SZTAH v Minister for Immigration

[2014] FCCA 2001

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZTAH v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR [2014] FCCA 2001

Catchwords:
MIGRATION – Application seeking review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal refusing to grant the applicant a Protection (Class XA) visa – no reviewable error – Application dismissed.

Legislation:

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.36(2)(aa) 91X, 425

Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang & Ors (1996) 185 CLR 259
Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal & Ors (2002) 190 ALR 601
SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs & Anor (2006) 228 CLR 152
SZGBT v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FCA 565

Applicant: SZTAH

First Respondent: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

Second Respondent: REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number: SYG 1507 of 2013

Judgment of: Judge Lloyd-Jones

Hearing date: 11 April 2014

Delivered at: Sydney

Delivered on: 9 September 2014

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant:	The Applicant appeared in person with a Tamil interpreter.
Solicitor for the First Respondent:	Mr D. McLaren of Sparke Helmore
The Second Respondent:	The Second Respondent filed a submitting notice.

ORDERS

1. The name of the first respondent be amended to “Minister for Immigration and Border Protection”.

2. The application filed on 3 July 2013 be dismissed.

3. The applicant pay the first respondent’s costs 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 SZTAH.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 1507 of 2013

SZTAH

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. This is an application filed in the Federal Circuit Court on 3 July 2013 under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the “Migration Act”) seeking judicial review of a decision (case no.1216823) of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) dated 3 June 2013. The Tribunal affirmed a decision by a delegate of the first respondent not to grant the applicant a Protection (Class XA) visa.

2. By orders of the Court made on 6 August 2013 the solicitors for the first respondent, the Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs and Citizenship (as he was then)  (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 by 27 August 2013. The volume of material provided is identified as the Court Book (“CB”) and has been marked Exhibit “A”.   

3. By orders made by Judge Raphael on 6 August 2013 the applicant was granted leave to file and serve an amended application giving complete particulars of each ground of review by 18 February 2014 and any additional affidavits upon which he wished to rely.  The applicant was also granted leave to file and serve an outline of written submissions fourteen (14) days before the hearing.  The applicant elected not to file any amended application, affidavit evidence or written submissions.

Background

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

2. The applicant is a citizen of Sri Lanka (CB 156 at [4]) who arrived in Australia as an irregular maritime arrival (CB 1-16). On 30 August 2012 the applicant was notified that the Minister had exercised his power under s.46A(2) of the Migration Act to allow the applicant to lodge a Protection visa application (CB 17) which subsequently occurred. On 26 October 2012 the applicant was notified that the delegate of the Minister had refused to grant the applicant a Protection visa (CB 89-104).

3. On 31 October 2013, Australian Migration Options, on behalf of the applicant, lodged an application for review of the delegate’s decision with the Tribunal, along with written submissions (CB 105-146).  The Tribunal hearing was conducted on 11 February 2013.  At the hearing the applicant and a representative, Josephine Murphy of Australian Migration Options Pty Ltd, were present (CB 147-150).  On 3 June 2013 the Tribunal notified the applicant that it had affirmed the decision of the delegate to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection visa (CB 153-154).

4. The applicant’s application for a Protection visa was accompanied by:

   a)A letter from the applicant’s representative regarding his claim for protection (CB 18-29);

   b)A statement of claim by the applicant (CB 56-58); and

   c)A statutory declaration by the applicant (CB 59).

