tribunal ascertained that she was satisfied of the accuracy of the answers given in the application forms, and of the contents of her statement of claims. She told the Tribunal that her agent had told her of the questions asked in the application forms and had slated [sic] her answers. She had written out her claims, and her agent had translated her statement. The applicant confirmed that she was satisfied that the information given to the Department and to the Tribunal as a complete and accurate account of the circumstances which had prompted her to seek protection.” (CB 87 to 88 at [33]).
The Tribunal noted that the Applicant had the assistance of an interpreter in Mandarin at the Tribunal hearing and that she was represented in relation to the review by her registered migration agent.
To the extent that Ground 2 alleges bias by the Tribunal against the Applicant, such a claim is serious and requires evidence, such as a transcript of the Tribunal hearing. Further, it is a rare and exceptional case where bias can be demonstrated solely from the published reasons of a decision. Similarly, the mere fact that the Tribunal makes adverse findings in respect of the Applicant does not give rise to an inference of bias or, by itself, suggest that the decision-maker approached its task other than with a mind open to persuasion (SCAA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 668 at [38]).
As stated above, the Applicant was directed on 7 October 2010 by this Court to file and serve any affidavit containing evidence to be relied upon, including the transcript of the hearing, by 28 October 2010. The Order informed the Applicant that she should give notice to the Court and the First Respondent if she wished to rely on a tape recording of the hearing. No such evidence or notice was filed by the Applicant.
A fair reading of the Tribunal’s decision does not disclose any prejudgment on the part of the Tribunal in the sense that the Tribunal was “so committed to a conclusion already formed as to be incapable of alteration, or of being persuaded differently, whatever evidence or argument may be presented.” (Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Jia (2001) 205 CLR 507 at [69], [71]-[72], [127]).
There was no transcript of the Tribunal hearing provided to this Court, nor did the Applicant provide any evidence to this Court to suggest that the Tribunal’s decision record is not accurate. In the circumstances, the Court accepts as accurate the Tribunal’s summary of the oral evidence given by the Applicant. As stated above, the Tribunal’s findings and conclusions were open to it on the evidence and material before it and for the reasons it gave.
Accordingly, Ground 2 is not made out.
Ground 3 asserts that there was no evidence or material before the Tribunal to justify the making of the decision.
As is clear from the reasons above, such a complaint can not be made out. There was clearly evidence to ground all the findings made by the Tribunal.
Otherwise, Ground 3 appears to be more in the nature of a disagreement with the findings and conclusions with the Tribunal. Such a complaint invites merits review which this court can not undertake (Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang and Ors (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 272 per Brennan CJ, Toohey, McHugh and Gummow JJ; Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510 at [195] per Gummow and Hayne JJ; Minister for Aboriginal Affairs & Another v Peko-Wallsend Ltd & Others (1986) 162 CLR 24 at 40-42 per Mason J).
Accordingly, Ground 3 is not made out.
Conclusion
A fair reading of the Tribunal’s decision record makes clear that the Tribunal understood the claims being made by the Applicant; explored those claims with the Applicant at a hearing; and, had regard to all material provided in support. The Tribunal put to the Applicant matters of concern it had about her evidence, both at the hearing and in writing, and noted the Applicant’s responses. The Tribunal also identified independent country information to which it had regard. The Tribunal then made findings based on the evidence and material before it. Those findings of fact were open to the Tribunal on the evidence and material before it and for the reasons it gave. A fair reading of the Tribunal’s decision record makes clear that the Tribunal reached conclusions based on the findings made by it and to which it applied the correct law.
In the circumstances, the Tribunal complied with its obligations under the statutory regime in the making of its decision, including the conduct of its review.
The Tribunal’s decision is not affected by jurisdictional error and is therefore a privative clause decision. Accordingly, pursuant to s.474 of the Act, this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere.
The proceeding before this Court should be dismissed with costs.
I certify that the preceding eighty-one (81) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Emmett FM
Date: 26 November 2010
0