SZUII v Minister for Immigration
[2014] FCCA 2513
•7 November 2014
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| SZUII v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2014] FCCA 2513 |
| Catchwords: MIGRATION – Application seeking review of decision of Refugee Review Tribunal to refuse to grant applicant a Protection (Class XA) visa – no reviewable error – application dismissed. |
| Legislation: Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.36(2)(a), 36(2)(aa), 476 |
| Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZRKT & Anor (2013) 212 FCR 99 SZTXY v Minister for Immigration [2014] FCCA 841 |
| Applicant: | SZUII |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
| Second Respondent: | REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | SYG 1286 of 2014 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Lloyd-Jones |
| Hearing date: | 18 September 2014 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney |
| Delivered on: | 7 November 2014 |
REPRESENTATION
| The Applicant: | The Applicant appeared via video-link with the assistance of a Mandarin interpreter. |
| Solicitor for the First Respondent: | Mr L D'Avigdor of Clayton Utz |
| The Second Respondent: | The Second Respondent filed a submitting notice. |
ORDERS
The application filed on 20 May 2014 be dismissed.
The applicant 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 SZUII.
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY |
SYG 1286 of 2014
| SZUII |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & BORDER PROTECTION |
First Respondent
| REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
This is an application filed in the Federal Circuit Court on 13 May 2014 under the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the “Migration Act”) seeking relief in the form of constitutional writs against a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) dated 28 April 2014, RRT Case Number 1404651. The Tribunal affirmed a decision by a delegate of the first respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (the “Minister”), not to grant the applicant a Protection (Class XA) visa.
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. The volume of material that has been provided is identified as the Court Book (“CB”) and has been marked as Exhibit “A”.
The applicant was granted leave to file and serve an amended application and any evidence that she wished to rely upon by 23 August 2014. The applicant was also granted leave to file and serve written legal submissions and a list of authorities fourteen days before the hearing. The applicant elected not to file any amended application, affidavit evidence or written submissions.
Background
In setting out the following background material I have quoted directly from the Court Book and written submissions prepared by the Minister. 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.
The applicant is a female citizen of the People’s Republic of China, born in Liaoning, China in 1965. She does not indicate that she has any religion or religious beliefs. She indicated to the Tribunal that she was a waitress prior to leaving China and coming to Australia, and that she worked in a restaurant, which she identified by name, between 1992 and November 2009. She claims that she was a “support crew” in a factory in China from 1985-1992. The applicant indicates that she lived in the same address in Shenyang City from 1999 to November 2009 when she last left China. The applicant states that she was married, but divorced in Shenyang City in March 1994. The applicant indicates that her ex-husband and son (born in 1989) are residing in China (CB 90 at [9]).
The applicant indicated that she left her country legally in November 2009 and entered in Australia on a Business visa in November 2009, travelling on a passport in her name, issued in China in March 2006. Her passport expired in March 2011 (CB 98 at [10]).
The details of the applicant’s migration and procedural history are found in the Court Book, particularly the delegate’s decision and are as follows:
a)The applicant first arrived in Australia on 14 December 2007 as a holder of a Visitor (subclass TR – 676) visa that was granted offshore on 7 December 2007. This visa ceased on 19 December 2007. The applicant departed Australia on the same day;
b)On 5 November 2009 the applicant entered Australia as the holder of a Business Short Stay (subclass UC – 456) visa that was granted offshore on 15 October 2009. This visa ceased on 5 February 2010. The applicant failed to depart Australia and remained on-shore unlawfully;
c)On 2 November 2011 she was located by compliance officers of the Department of Immigration (the “Department”) at the premises of Kam Fook Seafood Restaurant at Bondi Junction, NSW. The applicant was granted a Bridging visa (WE-050) on departure grounds, which ceased on 4 November 2011. The applicant, once more, failed to depart Australia and remained in Australia unlawfully;
d)On 14 January 2014, the applicant was located by the Department’s Compliance Officers at a private address in Canterbury, NSW, and detained under s.189 of the Migration Act;
e)On 21 January 2014, the applicant lodged a stand-alone application for a Bridging visa (WE-050). This application was refused on 23 January 2014, and the applicant applied for a review of this decision in the Migration Review Tribunal. The Migration Review Tribunal affirmed the Department’s decision on 5 February 2014;
f)On 23 January 2014, the applicant lodged a valid application for a Protection visa. The application for an associated Bridging visa (WE-050) was found invalid on 24 January 2014. The applicant remained in detention at the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre; and
g)The applicant appeared before the Tribunal by video-link on 24 April 2014 to give evidence and to present arguments (CB 91 at [16]).
