SZSEY v Minister for Immigration

[2013] FCCA 1838

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZSEY v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2013] FCCA 1838

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Review of Refugee Review Tribunal decision – refusal of Protection (Class XA) visa – no reviewable error – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.36(2)(a), 36(2)(aa), 91X, 474(2)

Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang & Ors (1996) 185 CLR 259
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZIAI & Anor (2009) 259 ALR 429
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZNVW & Anor (2010) 183 FCR 575
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Le Geng (2001) 205 CLR 507
Re JRL; Ex parte CJL (1986) 161 CLR 342
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex Parte Durairajasingham (2000) 168 ALR 407
W148/00A v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2001) 185 ALR 703

Applicant: SZSEY

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 2652 of 2012

Judgment of: Judge Lloyd-Jones

Hearing date: 9 May 2013

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 15 November 2013

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person with the assistance of a Mandarin interpreter.

Solicitor for the First Respondent:

Ms M. Stone of DLA Piper

The Second Respondent:

The Second Respondent filed a submitting

notice of appearance.

ORDERS

1. The name of the First Respondent be amended to read “Minister for Immigration and Border Protection”.

2. The Application filed on 15 November 2012 is dismissed.

3. The Applicant is to pay the First Respondent’s costs and disbursements of and incidental to the Application.

The Applicant in these proceedings is not to be identified pursuant to s.91X of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and has been given the pseudonym SZSEY.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 2652 of 2012

SZSEY

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. This is an application under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the “Migration Act”) seeking judicial review in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the “Tribunal”), RRT Case Number 1204080 dated 17 October 2012, affirming the decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (the “Minister”) (at the time of the decision the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship) to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection (Class XA) visa.

2. In accordance with the Court’s Orders made on 18 December 2012 the solicitors for the Minister were required to file a folder which was to be indexed, labelled and paginated, containing all documents which may be relevant to the hearing.  This order was complied with and the volume of material provided is identified as the Court Book (“CB”) and has been marked Exhibit “A”.

3. At the First Court Date directions hearing, the applicant was granted leave to file and serve an amended application, giving complete particulars of each ground of review upon together with any supporting affidavit material, on or before 11 March 2013.  The applicant elected not to file an amended application.  The applicant was also required to file and serve a short written outline of submissions and a list of authorities 14 days before the hearing.  Written submissions were not filed by the applicant. 

Background

1. In setting out the following background material I have quoted directly from the Court Book and submissions prepared by Ms Stone of DLA Piper. I have not made further attribution as this would make the summary unwieldy. Where this information is extracted from the Court Book, each item contains a reference (CB) for that material.

2. The applicant is a male citizen of the People’s Republic of China (“China”) born on 2 September 1963 (CB 26).  He arrived in Australia on 17 August 2011 (CB 46).  The applicant applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa on 8 November 2011 (CB 1-25).  His claims were set out in a statement accompanying the Protection visa application (CB 58-64).  The application was refused by a delegate of the Minister on 7 March 2012 (CB 73-94).

3. The applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate’s decision on 30 March 2012 (CB 95-98).  The applicant provided written submissions to the Tribunal dated 27 May 2012 (CB 105-107).  The applicant was invited to and attended a hearing before the Tribunal held on 5 June 2012 (CB 108-110).  The Tribunal made its decision on 17 October 2012, affirming the decision of the Minister’s delegate not to grant the applicant a Protection (Class XA) visa (CB 123-144).

