SZSNM v Minister for Immigration
[2013] FCCA 621
•25 June 2013
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZSNM v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2013] FCCA 621 |
| Catchwords: MIGRATION – Review of decision by Refugee Review Tribunal – whether Refugee Review Tribunal’s decision affected by jurisdictional error – whether the Refugee Review Tribunal considered all claims made by the applicant – whether Refugee Review Tribunal was biased – no jurisdictional error – application dismissed. |
| Legislation: Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s.39B Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.5, 36, 65, 91R, 474, Pt.8 |
| Cases cited: SZRLA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor (SYG929/2012); Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510 at 53-54; Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang and Ors (1996) 185 CLR 259; Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 52 FCR 437; Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559; Prasad v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1985) 6 FCR 155; Selvadurai v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 34 ALD 347; Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Durairajasingham (2000) 168 ALR 407; SCAA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 668; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Jia (2001) 205 CLR 507; Re Refugee Review Tribinal; Ex parte H (2001) 179 ALR 425 at [27]-[32]; NADH of 2001 & Ors v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2004) 214 ALR 264. |
| Applicant: | SZSNM |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 108 of 2013 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Emmett |
| Hearing date: | 25 June 2013 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 25 June 2013 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 25 June 2013 |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant appeared in person with the assistance of an interpreter |
| Solicitor for the Respondents: | Ms Sophie Given Minter Ellison Lawyers |
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 108 of 2013
| SZSNM |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
EX TEMPORE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an application pursuant to s.39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and Pt.8, Div.2 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) for judicial review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal dated 19 December 2012 and handed down on 20 December 2012 (“the RRT”).
The applicant claims to be a citizen of the People’s Republic of China and a Falun Gong practitioner and of Han ethnicity.
The issues in this case are whether the RRT considered all claims and evidence provided by the applicant and whether the RRT was biased. These issues are considered below in the context of considering whether the RRT’s decision is affected by jurisdictional error.
Prior to considering the proceeding before this Court, these Reasons provide the relevant procedural background, a summary of the legislative framework, a summary of the applicant’s protection visa application claims and the decision of the delegate of the first respondent (“the Delegate”) and a summary of the RRT’s review and decision.
Background
The applicant arrived in Australia on 9 February 2009 having departed legally from China on a passport issued in her own name and a student visa issued on 20 January 2009.
On 6 March 2012, the applicant lodged an application for a Protection (Class XA) visa with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (“the Department”) under the Act.
On 12 June 2012, the Delegate refused the applicant’s application for a protection visa.
On 10 July 2012, the applicant lodged an application for review of the Delegate’s decision by the RRT.
On 19 December 2012, the RRT affirmed the decision of the Delegate not to grant a protection visa.
On 21 January 2013, the applicant filed an application in this Court seeking judicial review of the RRT’s decision.
Legislative framework
In their written submissions in SZRLA v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship & Anor (SYG929/2012), Minter Ellison, the solicitors for the first respondent, attached a useful summary of the relevant legislative scheme. That summary is as follows:
“1. Under section 65(1) of the Act, the first respondent may grant a visa if he is satisfied of a number of matters, including that the prescribed criteria for the particular visa have been satisfied.
2. Section 31(1) of the Act provides that there are to be prescribed classes of visa. One class of visa is a Protection (Class XA) visa (Regulation 2.01 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) and to the Regulations).
3. Section 36(2)(a) of the Act provides that:
(2) A criterion for a protection visa is that the Applicant for the visa is:
(a) a non-citizen in Australia to whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol.
4. The 'Refugees Convention' is defined in section 5 of the Act as meaning the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28 July 1951. The 'Refugees Protocol' is defined in that section as meaning the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees done at New York on 31 January 1967.
5. Subject to certain exceptions, provided for in section 36(3) of the Act, Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention to persons who satisfy the definition of 'refugee' in Article 1 of the Refugees Convention. Article 1A(2) of the Refugees Convention defines a refugee as a person who:
owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country, or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.
6. Section 36(2)(aa) of the Act provides that:
(2) A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(aa) a non-citizen in Australia (other than a citizen mentioned in paragraph (a)) in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations because the Minister has substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of the non-citizen being removed from Australia to a receiving country, there is a real risk that the non-citizen will suffer significant harm.
7. Under section 411(1)(c) of the Act, a decision to refuse to grant a protection visa is a decision which may be reviewed by the second respondent.
