SZRDH v Minister for Immigration
[2012] FMCA 588
•13 July 2012
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZRDH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2012] FMCA 588 |
| MIGRATION – Persecution – review of Refugee Review Tribunal (“Tribunal”) decision – visa – protection visa – refusal. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Allegation that the Tribunal’s decision affected by jurisdictional error by reason that the Tribunal breached s.424A of the Migration Act 1958, considered irrelevant material, ignored relevant material and otherwise denied the applicant procedural fairness. |
| Migration Act 1958, ss.422B, 424AA, 424A, 425, 474 Migration Regulations 1994 |
| Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476 SZMMP v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship (2009) 174 FCR 514 |
| Applicant: | SZRDH |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 292 of 2012 |
| Judgment of: | Cameron FM |
| Hearing dates: | 15 May 2012, 2 July 2012 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 2 July 2012 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 13 July 2012 |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant appeared in person |
| Counsel for the First Respondent: | Mr D. Godwin |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | DLA Piper Australia |
ORDERS
The application be dismissed.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 292 of 2012
| SZRDH |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
The applicant is a citizen of Cuba who arrived in Australia on 25 June 2010. On 30 September 2011 he applied to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship for a protection visa, alleging that he feared persecution in Cuba because of his political opinion and religion. On 7 November 2011 his application was refused by a delegate of the first respondent (“Minister”). The applicant then applied to the second respondent (“Tribunal”) for a review of that departmental decision. He was unsuccessful before the Tribunal and has applied to this Court for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision.
In these judicial review proceedings the Court cannot rehear the applicant’s application for a visa. Its task is to determine whether the Tribunal’s decision is affected by jurisdictional error as that is the only basis upon which it can be set aside: s.474 Migration Act1958 (“Act”); Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476.
For the reasons which follow, the application will be dismissed.
Background facts
The facts alleged in support of the applicant’s claim for a protection visa are set out on pages 4-21 of the Tribunal’s decision. Relevant factual allegations are summarised below.
The applicant arrived in Australia on a spouse visa. Included in his application for a spouse visa was a “Criminal Records Certificate” issued by the Cuban Ministry of Justice dated 29 March 2010 certifying that there were no existing criminal records in relation to him. The application also included a supporting email from the applicant’s former wife dated 24 March 2010 stating that the applicant had obtained a “Permission to Reside Exterior” (“PRE”) from the Cuban government. The applicant’s former wife stated that whilst it often took up to a year to obtain a PRE, the applicant obtained his within a month because he was an exemplary citizen.
Protection visa application
The applicant made the following claims in his protection visa application and in a statutory declaration dated 3 October 2011:
a)he was a member of the Cuban armed forces from 1984, first through compulsory military service and then as a member and coach of the wrestling team. He left the army in 1991 or 1992 and continued to work as a wrestler and wrestling coach;
b)he was opposed to the Cuban communist government and believed in democracy, political freedom and freedom of speech. There was no freedom of speech in Cuba and the government persecuted anyone who opposed it;
c)on one occasion he tried to intervene to prevent police assaulting bystanders at an outdoor music event. He criticised the police for their actions and expressed his right to freedom of speech. As a result he was arrested and taken to the police station where he was beaten on the head with gun butts. He was detained for a day and fined 200 pesos;
d)the police then kept a file on him but took no further action, perhaps because they knew that he was leaving for Australia. He would be persecuted if he returned to Cuba because of the police file and because they would not want him to “contaminate” Cuban society with his experience of freedom in a democratic Australian society;
e)if he returned to Cuba it would be difficult for him to find employment because the police and other authorities would pressure businesses not to hire him, or if he was hired, to dismiss him. He would be unable to express his political views or opposition to the government without being detained and persecuted;
f)he is also a Christian and the Cuban government does not allow Christians to express their religion. Many people had been detained, mistreated and persecuted because of their religion; and
g)the authorities monitored him when he travelled overseas as a wrestling coach. He was denied the freedom to speak to others or to express his political opinion for fear of being punished on returning to Cuba.