5. The applicant claimed that he is a Tamil male from Udappu in the Eastern Province of Sri Lanka.  He claimed to fear harm from the Central Intelligence Department (“CID”) and Sri Lankan authorities because of his Tamil ethnicity, his actual or imputed political opinion in support of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (“LTTE”) or against the Sri Lankan government, and his membership of a particular social group comprising of “Tamil men returning to Sri Lanka as failed asylum seekers”.  He also claimed that his family was not treated with respect by others in his village because of his father’s death in 2001.  In January 2012, the applicant went to the village of Vathalakanni in the Northern Province of Sri Lanka to work as a fisherman.  While in Vathalakanni he claimed to have met some young men who claimed to be former LTTE members.  When he returned to Udappu he was harassed, intimidated and questioned by the CID about his interaction with members of the LTTE in Vathalakanni.  He claimed the CID visited his home on three different occasions.  The applicant claimed to have approached the police about the CID attending his house after the first occasion, but the policeman he spoke to said he should go away and did not help him.  The applicant claims to have gone into hiding.  He claims that, although they did not arrest him, the CID continued to show his photo to people randomly and make inquiries about him until he left for Australia in May 2012.

The Tribunal’s Decision

1. The Tribunal accepted the applicant’s evidence to be a Sri Lankan national (CB 156 at [4]).  In considering the applicant’s evidence regarding the death of his father in 2001 and his family circumstances, it noted he had not made any claims in relation to these matters and was otherwise satisfied they were not relevant to his claims (CB 159 at [24]-[25]).  

2. The Tribunal accepted the applicant’s evidence that the CID had contacted him in March 2012 and had not been in contact with his family since (CB 161 at [40]).  It did not accept as plausible that the CID had shown his photograph around and made enquiries about him until he departed Sri Lanka (CB 161 at [43]).  It considered there was “no logical reason” for doing this because they knew where he lived and could have detained or harmed him with impunity (CB 161 at [43]).  Accordingly, the Tribunal was not persuaded that the authorities had made enquiries about the applicant since March 2012 and was satisfied that they had “no ongoing interest” in him (CB 161 at [44]).  The Tribunal further considered the possibility of the CID renewing their interest in the applicant, but noted that there was no evidence that the other Tamils who worked with the applicant Vathalakanni had been treated with suspicion by the CID (CB 161-162 at [45]).

3. The Tribunal noted, on the basis of independent country information before it, that simply being a Tamil was not enough to prompt suspicion from the CID and that “something else” was required (CB 162 at [46]).  Whilst it accepted that he was briefly harassed and intimidated by the CID, the Tribunal was satisfied that the CID’s suspicion had been resolved and there was “no ongoing suspicion” that the applicant was an LTTE supporter (CB 162 at [47]).  Accordingly, it was not satisfied that he would be imputed with holding a pro-LTTE or anti-government political opinion (CB 162 at [48]).  It noted further that he had not expressed an actual opinion in favour of the LTTE or against the Sri Lankan government and found that he did not have a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of any imputed or actual political opinion (CB 162 at [48]).

4. Given its earlier finding that the CID had no ongoing interest in the applicant, the Tribunal was also not satisfied that his previous contact with the CID would be a contributory factor to any problems he might face on return (CB 163 at [53]).  It accepted that “Tamil men returning to Sri Lanka as failed asylum seekers” constituted a particular social group (CB 163 at [54]) and, on the basis of the independent country information available, some returned asylum seekers had experienced “serious human rights abuses” (CB 163 at [55]).  It found, however, that those cases involved people suspected of having LTTE-links or criminal suspects, and was not satisfied that this would be the case for the applicant (CB 163 at [55]).  It accepted that the applicant would be “subjected to scrutiny”, questioned and would likely be visited at home by Sri Lankan authorities unless, however, it was not satisfied the applicant would face harm unless the authorities had a new reason to suspect him of LTTE-links (CB 163 at [56]).  Nor was the Tribunal satisfied that merely seeking asylum in Australia gave rise to such suspicion (CB 163 at [56]).  Accordingly, it found that he did not face a real chance of harm for reason of his membership of a particular social group of “Tamil men returning to Sri Lanka as failed asylum seekers” (CB 164 at [57]).

5. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant would be arrested at the airport as a result of his illegal departure and held on remand for a few days in “dirty, cramped and uncomfortable” conditions pending bail (CB 164 at [58]).  It noted however, that there was no evidence of people in remand awaiting bail hearings being “intentionally ill-treated” or that the penalty was applied in a discriminatory manner for a Convention reason (CB 164 at [58]).  It also did not accept that this constituted “serious harm” and this was not satisfied that the applicant would suffer persecution for reasons of his illegal departure (CB 164 at [59]).     

6. Taking into account the applicant’s oral evidence and the applicable UNHCR guidelines, the Tribunal rejected the applicant’s claim to have a well-founded fear of persecution because of his Tamil ethnicity (CB 164 at [60]-[62]).

7. Having considered his claims, both separately and cumulatively, the Tribunal found the applicant DID not face a real chance of persecution for any Convention reason in Sri Lanka (CB 164 at [63]).

8. The applicant confirmed that he did not have any separate claims for complementary protection (CB 165 at [66]). The Tribunal accepted that on return to Sri Lanka the applicant would be questioned, possibly charged, held in remand and fined but did not accept that this amounted to “significant harm” (CB 165 at [67]). Nor did it accept that he faced a real risk of being subjected to any other kind of “significant harm” (CB 165 at [68]). The Tribunal therefore found that the applicant would not suffer significant harm in terms of s.36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act (CB 165 at [69]).

Current Proceedings

1. By application filed in this Court on 3 July 2013, the applicant seeks the following orders:

   1.  An order that the decision of the tribunal or Minister be quashed.

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

   3.  New RRT hearing.

   4.  RRT decision is invalid.

   5.  Costs.

2. The Grounds in the Application are as follows:

   1.  RRT did not assess me claims fairly.

   2. RRT did not call me for 2^nd hearing.

   3. RRT did not put all adverse information to me for my response.

3. The applicant has not provided any further particularisation to the Grounds of the Application, nor has he filed any written submissions or any evidence to further particularise or crystallise the basis on which these contentions are made. 

Applicant’s Submissions

1. At the hearing the applicant was assisted by a Tamil interpreter.  The applicant was asked if he had attempted to file and serve any amended application or written submissions, to which he stated that he had not.   The applicant expressed that he wished to make oral submissions.  The applicant stated that the Tribunal found that the CID was not looking for him and that the CID did not have any interest in him anymore.  He stated that the Tribunal concluded that people who go to work in Vathalakanni, like the applicant did, were safe.  The applicant disagreed with this conclusion and stated that there were four to five people that are missing after having gone to Vathalakanni. 

2. The applicant stated that the Tribunal did not believe him when he said that the CID was going to his home and torturing his parents and family members.  The applicant claimed that after his father’s death the people in the village do not respect his family and they discriminate against his family.  The applicant stated that the CID targeted him because he is Tamil, and the police and the CIDs are mostly comprised of Sinhalese people. 

3. The applicant claimed that since having gone to Vathalakanni for work he has encountered lots of problems, and if he was to go back to Sri Lanka the problems would continue.    He stated he would be targeted as he is a young Tamil man returning to Sri Lanka.

4. At the hearing the applicant attempted to show the Court a letter which he received regarding his father’s death.  The applicant stated that he received the letter while he was in camp and that it was not submitted to the Tribunal.

Minister’s Submissions

1. The Minister submits that Ground 1 contends that the Tribunal did not assess the applicant’s claims fairly.  The Minister argues that this ground can be read in one of two ways, firstly, that the Ground is a complaint about the Tribunal’s conclusions on the application or, secondly, a contention that the applicant was not afforded procedural fairness by the Tribunal.

2. The Minister contends that if the Ground is considered a complaint then that would constitute an attempt to cavil with the merits of the Tribunal’s decision.  Such is not permissible in this Court: Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 272.