Applicant’s claims and evidence

1. The applicant claimed to fear harm in China as the result of his association with an Uighur activist and because he had been imputed with a political opinion supportive of Uighurs by the Chinese authorities.  The applicant’s claims were as follows:

   a)He was friends with a man named Mr Wang who was an activist in support of Uighurs and was wanted by the police for this reason.  In July 2010 the applicant assisted Mr Wang to hide from the police by letting him stay at a placed owned by a friend of the applicant called “Cotton Hill Resort”(CB 127 at [27]);

   b)On 21 July 2010 two police came and took the applicant to Shibei Public Security Bureau where he was questioned about the Uighur person staying at Cotton Hill Resort.  The police accused the applicant of being a collaborator with Mr Wang, and tortured him for two days before he was sent to No. 1 Detention Centre.  The applicant was ultimately released on bail on 28 July 2010 after paying a security bond (CB 128 at [27]);   

   c)After this, the applicant was required to report to the local police station each week and he lost his job because his employer found out about his political difficulties (CB 128 at [27]); and

   d)After arriving in Australia, the applicant’s wife told him that the police had visited their house on three occasions, seized his computer and some work-related information, and warned his wife that he had committed a serious offence by fleeing overseas while on bail (CB 128 at [27]).

2. The applicant submitted the following documents in support of his claims:

   a)“Decision Notice of Release on Bail for Trial” issued by the Public Security Bureau of Hanshou County on 28 July 2010 (CB 49-50);

   b)“Detention Notice” issued by the Public Security Bureau of Hanshou County on 21 July 2010 (CB 52-54);

   c)A receipt for payment of bail security bond issued by the Public Security Bureau of Qingdao City, Shibei Division on 28 July 2010 (CB 55-57); and

   d)A FedEx envelope shown to the Tribunal at the hearing which the applicant claimed had been used to send the above documents to him from China.  It was marked as having arrived in Australia on 28 October 2011, but was otherwise in Chinese (CB 134 at [55]).  No copy of this document was taken by the Tribunal.  The applicant was advised that if he wanted to submit the envelope he needed to obtain a translation.  Nothing further was received by the Tribunal (CB 134 at [56]).

Tribunal’s Decision

1. The Tribunal made an adverse credibility finding and found that the applicant had fabricated his claims and either fabricated his supporting documents or obtained fabricated documents (CB 139 at [79]).  The Tribunal rejected the entirety of the applicant’s claims, finding that he was not of adverse interest to the Chinese authorities, and had not been arrested and detained as claimed (CB 142 at [91]-[92])

2. The Tribunal gave the following reasons for coming to these conclusions:

   a)Inconsistencies and implausibilities in the applicant’s account (CB 140 -141 at [82]-[83]);

   b)The Tribunal considered that if the applicant were of adverse interest to the authorities he would not have been able to have his passport renewed and depart China on documents in his own name (CB 141-142 at [85]); and

   c)There were contradictions between the applicant’s documents and his own evidence (CB 142 at [87]-[88]).  This, coupled with country information about the ease with which fake documents can be obtained in China, led the Tribunal to place no weight on the documentation and to decline to undertake its own investigations into the authenticity of the documents (CB 142 at [86] and [89]).  The Tribunal concluded that the documents were fabricated (CB 142 at [91]).

Legislative Framework

1. The decision of the Tribunal in the present case is a privative clause decision as defined by s.474(2) of the Migration Act. Section 474 operates to prevent the judicial review of all decisions under the Migration Act except those vitiated by jurisdictional error.

Current Proceedings

1. The Application filed on 15 November 2012 pleads three grounds which are reproduced below.  The applicant elected not to file an amended application or written submissions.

2. The orders sought by the applicant in his Application are as follows:

   1.  An order that the decision of the Tribunal be quashed.

   2.  A writ of mandamus directed to the tribunal, requiring it to determine the applicant’s application according to law.

3. The grounds of the Application are in the form of submissions and appear as follows:

   1. Mr Wang was my business acquaintance  & friend who was an anti-CCP traitor in Xinjiang and was on the police wanted list.  I became quite sympathetic with the dilemma of people like Mr Wang.  I tried to help him.  In the middle of July 2010, Mr Wang came to Qingdao to hire.  I helped him stay as my friend’s place for which I was arrested and tortured for two days by the PBS.  I was released with the help of my family and friends after paying of a security bond, but was told to report to the local police station ever Thursday.

