SZRUI v Minister for Immigration
[2013] FMCA 126
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZRUI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2013] FMCA 126 |
| MIGRATION – Review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – refusal of a protection visa – applicant claiming political and religious persecution in Nepal – applicant not believed – whether the Tribunal presiding member was biased considered. |
| Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.36, 425 |
| Galea v Galea (1990) 19 NSWLR 263 Minister for Immigration v SZNPG (2010) 115 ALD 303 Re Minister for Immigration & Ors; E3x parte AB (2000) 177 ALR 225 Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte H (2001) 179 ALR 425 Singh v Minister for Immigration (unreported, 18 October 1996 per Lockhart J) SZLBS v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2008] FMCA 183 |
| Applicant: | SZRUI |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 2026 of 2012 |
| Judgment of: | Driver FM |
| Hearing date: | 26 February 2013 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 26 March 2013 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr J R Young |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | G & S Law Group |
| Counsel for the Respondents: | Ms S Given |
| Solicitors for the Respondents: | Minter Ellison |
ORDERS
The application filed on 19 September 2012 is dismissed.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 2026 of 2012
| SZRUI |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction and background
The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (Tribunal) made on 21 August 2012. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate of the Minister not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant made claims of political and religious persecution. He was not believed by the Tribunal and now complains of bias, based upon forthright observations made by the presiding member at hearing. In my view, bias has not been established, notwithstanding the observations by the presiding member, which went well beyond what was necessary for procedural fairness.
The following statement of background facts is derived from the submissions of the parties. The applicant is a citizen of Nepal who arrived in Australia on 18 February 2009 as the holder of a subclass 572 vocational education and training sector visa[1]. He applied for a protection visa on 28 September 2011.
[1] Court Book (CB) 35
The applicant’s protection visa claims in substance concerned a confluence between the circumstance of his father being a political opponent of the Maoists and the applicant as a Hindu male having made a Muslim girl pregnant. The applicant claimed that this had been reported to the Young Communist League (YCL), an arm of the Maoists. The claim implied the YCL had used the applicant’s situation with the Muslim girl and the scandal it would have created to exert greater pressure and to make more threats on the applicant. The applicant’s parents had sent him to Australia to get him away from the threats of the YCL and the Local Muslims.
The applicant submitted a typed statement in support of his claims for a protection visa, in which the applicant claimed to fear persecution from the Muslim community and the YCL, on the basis of his relationship with the Muslim girl whom he caused to fall pregnant[2]. The statement also claimed that, prior to the relationship with the Muslim girl, the YCL asked “us” for donations because the applicant and his father were members of the Communist Party of Nepal (United Marxist Leninist) (CPN (UML)).
[2] CB 36-37
On 30 November 2011 the applicant's representative submitted a translated newspaper article in support of the applicant's application for a protection visa[3]. The translation names the applicant and his family, and reports an incident or incidents in which they were attacked by the YCL and Maoists for not paying donations, and in relation to his love affair with the Muslim girl.
[3] CB 39-47
The applicant was interviewed by a delegate of the Minister (the delegate) on 15 February 2012. By decision purportedly dated 5 March 2011 the delegate refused to grant a protection visa to the applicant[4]. 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. It is apparent that the date of this decision contains an administrative error, and the delegate in fact made his decision on 5 March 2012, as the decision was sent to the applicant's representative by letter dated 5 March 2012[5].
[4] CB 58-72
[5] CB 54-57
On 29 March 2012 the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate's decision[6]. On 6 August 2012 the applicant's representative provided a submission to the Tribunal[7], and on 7 August 2012 the applicant attended a hearing before the Tribunal[8]. Paragraphs [32]-[52] of the Tribunal's decision record contain a summary of what transpired at the hearing[9]. That account indicates that the Tribunal put a number of concerns to the applicant, and gave the applicant two weeks to respond to that “adverse information”. On 20 August 2012 the Tribunal received a response to those concerns from the applicant's representative[10].
