Wilcox and Registrar of Marriage Celebrants
[2023] AATA 3252
•13 October 2023
Wilcox and Registrar of Marriage Celebrants [2023] AATA 3252 (13 October 2023)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2023/0609
Re:Colleen Wilcox
APPLICANT
AndRegistrar of Marriage Celebrants
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member A. Nikolic AM CSC
Date:13 October 2023
Place:Melbourne
The Tribunal affirms the reviewable decision.
........................................................................
Senior Member A. Nikolic AM CSC
CATCHWORDS
MARRIAGE CELEBRANTS – 2022 application to become registered as a marriage celebrant – 2014 application refused on character grounds – whether applicant is a fit and proper person pursuant to s 39C of the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) – continued criminal offending – Applicant did not fully disclose convictions since 2014 in 2022 application – Applicant not a fit and proper person to be registered as marriage celebrant – Applicant not entitled to registration as a marriage celebrant – reviewable decision affirmed
LEGISLATION
Marriage Act 1961 (Cth)
Marriage Regulations 2017 (Cth)
CASES
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Daniele (1981) 61 FLR 354
Hughes & Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No 2) (1955) 93 CLR 127
HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1803
Leota v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 1120
Maxwell v R (1996) 184 CLR 501
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v ERY19 [2021] FCAFC 133
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 144 ALR 567
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v SRT (1999) 91 FCR 234
Omerdic v Angland [2018] VSC 174Omerdicv Angland [2018] VSCA 320
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member A. Nikolic AM CSC
13 October 2023
INTRODUCTION
On 27 October 2022, Ms Colleen Wilcox (“the Applicant”), applied for registration as a marriage celebrant under the Marriage Act 1961 (Cth) (“the Act”).[1]
[1] Exhibit R1, 52-54.
The application was refused on 31 January 2023 (“reviewable decision”).[2]
[2] Ibid 8-11.
On 1 February 2023, the Applicant lodged a review application with the Tribunal.[3]
[3] Ibid 1-7.
The hearing was held in person on 3 October 2023 at the Tribunal’s Melbourne Registry and then resumed via video on 4 October 2023. The Applicant was self-represented. The Registrar was represented by Mr David Brown from the Australian Government Solicitor.
For the following reasons the Tribunal affirms the reviewable decision.
BACKGROUND
The Applicant completed a vocational qualification required to be a marriage celebrant on 13 July 2014 and first applied for registration on 2 September 2014.[4] This application was refused on 17 December 2014 because the Registrar was not satisfied the Applicant was a fit and proper person to be a marriage celebrant. The Registrar referred in the decision to multiple offences recorded against the Applicant between 2002 and 2014. [5]
[4] Ibid 24-40.
[5] Ibid 41-47.
The Applicant subsequently contacted officials in the Registrar’s office to enquire about the effect of her criminal history on future applications. The Tribunal has considered several contemporaneous records between 2015 and 2018 relating these enquiries.[6]
[6] Ibid 48-51.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Section 39J(1)(a) of the Act, in conjunction with s 25(1)(a) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), establishes the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to review this decision.
The meaning of ‘authorised celebrant’ is defined at s 5(1) of the Act and includes a marriage celebrant.
Part IV of the Act refers to solemnisation of marriages in Australia and Subdivision C provides for registration of marriage celebrants.
Section 39C of the Act is headed ‘Entitlement to be registered as a marriage celebrant’ and sets out three mandatory criteria for registration:
(1) A person is only entitled to be registered as a marriage celebrant if the person is an individual and the Registrar of Marriage Celebrants is satisfied that the person:
(a) is aged 18 years or over; and
(b) has all the qualifications, and/or skills, determined in writing to be necessary by the Registrar in accordance with regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph; and
(c) is a fit and proper person to be a marriage celebrant.