   2.  The Tribunal member said that the applicant had fabricated (or obtained fabricated) documents to support those claims.  The fact is all the documents were issued by the CCP authorities.  I strongly request the Federal Magistrates (sic) Court to send the documents to Australian authoritative government department to carry on strict examination.  The fair examination result will prove the documents (sic) are true.

   3. The Tribunal member didn’t take all my documents and claims into account according to S91R of the Migration Act 1958 for the Tribunal’s bias against me.

Applicant’s Submissions

1. At the First Court Date directions hearing, the applicant was requested to file a short written outline of submissions fourteen days before the final hearing, however, no written submissions were received by the Court.  When the applicant was invited to make oral submissions in support of his Application, he initially sought to tender a letter which had been forwarded to the Court on 15 March 2013, attaching a translator’s note concerning a document that he had originally attempted to provide to the Tribunal, a FedEx International Airway bill, which contained Chinese characters next to the sender’s name.  I explained to the applicant why this document could not be accepted into evidence.

2. The applicant then indicated to the Court that he did not agree with the Tribunal’s decision.  He stated that the decision was incorrect because the Tribunal did not know much about Chinese country information.  The claim by the applicant is not particularly coherent, however, it appears that he is suggesting that the country information may place some limitation on what you can do to assist a friend.  It is in this respect that the applicant claims that the decision is incorrect, because he was attempting to assist a friend, which resulted in his incarceration.  The Tribunal’s approach to that material, ultimately led to the rejection of the applicant’s entire case.  The applicant claims that his experiences are all true and he invited the Court to investigate those issues and asked the Court for an opportunity for the matter to be returned to the Tribunal for re-examination. 

3. When the applicant was asked whether he had received and had had the respondent’s written submissions read and explained to him, he indicated that he had received those documents but did not wish to make any comment.   

Minister’s Submissions

1. The Minister submits that the first ground of the applicant’s claims and does not assert any error, jurisdictional or otherwise of the part of the Tribunal.

2. The Minister submits that the second ground takes issue with the Tribunal’s finding that the applicant’s documents were fabricated and asks the Court to have the documents examined.  This ground seeks impermissible merits review: Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang & Ors (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 272; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611 at 629 per Gleeson CJ and McHugh J. Their Honours found that a court undertaking judicial review cannot review the merits of the Tribunal’s decision. The Minister contends that there is no error in the Tribunal’s consideration of the applicant’s documents or its decision not to have the documents examined as:

   a)The Tribunal is not under any general obligation to undertake inquiries: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZNVW & Anor (2010) 183 FCR 575 at 586 (Keane CJ), at 589 (Emmett J). To establish a jurisdictional error on the basis of a failure to make inquiries, the applicant needs to show that there was an obvious inquiry that the Tribunal could have made about a critical fact, the existence of which was easily ascertained: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZIAI & Anor (2009) 259 ALR 429 at 434-436. Importantly, the failure to make inquiries also needs to supply a sufficient link to the outcome to constitute a failure to review, in the sense that there needs to be some evidence that an inquiry by the Tribunal would have yielded a useful result: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZIAI (supra) at 436;

   b)The Tribunal stated that it would not make inquiries into the applicant’s documents because it considered that document fraud in China was so widespread that it was impossible to reliably check the authenticity of the documents (CB 135 at [64] and 142 at [89]).  Therefore, the authenticity of the documents was not something which was ‘easily ascertained’ and the Tribunal was not under any duty to conduct inquiries to verify the documents; and

   c)Moreover, there is no evidence that any inquiry made by the Tribunal would have yielded a useful result.  To the contrary, the country information before the Tribunal indicated that any inquiry would be unable to verify the authenticity of the documents (CB 135-136 at [65]-[67]).  There is therefore no sufficient link between the refusal to conduct inquiries and the outcome of the review, and there was no duty to inquire for this reason.