8. Relevantly, in conducting that review, the second respondent must comply with the natural justice hearing rule, the requirements of which are exhaustively stated in Division 4 of Part 7 of the Act (section 422B(1) of the Act). That Division contains sections 424A and 425, which provide that:
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.
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.
9. Under section 474(2) of the Act, a decision of the second respondent is a 'privative clause decision'. Under section 474(1)(a) of the Act, a privative clause decision is final and conclusive.
10. However, a purported decision of the second respondent which is affected by jurisdictional error is not a decision which is made under the Act and therefore is not a privative clause decision: Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476.”
The applicant’s application for a protection visa
The applicant provided a statement in support of her protection visa application in which she stated the following:
a)Her mother was diagnosed with breast cancer in 1996. Her mother told her that the blessing of Master and Falun Dafa caused her to fully recover from her illness.
b)The applicant’s father did not let her mother practise the teachings of Falun Gong and warned her mother that he would report her if she continued her practise.
c)On 22 May 2002, the police detained the applicant’s mother as a result of someone reporting her activities. The applicant’s mother was detained at Re-education Camp for a year and was traumatised and confused on her release. From this point, the applicant started hating police and believed that all police are evil.
d)Following the mother’s release, on a number of occasions, the mother was taken away for several days by strangers.
e)The applicant’s mother died on 8 October 2006. She died of persecution because she was reported to the authorities for her Falun Gong practise.
f)The applicant arrived in Australia on 9 February 2009 to commence study in Australia on a student visa.
g)On 30 November 2011, the applicant and her friend, Wang Li were in a car accident in Sydney. The applicant was not seriously injured and attributes this to Wang Li’s belief in Falun Gong. The applicant then realised that Dafa and its invisible blessing have always been protecting her.
h)The applicant decided to start following Dafa and became a Falun Gong adherent.
i)The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is still persecuting Falun Gong.
j)The applicant is unwilling to return to China as it is under the rule of terror by the CCP. Now that the applicant is a follower of Falun Gong, she believes that the Australian Government will respect and protect her belief in the spirit of democracy and freedom.
The Delegate’s decision
On 15 May 2012, the applicant was invited to attend an interview with the Delegate on 12 June 2012. The applicant did not attend that hearing and did not give oral evidence.
On 12 June 2012, the Delegate refused the applicant’s application for a protection visa on the basis that the applicant is not a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Convention.
The Delegate found the applicant’s claims to be vague and unsubstantiated. The Delegate noted that the applicant had not provided any evidence to support her claim of practicing Falun Gong in Australia. The Delegate found that there was no credible evidence to satisfy the Delegate as to the truth of the applicant’s claims.
The RRT’s review and decision
On 10 July 2012, the applicant lodged an application for review of the Delegate’s decision by the RRT.
The applicant provided further documents in support of her review application, being two letters from fellow Falun Gong practitioners in Australia, photographs of the applicant performing exercises and a ticket to a Shen Yun performance in Sydney on 1 May 2012.
On 29 August 2012, the RRT wrote to the applicant informing her that the RRT had considered the material before it but was unable to make a favourable decision on that material alone. The letter invited the applicant to attend a hearing on 10 October 2012 to give oral evidence and present arguments.
On 10 October 2012, the applicant attended the RRT hearing. At the hearing, she provided a copy of her passport and gave evidence.
On 22 November 2012, the RRT wrote to the applicant identifying information that may form part of the reason for affirming the decision under review, explaining its relevance and inviting the applicant to comment upon it (“the s.424A Letter”), being inconsistent information provided by the applicant in her student visa application.
On 13 December 2012, the applicant responded to the s.424A Letter.
The RRT found the applicant was not a witness of truth.
Ultimately, the RRT found the applicant’s evidence to be evasive and her explanations not to be credible. The RRT found a number of inconsistencies and contradictions in the applicant’s evidence which it identified in detail in the decision record, together with its concerns about the credibility of the applicant.
The RRT found that the applicant commenced participating in Falun Gong and anti-Chinese Communist party activities in Australia and has continued to do so for the sole purpose of supporting her claims to protection, and is not satisfied that she engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening her claim to be a refugee.