In a further statement dated 24 and 26 October 2011 the applicant said that he was married in Cuba in December 2009 and in June 2010 moved to Australia to live with his wife. He stated that after their relationship broke down in December 2010, his wife evicted him from her house and withheld from him departmental documents relating to his visa status.
The applicant also submitted the following documents in support of his application:
a)a letter from the Rev Cesar Arturo Boggio of Lifespan Church stating that the applicant had attended services at the church in April 2011;
b)a letter from the Rev Alosio Waininau of Hillsong City Care stating that the applicant had been attending church services whilst in detention. Attached was a certificate stating that the applicant was baptised by Mr Waininau on 14 September 2011;
c)a curriculum vitae, listing the applicant’s sporting achievements in Cuba and elsewhere. It noted that he had travelled to Venezuela in 2004 for a sporting mission; and
d)general letters of support from a wrestling coach in Australia and two sports administrators in Cuba, together with certificates of appreciation concerning the applicant’s contributions to the sport of wrestling in Cuba.
Department
The applicant attended a departmental interview on 26 October 2011 and made the following claims:
a)he was practically a counter-revolutionary because he opposed the Cuban government;
b)he had travelled to a number of communist countries in Europe and South America to participate in wrestling competitions. When he did he was always accompanied by a government agent and when he returned the authorities always kept his passport;
c)he was told at his workplace not to attend church and had been unable to attend openly because he would have lost his job. He had wanted to attend church every day but had been dissuaded by the presence of informers;
d)he was arrested and fined 200 pesos in 1980 because he criticised the government;
e)he had not been arrested or otherwise harmed by the police since 1982 when he was detained for one day. However, he had expressed his opposition to the government on many occasions and would be in “serious trouble” if he returned to Cuba;
f)whilst living in Venezuela he met a nun with whom he discussed the political conditions in Cuba. He believed he may have been overhead by security officials;
g)he was allowed to leave Cuba because he had married an Australian citizen;
h)because of the language barrier he had not known that he could apply for a protection visa. He later learned from friends that he could; and
i)if he returned to Cuba he would be gaoled for thirty years or “made to disappear”.
The applicant’s adviser also submitted that the applicant would be questioned and could be harmed because he would be returning to Cuba as a failed asylum seeker.
Tribunal
The applicant attended a Tribunal hearing which took place over three sessions. At the first session, on 5 December 2011, he made the following claims:
a)from 1977 to 1979, when he was a chief of brigade in the forestry teaching service, he attended a church in Trinidad, Cuba. On one occasion in 1977 the police told him that people in charge should not attend church, noted his job details and sent a report to his employer. As a result he was demoted from his position and told that the church was against the revolution;
b)in 1978 or 1979 he was arrested during a protest in a street market when he joined in discussions with members of an anti-revolutionary group. He was detained for a day and fined 100 pesos;
c)he was arrested on three occasions and told by the government and security forces that if he was involved in one further incident he would be gaoled for many years;
d)in his early years he attended the Catholic church and then changed to the “Christian church” (the applicant’s adviser said that the applicant was at that time attending the Assembly of God church;
e)whilst in the military he rose to the rank of sergeant. After he left the military he worked for a sports club as a wrestling competitor and coach. He spent two years working in Venezuela as a coach;
f)he had had secret contact with an uncle who had been a political prisoner before the revolution;
g)his conversation with a nun in Venezuela in 2004 was overhead by security forces who accused him of speaking against the Cuban government. When he returned to Cuba he was forbidden to leave for other countries as a trainer. He had not previously mentioned this as had not remembered it; and
h)some of his former students whose parents were security police mentioned that their parents spoke of him. After his arrival in Australia his mother told his brother that she had heard that if he returned to Cuba he would be gaoled. His friends had also told him this.