3. The third ground of the application asserts bias on the part of the Tribunal.  The Minister understands the applicant to be alleging that the reason the Tribunal did not accept his claims and documents was because it was biased.  This assertion cannot be sustained as:

   a)The Minister notes that an allegation of bias must be firmly established and distinctly made out and clearly proved: Re JRL; Ex parte CJL (1986) 161 CLR 342 at 352; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Le Geng (2001) 205 CLR 507 at 531 and 546;

   b)There is no bias on part of the Tribunal evidence in the materials before the Court.  The Tribunal undertook a careful and detailed consideration of the applicant’s claims and documents, and its findings were open to it to make on the material before it.

Consideration

1. The hearing before the Court was held on 9 May 2013.  The applicant was assisted by a Mandarin Interpreter.  The Court file contains a copy of the NSW RRT Legal Advice Scheme: Certificate By Panel Member which indicates that the applicant received his advice from the panel advisor. 

2. Prior to the hearing a letter was sent by the applicant to the Court, attaching an express delivery document and a translator’s note from a NAATI accredited translator.  The translation was from Chinese to English of two Chinese characters which was the name written on the document.  I brought to the attention of the parties the reference in the Tribunal’s decision to the express delivery document at [55]-[56] (CB 134), which states:

   55.  The applicant stated that he had the FedEx envelope that these materials had come in from China and produced it to the Tribunal.  The envelope showed that it had arrived in Australia on 28 October 2011.  The applicant stated that it had contained the “release on bail for trial” document, the “detention notice” and the receipt for bail security bond (all set out above).  Asked who had sent it, the applicant stated that Hu’s company had sent it.  The Tribunal noted that in his written statement, he stated that his wife had sent these materials to him, that she had asked a friend to send them, and the applicant stated that his wife took the materials to Hu’s company and asked them to post it to him.

   56.  The Tribunal informed the applicant that if he wished to submit the FedEx envelope it must be accompanied by an English translation by an accredited translator.  Nothing further has been received from the applicant since the hearing. 

   (CB 134 at [55]-[56])

3. I explained a brief procedural history of the matter, specifically in reference to express delivery document. It is apparent from reading the extract at [19] above that the applicant was advised by the Tribunal, presumably on the date of the hearing 5 June 2012, that if he wished to submit the document in question, it had to “be accompanied by an English translation by an accredited translator”.  The Tribunal’s decision was handed down on 17 October 2012, which allowed sufficient time for the applicant to get the express delivery document translated and submitted to the Tribunal.  It appears, on the material before me, that the applicant did not attempt to submit this document, particularly as the translator’s certificate is dated 4 May 2013.   

4. I brought to the applicant’s and the Minister’s representative’s attention the letter that was sought to be tendered.  I explained that the Court is not entitled to take the letter and the attached documents into account to be used as evidence in the current proceedings.  I explained to the applicant that this is because the Court can only review the material that was before the Tribunal and the letter was never formally submitted before the Tribunal.  The Court cannot review the merits of the Tribunal’s decision: Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang & Ors (supra) at 272; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (supra) at 629.

5. I noted that the applicant did not file an amended application or any written submissions.  I asked the applicant if he had read the Minister’s submissions and if he had any oral submissions to make.  He stated that he had read the Minister’s submissions and that he did not agree with the decision of the Tribunal.  The applicant claimed that the Tribunal’s decision was incorrect because the Tribunal member did not know much about the country information relating to China or China itself.  He explained that his experiences were true, that he was trying to help his friend and that this lead to the rejection of his case. 

6. The applicant claimed that he attempted to send the express delivery document to the Tribunal, but instead it was sent to the Court.  It was established that a copy of the applicant’s letter was sent to his panel adviser from the NSW RRT Legal Advice Scheme.  The applicant also attempted to explain that he had sent another letter regarding a hand injury.  No letter matching that description was received by the Court, nor was any such letter in the Court’s file.

