WZAUB v Minister for Immigration
[2019] FCCA 2749
•27 September 2019
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| WZAUB v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR | [2019] FCCA 2749 |
| Catchwords: MIGRATION – Judicial review – decision of former Refugee Review Tribunal – whether errors in interpretation – whether failure to invite applicant to give evidence and present arguments – whether error in credibility finding arising from errors in interpretation and technical difficulties at hearing – effect of typographical error in decision – whether jurisdictional error – writs issued. |
| Legislation: Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), s.75 Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.36, 91, 414, 422B, 425, 474, 476 |
| CCC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 682 Commissioner of the Australian Capital Territory Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 576; (1994) 127 ALR 699; (1994) 34 ALD 324 Fang Wang v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1044 Foroghi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1875 Maroun v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2009] FCA 1284 Minister for Immigration & Border Protection v WZAPN [2015] HCA 22; (2015) 320 ALR 467; (2015) 89 ALJR 639 Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZLIX [2008] FCAFC 17; (2008) 245 ALR 501; (2008) 100 ALD 443 Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang & Ors (1996) 185 CLR 259; (1996) 70 ALJR 568; (1996) 136 ALR 481; (1996) 41 ALD 1 Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; (2001) 206 CLR 323; (2001) 75 ALJR 1105; (2001) 180 ALR 1; (2001) 62 ALD 225 NADH of 2001 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 328; (2004) 214 ALR 264 NADR v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 167 Perera v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 507; (1999) 92 FCR 6; (1999) 56 ALD 231 Plaintiff S157/2002 v The Commonwealth of Australia [2003] HCA 2; (2003) 211 CLR 476; (2003) 77 ALJR 454; (2003) 195 ALR 24 Re Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs; Ex Parte AB (2000) 177 ALR 225 Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte H [2001] HCA 28; (2001) 75 ALJR 982; (2001) 179 ALR 425 SZBEL v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] HCA 63; (2006) 228 CLR 152; (2006) 81 ALJR 515; (2006) 231 ALR 592; (2006) 93 ALD 300 SZFDE v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2007] HCA 35; (2007) 232 CLR 189; (2007) 81 ALJR 1401; (2007) 237 ALR 64; (2007) 96 ALD 510 SZHEW v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2009] FCA 783 SZNVM v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2010] FCA 261 SZRMQ v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2013] FCAFC 142; (2013) 219 FCR 212; (2013) 139 ALD 436 SZRUI v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs & Citizenship [2013] FCAFC 80 SZSEI v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2014] FCA 465 Tran v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 297 VAAD v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 117 VFAB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 872, (2003) 131 FCR 102; (2003) 77 ALD 23 WALN v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCAFC 131 WZANF v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2010] FMCA 110 WZASX v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2017] FCA 1415 |
| Applicant: | WZAUB |
| First Respondent: | MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS |
| Second Respondent: | ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
| File Number: | PEG 95 of 2014 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Antoni Lucev |
| Hearing dates: | 29 August 2014 and 17 July 2015 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 17 July 2015 |
| Delivered at: | Sydney (by video-link to Perth) |
| Delivered on: | 27 September 2019 (and delivered by video-link by Judge Street pursuant to s.75 of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth)) |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr D Blades |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | AUM Legal |
| Counsel for the First Respondent: | Mr A Gerrard |
| For the Second Respondent: | Submitting appearance, save as to costs |
Solicitors for the Respondents: | Australian Government Solicitor |
ORDERS
The name of the first respondent be amended to read “Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services & Multicultural Affairs”.
The name of the second respondent be amended to read “Administrative Appeals Tribunal”.
That a writ of certiorari issue quashing the decision of the second respondent made on 26 March 2014.
That a writ of mandamus issue requiring the second respondent to re-hear the application for review made by the applicant on 8 October 2012 according to law.
| FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT PERTH |
PEG 95 of 2014
| WZAUB |
Applicant
And
| MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION, CITIZENSHIP, MIGRANT SERVICES AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS |
First Respondent
| ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL |
Second Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
The applicant seeks judicial review under s.476 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“Migration Act”) of a decision of the second respondent, the then Refugee Review Tribunal, now the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“Tribunal” and “Tribunal Decision” respectively). The Tribunal affirmed a decision of a delegate (“Delegate” and “Delegate’s Decision” respectively) of the first respondent, the then Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs & Citizenship, now the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, (“Minister”) to refuse to grant a Protection (Class XA) visa (“Protection Visa”) to the applicant.
The Court acknowledges that these Reasons for Judgment have been significantly delayed. The essential reasons for that are the case load in the Perth Registry of this Court over several years, which in November 2017, was described by the Federal Court as “extreme”, and the judicial resourcing of the Perth Registry of this Court which was described by the Federal Court as “under resourced”: WZASX v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2017] FCA 1415 at [32] per McKerracher J, with all of the case management, and other, consequences and effects both obvious and not obvious that flow therefrom. In relation to this case it is pertinent to note that the Court has had access to and read all of the relevant papers including:
a)the amended application (“Amended Application”) filed on 31 July 2014;
b)orders made by a Registrar of the Court on 14 May 2014 (“Registrar’s Orders”);
c)affidavits affirmed by Patricia Ng on 29 July 2014 (“Ng Affidavit”), Ganasan Arujunan on 31 July 2014 and Dr Printhan Manoharan on 25 August 2014 (“Manoharan Affidavit”), in support of the Amended Application;
d)a consent order made by the Court on 28 January 2015 extending to 6 February 2015 the time for compliance by the applicant for the filing of any amended application and any further affidavits;
e)outlines of submissions filed by the applicant on 19 August 2014 and the Minister on 24 August 2014;
f)the Court Book (“CB”), in which appears the Tribunal Decision dated 26 March 2014: CB 329-352; and
g)the transcript of the hearing before the Court on 29 August 2014 and 17 July 2015.