At the second session of the Tribunal hearing, on 14 December 2011, the applicant made the following additional claims:
a)in 1983 or 1984 when he was about twenty one years old he left the Catholic church and began attending a Pentecostal church in Cuba which did not have a name. The church’s gatherings took place in different places because it was persecuted;
b)he was recruited into the military when he was twenty-one but undertook a driving course before beginning his actual military service at twenty three. During that time he was able to attend church meetings on a daily basis;
c)after leaving the army he attended church about four times a week and continued to do so during the whole time that he was in Cuba;
d)the incident when he was demoted at work because of his church attendance occurred in 1987 although he was confused and could not remember clearly. It happened while he was attending the Pentecostal Church and not the Catholic Church. He had not been a supervisor but was sometimes placed in charge of certain tasks, which did not happen after he was demoted;
e)the police had detected his secret church attendance on other occasions but nothing happened. When the police asked him where he was going, he denied that he was going to church and therefore they could not arrest him; and
f)he was baptised in a Pentecostal church in Australia.
At the third session of the Tribunal hearing, on 17 January 2012, the applicant made the following claims:
a)in Venezuela he had lived in a training centre under constant surveillance by security forces and was therefore unable to seek protection;
b)the authorities were aware of his opinions and membership of the Pentecostal church but did not write criminal records down;
c)he only left Cuba two months after the grant of his spousal visa because there had been delays in him receiving his passport from the Australian Embassy in Washington. His wife had arranged everything and he had not known anything. He had received his airline ticket two or four weeks before departing Cuba. When he had previously travelled outside Cuba the government had made all his travel arrangements;
d)he had not applied for a protection visa earlier because he had not been well and after his wife evicted him from her home he had lived on the streets for thirty days before finding someone to help him; and
e)when he arrived in Australia he had looked for a church but could not find one. He had gone to church with his wife on a few occasions. In detention he attended church twice a week and participated in daily gatherings.
The Tribunal received evidence from Rafael Boggio who said that after meeting the applicant in 2010 he invited him to Lifepassion Church, a Pentecostal church. He said that the applicant was converted and began to attend church and was eventually baptised whilst in detention. Mr Boggio’s uncle, the Rev Cesar Boggio, gave evidence that he met the applicant when he attended Lifepassion Church in 2011. He said that the applicant had only attended the church for a month and had not become a member.
The Tribunal’s decision and reasons
After discussing the claims made by the applicant and the evidence before it, the Tribunal found that it was not satisfied that the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 1951, amended by the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees 1967 (“Convention”). The Tribunal’s decision was based on the following findings and reasons:
a)the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had ever been harmed for expressing a political opinion against the Cuban government whilst in Cuba or in Venezuela and thus did not accept that he had an adverse police record or would suffer harm for those reasons if he returned to Cuba. In this regard:
i)the applicant’s claims about the way he had expressed his political opinion in the late 1970s and 1980s were found by the Tribunal to be vague and inconsistent;
ii)the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was overheard criticising the Cuban government whilst speaking to a nun in Venezuela in 2004 or that restrictions were placed on his movements as a result. The Tribunal found the applicant’s explanation, that he had forgotten to mention this claim earlier, unconvincing;
iii)the Tribunal found that the applicant’s claims about why the police would still wish to arrest him and how he knew this were confused and generally implausible, which led it to conclude that they were inventions he adopted at its hearing; and
iv)the Tribunal accepted that the applicant’s former wife was not an authoritative source of information about Cuba’s system of issuing PRE documents and that if the applicant had obtained his PRE within one month it did not necessarily demonstrate that he was regarded with particular favour by the authorities. However, the Tribunal found that the record of the applicant’s achievements in Cuba, including his appointments, his overseas travel and the fact that he had been permitted to leave the country to join his wife in Australia provided no basis for the claim that he was regarded as being politically suspect or a counter-revolutionary. The Tribunal accepted the truthfulness of the certificate showing the applicant had no criminal record and found it implausible that it would have been issued if the police held adverse records of previous arrests and fines;
b)the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had a political opinion strongly critical of the Cuban government which he could not openly express for fear that he would be punished or that he genuinely held a political opinion adverse to the Cuban government which he would be unable to express without suffering harm were he to return to Cuba. In this regard:
i)the Tribunal accepted country information which indicated that the Cuban government had committed serious human rights abuses over many years. It also accepted that throughout his application process the applicant had expressed a view opposed to Cuba’s communist government. However, the Tribunal found that the circumstances of the applicant’s life in Cuba appeared to reflect some degree of willingness to support that government. After noting the applicant’s military service and recognition for his sporting services by local authorities, the Tribunal was not satisfied that such active support for an aspect of Cuban public life in which the government and military were intimately involved reflected that he had a strong opinion opposed to the government; and
ii)the Tribunal found it difficult to understand why the applicant did not make any attempts to leave Cuba before December 2009. The Tribunal accepted that the Cuban authorities placed strong controls on the exit of its citizens but also noted information indicating that it was not impossible for ordinary citizens to leave the country legally or illegally. The applicant’s explanation that he was unable to seek refuge while in Venezuela because he was under strict surveillance by Cuban security officials was considered by the Tribunal to be implausible;
c)the Tribunal found that there was nothing before it to indicate that the applicant had criticised the Cuban government since his arrival in Australia in a way which would have come to the attention of the Cuban authorities or which would create a real chance that he would be harmed for such a reason on his return;
d)the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was ever a member of a Pentecostal church in Cuba, or that he suffered harm for such a reason. It found that the applicant’s evidence at its hearing on this issue was notably vague and inconsistent. After accepting that the Hillsong and Lifepassion churches were Pentecostal in nature, the Tribunal considered that the evidence that the applicant had “converted” to the Lifepassion church gave further weight to its conclusion that he had not been a member of a Pentecostal church before then;
e)the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant would be denied the right to practise his Pentecostal faith if he returned to Cuba, that he would be forced to deny or hide his membership of the church or that he would be punished or harmed in any way because of that membership for the following reasons:
i)the Tribunal was prepared to accept that the applicant had become a member of a Pentecostal church since his arrival in Australia otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening his claim of being a refugee. Consequently, it found that it was not required to disregard this conduct in considering the applicant’s claim to fear persecution in Cuba; and
ii)having made that finding, the Tribunal considered the information before it about religion in Cuba but was not satisfied that it indicated that individuals were prevented from worshipping as members of Pentecostal or other churches in Cuba. It found that whilst the controls placed on religious practice could be regarded as objectionable, they did not amount to a denial of the right to worship. In relation to the Pentecostal church, the Tribunal noted that it was part of the Cuban Council of Churches, its membership had been growing, its meetings were conducted in houses and also in church buildings and it had been granted approval to build a large place of worship in Havana. Based on this information, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant would be denied the right to practise his Pentecostal faith if he returned to Cuba, that he would be forced to hide or deny his membership of the church or that he would be punished or harmed in any way because of that membership;
f)the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant’s claim that he would be at risk of harm if he returned to Cuba because he would be seen as “contaminating” Cuban society was more than speculation. The Tribunal was also not satisfied that there was anything to indicate that the Cuban authorities were aware that the applicant had applied for a protection visa or would become aware of this fact if he returned to Cuba. It considered the applicant’s claim that he would be at risk of harm because of this to be speculative; and
g)the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant was not prevented from understanding questions put to him or from responding to them by any problems in the interpretation services provided at its hearing. The Tribunal noted that the interpreters used in its hearing were accredited at Level 3 by the National Accreditation Authority for Translators and Interpreters. The Tribunal also noted that although the hearing had been extended in part by the applicant’s interruptions and repetition of information, this did not prevent him from participating effectively or from articulating his claims.
Proceedings in this Court
The grounds of the application commencing these proceedings were pleaded as follows:
1.Procedures required by the Migration Act (the Act) or the Regulations to be observed in connection with the making of the decision were not observed.
2.The Tribunal in coming to its decision had regards [sic] to irrelevant materials and ignored relevant materials.
3.The Tribunal was in error in not adopting a procedure that gave me the applicant the opportunity to deal with matters adverse to my interests which the Tribunal was proposing to take into account in deciding upon my application for a protection visa.