The applicant contends in her statement dated 21 January 2014 (CB 26-27) (the “Statement”), which was made in support of her application for a Protection visa, that she left China and cannot return because she was persecuted as a result of petitioning the government about “demolition issues”. The applicant states that from 1992 she lived in a property inherited by her ex-husband. After the applicant and her ex-husband divorced, their son was awarded to her ex-husband and her ex-husband’s mother looked after the son. When the ex-husband’s mother passed away, the applicant started to reside in the ex-husband’s property, caring for her son and her ex-husband moved out of the property (CB 90 at [11]).
In 2008 the demolition office of Dadong District announced the District was to be relocated. A demolition agreement for the property named an amount of compensation for the applicant which she did not think was reasonable, so she decided to appeal against the amount of compensation. The applicant petitioned the Dadong Government, but she was often harassed by the residence committee stating that she should give up the petition. The applicant claims that she organised a demonstration and the developers used force against the protestors. They were beaten and repressed by the police who arrested some petitioners, but did not control the developers. The applicant was detained, then had to make undertakings that she would not petition the government further and was released. After her release she heard that two people had been killed at the demonstration and many had been hurt, which resulted in her decision to flee China. She chose to stay in Australia illegally due to her fear of returning to China (CB 90 at [12]).
The following procedural steps were taken by the applicant:
a)On 22 January 2014 the applicant applied for a Protection visa (CB 1-27);
b)On 6 March 2014 a delegate of the Minister refused to grant the Protection visa (CB 28-44);
c)On 8 March 2014 the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate’s decision (CB 45-46);
d)On 24 April 2014 the applicant appeared before the Tribunal by video-link to give evidence and present her claims;
e)On 28 April 2014 the Tribunal affirmed the delegate’s decision (CB 84-96); and
f)On 13 May 2014 the applicant applied for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision in this Court.
Applicant’s Claims
In support of her Protection visa application the applicant claimed that she would be persecuted by the authorities if she returned to China because she had petitioned the Dadong District Government for compensation when her house had been demolished. The applicant submitted the Statement with her Protection visa application (CB 26-27), which the Tribunal essentially summarised at [11] and [12] of its Decision Record (CB 90). Briefly, the applicant’s claims were that:
a)From 1992, the applicant lived in her then husband’s property with her son;
b)In 2008 of the Demolition Office of Dadong District Government announced that the District was to be relocated;
c)The applicant thought that the compensation offered by the government was unreasonable and petitioned the government;
d)The applicant, along with other residents, held a demonstration in March or April 2009. At the demonstration the developers used force against the petitioners. The police also beat and arrested the petitioners;
e)The applicant was arrested by police and detained at the police station. The applicant was not given anything to eat. The police investigated her petitioning activity and only released her when she agreed that she would no longer petition the government;
f)The applicant heard that two people had been killed in a parade and many were hurt; and
g)The applicant cannot live in China because she has no job, no house and no household registration.
On 27 March 2014 the applicant submitted various documents in support of her claims (CB 57-78), referred to by the Tribunal in the Decision Record at [15] (CB 91). At the Tribunal hearing, the applicant told the Tribunal that she had been informed by the Department that her personal details had been published on the Department’s website (CB 94 at [33]).