In determining satisfaction regarding the fit and proper person requirement, the Registrar must take into account eight considerations at s 39C(2) of the Act, although s 39C(2)(h) makes clear this is a non-exhaustive list:
39C Entitlement to be registered as a marriage celebrant
…
(2) In determining whether the Registrar is satisfied that the person is a fit and proper person to be a marriage celebrant, the Registrar must take into account:
(a) whether the person has sufficient knowledge of the law relating to the solemnisation of marriages by marriage celebrants; and
(b) whether the person is committed to advising couples of the availability of relationship support services; and
(c) whether the person is of good standing in the community; and
(d) whether the person has been convicted of an offence, punishable by imprisonment for one year or longer, against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; and
(e) whether the person has an actual or potential conflict of interest between his or her practice, or proposed practice, as a marriage celebrant and his or her business interests or other interests; and
(f) whether the person's registration as a marriage celebrant would be likely to result in the person gaining a benefit in respect of another business that the person owns, controls or carries out; and
(g) whether the person will fulfil the obligations under section 39G; and
(h) any other matter the Registrar considers relevant to whether the person is a fit and proper person to be a marriage celebrant.
(3) Nothing in this section affects the operation of Part VIIC of the Crimes Act 1914 (which includes provisions that, in certain circumstances, relieve persons from the requirement to disclose spent convictions and require persons aware of such convictions to disregard them).
Under s 39D(3) of the Act, the Registrar ‘must’ consider the information contained in an application, ‘may’ have regard for any other information in their possession, and ‘is not required’ to seek further information.
Under s 39D(4) of the Act the Registrar must register a person as a marriage celebrant if the person applies and the Registrar is satisfied they are entitled to be registered.
ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED
There is no dispute the Applicant satisfies the first two conjunctive requirements at s 39C(1) of the Act. This application centres on the fit and proper person requirement.
EVIDENCE
Documents lodged under s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) were tendered into evidence.[7] Other documents accepted into evidence were:
(a)A reference from Ms Gloria Clarke dated 20 April 2023;[8]
(b)A reference from Dr Cathryn D’Cruz dated 9 May 2023;[9] and
(c)An Order Completion Report dated 26 April 2023 stating that the Applicant satisfactorily completed a Community Correction Order between 3 March 2021 and 2 September 2022.[10]
[7] Exhibit R1.
[8] Exhibit A1.
[9] Exhibit A2.
[10] Exhibit A3.
The Applicant gave oral evidence on the first hearing day and advised she did not intend to call witnesses. The Tribunal considered it appropriate to hear from authors of statements if available and proposed to call three who the Applicant said were aware of her offending. There was no objection to this. A Tribunal Officer subsequently contacted the three authors, one of whom, Ms Sue Young, agreed to give oral testimony.
Applicant’s evidence
At the commencement of her oral evidence the Applicant adopted a three-page Statutory Declaration dated 4 January 2023 as true and correct. She claimed on several occasions the Respondent had not been empathetic to her circumstances and that some officials provided misleading advice about her prospects for registration. This purportedly included advice that only convictions resulting in a year or more of imprisonment applied to the fit and proper person test, and offences older than a decade would not be considered. The Applicant claimed if this advice was applied, her offences would have been reduced to four.
The Applicant reflected on a ‘difficult journey’ since refusal of her 2014 application, which caused her considerable stress. She referred to being a ‘credible person’ for 45 years prior to 2002, which is when her offending commenced. The Applicant stated several times she had been a Bank Manager, which reflected her credibility.[11] No corroborating evidence was provided regarding past employment as a Bank Manager. The Applicant contextualised her offending as a period of ‘decline’ arising from life challenges, but from which she had recovered. These challenges included divorce, business failure and bankruptcy, financial stressors, and periods of illness. She claimed to have ‘no control’ over some offences, including because she prioritised her children’s safety and interests. This evidence was in the context of the Applicant’s driving offences. She explained that her children often needed to be picked up or dropped off at events. On other occasions she had to drive to receive medical treatment or to work-related appointments.[12] The Applicant explained the necessity to drive while disqualified by reference to an anecdote about a man without a valid licence whose inebriated son asked to be picked up from an event. She said the father refused and the son was subsequently ‘bashed’ and put into ‘a coma for four years’.
[11] Exhibit R1, 59-61.
[12] Ibid 54.