4.The Tribunal denied me procedural fairness and denied me natural justice.
In his affidavit filed in support of the initiating application the applicant also said:
The Tribunal in coming to conclusion in its decision relied on information from external sources without giving me the opportunity to make further comments and submissions in writing or by telephone or another hearing before the writting [sic] of the decision.
Failure to observe statutory procedures
Except for those matters raised in the other grounds of the application and in his affidavit in support, the applicant did not identify in what way the Tribunal may have failed to observe procedures prescribed by the Act or the Migration Regulations 1994 (“Regulations”). In the circumstances, he has not demonstrated which requirement of the Act or Regulations was not observed and, in the absence of some particularisation, there is no basis to conclude that the first allegation made in the application identifies error on the Tribunal’s part.
Considered irrelevant material and ignored relevant material
As with the first allegation, the second allegation was not particularised. In his oral submissions at the hearing in these proceedings the applicant traversed matters which might have been supportive of a conclusion that he had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason in Cuba. However, rather than identifying relevant material which was ignored or irrelevant material which was relied on in a way that affected the Tribunal’s exercise of power, the applicant merely re-agitated the factual claims he had raised with the Tribunal or canvassed matters which had not been before the Tribunal. Specifically, the applicant did not identify how the Tribunal’s treatment of any particular material before it could possibly have deprived him of a successful outcome to his application for review and have amounted to a failure to conduct the review in the manner required by the Act.
For these reasons, the second allegation made in the application is not made out.
Breach of s.424A
The third allegation in the application raises questions of the Tribunal’s compliance with s.424A of the Act. That section relevantly provides:
424A Information and invitation given in writing by Tribunal
(1) Subject to subsections (2A) and (3), the Tribunal must:
(a) give to the applicant, in the way that the Tribunal considers appropriate in the circumstances, clear particulars of any information that the Tribunal considers would be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision that is under review; and
(b) ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, that the applicant understands why it is relevant to the review, and the consequences of it being relied on in affirming the decision that is under review; and
(c) invite the applicant to comment on or respond to it.
(2) …
(2A)The Tribunal is not obliged under this section to give particulars of information to an applicant, nor invite the applicant to comment on or respond to the information, if the Tribunal gives clear particulars of the information to the applicant, and invites the applicant to comment on or respond to the information, under section 424AA.
(3) This section does not apply to information:
(a) that is not specifically about the applicant or another person and is just about a class of persons of which the applicant or other person is a member; or
(b) that the applicant gave for the purpose of the application for review; or
(ba) that the applicant gave during the process that led to the decision that is under review, other than such information that was provided orally by the applicant to the Department; or
(c) that is non‑disclosable information.
As with the first and second grounds of the application, the third allegation was not particularised. That part of the Tribunal’s decision under the heading “Findings and Reasons”, summarised above at [15], sets out the Tribunal’s reasons for affirming the delegate’s decision. Those reasons demonstrate that the information which the Tribunal relied on was, with two exceptions, information supplied by the applicant or country information. By virtue of s.424A(3), the latter two classes of information are not required to be notified to an applicant pursuant to s.424A(1) and therefore the fact that the Tribunal did not notify such information does not amount to error on its part.
The two items or areas of information which the Tribunal did rely on but which did not fall within the exceptions found in s.424A(3) were the statement provided by the applicant’s estranged wife and the certificate issued by the Cuban government stating that the applicant had no criminal record. Paragraphs 76 and 77 of the Tribunal’s reasons record that on 17 January 2012, at the third session of the Tribunal’s hearing, this information and associated matters were notified to the applicant in compliance with s.424AA of the Act which provides:
424AA Information and invitation given orally by Tribunal while applicant appearing
If an applicant is appearing before the Tribunal because of an invitation under section 425:
(a) the Tribunal may orally give to the applicant clear particulars of any information that the Tribunal considers would be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision that is under review; and
(b) if the Tribunal does so—the Tribunal must:
(i) ensure, as far as is reasonably practicable, that the applicant understands why the information is relevant to the review, and the consequences of the information being relied on in affirming the decision that is under review; and
(ii) orally invite the applicant to comment on or respond to the information; and
(iii) advise the applicant that he or she may seek additional time to comment on or respond to the information; and
(iv) if the applicant seeks additional time to comment on or respond to the information—adjourn the review, if the Tribunal considers that the applicant reasonably needs additional time to comment on or respond to the information.