Tribunal’s Decision Record
The Tribunal made the following findings:
a)That the applicant’s delay in seeking protection was inconsistent with her claims to fear harm in China. The applicant applied for a Protection visa over four years after arriving in Australia and at a time that she was without any other visa options. The applicant was unable to provide a reasonable explanation for this delay, especially given the fact that she had told the delegate that she had come to the attention of the immigration authorities in 2011 (CB 92 at [26]);
b)It did not accept that the applicant would petition local authorities for a compensation claim relating to a property that belonged to her ex-husband, as she had indicated in her Statement (CB 93 at [27]). The Tribunal did not accept her explanation that the Statement was translated incorrectly and that the house actually belonged to her. It concluded that the applicant changed her evidence in an effort to address the Tribunal’s concerns;
c)The applicant gave inconsistent evidence about her employment in China (CB 93 at [29]). The applicant told the Tribunal that she could not work after demolition started in November 2008. However, in her application for a Protection visa, she indicated that she was working as a waitress until November 2009 (CB 94 at [29]). The Tribunal did not consider that the applicant gave a reasonable explanation for this inconsistency and found that the applicant changed her evidence before the Tribunal to give herself a better chance of obtaining a Protection visa (CB 93 at [92]);
d)It did not accept that the house in which the applicant lived was demolished by authorities (CB 94 at [30]). Nor did the Tribunal accept that the applicant would not have the required household registration to live in Shenyang City, Liaoning (CB 94 at [31]). It further noted that the applicant would have the support of her son if she returned to China and would be able to find a job;
e)In light of the Tribunal’s concerns regarding the applicant’s credibility, and in conjunction with country information which indicated the prevalence of document fraud in China, the Tribunal found that the documents submitted by the applicant not to be reliable evidence (CB 94 at [32]); and
f)The Tribunal also considered that the applicant’s personal information had been published on the Department’s website. However, the Tribunal found that, given the nature of the applicant’s claims, she would not suffer harm from any Chinese authorities if she returned to China on the basis of this disclosure (CB 94 at [33]). The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not given truthful evidence and rejected her claims to fear harm on the basis of her petitioning the Dadong District Government. Accordingly, it found that the applicant was not a person to whom Australia owed protection obligations, pursuant to s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act or the alternative complementary protection criteria in s.36(2)(aa) of the Migration Act.
Current Proceedings
The application before the Court was filed on 13 May 2014 and the orders sought are as follows:
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. A declaration that the recommendation of the Independent Protection Assessment Reviewer was not made in accordance with law, by reason of the ground/s of this application.
4. An injunction restraining the Minister, by himself or by his Department, officers, delegates or agents, from relying upon the recommendation of the Independent Protection Assessment Reviewer.
The grounds of the application are as follows:
1. I plead for an order not to remove me from Australia.
2. I plead for an order to redirect the Tribunal’s decision and order.
3. The Department to take this matter for further consideration.
4. I plead for an order to consider me for complementary protection.
Under the heading Grounds of application in the application, it appears that the applicant has made a number of submissions. They will be treated as written submission and state as follows:
1. My name is [SZUII] I was persecuted by the government of China due to petition for forced demolition.
2. I tried to fight for my legal rights and petition Dadong district government but the government demolition department officers turned to violence and made me homeless to the end.
3. Lots of people who were suffering the same problem held a parade in front of the government and [we] were locked up in jail for it.
4. I couldn’t live in a country like that for avoid the persecution from the government I escaped to Australia [but] my application was refused by RRT.
5. I was afraid that I would suffer more persecution if I was.
Recently I heard that my personal information was leaked out.
I am even more scared I feel that my life was unsecured [if] I would be [sent] back.
6. I appeal to the Federal court and wish the Australian government could consider my situation and help me with my case to get rid of the threatening and avoid persecution protect me and also give me the real freedom. I am a real refugee who is seeking help and protection.