The Applicant stated that becoming a marriage celebrant is her vocation and invoked talents in speaking, composing poetry, musicianship, and other attributes in this regard. She said her ‘paperwork’ may convey a lack of ‘regard for the law’ but this is not the case, including because she raised successful children, has positive references, and had re-engaged with her faith community. The Applicant became somewhat exasperated during her evidence, sa: ‘Short of getting a letter from the Pope I’m not sure what else to do’. She claimed to have undergone a ‘drastic turnaround these last few years’ and is no longer the person reflected by her criminal history.
During cross-examination, Mr Brown asked the Applicant why she only referred to a driving whilst disqualified offence in her 2022 application, but omitted multiple other offences, and did not give consent for a Criminal History Check. She responded: ‘Didn’t I? – there is no reason why I would omit them’. She said any omission was unintentional and interpreted the question as being about recent court cases, which ‘were mainly driving offences’.
Mr Brown took the Applicant through her criminal history during the last decade. These are predominantly dishonesty offences (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2019), and licence / driving offences (2014, 2015, and 2021). The Applicant recalled the offence of ‘Obtain financial advantage by deception’ in 2014 related to her painting a picture by a well-known but deceased artist and selling it as an original. She claimed the money was used to buy a motorbike for one of her sons because his involvement in motocross helped stabilise him during the difficult period of her divorce. The Applicant claimed she was also ‘medicated, desperate for money’, and did ‘whatever [she] had to do to survive’. In response to Mr Brown’s question about a 2015 conviction for ‘Obtain property by deception’, the Applicant recalled her car was impounded at times, so she hired cars and vans ‘more than once while disqualified and fraudulently used a licence’. She is unsure what the $900 compensation ordered by the Court was for but agreed this offence breached the Community Corrections Order (“CCO”) imposed after her 2014 convictions. When asked if she understood the 12-month CCO obligations imposed, the Applicant responded: ‘Probably not’, claiming no one had explained this. She later qualified this evidence when stating: ‘They probably did but I don’t remember’, because she ‘wasn’t in a mental frame of mind to understand anything – my priority was my children’. When pressed by Mr Brown that she was aware of CCO conditions but ignored them, the Applicant responded: ‘No I didn’t choose to ignore it – I just dealt with what was in front of me in that period of decline – I was in survival mode’.
The Applicant claimed her persistent licence / driving issues started when police stopped her after a ‘luncheon’ during which she had consumed champagne. She was asked to accompany police to for further testing but declined because her daughter needed to be picked up from an event. The Applicant said there were other occasions when she drove while suspended, including when travelling between ‘house-minding’ commitments and transporting her children to events. She accepted the law was broken every time she did this but posed the question: ‘Yes but I’m asking you – what is allowable?’.
The Applicant’s evidence about three theft convictions in 2016, 2017, and 2019 is summarised as follows:
(a)20 April 2016. The Applicant claimed a wardrobe was mistakenly collected by her removalist from a rental property because she had one that was the same. She said the estate agent and owner were ‘so quick’ to charge her, despite returning the wardrobe and leaving it on the nature strip because the new tenant did not want it. She claims someone purportedly ‘took it and torched it’.
(b)17 November 2017. The Applicant agreed she drove off from a service station without paying for fuel.[13] She claimed her mother ‘was in care and needed to see [her] urgently’, but that she ‘attempted to ring’ the service station after driving off to say she would ‘pay the bill next week’. She claimed the proprietor had already called police by the time she made contact.
(c)11 July 2019. The Applicant claimed it was not her intention to leave a supermarket without paying for grocery items.[14] At this point in her evidence she again became exasperated, stating: ‘I’ve stolen a wardrobe, I’ve stolen $100 of shopping, and $40 of petrol. These aren’t major criminal offences. What criminal offences are really acceptable in this process. What is allowable?’. Earlier in her evidence she similarly stated: ‘I was led along…You’ve put me through all of this. What crime is allowable’.
[13] Ibid 32.
[14] Ibid 34.