It is also relevant to note that there was no oral witness evidence or examination at the hearing of the matter before this Court. In the above circumstances, the delay, which the Court regrets, has had no effect upon the Court’s reasoning in these Reasons for Judgment. These Reasons for Judgment are being delivered by Judge Street pursuant to s.75 of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act1999 (Cth).
Background
The background to the matter is as follows:
a)the applicant is a citizen of Sri Lanka of Tamil ethnicity who arrived in Australia by boat without a valid visa on 11 April 2012: CB 12-13 and 223;
b)on 11 May 2012 the applicant took part in an Irregular Maritime Arrival Entry interview with an officer of the then Department of Immigration and Citizenship (“Department”) with the assistance of an interpreter: CB 123-141;
c)on 2 July 2012 the applicant made an application for the Protection Visa. The application was supported by a statutory declaration made by the applicant on 2 July 2012: CB 1-55 and 167-172;
d)on 6 September 2012 the Delegate refused to grant the applicant a Protection Visa: CB 71 and 85;
e)the applicant was advised of the Delegate’s Decision by letter dated 6 September 2012 which was sent to his migration agent: CB 56-60; and
f)on 8 October 2012 the applicant made an application to the Tribunal for review of the Delegate’s Decision: CB 179-184.
g)the applicant was invited to appear before the Tribunal on 6 November 2012 (subsequently rescheduled to 10 January 2013) to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in his case: CB 196-198 and 228-233;
h)on 9 January 2013 the applicant’s migration agent provided detailed written submissions to the Tribunal in support of the applicant’s protection claims: CB 248-276;
i)the Tribunal hearing was further adjourned to 6 March 2013 when the applicant gave evidence at the Tribunal hearing with the assistance of an interpreter: CB 277-279, 284-285 and 330-331;
j)on 7 March 2013 the applicant’s migration agent requested a copy of the audio recording of the Tribunal hearing on 6 March 2013, and a copy of the recording was provided to the applicant’s migration agent by letter dated 8 March 2013: CB 289-291;
k)the applicant’s migration agent provided further written submissions to the Tribunal on 10 March 2013: CB 292-307; and
l)on 26 March 2014 the Tribunal Decision affirmed the Delegate’s Decision not to grant the applicant a Protection Visa.
The Tribunal Decision
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal by video conference on two occasions with the assistance of a Tamil interpreter. At the first Tribunal hearing on 10 January 2013, and before any substantive evidence was taken, the interpreter experienced difficulties interpreting specific terms. The Tribunal decided to adjourn the hearing to 6 March 2013, and save for the written submissions provided by the applicant on 9 January 2013 prior to the first Tribunal hearing, had no further regard to the first Tribunal hearing when making the Tribunal Decision: CB 330 at [6].
In relation to the standard of interpretation at the second Tribunal hearing the Tribunal:
a)noted the applicant at various times indicated he had difficulty understanding the interpreter due to technical difficulties with the video link. On each occasion the interpreter repeated the interpretation and only proceeded where the applicant indicated no further difficulty understanding: CB 342 at [28];
b)stated it was satisfied the standard of interpreting at the second Tribunal hearing was reasonable such that the applicant was able to communicate effectively, understand the Tribunal proceedings and participate in a meaningful way, despite the interpreter indicating some difficulty hearing the applicant through the video conference equipment: CB 332 at [13];
c)stated, at CB 342 at [28] (emphasis added):
The Tribunal is therefore satisfied the standard of interpreting or that the hearing was conducted by video conferencing has affected the Tribunal’s assessment of the credibility of the applicant.
d)highlighted inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence which were not said to be the result of inadequate interpretation or nerves and anxiety, and said that the material nature of the inconsistencies suggested the applicant was not credible and had fabricated some of his claims.