By doing this, the Tribunal complied with its obligations under s.424A in respect of that information: SZMMP v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship (2009) 174 FCR 514.
For these reasons, the third ground of the application is not made out.
Denial of procedural fairness and natural justice
As the fourth ground of the application makes no allegation that the Tribunal was biased, it must be inferred that this allegation is concerned with the natural justice hearing rule. However, for the purposes of Tribunal hearings, s.422B of the Act codifies the natural justice hearing rule in the provisions of div.4 of pt.7 of the Act with the result that the common law, to which the fourth allegation ostensibly refers, has no relevance on this point.
Sections 424AA and 424A are found in div.4 of pt.7 and have already been considered at [21]-[24] above. The only other section in div.4 of pt.7 which potentially had any relevance to the applicant in the context of this allegation was s.425(1) which provides:
425 Tribunal must invite applicant to appear
(1) The Tribunal must invite the applicant to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision under review.
The applicant was invited to the Tribunal hearing which he attended with the consequence that the only other issue which s.425(1) deals with which might justify a finding of jurisdictional error is that the Tribunal failed to identify to the applicant issues arising out of the decision under review which had not been determinative before the delegate but were determinative before it. The applicant has not pointed to any such issues and it is not apparent that there were any.
The reasons given by the delegate and the Tribunal for their decisions adverse to the applicant were not identical and the Tribunal was obliged to ensure that the applicant was aware of the additional issues which were ultimately determinative of the review. However, I am satisfied that the Tribunal did this by, as its decision record records, testing the applicant’s claims to have been politically opinionated and outspoken, to have been punished in Cuba for his political opinions and to have been a member of the Pentecostal church in Cuba. It also expressed to him its more generalized concern that evidence before it indicated that he had not been opposed to the Cuban government, had no expressed opposition to it, had not been a member of a Pentecostal Church in Cuba and had not been harmed for such a reason.
Before concluding, it might be noted that two issues mentioned by the Tribunal in its decision were not raised with the applicant pursuant to s.425. The first was the applicant’s claim in the statutory declaration accompanying his protection visa application that he feared that the Cuban authorities would persecute him because they did not want him, upon return from Australia, to “contaminate” Cuban society. This claim was repeated to the Tribunal by the applicant’s advisers in their written submissions of 2 December 2011 where they said that the applicant’s claims were stated in the statutory declaration attached to his protection visa application. Section 425(1) did not require the Tribunal to raise with the applicant an issue which he himself had raised and so the fact that it did not do so did not amount to error on its part.
The second matter was the Tribunal’s acknowledgement that during the interview with the delegate the applicant’s adviser stated that the applicant might be harmed on return to Cuba for being a failed asylum seeker. The applicant did not press that claim before the Tribunal and, as recorded at para.35 of the Tribunal’s decision, when he was asked if there were reasons for him to fear harm in Cuba other than his religion and political opinion, he “indicated that there were not”. In such circumstances, the Tribunal’s discussion of this issue in that part of its decision record under the heading “Findings and Reasons” was surplusage and irrelevant to its decision. As such, the question of the applicant being a failed asylum seeker and possibly persecuted on this account did not need to be raised with him pursuant to s.425(1).
For these reasons, the fourth ground of the application is not made out.
Reliance on information from external sources
The additional allegation which is found in the affidavit in support is a further allegation of breach of s.424A. However, for the reasons given above at [22] in relation to the third ground of review, this additional allegation is also not made out.
Conclusion
Jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal has not been demonstrated.
Consequently, the application will be dismissed.
I certify that the preceding thirty-five (35) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Cameron FM
Date: 13 July 2012
0
2
2