Regarding her most recent convictions in 2021 on two charges of ‘Drive whilst authorisation suspended’, the Applicant agreed she was sentenced in January 2021 to an aggregate of three months’ imprisonment. After appealing to the County Court the convictions were confirmed but the prison sentence was set aside and replaced with an 18-month CCO and 120 hours of unpaid community work. The Applicant said this decision reflected empathy for her circumstances and put her on a ‘wonderful positive path’, which she appreciated.
The Applicant said there are ‘probably three things out of all that offending’ she regrets, which are the ‘painting, food theft, and licence deception’. She again contextualised her crimes with reference to difficult life circumstances, including diagnosis with a serious illness in 2005 for which she received treatment and monitoring until about 2011.
Evidence of Ms Sue Young
Ms Young adopted her two-page reference dated 15 November 2022 as her evidence in this proceeding.[15] Ms Young has known the Applicant for about 13 years and considers her a fit and proper person for registration as a marriage celebrant. She said the Applicant is an outgoing and caring person who helps others, is hardworking, and had ‘been through a lot’. Ms Young does not know when the Applicant completed her training as a celebrant. Ms Young was asked about her response to Question 6 regarding the ‘Applicant’s personal integrity and ethical standards’, in which she referred to the Applicant as an ‘honest and trustworthy person’. Ms Young stated she ‘never had a problem’ with the Applicant. When asked if she is aware of the Applicant having any charges or convictions, Ms Young said the only thing she knew was ‘some court things to do with her ex-husband’.
Closing submissions
[15] Ibid 13-15.
Applicant
The Applicant cavilled with the Respondent’s suggestion that she has no regard for the law, stating: ‘My regard for the law has been proven. It was a period of decline. I am disappointed none of this was considered…Going through all of the criteria for a celebrant, I meet all the criteria’. Later in closing the Applicant stated she meets ‘99% of the criteria’ for registration and has the ‘major attributes required’. She also expressed disappointment that the Registrar had not acknowledged her ‘empathy, compassion, and professionalism over the years’ and ‘focussed solely on [her] decline’. She said there were periods in most people’s lives where they ‘have been dishonest’.
The Applicant concurrently expressed regret for her crimes while stating: ‘But I do wonder what is allowed? I never assaulted anyone…I was never put in prison…Every time I made calls to the Registrar, I was given so many conflicting messages’. She referred to positive aspects of her application, including online references from home-minding.[16]
[16] Ibid 16.
Respondent
Mr Brown said the application should be refused because of the persistence of the Applicant’s offending. He said ss 39C(2)(d) and (h) of the Act underlie the importance of celebrants strictly complying with the law when performing their duties. This includes legal requirements to establish identity, provide proper notice, and ensure there is an absence of coercion or improper influence to marry. Mr Brown emphasised the importance of there being no ulterior motives nor temptation ‘to take shortcuts’ when performing these duties.
Mr Brown emphasised this case is not about the Applicant’s parenting, volunteering, engagement with her faith community, or the life challenges she referred to, but an assessment of her fitness for registration as a celebrant. He said the Applicant only partly reported her criminal history in applications and the witness statements relied upon did not evince knowledge of this, such that there were ‘a set of facts missing’ from these references. Mr Brown said the Applicant’s ‘lengthy’ criminal record contained multiple instances of dishonesty, each of which were punishable by imprisonment for one year or longer. He said some conduct was ‘opportunistic’ while other crimes involved ‘pre-planning to indulge in fraudulent behaviour and elaborate arrangements to benefit herself’. Mr Brown said this was illustrative of the Applicant not having come to terms with the importance of abiding by the law and court orders.
Mr Brown said several of the Applicant’s explanations and excuses were ‘elaborate’ and reflected ‘very little respect for the law…whenever she felt it was convenient or important’ to her needs. He said this ‘attitude gives rise to concerns about her suitability and capacity to meet the fit and proper person test as a celebrant’.
TRIBUNAL CONSIDERATION AND FINDINGS
Consideration
It is uncontroversial that the importance of marriage as an institution in Australia requires strict adherence to legal obligations when a marriage is solemnised.[17] Serious consequences can result when this does not occur.[18] Confirming that a marriage celebrant is a fit and proper person to be registered therefore has a protective effect for those marrying under Australian law. The broad and non-exhaustive nature of the assessment required under s 39C(2) of the Act amply demonstrates the statutory importance placed on the fitness assessment.