3. If the Ground is considered a complaint that the applicant was not afforded procedural fairness, there is no basis to accept this claim. The Tribunal complied with its statutory obligations as set out in s.425 of the Migration Act by validly inviting the applicant to the hearing on 11 February 2013, which he attended and gave evidence in support of his claims (CB 158-161 at [20]-[42]). Further, the Tribunal’s decision also indicates that it discussed with the applicant at the hearing the determinative issues on the review, namely that his evidence (CB 160 at [33]; CB 160-161 at [39] and CB 161 at [41]) and country information (CB 162 at [46], [49]-[50]) undermine his claims. There is no basis to find that the Tribunal has breached its obligations under s.425 of the Migration Act by failing to ensure that the applicant was on notice of the determinative issues on the review: SZBEL v Minister for Immigration and Indigenous Affairs (2006) 228 CLR 152. There is nothing else apparent from the evidence before the Court that is indicative of a failure to afford procedural fairness.

4. Ground 2 of the application contends that the Tribunal erred because it did not call the applicant for a second hearing.

5. There is no substance to this complaint. As noted above, the Tribunal complied with its statutory obligation in s.425 of the Migration Act by validly inviting the applicant to the hearing on 11 February 2013, which he attended and gave evidence in support of his claims. There is no evidence before the Court to indicate that there was any request for a second hearing, nor is there any general obligation on the Tribunal to provide one.

6. Ground 3 of the application contends that the Tribunal erred in not putting all adverse information to the applicant for his response.

7. The Minister submits that the applicant does not identify any adverse information that was not put to him for his response.  As noted above, the Tribunal’s decision indicates that it discussed with the applicant at the hearing the determinative issues on the review, putting to him that his evidence and country information undermined his claims.  Further, as outlined above, no breach of procedural fairness is apparent. 

Consideration

1. At the hearing, the applicant was supported with an interpreter of the Tamil language.  The applicant was afforded the opportunity to provide oral submissions and to respond to the written submissions of the Minister.  The applicant’s submissions primarily went to the merits of the of applicant’s case.  The applicant highlighted the difficulty faced by himself and his family after the death of his father and that the CID targeted him because of his Tamil ethnicity. 

2. The applicant attempted to tender a letter that he claims concerns the death of his father.  The applicant claimed that he submitted the letter to the ‘authorities’, but he did not submit the letter to the Tribunal.  It was explained to the applicant that the role of the Court was to review the decision made by the Tribunal.  To save confusion I asked the applicant if the letter he referred to was in the Court Book.  The applicant stated that the letter was not in the Court Book.  I told the applicant that it was not the role of the Court to determine whether the applicant should be granted a visa or not.  The applicant was told that the function of the Court is to review the decision of the Tribunal and to see if the Tribunal considered the material before it and abided by the Acts, Rules and Regulations guiding the Tribunal to makes its decision.  I drew the applicant’s attention to CB 158 and the heading “Evidence submitted to this Tribunal”.  Here, the Tribunal documented the material it had before it and it does not make reference to the letter referred to by the applicant.  I told the applicant that the Court can only look at the evidence that was put before the Tribunal and if the Tribunal handled the material correctly. 

3. The applicant arrived in Australia as an irregular maritime arrival. The applicant is an ethnic Tamil from Udappu in the Eastern Province of Sri Lanka. The applicant claims a well-founded fear of persecution due to his ethnicity, actual/imputed political opinion, being an actual or perceived, sympathizer or supported of the LTTE or being against the Sri Lankan government, and finally him membership of the social group “Tamil men returning to Sri Lanka as failed asylum seekers” (CB 18). By a letter dated 30 August 2012 the applicant was informed that the Minister had exercised his power under s.46A(2) of the Migration Act to allow him to lodge a Protection visa application (CB 17).