Ultimately, the RRT did not accept that the applicant has a well founded fear of persecution if she was to return to China for any Convention reason. The RRT found “there are no substantial grounds for believing that, as a necessary and foreseeable consequence of her being removed from Australia to China, there is a real risk that the she will suffer significant harm”.
The RRT concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criterion for being a refugee as set out in s.36(2)(a) of the Act and further was not satisfied that the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
The decision of the RRT is accurately summarised by the solicitor for the first respondent in written submissions as follows:
“The Tribunal's decision
13. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not a credible witness, and this led the Tribunal to reject key aspects of her claims.[1] In reaching this view the Tribunal had regard to its finding that the Applicant's evidence was at times inconsistent and contradictory and at other times vague and evasive. The Tribunal also relied on its finding that the Applicant was confused and uncertain in the answers she gave to questions with respect to which, if the events had taken place as claimed, the Tribunal would have expected clearer answers.
14 CB 167 at [75]
14. Specifically, the Tribunal found that:
a) the inconsistency between the Applicant's failure to declare her cleaning work in her protection visa application and her admission at the hearing that she had engaged in this work, as well as her unsatisfactory evidence about the reasons for this inconsistency, caused the Tribunal to have doubts about her credibility as a witness. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was evasive and not truthful in her evidence to the Tribunal on this matter;[2]
b) despite the Applicant's evidence at the outset of the hearing that she was not aware of any problems with her student visa when she lodged her protection visa application on 6 March 2012, the Applicant did in fact receive an email from her school on 8 December 2011 which raised the issue of her poor attendance and warned her that this could lead to cancellation of her student visa. As a result of this finding, the Tribunal found that the Applicant was not truthful in her evidence on this matter;[3]
c) the Applicant commenced practising Falun Gong and anti-CCP activities in Australia for the sole purpose of supporting her claims to protection and, in accordance with s 91R(3) of the Act, the Tribunal disregarded these activities. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the Applicant would not engage in these activities should she return to China.[4] The Tribunal reached these findings as a result of its concern with the Applicant's reliability as a witness, the fact that the Applicant became engaged in Falun Gong activities at the same time she became aware of problems with her student visa, the limited probative value of the photographs submitted by the Applicant and the Applicant's response to being questioned about these photographs that they were taken to support her protection claims, and the Tribunal's rejection of the Applicant's claim that part of her reason for practising Falun Gong was that she wanted to continue her mother's work, given the Applicant's delay of almost four years in Australia before she began to practice Falun Gong[5].
15. For the above reasons, the Tribunal found that the Applicant would not suffer Convention-related serious harm in the reasonably foreseeable future if she returns to China.[6]
16. The Tribunal also found that the Applicant does not satisfy the complementary protection criterion under the Act and will not suffer significant harm either:
a) as a result of continued Falun Gong or anti-CCP activities in China, because the Tribunal had found that she will not engage in such activities in China;[7] or
b) as a result of the activities already engaged in by the Applicant in Australia, because the Applicant was only a low-level participant in these activities and the authorities only take an interest in high profile activists.[8]”
[2] CB 168 at [76] to [77]
[3] CB 169 at [80]
[4] CB 171 to 172 at [87] to [89]
[5] CB 170at [83] to [86]
[6] CB 172 at [90]
[7] CB 172 at [91]
[8] CB 172 to 173 at [92] to [94]
The proceeding before this Court
The applicant was unrepresented before this Court, although had the assistance of a Mandarin interpreter.
On 7 March 2013, the applicant attended a directions hearing before a Registrar before this Court. The applicant was given leave to file and serve an amended application giving complete particulars of each ground of review relied upon, together with any further evidence by way of affidavit, including any transcript of the RRT hearing, as well as submissions in support.
At the directions hearing, the applicant was referred to the Court’s Legal Advice Scheme for free legal advice. The applicant has participated in the Court’s Legal Advice Scheme and received free legal advice. The applicant was also provided with the contact details of legal services providers and interpreting and translation services in documents headed in her own language.
At the commencement of the hearing, the applicant confirmed that she had not filed any amended application, evidence or submissions in support of her application and that she had no further documents to present to the Court this morning in support of her application.
The applicant confirmed that she relied on the grounds contained in the application, filed on 21 January 2013 as follows:
“1. I’ve become a Falun Gong practitioner with my mother’s influence in China. My best friend Ms Li WANG has also influenced me to become a Falun Gong practitioner in Australia. Ms Wang took me to Eastwood practise site starting to practise. Ms Li WANG lodged her applications of protection visa first, then, I did. Her application was already granted.