Based upon the written submissions and evidence given at the second Tribunal hearing on 6 March 2013 the Tribunal:
a)was:
i)mindful that the applicant had a secondary school level of education: CB 332 at [13];
ii)mindful that when evidence is received in a language other than the applicant’s first language, room must be allowed for differences in meaning and nuances: CB 332 at [13]; and
iii)satisfied that the standard of interpreting at the second Tribunal hearing “was reasonable”: CB 332 at [13];
b)accepted the applicant was a national of Sri Lanka: CB 332 at [14];
c)told the applicant his credibility was an issue: CB 337 at [25];
d)found the applicant had fabricated key parts of his claims, was not a credible witness, and that there were substantial and material inconsistencies and variations in the applicant’s claims in his written statement, supporting evidence and oral evidence: CB 337 at [26];
e)noted the applicant failed to identify whether he fears harm from the Karuna group or Tamil Makkal Viduthalai Pulikal (“TMVP”), and was not persuaded by the applicant’s explanation he was confused and thought the Karuna group and TMVP were all the same, and found the applicant was not recalling events which had genuinely occurred and did not accept these claims: CB 337-338 at [27(a)];
f)considered the claim at hearing that the Karuna group or the TMVP had phoned his mother since his departure from Sri Lanka and asked if anyone had come to his house since his departure. The applicant responded he was sure no one had come to his home, however this conflicted with his written declaration that his mother told him that the TMVP had come to her house, and his wife’s house. The applicant sought to explain this discrepancy as his not understanding the question put by the Tribunal, however, the Tribunal did not accept this, nevertheless it explained the question and the applicant provided a responsive answer to the question stating someone had called: CB 339 at [27(b)];
g)was concerned the applicant at the hearing failed to mention his arrest, on suspicion of being a member of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (“LTTE”), while working in Colombo and found that this was because he was not recalling from memory genuinely occurring events; CB 339 at [27(c)];
h)invited the applicant to comment on this omission, and did not consider plausible his assertion that as he had already discussed it with the Delegate he did not speak of it again, and again considered it to be indicative of evidence which was not a recollection of events which genuinely occurred: CB 340 at [27(c)];
i)accepted the applicant travelled and resided in Malaysia from May 2011 to January 2012 and during that time he registered as an asylum seeker with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (“UNHCR”): CB 341 at [27(d)];
j)noted the following inconsistencies in the applicants statements regarding his time in Malaysia (at CB 341 at [27(d)]):
i)his reason for travelling to Malaysia was because there is no security and he feared harm in Sri Lanka;
ii)he entered Malaysia on a two year work visa suggesting he travelled to Malaysia for work, and that he did not learn he could apply for refugee status with the UNHCR until after his arrival, but then returned to Sri Lanka;
k)made the following observations concerning the applicant’s return to Sri Lanka from Malaysia:
i)that the applicant stated he returned to Sri Lanka using his own money under an amnesty because he had no visa or passport and was unlawfully working and residing in Malaysia despite having a two year working visa, and when it was suggested his voluntary return to Sri Lanka suggested he may not be fearful of harm he responded he was very fearful;
ii)the applicant claimed his passport had been stolen and he could not afford to replace it, and when asked how he could afford to return to Sri Lanka he said it was cheaper than a passport, though later stated the Malaysian government paid for it, and when asked how he entered Sri Lanka without a passport he stated he got a 1 year passport from the embassy;
iii)the untranslated Police report the applicant provided was given no weight as the Tribunal was not satisfied as to the contents of the report and the inconsistencies previously outlined suggested the applicant had fabricated the report; and
iv)concluded that the applicant’s voluntary return to Sri Lanka indicated he did not have a genuine fear of harm;
l)having reviewed Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Country Information Reports, and in light of the adverse credibility findings against the applicant, rejected the claims the applicant would be forced to join, or be abducted and harmed, by the TMVP or Karuna group if he was to return to Sri Lanka: CB 343 at [34];
m)found that as the applicant has no credible profile of membership or link with the LTTE there is only a speculative or remote chance he will be harmed by the TMVP or Karuna groups because he is a Tamil: CB 345 at [44];
n)on the evidence as a whole, was not satisfied the applicant would be imputed with a pro-LTTE opinion on account of his being a Tamil and a failed asylum seeker. Being mindful of the outcome of any interrogation or questioning and the process involved in obtaining that outcome, country information supported the Tribunal concluding the applicant would not face a real chance of serious harm now or in the reasonably foreseeable future if he returned to Sri Lanka: CB 347 at [53];
o)found offences the applicant will be subjected to under the Sri Lankan law upon return to Sri Lanka are laws of general application and are not discriminatory, further any element of persecution for the purpose of s.91R(1)(c) of the Migration Act has not been satisfied and was subsequently found not to be an example of “persecution”: CB 349 at [58];
p)stated that as the applicant had faced no serious harm in the past, and the Tribunal was not of the opinion he faced a real chance of serious harm or displayed a credible fear of persecution, the applicant was held not to satisfy the requirements of s.36(2)(a) of the Migration Act: CB 351 at [63];
q)with regard to the balance of the applicant’s claims, was not convinced the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution or a real risk of significant harm if he were to be removed from Australia, and accordingly the applicant did not meet the requirements of the complementary protection provision in s.36(2)(aa), of the Migration Act: CB 352 at [68];
r)expressly stated that, given the lapse of time between the second Tribunal hearing and the date of the Tribunal Decision, the Tribunal had had regard to an electronic recording of the second Tribunal hearing: CB 331 at [6] and
s)affirmed the Delegate’s Decision not to grant the applicant a Protection Visa: CB 352 at [72].
Application for judicial review
In the Amended Application the applicant seeks review of the Tribunal Decision on four grounds, of which only three grounds (grounds 1, 2 and 4) were pressed at hearing. Those three grounds are set out below: see [14], [89] and [98] below.
Jurisdiction
This Court has jurisdiction to hear applications for judicial review under s.476 of the Migration Act. The Tribunal Decision may be set aside by this Court upon judicial review if it is affected by jurisdictional error: Migration Act, ss.474 and 476; Plaintiff S157/2002 v The Commonwealth of Australia [2003] HCA 2; (2003) 211 CLR 476; (2003) 77 ALJR 454; (2003) 195 ALR 24.
An error may constitute a jurisdictional error where the Tribunal:
a)identifies a wrong issue;
b)asks the wrong question;
c)ignores relevant material; or
d)relies on irrelevant material,
in a way that the Tribunal’s exercise or purported exercise of power is thus affected resulting in a decision exceeding, or a failure to exercise, authority or powers given to the Tribunal under the Migration Act: Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [2001] HCA 30; (2001) 206 CLR 323; (2001) 75 ALJR 1105; (2001) 180 ALR 1; (2001) 62 ALD 225 at [82] per McHugh, Gummow and Hayne JJ.