[17] For example, the Act, ss 39G, 42, 44, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51.
[18] See for example, Omerdic v Angland [2018] VSC 174; Omerdic v Angland [2018] VSCA 320.
In Hughes[19] the Hight Court reflected on the term ‘fit and proper person’, including by reference to former British jurist Sir Edward Coke:
‘The expression "fit and proper person" is of course familiar enough as traditional words when used with reference to offices and perhaps vocations. But their very purpose is to give the widest scope for judgment and indeed for rejection. "Fit" (or "idoneus") with respect to an office is said to involve three things, honesty knowledge and ability: "honesty to execute it truly, without malice affection or partiality; knowledge to know what he ought duly to do; and ability as well in estate as in body, that he may intend and execute his office, when need is, diligently, and not for impotency or poverty neglect it" – Coke. It is evident that…the commissioner is invested with an authority to accept or reject an applicant the exercise of which depends on no certain or definite criteria and which in truth involves a very wide discretion. If guidance is sought in that paragraph of subs (3) which more or less corresponds, namely para (c), nothing more definite will be found. What under para (c) the commissioner is required to have regard to is "the character, suitability and fitness of the applicant to hold the licence applied for."…’
[19] Hughes & Vale Pty Ltd v New South Wales (No 2) (1955) 93 CLR 127, (Dixon CJ, McTiernan and Webb JJ).
In the Bond Media case (“Bond”), Brennan and Deane JJ, as their Honours then were, stated that an assessment of a person’s fitness is a ‘value judgement’ encompassing considerations of ‘propriety’.[20] Their Honours reasoned at [40]:
‘The expression “fit and proper person”, standing alone, carries no precise meaning. It takes its meaning from its context, from the activities in which the person is or will be engaged and the ends to be served by those activities. The concept of “fit and proper” cannot be entirely divorced from the conduct of the person who is or will be engaging in those activities. However, depending on the nature of the activities, the question may be whether improper conduct has occurred, whether it is likely to occur, whether it can be assumed that it will not occur, or whether the general community will have confidence that it will not occur. The list is not exhaustive but it does indicate that, in certain contexts, character (because it provides indication of likely future conduct) or reputation (because it provides indication of public perception as to likely future conduct) may be sufficient to ground a finding that a person is not fit and proper to undertake the activities in question.’
[20] Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321, [46] (Brennan and Deane JJ).
Findings
The courts have referred to past actions as legitimate indicators of future behaviour.[21] It is accepted the Applicant has dealt with considerable adversity in her life and has made positive contributions through employment, helping raise her children, volunteering, and engagement with her faith community. But there are unfavourable aspects of her application to consider, particularly her criminal history.
[21] Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 144 ALR 567, 578-579; Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v ERY19 [2021] FCAFC 133, [81]; Leota v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 1120, [63].
Some aspects of the Applicant’s evidence were factually incorrect or came across as revisionist or embellished. Other claims were irreconcilable with the judicial findings needed to establish criminal guilt. Examples of the Tribunal’s concerns include:
(a)The Applicant claimed in her 2014 application that she had ‘not been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment for one year or longer, against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory’.[22] This is factually incorrect. She was convicted of multiple offences between 20 November 2012 and the date of her application, most punishable by imprisonment for a year or longer. By way of example, the offence of Obtain property by deception, which she was convicted of a year earlier on 19 September 2013, is an indictable offence punishable by a maximum of 10 years imprisonment. The Applicant explains this omission arose from her lack of understanding about the difference between maximum possible sentence and the non-custodial disposition she received.
(b)The Applicant was convicted of multiple further offences after the refusal of her 2014 application, most recently on 25 January 2021. She again failed to fully disclose her offending in the 2022 application and declined to consent to a police check. The Tribunal was not assisted by the Applicant’s explanations about why this was the case. It remains unclear whether her omission reflects an intentional lack of candour, or insufficient care when completing the application, or some other reason. Repeated omissions, however, do not improve the Applicant’s claim that she will bring a diligent and thorough approach to the important legal responsibilities undertaken by a celebrant.