[6] CB 80-86
[7] CB 112-114
[8] CB 115-117
[9] CB 136-140
[10] CB 124-126
On 21 August 2012 the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant a protection visa to the applicant[11]. The Tribunal expressed serious concerns about the applicant's credibility, and found that the applicant's representative's response to the concerns raised by the Tribunal at the hearing had failed to resolve them[12]. The Tribunal rejected all of the applicant's claims. Specifically, the Tribunal found that:
a)the applicant was never targeted by the Maoists or the YCL because of his support for the CPN (UML), or for any other reason[13];
b)the applicant was never involved in a sexual relationship with a Muslim girl and was never threatened for this reason by the girl's family, or by the Maoists/YCL[14];
c)the claim made by the applicant at the Tribunal hearing that he was threatened by Maoists/YCL in 2008 because his father had not made donations to them was fabricated[15]; and
d)the newspaper report submitted by the applicant was not genuine[16].
[11] CB 131-148
[12] at CB 145 [74]
[13] at [75]
[14] at [76]
[15] at [77]
[16] at [78]
The Tribunal accepted that there was widespread violence in Nepal, and that the authorities did not seem able to deal with it effectively, but found that the applicant was at no greater risk of harm than the general population in Nepal[17]. Ultimately, the Tribunal did not accept that the applicant had been harmed in the past in Nepal for any reason, and did not accept that the applicant was targeted or threatened by anyone in Nepal[18]. On that basis, the Tribunal was not satisfied that there was a real chance the applicant would suffer Convention based persecution if he returned to Nepal in the foreseeable future[19].
[17] at [81]
[18] at [75] to [81]
[19] at [82]
Having found that the applicant would not be harmed by anyone if he returned to Nepal, and that there was no convincing evidence that any risk to the applicant would be elevated for any reason above the risk to the general population in Nepal from civil and political unrest, the Tribunal was also not satisfied that the applicant would suffer significant harm if he were to be removed from Australia to Nepal[20]. This finding was also the basis for the Tribunal's conclusion that the applicant did not satisfy the complementary protection criterion contained in s.36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)[21].
[20] at [84] to [85]
[21] at [87]
The judicial review application
These proceedings began with a show cause application filed on 19 September 2012. That application contains the following grounds:
1.The Second Respondent made jurisdictional error in that it failed to comply with the requirements of s 425 Migration Act.
Particulars
a. At paragraph 75, 76, 77, 78 and 79 the Tribunal made a finding about evidence submitted by the Applicant based on information that the tribunal had received adverse to the applicant but failed to put that adverse information to the applicant and give the Applicant to the opportunity to respond to it.
2.The Second Respondent made jurisdictional error in that it made a decision that was affected by a reasonable apprehension of bias.
3.The Second Respondent made jurisdictional error by failing to take into consideration the explanation provided on behalf of the Applicant in relation to the period of time that he was in Australia prior to applying for a protection visa and used this as a basis for rejecting all of his claim[s].
The applicant continues to rely upon that application but Grounds 1 and 3 are not pressed.
In addition to the court book filed on 16 October 2012, I have before me as evidence an Auscript transcript of the hearing conducted by the Tribunal with the applicant on 7 August 2012.
The applicant contends that the transcript gives rise to an apprehension that the presiding member may not have brought an impartial mind to bear upon the review. The Minister contends that, although the presiding member engaged in robust exchanges with the applicant and provided him with clear indications of disbelief, read fairly and as a whole (and including reference to the Tribunal’s reasons for its decision) the transcript does not support a conclusion of apprehended bias.
Consideration
It is well established that an allegation of bias is a serious charge to be made against a decision-maker and must be clearly made and distinctly proved[22]. Apprehended bias on the part of an administrative decision maker will only be found to exist if a fair-minded and properly informed lay observer might think that the decision-maker might not bring a fair and impartial mind to the making of the decision[23]. Moreover, ordinarily bias must be established by reference to the conduct of the relevant decision-maker, apart from the decision-maker's expression of the decision-maker's reasons[24].