In certain circumstances a denial of procedural fairness may constitute jurisdictional error in the Tribunal Decision: SZBEL v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] HCA 63; (2006) 228 CLR 152; (2006) 81 ALJR 515; (2006) 231 ALR 592; (2006) 93 ALD 300 (“SZBEL”); Migration Act, s.422B.
It is for the applicant to make his case and he bears the onus of establishing jurisdictional error in the Tribunal Decision: VAAD v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 117 (“VAAD”) at [45] per Hill, Sundberg and Stone JJ; Maroun v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2009] FCA 1284 at [15] per Jagot J.
The Court has no jurisdiction to engage in merits review, and fact-finding is a matter for the Tribunal, and is not reviewable by this Court if the findings of fact were open to the Tribunal, and otherwise made in accordance with the law: NADR v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 167 at [9] per Heerey, RD Nicholson and Selway JJ; Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang & Ors (1996) 185 CLR 259; (1996) 70 ALJR 568; (1996) 136 ALR 481; (1996) 41 ALD 1; CLR at 272 and 281-282 per Brennan CJ, Toohey, McHugh and Gummow JJ (“Wu Shan Liang”). The weight to be given to an applicant’s claims and evidence is a matter for the Tribunal to assess as part of its fact-finding function: Wu Shan Liang CLR at 281-282 per Brennan CJ, Toohey, McHugh and Gummow JJ; Tran v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 297 at [5]-[7] per Kiefel, RD Nicholson and Downes JJ.
Ground 1
Ground 1 is as follows:
Ground 1 – The Tribunal made a jurisdictional error by failing to consider the application which is the subject of review in light of the information, evidence and arguments which were relevant to the application and which were provided to it.
Particulars
(i) The hearing was conducted with the Tribunal Member sitting in Brisbane with the interpreter present in Brisbane also, the applicant appearing by video conference from Perth, and the applicant's agent present by telephone link from Sydney;
(ii) The disparate locations of the participants in the hearing caused numerous communication difficulties throughout the hearing, which may be discerned at numerous places in the Transcript;
(iii) The interpreter did not understand parts of what the applicant said;
(iv) The interpreter did not provide accurate interpreting assistance and the provided material mistranslations of the applicant's answers to questions asked by the Tribunal;
(v) The interpreter used the same English words used by the Tribunal to the app1icant without interpreting them, and/or had to be prompted by the applicant or Tribunal to interpret them into Tamil;
(vi) The Tribunal member stated that he did not understand portions of the applicant’s evidence;
(vii) The Tribunal asked the applicant to answer numerous long questions containing technical words which the applicant did not understand;
(viii) The Tribunal asked the applicant to answer numerous short questions which the applicant did not understand and which were ambiguous by their brevity;
(ix) The Tribunal became impatient with the applicant as a result of the communication difficulties;
(x) The Tribunal accused the applicant of not mentioning important information which the applicant had in fact mentioned earlier in the hearing;
(xi) The Tribunal conducted a heating over a period of almost 3.5 hours (11:25 am to 2:48 pm) with one five minute break (2:01 pm -2:06 pm), during which time the Tribunal questioned the applicant intensively, received minimal contribution from the migration agent who was present by telephone, and did not afford the applicant any opportunity to seek advice from his migration agent.
Applicant’s submissions
The applicant submitted that:
a)communication difficulties plagued the second Tribunal hearing and the Tribunal confirmed on occasions the interpreter experienced difficulty in hearing the applicant and did not understand parts of what the applicant was saying. The applicant cited a number of instances where this occurred which is evident in the transcript of the second Tribunal hearing annexed to the Ng Affidavit (“Ng Ttanscript”);
b)the interpreter did not provide accurate interpreting assistance and provided material mistranslations of the applicant’s answers to questions asked by the Tribunal: SZSEI v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2014] FCA 465 (“SZSEI”);
c)the interpreter using the same English words used by the Tribunal to the applicant without interpreting them, or having to be prompted by the applicant or Tribunal to interpret them to Tamil including:
i)failure to translate “persecute” and “no systematic persecution”;
ii)failure to translate “credibility”; and
iii)the Tribunal having to prompt the interpreter to use the “Tamil word”;
d)the Tribunal member stating he did not understand portions of the applicant’s evidence;
e)the Tribunal member asking long questions using technical words;
f)there being numerous single word responses from the applicant to compound questions indicating confusion on the part of the applicant;
g)numerous short questions asked by the Tribunal were ambiguous by their brevity and caused the applicant to reply wrongly or contradict his previous answers;
h)the Tribunal member becoming impatient because of communication difficulties;
i)the Tribunal accusing the applicant of not mentioning important information which the applicant had mentioned earlier in the second Tribunal hearing; and
j)the Tribunal hearing was conducted over 3.5 hours with only one five minute break and the applicant was afforded no opportunity to seek advice from his migration agent.
Ground 1 can be summarised as a claim for jurisdictional error on the basis of the Tribunal hearing being flawed in the myriad ways described above, and therefore being unfair or not a hearing at all.