Applicant’s Submissions
The applicant did not file any written submissions as required by the orders made on 5 June 2014, however, she indicated that she wished to make oral submissions. When invited to make oral submissions in support of her application, the applicant repeated in some detail the nature of her claim for a Protection visa. This involved the applicant explaining her domestic circumstances, the transfer of the matrimonial home and the support of her child. The applicant pointed out the difficulty that she had in obtaining new accommodation, employment, household registration and funds to meet the educational requirements of the child. The applicant claimed there was a further restriction, being her age, when considering her pursuit of further employment.
The applicant then addressed the redevelopment of the land where her home had originally stood, the circumstances of its acquisition and the compensation payment the applicant claims was meagre. The consequence of her circumstances in China was that she moved to Australia, but because she had no relatives, no friends, was not familiar with Australian immigration laws and regulations, and because of the language barrier, she overstayed her original visitor’s visa, illegally. The balance of her submissions addressed the possible problems that she may face upon her repatriation to China.
Minister’s Submissions
Mr D’Avigdor, appearing on behalf of the Minister, prepared written submissions in response to the applicant’s review application. Mr D’Avigdor informed the Court that he intended to rely upon those submissions in respect of the applicant’s pleaded grounds. In response to the oral submissions made by the applicant, Mr D’Avigdor contends that the bulk of the oral submissions seek to re-agitate the applicant’s claims before the Tribunal.
In respect of the complaint raised by the applicant regarding the Tribunal’s refusal to accept evidence, or refusal to accept evidence on any basis, Mr D’Avigdor referred the Court to the photographs and the urban housing demolition agreement which were contained in the Court Book at CB 58 onwards and were submitted by the applicant on 27 March 2014 to the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered those documents at [15] of the Decision Record (CB 91) and the basis for rejecting those documents is contained at [32] (CB 94). The basis of the finding was due to a general credibility finding and the prevalence of document fraud within in China.
A further point raised by the applicant concerned the leak of personal information when various parties seeking Protection visas had their personal information displayed on a Departmental website. The Tribunal considered the complaint, in its Decision Record at [33], and concluded that due to the nature of her claim for protection, the disclosure would have no adverse impact on her and she would not face risk of harm as a result.
Applicant’s Submissions in Reply
The applicant confirmed that the interpreter had translated the content of the Minister’s written submissions prior to the commencement of the hearing. The applicant was invited to make submissions on anything arising from that document. The applicant indicated that if an enquiry was made on the internet, it would display the current commercial buildings that now occupy the former residential area where the applicant claims that her house once was. The applicant acknowledged that it is very common that false documents are produced in China, however, the applicant argued that there was no evidence to prove that her documents were false. The applicant contends that the material that she relies upon is available in public and a review of the internet would provide information that the demolition of her residential home was destroyed. She further raised concerns about the advice given to her by the Department that should she return to China she would not be harmed.
Consideration
The applicant appeared by video-link from the Federal Circuit Court in Darwin as a self-represented litigant with the assistance of a Mandarin interpreter who was located in Sydney. As indicated elsewhere in this judgment, the applicant elected not to avail herself of the opportunity to file an amended application supported by affidavit evidence or written submissions, but instead relied upon the original application.
Mr D’Avigdor, in his written submissions, has conveniently summarised the 6 grounds of review that were contained in the original application, as follows:
a)The applicant was persecuted by the government of China, due to “petition for forced demolition”;
b)The applicant fought for legal rights and petitioned the Dadong District Government, but the Government Demolition Department’s officers turned to violence and made the applicant homeless;
c)Many people, including the applicant, held a parade and were locked up in jail;
d)The applicant escaped to Australia to avoid persecution;
e)The applicant feared further persecution as her “personal information was leaked out”; and
f)The applicant appeals to this Court and the Australian government to consider her situation and protect the applicant as a refugee.