1. The applicant was asked if he had read and understood the Minister’s submissions and whether he had any submissions to make.  He stated that he did understand them and he did not wish to make any comments on them.  In respect of the pleaded grounds in the Application, I accept the written submissions prepared by the Minister’s representative and her indication that she relied upon that material.  Those submissions are set out above at [15]-[17].

2. The substantial finding by the Tribunal in respect of the applicant’s claims is based on credit and this is clearly expressed in the following passage appearing at [79]-[80] of the Decision Record:

   79.  The Tribunal finds that the applicant is not a truthful witness and is satisfied that he has fabricated his claims to Australia’s protection, and that he has fabricated, or obtained fabricated, documents in order to support his claims.  The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claim to have been associated with Uighur activists in China or to have given Uighur activists assistance and aid in their evasion of the Chinese authorities, or to have been detained for that reason.  

   80.  In making its finding on credit, the Tribunal has had regard to the following aspects of his claims and the evidence submitted to support them, all of which were put to the applicant during the hearing for his comment.

   (CB 139)

3. In the following paragraphs of the Decision Record the Tribunal listed a number of issues that are not consistent with the applicant being released in China on bail for trial (release notice).  There is then a list of significant contradictions in information given in the subsequently application to the Tribunal.  This is followed by a list of contradictions inherent in some of the applicant’s claims.  The Tribunal then makes the following finding at [84]-[85]:

   84.  These matters were all put to the applicant at the hearing.  The applicant’s responses are set out above.  Those responses did not address the Tribunal’s concerns in any meaningful way. And did not resolve the Tribunal’s doubts about his credibility.

   85.  The Tribunal also put to the applicant the independent information which indicates that if he was of adverse interest to the authorities, to the extent of having been arrested, detained, released on bail (for trial) and put on a weekly reporting conditions for 13 months, he would have had difficulty obtaining travel documentation such as a passport renewal and an exit visa and in departing China on documents in his own name.  The applicant then raised a new claim, not previously mentioned in his protection visa application or two written statements, that some of his friends knew someone in the Public Security Bureau and they said that his case would not be put in the national system, that his name was not in the national network.

   (CB 141-142)  

4. The Tribunal then addressed the authenticity of a number of documents which the applicant relied upon and makes the following finding at [89]-[91]:

   89.  The independent information set out above, and which was put to the applicant at the hearing for comment or response, is independent, from several sources, comprehensive, and compelling.  The sources all agree that document fraud in China is widespread and that consular officials in China assume documents to be fraudulent unless proven otherwise.  The peculiarities and contradictions evident in the documents provided by the applicant are such that the Tribunal relies on the independent information in preference to the applicant’s evidence, and, for the reasons given in that information the Tribunal declines to undertake its own investigations into the authenticity of the documents provided by the applicant.

   …

   91.  For all these reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has fabricated his claims and has fabricated (or obtained fabricated) documents to support those claims.  The Tribunal finds that the applicant was not in China of adverse interest to the Chinese authorities as a suspected collaborator or sympathiser to Uighur activists or that he was imputed with a political opinion critical of the Chinese Communist Party or the Chinese government, or for any other reason.  The Tribunal finds that he was not arrested and detained as claimed nor subjected to any other form of harm by reason of being of adverse interest to the Chinese authorities.

   (CB 142)

5. The Tribunal’s adverse credibility finding and consequential rejection of the applicant’s claim is a matter for the Tribunal par excellence: Re Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs; Ex Parte Durairajasingham (2000) 168 ALR 407 per McHugh J at [67] where his Honour stated:

   …[A] finding on credibility which is the function of the primary decision maker par excellence.  If the primary decision maker has stated that he or she does not believe a particular witness, no detailed reasons need to be given as to why that particular witness was not believed.  The Tribunal must give reasons for its decision, not the subset of reasons why it accepted or rejected individual pieces of evidence. 

   The applicant was unsuccessful because of the view the Tribunal took of the facts and, in particular, its finding that he was not credible.