Minister’s submissions
The Minister submitted that:
a)this ground of review is based upon the standard of interpreting at the second Tribunal hearing;
b)it is well established that in some circumstances interpreter errors or mistranslations can establish jurisdictional error in a decision of the Tribunal: Perera v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 507; (1999) 92 FCR 6; (1999) 56 ALD 231 (“Perera”); WALN v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2006] FCAFC 131 (“WALN”); SZRMQ v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2013] FCAFC 142; (2013) 219 FCR 212; (2013) 139 ALD 436 (“SZRMQ”);
c)in WALN at [29] per Ryan J (with whom Tamberlin and Middleton JJ agreed) the Full Court of the Federal Court referred to the relevant approach relating to alleged errors in translation in the context of the requirement in s.425(1) of the Migration Act that 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:
To succeed on this ground the appellant must establish that he was effectively prevented from giving his evidence: see Perera at [38]-[41]. Alternatively, he must establish that errors had occurred in translation which were so material as to cause the decision-making process to miscarry: see Soltanyzand v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2001) FCA 1168, at [18].
d)in SZSEI at [73] per Griffiths J the Federal Court observed that passages such as that set out immediately above from WALN need to be read with care, because there is no requirement that there be a complete incapacity to interpret such that the applicant is prevented from giving any evidence, and that in Perera at [45]-[46] per Kenny J the Federal Court “was referring to matters of significance involving important issues, not to a complete incapacity to interpret”, and that it was not desirable to over refine the relevant tests in circumstances where what is involved “is a more easily expressed and broader requirement: a fair hearing”.
e)in SZSEI at [74] per Griffiths J the Federal Court agreed with the observations in SZRMQ at [25] per Allsop CJ concerning the need to focus on the process which is afforded to enable an applicant to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in relation to the decision under review, as required by s.425(1) of the Migration Act;
f)in SZRMQ per Robertson J the Federal Court stated:
i)the importance of distinguishing between a case where the mistranslations or non-translation is frequent or continuous, as opposed to a case where the errors are intermittent: at [70];
ii)the importance of keeping separate questions of mistranslation and non-translation, as opposed to mere errors of fact: at [73]; and
iii)the distinction to be drawn between a mistranslation and a lack of detail in the relevant question the subject of the translation: at [114];
g)a further relevant principle referred to in SZSEI at [79] per Griffiths J is that:
…in assessing whether or not one or more mistranslations or non-translations give rise to jurisdictional error, it is necessary to bear firmly in mind that interpretation or translation is not a perfect science and, having regard to the difficulties which are inherent in the process, perfection cannot reasonably be expected (see generally the observations of Kenny J in Perera at [29]-[31]). It may well be enough that the translation is sufficiently accurate so as to convey the idea or concept being communicated…
h)finally, in SZSEI at [81] per Griffiths J the Federal Court noted the proposition stated in SZHEW v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2009] FCA 783 at [52] per Jagot J that inadequate interpretation “involves a qualitative assessment of the conduct of the hearing before the Tribunal as a whole”.
Having regard to the above principles, and the inaccuracies and errors identified in the interpretation of the Tribunal hearing in the Manahoran Affidavit, annexed to which was a further interpretation of the transcript of the second Tribunal hearing (“Manahoran Transcript”):
a)they were not such that they prevented the applicant from giving evidence in relation to any materially important matter;
b)the discrepancies are largely inconsequential with no significant differences, even taking into account that the original interpreter was interpreting in the context of a real time hearing as opposed to the later interpretation by Dr Manoharan;
c)neither are the errors so frequent or continuous that they could collectively give rise to jurisdictional error on the basis that the applicant did not have any opportunity to give evidence and present arguments as required by s.425(1) of the Migration Act;
d)the discrepancies and errors which have been identified demonstrate that in essence the complaint is that the interpretation was not a precise word-for-word interpretation, something which the authorities do not require;
e)where the applicant provides examples in the particulars where he has not understood a particular word or a question, or where a word was not translated, it is clear that there was a continuing dialogue between the applicant, the interpreter and the Tribunal Member, and that care was taken to ensure that the applicant understood what was being asked of him; and
f)a careful comparison of the Ng Transcript and the Manahoran Transcript should determine that the errors and discrepancies identified in the Manoharan Transcript are not such as to give rise either individually or cumulatively to jurisdictional error.
Consideration of ground 1
In general terms, the Minister’s outline of the law set out at [17] above can be accepted for present purposes.
The Minister did not challenge the accuracy of either the Ng Transcript or the Manoharan Transcript, and, therefore, the Court can take their content as being accurate.
The applicant submits that the fact that the participants in the second Tribunal hearing were spread between Brisbane (where the Tribunal member and interpreter were), Perth (where the applicant was) and Sydney (where the migration agent was), contributed to and caused the communication difficulties throughout the second Tribunal hearing which are discernible from the Ng Transcript. Further, the Tribunal observed that the interpreter at the second Tribunal hearing had difficulty hearing the applicant clearly through the video conference equipment and that the applicant repeated his evidence as required: CB 332 at [13]. It is apparent that the Tribunal was aware of, and took steps to deal with the difficulties, as best it could. Insofar as the applicant asserts that these difficulties gave rise to a misapprehension of the applicant’s evidence, or a failure to afford a fair hearing by reason of evidence being misapprehended or not received, it is not evident to the Court that the particular matters relied upon by the applicant had that effect. In particular, the mere fact that a transcript says that the interpreter was inaudible is unexceptional: transcripts of hearings without an interpreter often have similar interpolations in relation to the evidence or submissions or observations from the presiding judicial officer or member. Likewise, it is evident in many transcripts, that parties are speaking at the same time, and whilst this is not the same as an interpreter interpreting at the same time as an applicant is speaking: Ng Transcript, pp.23 at line 45 and 27 at line 5, it is not unusual for an interpreter to be interpreting and listening and further interpreting what was said at the same time as they were delivering their interpretation of what was previously said. Likewise, the fact that the applicant misunderstood the use of the microphone, and had to be told by the Tribunal member that it was not a microphone to make his voice louder is unexceptional: that is something that many witnesses have to be told in the course of their evidence, and is an observation that many judges and members of tribunals make to witnesses at the outset of their evidence.