The issues raised in [24(a)-(d)] above were initially stated in the applicant’s Statement attached to her Protection (Class XA) visa application (CB 26-27). The claims contained in the Statement were substantially adopted in the delegate’s decision under the heading Claims for Protection (CB 35-36). Again, these claims were repeated in the Tribunal’s Decision Record under the heading Claims and Evidence at [9]-[12] (CB 90). The applicant’s grounds for review reiterate the applicant’s claims for protection before the Tribunal and in doing so, seek to engage the Court in a merits review, which is not available in this Court: Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 272. A fair reading of the Tribunal’s Decision Record considered against the claims before this Court reveals that the applicant’s grounds, in essence, seek impermissible merits review. The applicant’s submissions before the Court did not assist her either, as they were essentially a challenge to the factual findings and conclusions made by the Tribunal.
The issues raised by the applicant, noted above at [24(e)-(f)], are addressed in the Tribunal’s Decision Record at [33] (CB 94), where it stated:
33. Towards the end of the tribunal hearing the applicant told the Tribunal that she had been informed by the Department of Immigration that her name has been published on the department’s website as an immigration detainee and she is in danger from authorities in China because the government will know about her protection visa application in Australia and has criticised the government. The Tribunal accepts that recently the names of many immigration detainees in Australia were published/available on the department’s website as the applicant claims and that this was reported upon various Australian media sources. For the purposes of this decision the Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s details were published on the department’s website as the applicant claims, that her name would have been available to be viewed by Chinese authorities and that this would have revealed her protection visa application made in 2014. Given her claims however, including her claims about local authorities and Chinese authorities generally, the Tribunal does not accept that there is a real chance or real risk that this applicant will face serious or significant harm in her country on return there because her name was published in the department’s website. In the case of this applicant the Tribunal does not accept that Chinese authorities including local Chinese authorities have, or will have an adverse interest in the applicant if she returns to her country from Australia.
(CB 94-95)
A brief history of the circumstances that lead to the situation is contained in SZTXY v Minister for Immigration [2014] FCCA 841 per Judge Driver, where his Honour stated:
1. In February this year, it emerged that personal information concerning some 10,000 people held in immigration detention in Australia had inadvertently been made available on the internet. The revelation caused understandable concern and those affected received letters from the Secretary of the Minister’s Department about the circumstances. The Secretary’s letter contained what purports to be an undertaking that the Department would assess any implications for each affected person personally as part of its “normal processes”. Those affected were also invited by the letter to raise any concerns they might have during “those processes”.
2. A group of immigration detainees at Villawood were sufficiently concerned about the circumstances and the implications for them, which concerns were not allayed by the Secretary’s letter, that they instituted proceedings in this Court on 4 March 2014. Other applications followed. The initial applications were not prepared with the assistance of legal advice and it was difficult to discern what the applicants were seeking from the Court. Subsequently, a group of applicants, whose applications had been allocated to my docket, obtained legal representation. Amended applications were filed between 28 March 2014 and 7 April 2014 which sought interlocutory relief in the form of an injunction restraining the Minister from removing the applicants from Australia pending the determination of final relief in the proceedings, and final relief in the following terms:
1. An injunction restraining the Minister, by himself or by his Department, officers, delegates or agents, from removing the applicant pursuant to s.198 of the Act other than according to law and consistently with the declarations in orders 2-5.
2. A declaration that it is not reasonably practicable for the First or Second Respondents, their officers or agents, to remove the applicant from Australia within the meaning of s.198 of the Migration Act unless and until consideration has been given by the Minister of Australia’s non-refoulment obligations (under the Refugee Convention; the Convention Against Torture; and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) arising from the release of the applicant’s personal information in or about February 2014 in respect of the applicant, according to law.
3. A declaration that the representation that an assessment of any implications for the applicant personally by the Second Respondent as part of the Department’s normal processes made on 12 March 2014 (“the 12 March 2014 representation”) involves a representation that the power vested in the Second Respondent by s.61 of the Constitution will be used in favour of the applicant.
4. A declaration that the Second Respondent, his officers and agents, in undertaking the assessment identified in the 12 March 2014 representation is required to accord to the applicant procedural fairness according to law.