[22] Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte H (2001) 179 ALR 425, SZLBS v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2008] FMCA 183 at [11]
[23] Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte H (2001) 179 ALR 425, 434-435, [28]-[29] per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron and Gummow JJ
[24] Minister for Immigration v SZNPG (2010) 115 ALD 303, 307, [18] per North and Lander JJ
It is accepted on behalf of the applicant that the connection between the applicant as a Hindu, making a Muslim girl pregnant, and threats being made by a Maoist related body, is not obvious. This was a matter which the applicant needed to explain at a hearing. The delegate had not been satisfied that the YCL would have sought to harm the applicant because of his personal relationship with a Muslim girl[25].
[25] at CB 68
The applicant also concedes that it would also be reasonable for any Tribunal member to express difficulties with the nature of the claim and to question the applicant closely as to the claim itself and to its connection with the activities of the YCL.
However, the applicant submits that the Tribunal went far beyond this and exhibited views at the hearing supporting a reasonable apprehension of a closed mind. In particular, the applicant refers to the following exchanges at the hearing. The applicant stated that his parents were being pestered by the YCL[26]. (While the Transcript places a comma after the YCL, it is likely that he said the “YCL and the Muslim group”. In any event, he claimed that there was harassment of his family by the YCL).
[26] Transcript (T) 22, line 29
The response by the presiding member was as follows:
Don’t be silly. I just don’t believe any of that. I don’t believe what you’ve told me about this Muslim girl.
At the top of page 23 of the transcript, the presiding member expressed moral judgement against the applicant stating in relation to the girl’s parents:
You clearly ruined the girl. So no wonder they’re angry.
The presiding member then stated a finding that this was a personal matter that did not come within the Convention.
At various other places in the transcript the applicant contends that the presiding member effectively made findings during the course of the hearing. At T20, line 16 the presiding member stated that she did not believe the applicant’s evidence that the applicant had done nothing after finding out the girl was pregnant. When the applicant[27] stated that the girl’s family had thrown furniture out of his house the presiding member stated that this was the least he could expect, given his behaviour.
[27] at T23, line 23
In relation to what might be regarded as a critical question of why the YCL would involve themselves in relation to the situation of a Muslim and the applicant[28], the presiding member stated that the applicant had given no rational explanation as to why the YCL would be interested in him. He contends that he had been given no opportunity and the presiding member was not about to give him one.
[28] at T25, line 39
The presiding member said[29]:
[29] at T2,5 lines 44 and 45
I have never heard of such a thing. It simply doesn’t make any sense.
When the applicant asked what else he could say at that point, the presiding member stated that she did not know what he could say because she did not believe that the YCL would peruse him “into India”. The introduction at this point of the question of relocation to India is said to have been grossly unfair where the applicant needed to give an explanation who would have been interested in him in Nepal. The presiding member effectively answered that issue herself by stating that in Nepal the applicant was not pursued by the YCL[30].
[30] T26, line 6
At the conclusion of the hearing the presiding member stated that she had referred at the outset to problems that she had with the claims and she then stated various matters and at T32, line 32 and invited comment. However, the applicant contends that nothing which the Tribunal said at that point or any invitation to comment could have undone the reasonable apprehension of a fair minded observer that the Tribunal may not have been open to persuasion. The applicant submits that much of what the presiding member had said at the hearing might indicate to the hypothetical lay observer that the Tribunal had already made up its mind, whether that was true or not.
The Minister relies upon the NSW Court of Appeal decision in Galea v Galea[31] and the Federal Court decision of Singh v Minister for Immigration[32] as demonstrating that robust (or even at times aggressive) questioning and temporary irritation, impatience or even sarcasm do not necessarily support a conclusion of bias. Both decisions should be treated with caution. Galea dealt with an allegation of a miscarriage of justice in an adversarial context. Singh was decided under different judicial review legislative provisions which were taken to have excluded apprehended bias and required an assertion of actual bias. The solicitor for the Minister also referred me to the High Court decision of Re Minister for Immigration & Ors; Ex parte AB[33] which is authority for the proposition that a temporary loss of temper by a Tribunal member does not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. I do not find that decision much help in these proceedings as it does not appear from the transcript that there was any loss of temper by the presiding member. Rather, the simple proposition by the applicant is that the presiding member had made up her mind on the applicant’s claims well before the hearing had concluded, which gives rise to an apprehension that the presiding member did not bring an impartial mind to bear upon the review.