It has to be acknowledged, however, that having the Tribunal member and interpreter, the applicant, and the migration agent, in three separate locations, and connected by means of video conference, and in the case of the migration agent by telephone, is not the most efficient way in which to conduct a hearing, but given the number of applications in the Tribunal over the past decade, and the limited resources of the Tribunal, and the disparate locations of applicants and their migration agents, it is inevitable that Tribunal hearings will be conducted in this manner. It must however be acknowledged that it is also a means of hearing which is apt to periodically result in difficulties and error.
The applicant also asserts that the interpreter did not understand parts of what the applicant said. In relation to the examples given, however, the Court notes that:
a)in the first example the applicant was asked to repeat his answer, and that answer was then interpreted: Ng Transcript, p.8 at lines 35-41;
b)the same occurred at the Ng Transcript, at p.10 at lines 14-24; and
c)at the Ng Transcript, p.22 at lines 5-15, the applicant was asked to slow down his answer because the interpreter had not understood what he had said, but again, the applicant’s answer was then interpreted.
In the above circumstances it is apparent that there was ultimately no misinterpretation, the answers having been repeated by the applicant. The mere fact that the interpreter has said that he did not understand, or in one instance did not “quite understand”, what the applicant has said is unexceptional. Witnesses often given evidence which judges say they do not understand, but when asked to repeat what they have said, or to rephrase it, explain it in a manner which is understandable.
The allegations made at [21] of the applicant’s outline of submissions are therefore not made out.
There are a litany of complaints that the interpreter did not provide accurate interpreting assistance and made material mistranslations of the applicant’s answers to questions asked by the Tribunal as set out hereunder.
In the Manahoran Transcript at p.3 the applicant’s words “I don’t have a problem after I came to Australia” were interpreted as “I don’t have a problem with Australia”: see Ng Transcript at p.3 line 30.
In the Manahoran Transcript at p.4 the applicant’s words “I can’t understand, what you mean by newly happened?” were interpreted as “I can’t understand”: Ng Transcript at p.4 line 5.
In the Manahoran Transcript at p.5 the Tribunal had asked the applicant how long he had been in Quetta and the applicant had answered “2 ½ years” not “2 years”: Ng Transcript at p.5 line 5.
The above interpretations, whilst all containing minor errors, do not contain any particular material error.
When the applicant was asked why being in Colombo would be a problem for him he responded “People who come to the area from my village and was questioning, disappearing and I was fearful”: Manahoran Transcript at p.7, and not “People come to the area and was questioning people in the village and I was fearful”: Ng Transcript at p.7 line 5. This interpretation contains a material, and possibly relevant, error, in that the word “disappearing” has been omitted. It is one thing for people to be questioned and be fearful, it is quite another for people to be questioned, for those people to disappear, and for people to be fearful as a consequence. The “disappearance” is a claim or matter that the Tribunal should have been aware of.
When the member indicated that the member did not understand what the applicant had said in relation to his mother discussing with the applicant that he could find work in Colombo but he did not go there, the Manahoran Transcript at p.8 says that the applicant said “There were job opportunities, but the situation wasn’t good there so I didn’t go”, whereas the Ng Transcript has the applicant saying “The situation wasn’t good there so I didn’t go”: Ng Transcript at p.7 line 40. This is not a material misinterpretation.
In the Manahoran Transcript at p.8 the applicant says “People who subjected to problems being disappeared. Because of the LTTE problem only I went. Because there was no guarantee for my life, that’s I went to Quetta. Initially I thought things will return to normalcy, that’s why I returned back”. The Ng Transcript at p.8 line 10 has the applicant saying “The situation wasn’t good, that’s why I went to Quetta”. There is a material omission or omissions in this misinterpretation. In particular, the interpreter failed to mention the issue of the “LTTE problem” and that the reason the applicant says he went to Quetta was that “there was no guarantee for my life”, and the interpreter also failed to interpret that the applicant returned because he thought things were returning back to normal (or words to that affect). These are material misinterpretations or non-interpretations because they do not convey a proper sense of the problem or the fear that the applicant felt for his life, and the reason for that, and instead there is a somewhat banal description of the situation not being good and that is why the applicant went to Quetta instead.
In the Manahoran Transcript at p.9 the applicant is said to say “That’s what people were saying but people are disappearing and keep abductions too”, whereas the Ng Transcript at p.8 line 30 has the applicant saying “That’s what people were saying but people are disappearing”. There is a material mistranslation, or non-translation, in this case by reason of the failure to refer to “abductions”, although the significance that vis-à-vis “disappearing” might ultimately not be that significant.
Further in the Manahoran Transcript at p.9 the applicant is said to say “They are no safety in Sri Lanka that’s why I went to Malaysia”, whereas in the Ng Transcript at p.8 line 40 the applicant is said to say “They are prosecuting in Sri Lanka that’s why I went to Malaysia”. There is again a misinterpretation here, which is possibly quite subtle, in that the applicant actually claimed that there was no safety in Sri Lanka, whereas the second Tribunal hearing was told that he was going to Malaysia because they were prosecuting in Sri Lanka. There is an obvious material difference between a fear that might arise because people are being prosecuted, and a statement that the applicant fears for his safety.