A number of parties who were in Immigration Detention, as at 31 January 2014, had their personal details inadvertently disclosed on the Department’s public website. This data breach concerned approximately 10,000 individuals, many of whom became aware of the breach from subsequent media reports. On 12 March 2014 the Department wrote in substantially similar terms to all detainees who were affected by the breach. The applicant brought this issue to the attention of the Tribunal Member during the hearing, however, there is no reference to any evidence being tendered, such as any Departmental letter. Similarly, there is nothing in the application before this Court tendering the Departmental letter in support of her application. In oral submissions the applicant indicated that her personal information in her refugee claims had been leaked and that was a violation of her human rights. The applicant then went on to say that the Immigration Department informed her that if she returned to China she would not be harmed because of that breach. The applicant made the statement that she just wanted to ask that now that her personal details had been leaked if it would make it difficult to return to China or any other country (Transcript, 18 September 2014, p.5).
On the information before the Court, the applicant was detained by the Department’s compliance officers on 14 January 2014, pursuant to s.189 of the Migration Act. On 23 January 2014, the applicant lodged a valid application for a Protection visa. From this information, it can be assumed that on the Department’s list of immigration detainees, published on 31 January 2014 would have, in addition to any other material, indicated that the applicant had filed a Protection visa application.
This Court has heard a series of applications pursued in various forms on the basis of the disclosure of detainees’ personal information as at 31 January 2014. In the matter of SZSSJ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCCA 1379, which was delivered on 20 June 2014, the Court upheld the Minister’s submission that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the applicant’s judicial review application on the ground that the applicant had failed to identify “a migration decision” which enlivened the Court’s jurisdiction. On appeal in SZSSJ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCAFC 143 per Perram, Jagot and Griffiths JJ, in upholding the appeal, found that the primary judge erred in finding that the Federal Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction under s.476 of the Migration Act. Further, the matter was remitted to the Federal Circuit Court for determination.
The Court acknowledges that the applicant in the current proceedings is a self-represented litigant and, although she has obtained some assistance in the various applications for Bridging and Protection visas, the person providing that assistance does not appear to have any formal legal training. Consequently, any claim that the applicant may have in respect of the Department’s inadvertent release of her personal details was not pleaded and has only been raised in casual, off-hand statements during oral submissions before this Court.
As the extracted passage from the Tribunal decision above indicates, towards the end of the Tribunal haring the applicant raised the issue of her name being published on the Department’s website as an immigration detainee. However, the applicant made no formal reference to the publication in the grounds of review, nor was the Department’s letter tendered in evidence. A large number of Departmental letters were issued and relevantly state that the information made publically available was the applicant’s name, date of birth, nationality, gender, details about her detention and if she had other family members in detention. There is no attempt by the applicant to contend that the data released became an integer of her claim to fear harm from the Chinese authorities, in particular the local Chinese authorities in Liaoning concerning any compensation claim.
If the claimed disclosure was somehow relevant as evidence, that would not be enough. In Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZRKT & Anor (2013) 212 FCR 99 at [122] his Honour Robertson J noted the proposition that it is always a jurisdictional error to ignore “relevant material” is too widely expressed. The applicant must demonstrate that the evidence raised “considerations which bear upon the material elements which must be satisfied, or rejected, when dealing with an applicant’s claims”. The mere claim by the applicant of such a release without more evidence falls far short of this requirement, having regard to the applicant’s claims. If the claimed released information raised some other unarticulated claim, that needed to be considered in the way identified in NABE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (No.2) (2004) 144 FCR 1 at [58]. It would be a matter of pure speculation as to why the disclosure of the applicant’s personal information might create a risk that she will be harmed by the civil authorities in Shenyang City, Liaoning, given her absence from that area since November 2009.
Conclusion
The applicant does not identify any error capable of review, nor is it apparent on a fair reading of the Court Book and in particular the Tribunal’s Decision Record that any jurisdictional error is apparent. In the circumstances, I am satisfied the application should be dismissed and the applicant should be ordered to pay the Minister’s costs.
I certify that the preceding thirty-four (34) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Lloyd-Jones
Associate:
Date: 7 November 2014
0
6
2