[31] (1990) 19 NSWLR 263
[32] (unreported, 18 October 1996 per Lockhart J)
[33] (2000) 177 ALR 225
Each case must depend upon its own facts. It is necessary to pay close attention to what the presiding member said according to the transcript of the hearing and the context in which it was said.
The presiding member closely questioned the applicant about his claims. Nothing of particular concern was said by her until about two thirds of the way into the hearing. The transcript records that at that point[34], the presiding member made the following observation:
Don’t be silly. I just don’t believe any of that. I don’t believe what you’ve told me about this Muslim girl. You weren’t able to tell me anything in detail about what happened after you found out this girl was pregnant. And I don’t accept that your parents would have continued to have lived a couple of doors away from the house of the family of this girl that you made pregnant without serious problems arising. If there had been serious problems, your parents would have moved away. Yes. Well, your parents would have moved away if there had been serious problems with the YCL. I can’t see why there would have been problems with them. I mean all they’re doing is asking for donations and your father, as far as you know, isn’t paying them. Nothing has happened.
[34] T22
Shortly afterwards, the presiding member appeared to make a finding having a fundamental bearing upon the review. The presiding member said[35]:
Well, I find it’s a personal matter. It doesn’t come within the Convention. If it happened at all, which I doubt. Well, look, you’ve previously said that you continued to live in [location] up until the time you came to Australia, apart from trips that you made to Kathmandu to arrange for your student visa. Is that true or isn’t it?
[35] T23
In continuing dialogue with the applicant, the presiding member continued to challenge the applicant’s claims in terms which clearly raise his credibility as an issue. For example, on page 25 of the transcript[36] the presiding member said:
Why would the YCL be interested? Look, they’ve done nothing to your parents. They may ask for donations from your father but he didn’t pay. Your parents haven’t seen it necessary to move from where they’ve lived for ages in your village. You’ve got no profile at all politically. Why would they be interested in you? Look, you have given me no rational explanation as to why the YCL would ally themselves with a Muslim minority. I’ve never heard of such a thing. It simply doesn’t make any sense. Not only does it not make any sense but you’ve given me no evidence that any member of your family has actually been seriously harmed since this single incident back in January 2008.
[36] Lines 39-47
The applicant responded by asking “What else can I say now?” There followed the following exchange[37]:
[37] T26 line 3 – T28, line 19
[PRESIDING MEMBER]: Well, I don’t know what you can say because I don’t believe from what you’ve told me that you’ve been pursued by the YCL or, indeed, by the Muslims – apart from this girl’s family, I – if there was a relationship, then that might have happened, but then if you’re not pursued by the YCL, they’re not going to pursue you into India, why would they? You’re just of no interest to them. They had a long time to seriously harm you in Nepal, before you came to Australia, and they didn’t do it.
THE INTERPRETER: How can you say they wouldn’t do anything to me in India?
[PRESIDING MEMBER]: Well, because they didn’t do anything to you in Nepal.
THE INTERPRETER: Because I moved around.
[PRESIDING MEMBER]: Don’t be silly. You said you kept on coming back to [location] – you moved between [location] and Kathmandu – over a whole year. It wouldn’t have been hard to wait for you to come back to [location] if they wanted to get you, particularly since this Muslim family just lives a couple of doors away. You know the real problem about this, Mr [applicant], is this: you came to Australia in February 2009, and you’ve said you came to Australia to avoid all these problems that you’re attempting to tell me happened to you in Nepal. So you got here, at some point you stopped studying, your student visa was cancelled and you didn’t actually get to apply for a protection visa until over two years after you had arrived here. This delay is not consistent with the behaviour of a person who flees a country in fear of their life. Do you have any comment to make on that delay?
THE INTERPRETER: It’s true I came here to study and I was happy. I did not know that I would have to go back to Nepal. I did not know that my visa would be cancelled.
[PRESIDING MEMBER]: You must have known your student visa wasn’t permanent.