In the Manahoran Transcript at p.10 the applicant is said to say “My passport was lost. I went to make police report that my passport lost. … because I used agent to travel to here. The agent said it was 2 years visa only but I am not sure whether it was for 2 years or not”, whereas the Ng Transcript at p.9 line 40 has the applicant saying “… I was without passport and visa they said we won’t take any action but would send me back … I was going to see my agent but I used my one pass to go there. The agent said it was 2 years visa but I’m not sure whether it was for 2 years or not”. Whilst there is a misinterpretation here the significance of it is not readily apparent, but a failure to mention the fact that the applicant went to the police to report his lost passport is a non-interpretation which is difficult to understand, and might be indicative (together with other misinterpretations or non-interpretations both significant and insignificant) of a broader problem with the quality of the interpretation at the second Tribunal hearing.
In the Manahoran Transcript at p.10 the applicant is said to say “I bought my own ticket just to avoid jail term and go clearly without any punishments. Because I didn’t have a passport and a visa they gave me amnesty to go back to Sri Lanka without any problem. So I paid my own money to go to Sri Lanka”, whereas the Ng Transcript at p.10 line 5 as the applicant saying “Because I didn’t have a passport and a visa and they gave me amnesty to go back to Sri Lanka without any problem. So I paid my own money to go to Sri Lanka”. Once again there is misinterpretation, including a significant non-interpretation of the fact that that applicant says he did what he did “to avoid jail term and go clearly without any punishments”. Once again, the significance of this overall is not probably significant in terms of the issues for the applicant’s Amended Application but is indicative of a broader problem with the interpretation at the second Tribunal hearing.
In the Manahoran Transcript at p.10 the applicant is said to say “The agent said I’ll get for you a visa and I gave the passport for the visa, agent only did everything to me … but I only realised after I arrived”, whereas in the Ng Transcript at p.10 at line 12 the applicant says “the agent said I will get for you a visa and I gave the passport for the visa”
In the Manahoran Transcript at p.11 it is said that the applicant said “Agent was saying next month and they were ripping me off week by week”, whereas in the Ng Transcript at p.10 line 44 it was said that “agent was saying next month and they were ripping me off”.
Further in the Manahoran Transcript at p.11 the applicant is said to say “No. This is a truth and what happened”, whereas in the Ng Transcript at p.10 line 45 the applicant is said to say “no. This is what happened”.
In the Manahoran Transcript at p.12 the applicant is said to say “I couldn’t stay there, I was very fearful but I went with uncertainly only I travelled.”, whereas in the Ng Transcript at p.11 line 48 the applicant is said to say “I couldn’t stay there, I was very fearful but I went”.
Although there are minor differences between the interpretations of the four exchanges, there does not appear to be anything material in relation to those very minor misinterpretations, and certainly no sense of what was intended to be conveyed appears to be lost.
In the Manahoran Transcript at p.12 it is said that the following exchange occurred:
Mem: I find that hard to believe.
AS:Because I wasn’t working there legally, at that time I experienced a hardships.
TO:You told me you went to Sri Lanka on a work visa, how could you not be working legally.
AS:They told us that was a working visa … but I don’t know personally it was a working visa or not, that’s how they are sending people.
In the Ng Transcript at p.12 line 5 it is said that the following exchange occurred:
TO: I found that hard to believe
AS: because I wasn’t working there legally
TO: you told me you went to Sri Lanka on a work visa, how could you not be working legally?
AS: I don’t know personally if it was working visa or not, that’s how they are sending people.
(Presumably the Tribunal meant to refer to “Malaysia” and not “Sri Lanka” in the above extracts.)
Materially, the above exchange omits something which might be of significance in that there was a failure to interpret the fact that the applicant “experienced…hardships”. Once again, that might not be particularly material to the issues that need to be determined in the Amended Application, but it might indicate a broader problem with the quality of the interpretation, and, further, is indicative of a failure to interpret matters which indicate, or possibly indicate, some difficulty for the applicant in relation to what was occurring at the relevant time: see also in that regard the failure to interpret the “disappearing” and the “LTTE problem” and the “no guarantee for my life” and the police report at [31], [33] and [36] respectively above.
In the Manahoran Transcript at p.13 the applicant is said to say “I never asked about my visa I went to someone I know there to get a job”, whereas in the Ng Transcript at p.12 line 18 it is said that the applicant said “they asked me about visa I went to someone I know there”. Again there is a slight interpretation, but it is not evident that anything material turns upon it.
In the Manahoran Transcript at p.16 the applicant is said to say “They asked me to come many time to their office for enquiry but I never appeared, because I wasn’t in my place and at that time I was in overseas”, whereas in the Ng Transcript at p.15 line 35 it is said the applicant said “they asked me to come many times for inquiry and I was overseas”. Again, there is a minor non-interpretation, but it is not seemingly of any significance overall.
The Manahoran Transcript at p.18 has the applicant saying “I think after 4 to 5 months later … Because he’s younger we contacted organisations like ICRC and Unicef like …”, whereas the Ng Transcript at p.17 line 36 has the applicant saying “because he’s younger we contacted groups like ICRC”. Again there is a very minor non-interpretation and it is not apparent that it is of any significance of itself.
In the Manahoran Transcript at p.19 the following exchange is recorded:
APPLI:They asked me to go for enquiries several times and I didn’t go and I didn’t respect them, there are several other reasons to.
TO:So because you didn’t respect them, you think they will kill you today?