2. I have become a pious Falun Gong practitioner. But, the Tribunal member didn’t accept my fact and made a decision of refusing my protection application.
3. The Tribunal member failed to take all my cliems [sic] and evidence into account according to S91R of the Migration Act 1958 because of the Tribunal bias against me.
4. The Tribunal member made jurisdictional error while making his decision.”
Each of the grounds was interpreted for the assistance of the applicant and the applicant was invited to make submissions in support of each of the grounds and in support of the application generally.
Grounds 1, 2 and 4
Grounds 1, 2 and 4 make bare assertions that do not disclose any error capable of review by this Court. I asked the applicant if she had anything to say in support of those Grounds. The applicant replied that the RRT had said that she faced no danger and this was irresponsible. The applicant made clear that Grounds 1, 2 and 4 were complaints about the findings of the RRT.
Such complaints invite merits review which this Court cannot undertake (Abebe v Commonwealth of Australia (1999) 197 CLR 510 at 53-54; Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang and Ors (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 272 per Brennan CJ, Toohey, McHugh and Gummow JJ).
It is well established that the RRT is not required to accept uncritically any and all claims made by an applicant (Randhawa v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 52 FCR 437 at 451 per Beaumont J; Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo & Anor (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 596 Kirby J; Prasad v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1985) 6 FCR 155 at 169-70 per Wilcox J). Nor does the RRT have to possess rebutting evidence before holding that a particular assertion was not made out (Selvadurai v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1994) 34 ALD 347 at 348 per Heerey J).
A fair reading of the RRT’s decision record discloses a careful and thorough exploration by the RRT with the applicant of her claims. The RRT put to the applicant matters of concerns arising out of her evidence, invited her to comment and noted her responses. The RRT considered the documents provided by the applicant in support of her claims to be a Falun Gong practitioner in Australia.
Whilst, ultimately, the RRT accepted that the applicant began participating and engaging in Falun Gong and anti Chinese Communist Party activities in Australia, it was not satisfied such conduct was a genuine expression of her religious and political beliefs and rejected her claim to be a genuine or committed adherent or practitioner of Falun Gong. As stated above, the RRT found that the applicant engaged in such activities in Australia for the sole purpose of supporting her refugee claims and was not satisfied that she engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening her refugee claims.
The RRT rejected the applicant’s claims in relation to past persecution of her mother in China because of her alleged Falun Gong practices. The RRT also considered the applicant’s claim that she feared Chinese spies may have photographed her whilst participating in Falun Gong activities in Australia. In considering that claim, the RRT had regard to independent country information which indicated that monitoring of Falun Gong practitioners in Australia has occurred in the past, especially those who have played an active role in Falun Dafa organisations. The RRT found the applicant was a low level participant and that there was no evidence that she had an active role in a Falun Dafa organisation or that her image in connection with Falun Gong and anti Chinese Communist party activities in Australia has appeared in the media. Based on that finding, the RRT was satisfied that there are no substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicant would suffer significant harm on that basis, if returned to China.
The RRT noted that there was no evidence before it that the applicant has been a leader or an organiser of a Falun Gong association, or that she is “someone known for publicly criticising the Chinese government”. The RRT did not accept that the applicant’s attendance at a protest indicated that she has a known profile as a public critic of the Chinese government. Based on those findings, the RRT concluded that there are no substantial grounds for believing that there is a real risk that the applicant would suffer significant harm.
As stated above, the RRT concluded that the applicant is not a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Convention and that she does not satisfy the criterion set out in s.36(2)(a) and the alternative criterion set out in s.36(2)(aa) of the Act.
Otherwise, the RRT’s findings were open to it on the materials and evidence before it, and for the reasons it gave, including its adverse credibility findings. Credibility findings are a matter par excellence for the RRT (Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Durairajasingham (2000) 168 ALR 407 at [67] per McHugh J).
Ground 3
Ground 3 appears to complain that the RRT failed to consider all her claims and evidence and was biased against her.
In relation to the assertion that the RRT failed to take into account all her claims and evidence, I asked the applicant to what she was referring. The applicant responded that she had provided evidence and photographs of her activities in Australia which had been returned to her.