THE INTERPRETER: My intentions were to stay here at least five or six years and to get some kind of education certificate. And by that time I would hope things would settle back in Nepal, I would have something in my hand when I went back.
[PRESIDING MEMBER]: That country has not been settled for decades.
THE INTERPRETER: I’m not talking about the country, I’m talking about my problems.
[PRESIDING MEMBER]: Well, your problems didn’t cause you any harm for at least a year after, according to you, your family home was raided. We’ve been over this before. We’ve been over this before. Unless you can tell me something more convincing then that you moved around between Kathmandu and [location] and that was why they couldn’t get you, then I don’t find that very convincing.
THE INTERPRETER: I have nothing further.
[PRESIDING MEMBER]: Okay. One of the other aspects of this story that makes it less convincing is that it’s very difficult to understand why you didn’t call the police after this incident when the Muslim family actually attempted to damage your house.
THE INTERPRETER: We did inform the police.
[PRESIDING MEMBER]: And what did they do?
THE INTERPRETER: The police came very late after everything was settled down, everybody left.
[PRESIDING MEMBER]: Why didn’t you send them off to talk to the girl’s family? You knew the reason for this after all, didn’t you, so why didn’t you say to the police, “This is all happening because I got a girl pregnant”?
THE INTERPRETER: It’s not something to disclose to everyone.
[PRESIDING MEMBER]: No, I’m not surprised. All right. So after this attack on the house when you didn’t do anything much at all, except call the police – they came, they didn’t find anybody, you didn’t give them any clues. After all this, nothing seems to have happened. You didn’t feel it necessary to call the police again.
THE INTERPRETER: My brother has been threatened. That’s what has been happening. Even after I came here.
[PRESIDING MEMBER]: I can’t understand why your brother would be threatened, from what you’ve told me. Why would he be threatened? He didn’t get the girl pregnant. He has got no money, I presume – so why would he be threatened?
THE INTERPRETER: Just because he’s my brother.
[PRESIDING MEMBER]: Threatened with what? What have they said?
THE INTERPRETER: Regarding myself, they said to him, “If your brother comes back, this is what he’s going face.”
[PRESIDING MEMBER]: Well, has he had phone calls, has he?
THE INTERPRETER: No, they met him.
[PRESIDING MEMBER]: Where?
THE INTERPRETER: In [location].
[PRESIDING MEMBER]: And who were the people who met him?
THE INTERPRETER: The Muslims.
[PRESIDING MEMBER]: It’s still the family being annoyed about the girl, I suppose.
THE INTERPRETER: It wasn’t her dad, mum, but it was other Muslim people.
[PRESIDING MEMBER]: Well, they might be annoyed on behalf of the family. I’m not surprised.
THE INTERPRETER: Yes.
[PRESIDING MEMBER]: So, I mean, you may have a problem because of your relationship with this girl. The point about this is you were not harmed for a year before you left India – Nepal, sorry. And if you were so concerned about going back to Nepal, my suggestion to you is that you should go to India. Thank you.
It might be thought that by that point the presiding member had made up her mind about the applicant’s claims. It might also be thought that, as the presiding member seemed to be very confident about the outcome of the review, she might have proceeded to make an oral decision, as she was entitled to do. However, she did not do so. After further questioning of the applicant about other aspects of his factual claims the presiding member reviewed her thinking in the following terms[38]:
Well, okay. I said to you at the beginning of the hearing that I would let you know of problems that I had with your claims, and I have discussed those problems with you during the hearing. Now, the problems are, for example, that it might have been expected that if, in fact, you had got a girl pregnant, whether or not she was Muslim. Then her family would have been extremely angry with you and your family, and would have attempted to retaliate against you. So this attack you claim occurred on your house in January of 2008 is understandable and explainable in terms of the anger of the girl’s family. Now, from the evidence you’ve given me, it doesn’t seem to me that either you or your father were high profile in the UML as political activists.