4. The applicant’s Protection visa application and supporting documents were prepared by the applicant’s then migration agent, M. Obrist of Australian Migration Options Pty Ltd (CB 18-86).  On 26 October 2012 the applicant’s representative was informed that the delegate of the Minister had refused to grant the applicant a Protection visa (CB 89).  On 31 October 2012 Australian Migration Options submitted an application for review of the delegate’s decision with the Tribunal (CB 105-112).  The Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the application on 1 November 2012 (CB 113-115).  On 23 November 2012 the applicant and his representatives were informed that the hearing had been set down for 11 February 2013 (CB 117).  At the hearing the applicant was accompanied by Ms J. Murphy of Australian Migration Options Pty Ltd (CB 122) and an interpreter qualified in the translation of the Tamil language.  The applicant’s migration agent submitted substantial and detailed submissions on the applicant’s behalf (see CB 124-146).   

1. On 3 June 2013, the applicant’s representatives were notified that the Tribunal decided to affirm the decision under review (CB 153-154).  The Tribunal’s Decision Record is found at CB 155-167. 

2. I have included this detailed background to make it clear that, up until the filing of the current application before the Court, the applicant was at all times represented by a migration agent. The grounds of the application, as set out at [18] above, are vague and have not been particularised. As noted by the Minister above at [25], if Ground 1 of the application is considered a complaint in respect of the Tribunal’s conclusion then the applicant is seeking a review of the merits of the case. As has been pointed out in many previous decisions of this Court, merits review is not available: Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang & Ors (1996) 185 CLR 259 per Brennan CJ, Toohey, McHugh and Gummow JJ at 272 where their Honours stated:

   … [A]ny court reviewing a decision upon refugee status must beware of turning a review of the reasons of the decision-maker upon proper principles into a reconsideration of the merits of the decision…    

3. In the alternative, as suggested by the Minister, Ground 1 could be considered a complaint that the applicant was not afforded procedural fairness.  The applicant, as indicated at CB 147, was represented at the Tribunal hearing by Ms J. Murphy of Australian Migration Options.  Without having a transcript of the Tribunal hearing before the Court, I am unable to evaluate what occurred at the Tribunal hearing itself.  From the evidence I have before me I note that the Tribunal Member has identified and addressed each of the applicant’s claims, noting the applicant’s submissions, authorities and country information. 

4. Ground 2 contends that the Tribunal did not call the applicant for a second hearing. Section 425 of the Migration Act prescribes that the Tribunal must invite that applicant to appear. Section 425 states:

   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.

5. The Tribunal validly invited the applicant to appear before it (CB 117-118). The “RRT Hearing Record” indicated that the hearing was completed on 11 February 2013, with no other arrangements made for a further hearing to occur (CB 148-149).    There is no general obligation on the Tribunal to hold a second or subsequent hearing.  This issue was considered by Buchanan J in SZGBT v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] FCA 565, where his Honour stated at [25]:

   25.  Section 425 need not be construed as intended to provide the only mechanism whereby the information or comments might be advanced or discussed. Section 425 is directed at a wider, and more general, purpose. It is clearly intended, as the cases show, to provide a guarantee of an oral hearing unless a matter may be decided in an applicant’s favour without a hearing or if information or comments sought have not been provided. However, it does not guarantee or require repeated or supplementary hearings.

6. Ground 3 contends that the Tribunal did not put all adverse information to the applicant for response.  In Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal & Ors (2002) 190 ALR 601, his Honour Kirby J at [123] stated:

   123.  Natural justice requires that a person whose interests are likely to be affected by an exercise of power be given an opportunity to deal with matters adverse to his or her interests that the repository of the power proposes to take into account in exercising the power. This does not mean that the source and nature of all material that comes before the decision-maker must be disclosed. But ‘in the ordinary case ... an opportunity should be given to deal with adverse information that is credible, relevant and significant to the decision to be made’. What is required to discharge this duty depends on the circumstances of the particular case.