(c)The Applicant claims she had ‘no control’ over some crimes and others were unintentional, arose from misunderstandings, or were motivated by her being in ‘survival mode’ because of life challenges. It remains of concern that further difficult life circumstances could lead to a repeat of the Applicant’s loss of control or prioritising her interests over adherence to the law.
(d)The Applicant’s narrative during the hearing about three theft convictions conflicts with the contemporaneous police reports.[23] In relation to the wardrobe thefts, she sought to present herself as an innocent victim of an offence committed by others who removed and ‘torched’ the wardrobe she had returned. Her narrative about a fuel theft at a service station is uncorroborated by the contemporaneous police report, in which she is noted to have made ‘full admissions’. In any event the Applicant’s pleas of guilt constitute admission to and acceptance of all elements of these offences[24] and it is not open to the Tribunal to impugn the essential factual basis of her convictions.[25]
(e)In her Statutory Declaration the Applicant stated she ‘won [her] appeal in March 2019’ which constituted a ‘special pardon’ by the County Court. This overstates what occurred. Her convictions were upheld, and the three-month sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Magistrates’ Court was replaced with an 18-month CCO and 120 hours of community work.
[22] Exhibit R1, 31.
[23] Exhibit R2, 29-30; 32.
[24] Maxwell v R (1996) 184 CLR 501, [19].
[25] Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Daniele (1981) 61 FLR 354 at 358; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v SRT (1999) 91 FCR 234 at 244–245; HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1803, [102] (Bromberg J).
When considering inconsistencies between the Applicant’s claims and the police reports / criminal history records, the Tribunal prefers the latter. The Tribunal also prefers the contemporaneous records made between 2015 and 2018 by the Registrar’s staff to the Applicant’s uncorroborated assertions. These were produced by different authors on different days and there is no evidence of any motive for the writers to have recorded other than what occurred.
It remains of concern that the Applicant’s expressions of contrition were somewhat limited to the ‘painting, food theft, and licence deception’ crimes, albeit contextualised by difficult life circumstances. The Tribunal found the Applicant tended to downplay or re-characterise some events or tried to apportion blame to others. These aspects of her evidence diminished the persuasiveness of claims regarding remorse, insight, and having achieved a ‘drastic turnaround’.
The Applicant has offended frequently, comprising multiple counts of dishonesty, contraventions of family violence intervention orders, breaches of conditional liberty, and licence / driving related offences. In the decade since 2013 she has convictions recorded against her in six of those years. The repeated dishonesty offending, for which a conviction was last recorded in July 2019, raises concerns about her ability to strictly observe legal obligations.
Some of the references the Applicant relies upon are quite dated and do not disclose knowledge of her crimes. None of the more recent supportive letters refer to this. Ms Young, the only witness called, has a general and incomplete understanding of the Applicant’s offending. This reduces the weight placed on these supportive references.
When regard is had for the totality of the Applicant’s circumstances, including convictions between November 2002 and January 2021, too little time has passed since the last convictions for the Tribunal to be satisfied she is a fit and proper person for registration as a celebrant. The evidence raises concerns about honesty, integrity, conditional contrition, and a willingness to abide by the law. This is not a case where the Applicant has yet displaced character and integrity concerns by a sufficiently long period of law-abiding behaviour.
CONCLUSION
On balance, the Tribunal is not satisfied the Applicant is a fit and proper person within the meaning of the Act to be entrusted with the duties of a celebrant. She is therefore currently ineligible for registration as a marriage celebrant.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the reviewable decision.
I certify that the preceding 44 (forty-four) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision of Senior Member A.A. Nikolic, AM CSC
..................[SGD]...............................................
Associate
Dated: 13 October 2023
Date of hearing: 3 and 4 October 2023 Applicant: Self-represented Counsel for the Respondent: Mr David Brown Solicitors for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
0
14
0