So I don’t believe that the Maoists or the YCL would be targetting either you or your father because of your political activities on behalf of the UML. Now, it may be the case that your father has been asked for money by the Maoists because they have a history of [demanding] money from people, but since it appears your father was quite a well‑to‑do businessman, it’s not surprising they would have attempted to take money from him. However, it is the case, according to your evidence, that your parents have not moved away from [location] in order to avoid either the demands for money by the YCL, or the revenge that the family of the girl wants to take on your family.
You’ve said to me that your father has never been personally physically harmed, except during the revolution. So it’s clear that neither the YCL nor the Muslims or the girl’s family or whoever, have actually seriously wanted to harm him, or they would have done so. Similarly, on your evidence there was a period of a year when you were going backwards and forwards between [location] and Kathmandu before you came to Australia, but nothing happened to you. You might have been threatened, but nobody actually did you any harm. You had said that your brother was also told back in [location] that people were waiting for you to do you harm, and it was the Muslims who told him that. It seems to me that that also could be related to the fact that you injured this girl – girl’s reputation.
I said to you that even – if, in fact, you remained concerned about what might happen to you if you went to Nepal, it seems to me reasonable that you could relocate or get effective protection if you went to India because you can – you have a right to enter there. I’ve also said that the – over two year delay in applying for protection undermines your claims. And when people claim to have fled their countries for fear of being seriously harmed, it is usual for them to apply for protection at the earliest opportunity. Now, is there any comment you would like to make at this stage, or would you like to think about those things and provide something in writing for me within the next, say, couple of weeks?
[38] T31, line 41 –T32, line 34
That passage demonstrates that the presiding member, while clearly having a firm opinion about the applicant’s claims, had not closed her mind. She was willing to suspend her judgement on those claims until the applicant had had the opportunity to comment on the obviously very serious concerns that she had raised.
The Tribunal’s reasons at [51] and [52] demonstrate that the Tribunal took into account the post hearing submissions made on the applicant’s behalf. Further, those reasons demonstrate that the “finding” purportedly made by the Tribunal at point 8 of page 23 of the transcript was ultimately of no consequence to the outcome of the review. That was because it was unnecessary for the Tribunal to decide whether there was any Convention nexus bearing upon the applicant’s claims. The Tribunal rejected the applicant’s factual account and so the issue of a Convention nexus did not arise.
The Tribunal must walk an ill defined path between, on the one hand failing to ensure that an applicant understands the issues of significance in the review (and failing to provide the applicant with a fair opportunity to comment on adverse material) and, on the other hand, saying so much as to give rise to an apprehension of bias. It is often stated that the Tribunal does not have to give an applicant a “running commentary” on its thought processes. The other side of that proposition is that, if the Tribunal chooses to give a running commentary on its thought processes, it takes a risk. Here, the Tribunal did provide a running commentary. That commentary was adverse to the applicant’s claims. Plainly, the presiding member disbelieved at the hearing critical aspects of what the applicant was saying. However, those expressions of disbelief did not occur until about two thirds of the way into the hearing. There is no evidence that the presiding member went into the hearing with a closed mind. Secondly, the presiding member’s statements need to be seen in the context that she was entitled to make an oral decision at the hearing if she was so minded. In other words, if she had decided to make an oral decision she was entitled to (and probably required to) tell the applicant that she had made up her mind. Thirdly, the passage quoted above at [33] establishes that, notwithstanding her disbelief, the presiding member was willing to give the applicant an opportunity to attempt to persuade her that her concerns were unwarranted. Finally, the Tribunal’s written reasons establish that the submission made on behalf of the applicant was taken into account.
Having regard to the statements made, the circumstances in which they were made and the surrounding context, I am, on balance, not persuaded that the transcript establishes an apprehension of bias. It establishes, rather, a state of disbelief that was nevertheless open to persuasion. A fair minded lay observer, aware of the circumstances, would not apprehend that the presiding member’s mind was prejudiced.
Conclusion
The applicant has failed to establish a case of jurisdictional error by the Tribunal. The decision is therefore a privative clause decision and the application must be dismissed. I will so order.
I will hear the parties as to costs.
I certify that the preceding thirty-nine (39) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Driver FM
Date: 26 March 2013
1
5
0