   (footnotes omitted)

7. The applicant, in either his Application or oral submissions, does not identify any adverse information that was not put to him for his response.  The Tribunal’s Decision Record indicates that it discussed with the applicant the determinative issues on the review, namely, that his evidence and the country information before the Tribunal undermined his claims (see [26] above).  Specifically, the Tribunal noted at [46] of the Decision Record:

   46.  Of his written claim that the CID was very suspicious of all Tamil, I told him that recently UNHCR had reported that not all Tamils reported that not all Tamils required protection as refugees.  He conceded that his assertion did not apply to every Tamil, but when “a situation” arose Tamils would be targeted.  This was not the case in Colombo whether were not many problems, but in towns like Udappu it was a problem because the village was surrounded by Sinhalese people.  He agreed however that he had had no problems with the authorities until the particular situation described above.  I told him that it was my understanding from this that being a Tamil was not enough to prompt the CID’s suspicions and that one would have to be seen to prompt the CID’s suspicions and that one would have be seen to have done something else.  He did not dispute this, saying that this (that is, having done “something else”) had been his situation.

   (CB 162)

8. The Tribunal then stated at [49]-[50] of the Decision Record:

   49.  Of a claim that he feared being persecuted if he returned to Sri Lanka as a member of a particular social group so characterised, I told the applicant of evidence indicating that returnees were questioned by the army or police at home on return but there had been no reliable reports of questioned by the army or police at home on return but there had been no reliable reports of politically-motivated arrests or disappearances when failed asylum seekers went home unless there were additional suspicions about them.  The applicant agreed that people who had been deported would not be “disturbed” immediately, but thought they would be watched and then disturbed.  He did not know of anyone to whom this had happened. 

   50. I also discussed with him evidence that people who had left Sri Lanka without a passport were being charged under the Immigration and Emigration Act, detained for a few days at most and then released in order to await the court hearing. The probable penalty appeared to be a fine. The applicant responded that he was concerned that it would be worse now.

   (CB 162)

9. I agree with the Minister’s submissions that no breach of procedural fairness is apparent and the applicant has not identified any adverse information that was not put to him for his response. 

10. In respect of the operation of the complementary protection provisions of the Migration Act (s.36(2)(aa)), the Tribunal in its Decision Record at [65]-[69] (CB 165) addressed the operation of the complementary protection criterion to the particular facts of the applicant’s application and claims.

11. Since the Migration Amendment (Complementary Protection) Act 2011 (Cth) amended the Migration Act in March 2012, the Tribunal has been required to consider whether Australia has protection obligations to applicants for Protection visas under the complementary protection criterion. The applicant and those, if any, who are assisting him with his application in this Court are unlikely to be aware of the existence of this obligation in the Migration Act, but it was known to the Tribunal and the Tribunal has addressed this issue.

12. A convenient summary of these new provisions are contained in the then Bill’s Second Reading Speech which occurred on 24 February 2011. The new provisions establish a criteria to grant a Protection visa in circumstances that engage Australia’s non-refoulement obligations under the Human Rights treaties and other refugee conventions and is summarised as follows:

    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 arbitrarily 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)

13. The claims advanced by the applicant to seek protection from persecution as described in the Refugees Convention were rejected by the Tribunal (see CB 164 at [63]-[64]) on the evidence before it that there is not a real chance the applicant will face Convention-based persecution. The Tribunal Member reminded the applicant of the criteria for complementary protection and invited the applicant to refer to any other reasons he had for fearing significant harm in Sri Lanka (see CB 165 at [66]).  The applicant stated that there was nothing he wished to add.  In those circumstances the Tribunal found that on the evidence before it was not satisfied that the applicant would be subjected to harm amounting to significant harm under the complementary protection criterion.  On a fair reading no error is apparent in this respect.

Conclusion

1. None of the grounds of review contained in the application nor any oral submission made by the applicant at the hearing reveals any error of law on the part of the Tribunal.  Further, on a fair reading of the Tribunal’s Decision Record no error is apparent.  Consequently, the application should be dismissed and the applicant ordered to pay the Minister’s costs.

I certify that the preceding forty-eight (48) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Lloyd-Jones

Associate: 

Date:  9 September 2014