As stated above, the RRT decision record identified two statements from fellow practitioners provided by the applicant, 10 photographs of the applicant performing exercises and a ticket to a Shen Yun performance in Sydney. The applicant confirmed that these were the only documents to which she was referring and confirmed that there was no other claim or evidence that she asserted the RRT had failed to consider.
The RRT’s decision record makes clear that the RRT asked the applicant to explain the photographs and explored with the applicant why she had engaged in the conduct referred to. The RRT explained to the applicant the contents of s.91R(3) of the Act and informed her that it accepted that she had practised in Australia and had a certain degree of knowledge of Falun Gong . The RRT put to the applicant that it would need to consider whether she had practised and engaged and promoted Falun Gong and related activities in Australia solely to strengthen her refugee claims, and that it may have doubts of the genuineness of her motivation for engaging in the activities in Australia. The RRT invited the applicant to comment and noted her responses.
To the extent that the applicant complains that the RRT failed to take her documents into account, such a complaint is not made out. The RRT accepted the veracity of the documents but found the applicant’s motivation for engaging in relevant conduct in Australia to be solely for the purpose of supporting her refugee claims. As stated above, that finding was open to the RRT on the evidence and material before it and for the Reasons given.
In relation to the applicant’s claim that the RRT was biased, a claim of bias is serious and requires evidence, such as a transcript of the RRT hearing. Further, it is a rare and exceptional case where bias can be demonstrated solely from the published reasons of a decision. Similarly, the mere fact that the RRT makes adverse findings in respect of the applicant does not give rise to an inference of bias or, by itself, suggest that the decision-maker approached its task other than with a mind open to persuasion (SCAA v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 668 at [38]).
The applicant was directed on 7 March 2013 to file and serve any affidavit containing additional evidence to be relied upon, including a transcript of the hearing, by 2 April 2013. The applicant was directed that evidence of a RRT hearing was to be presented as a transcript verified by affidavit and that if she wished to rely on a tape recording of the RRT hearing, she needed to give notice by 2 April 2013. However, no document was filed by the applicant either in accordance with those directions or otherwise.
A fair reading of the RRT’s decision does not disclose any prejudgment on the part of the RRT in the sense that the RRT was “so committed to a conclusion already formed as to be incapable of alteration, or of being persuaded differently, whatever evidence or argument may be presented.” (Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Jia (2001) 205 CLR 507 at [69], [71]-[72], [127]).
A fair reading of the RRT’s decision does not suggest that the RRT approached its task other than with a mind open to persuasion. There is no evidence upon which a fair minded lay observer, properly informed as to the nature of the proceedings, the matters in issue and the conduct of the RRT, might reasonably apprehend that the RRT may not have brought an impartial mind in determining the application for review (Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte H (2001) 179 ALR 425 at [27]-[32]; NADH of 2001 & Ors v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2004) 214 ALR 264 at [115]).
As stated above, the RRT gave careful and comprehensive consideration to all the applicant’s claims and put to her matters of concern it had arising from her evidence. The RRT also identified independent country information to which it had regard in relation to the applicant’s claims that Chinese authorities monitored the activities of Falun Dafa practitioners overseas, including Australia. Ultimately, the RRT found the applicant to be inconsistent, contradictory, evasive and untruthful and unable to satisfy the RRT’s concerns.
Accordingly the applicant’s allegation of bias on the part of the RRT is rejected.
Conclusion
A fair reading of the RRT’s decision record makes clear that the RRT understood the claims being made by the applicant; explored those claims with the applicant at a hearing; and, had regard to all material provided in support. The RRT put to the applicant matters of concern it had about her evidence and noted the applicant’s responses. The RRT also put to the applicant independent country information before it and invited the applicant to comment upon it. The RRT also identified independent country information to which it had regard. The RRT then made findings based on the evidence and material before it. Those findings of fact were open to the RRT on the evidence and material before it and for the reasons it gave. A fair reading of the RRT’s decision record makes clear that the RRT reached conclusions based on the findings made by it and to which it applied the correct law.
In the circumstances, the RRT complied with its obligations under the statutory regime in the making of its decision, including the conduct of its review.
The RRT’s decision is not affected by jurisdictional error and is therefore a privative clause decision. Accordingly, pursuant to s.474 of the Act, this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere.
The proceeding before this Court should be dismissed with costs.
I certify that the preceding fifty-seven (57) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Emmett
Associate:
Date: 25 June 2013
14
0