6. In W148/00A v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2001) 185 ALR 703 Tamberlin and RD Nicholson JJ (with Lee J dissenting) observed at [64]:

   64.    The Tribunal decision turned on the question of credibility. A finding as to credibility is a finding of fact and, as the authorities indicate, a reviewing body must not set aside such a finding simply because it thinks that the probabilities of the case are against, or even strongly against, the finding. As the High Court stated in Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 at 479 (per Brennan, Gaudron and McHugh JJ):

   "If the trial judge's finding depends to any substantial degree on the credibility of the witness, the findings must stand unless it can be shown that the trial judge `has failed to use' or `has palpably misused his advantage' or has acted on evidence which was `inconsistent with facts incontrovertibly established by the `evidence' or which was `glaringly improbable'".

   See also Abalos v Australian Postal Commission [1990] HCA 47; (1988) 171 CLR 167 at 179. This latter case was concerned with the scope for review of a decision founded in part on demeanour where the Court at first instance had an opportunity to observe witnesses and form an impression as to the reliability of evidence given in response to questioning. Often a conclusion as to the credibility of a witness will depend not only on the body language and general impression conveyed by a witness in the way in which questions are answered but also on a careful consideration of the factual background or available information, coupled with ordinary experience as to likely patterns of response. Such an impression cannot be communicated by consideration of the transcript alone.

7. A convenient summary of the new complementary protection criteria provision of the Migration Act is contained in the then Bill’s Second Reading Speech on 24 February 2011. The speech indicates that the new provision establishes criteria to grant a Protection visa in circumstances that engage Australia’s non-refoulement obligations under human rights instruments to which Australia is a party:

   Australia will not return a person to a place where there is a real risk that a person will suffer particular types of significant harm contained in the relevant human rights treaties, namely:

   ·   the arbitrary deprivation of life;

   ·having the death penalty carried out;

   ·being subjected to torture;

   ·being subjected to cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment; or

   ·being subjected to degrading treatment or punishment.

   (Hansard, 24 February 2011)

8. As discussed above, the claims advanced by the applicant to seek protection from persecution as described in the Refugees Convention were rejected by the Tribunal.  They were rejected primarily on the basis of credibility and, secondly, the claim that the applicant was being pursued by the Chinese authorities by reason of his association with a Uighur was rejected by the Tribunal on the basis that he would not have been granted travel document to exit China if he was on “release” awaiting trial.  In these circumstances none of the issues raised in the complementary protection criteria are relevant.  None of the complementary protection criteria were raised by the applicant in his claim, but this is understandable in the case of an unrepresented litigant, unfamiliar with the language and legal administration of this country and having very limited opportunity to avail himself of this knowledge or assistance.

9. In respect of the complementary protection criterion the Tribunal made the following finding:

   92.  The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant does not have a genuine fear of persecution for his political opinion, actual or imputed, if he were to return to China.  Consequently, the Tribunal is satisfied that there is no real chance that the applicant would face Convention-related persecution in the reasonably foreseeable future if he were to return to China.

   93.  Having concluded that the applicant does not meet the refugee criterion in s.36(2)(a), the Tribunal has considered the alternative criterion in s.36(2)(aa).  For all the reasons set out above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa).

   (CB 142-143)

Conclusion

1. Given that the applicant is a self-represented litigant with little experience or knowledge, if any, of the legal process that he is attempting to undertake before this Court, in a language he does not speak, requiring an interpreter service to participate, I have undertaken a fair reading on the material contained in the Court Book and, in particular, the Decision Record itself.  There is nothing to indicate that the Tribunal ignored or overlooked the material, nor is there any suggestion that the Tribunal misinterpreted the material before it.  The grounds of review do not identify any jurisdictional error and it is not apparent from a reading and consideration of the material before the Court that such an error exists.  Consequently, the Application should be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding thirty-six (36) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Lloyd-Jones

Associate: 

Date:  15 November 2013