AS:That is one of the reasons, because that is very common in there.
In the Ng Transcript at p.18 lines 13-18 the following is recorded:
AS: they asked me to go for inquiry and I didn’t go and I didn’t respect them
TO: so because you didn’t respect them, you think they will kill you today?
AS: there are other reasons
Whilst the interpretation is different in that the reference to “other reasons” appears in a different place, and appears to have been “several other reasons” rather than “other reasons” the two interpretations are not, when read as a whole, materially different, although the omission of the word “several” is indicative of a pattern of omitting to translate words or phrases that might be of some importance to the applicant if they had been before the Tribunal: see [45] above.
The Manahoran Transcript at p.20 has the applicant saying “They are asking people like me to join with them”, whereas the Ng Transcript at p.18 line 46 has the applicant saying “they are asking people to join LTTE back in then”. On this occasion there is again a misinterpretation, but a misinterpretation which probably operates, albeit, in a minor way, in the applicant’s favour because it refers to the LTTE when the applicant made no such reference.
The Manahoran Transcript at p.22 has the applicant saying “They claim they were from a Karuna group … I wasn’t sure because they were speaking Tamil not English but I think it’s Tamil. Sinhalese and not English”, whereas the Ng Transcript at p.21 lines 10-11 omits the reference to the claim that they were from the Karuna group. It is important to note that the above response was given, on both transcripts, in response to the question “And who searched for you?” Once again, there is evidence not interpreted because the applicant claimed that those who were searching for him were from the Karuna group, which was material to his claim of fear of persecution, although he did qualify this by saying that he wasn’t sure. The interpretation given therefore omitted the most relevant part of the answer given by the applicant, namely that he claimed that it was the Karuna group that was searching for him.
The Manahoran Transcript at p.23 records the following exchange:
APPLI:I thought someone like helpers who knows them informed them about my present or they were routinely searching for me, possibly coincidentally.
I:I didn’t quite understand what he said.
TO:The interpreter didn’t catch everything that you just said, can I ask you to talk a little bit more slowly, a little bit more clearly because on my video link, it’s not as clear as us sitting in the same room.
AS:I thought the people who were searching must have informed them. When they were searching, they had caught me. They were rude to me searching for me, possibly coincidentally, I was arrested.
In the Ng Transcript at p.22 lines 5-15 the following appears:
AS: I thought someone knows them informed them or they were searching for me
I: I didn’t quite understand what he said
TO: the interpreter didn’t catch everything that you just said, can I ask you to talk a little bit more slowly, a little bit more clearly because on my video link, it is not as clear as us sitting in the same room
AS: I thought the people who searching must have informed them. When they were searching, they had caught me
Once again, there is non-interpretation of certain matters. In this case the second Tribunal hearing heard that “they” were “searching” for the applicant, and not “routinely searching” which was what was said. Further, the words “they were rude to me searching for me, possibly coincidently, I was arrested” were not interpreted at all. Thus, it is not apparent at the second Tribunal hearing that the applicant claims that he was, at this time, arrested (although the Tribunal has appeared to have understood that to be the case: see Ng Transcript p.22 line 1-3), even if that be the case, the non-interpretation once again highlights the fact that what might be a critical matter for the applicant was not interpreted.
The Manahoran Transcript at p.23 has the applicant saying “They were searching for me and I was there so they caught me coincidentally”, while the Ng Transcript at p.22 line 31 has the applicant saying “they were searching of me and I was there so they caught me.” Once again, there is a non-translation of a single word, but nothing appears to turn on that in this instance.
The Manahoran Transcript at p.25 records the following exchange:
MEM:Is there any connection between your brother and the second letter?
I:“Couldn’t interpret because the AS statement was too long” There is a possibility, they probably thought of calling me and find out more about all.
In the Ng Transcript at p.23 lines 25-27 the second sentence said by the interpreter does not appear. It is plain that something was said by the applicant was not interpreted, because it was “too long”. However, in the Manahoran Transcript at least one sentence of what was said by the applicant does appear. It would therefore appear that there is a material omission in the interpretation, the effect of which cannot be discerned because of the interpreter’s failure to interpret it. It is apparent that the Tribunal realised that this was a problem because the Tribunal referred to the difficulty with the video, once again, at Ng Transcript at p.24 at lines 29-31, and then asked the question about the connection between the applicant’s brother and the second letter again: Ng Transcript p.24, lines 35-36, to which a one sentence, one line response was received as follows, “They did mention his name but they asked me to come”: Ng Transcript at p.24. In the Manahoran Transcript this further explanation from the applicant is interpreted as “they did mention his name but they asked me to come for further enquiries”.
Two issues emerge out of the foregoing. The first is that whatever the applicant said in response to the initial question about the connection between his brother and second letter was simply not interpreted because it was too long. When the question was repeated, after an admonition as to the nature of the difficulties of the video link, the answer was only one sentence, hardly something that might be considered to be too long to be interpreted. Thus, at least something of what the applicant said in relation to what the Tribunal perceived to be a relevant issue was simply not before the Tribunal. The second issue is that when one has regard to the Manahoran Transcript of the second answer it is again apparent that there is a non-translation of the words “for further enquiries”, which may or may not have been a matter considered to be relevant by the Tribunal. That, once again, continues a pattern of not interpreting a matter which might have been some significance of the applicant (and certainly significant enough for the applicant to mention it).
The Manahoran Transcript at p.31 records the following exchange:
MEM:So during 3 days, they only asked you 1 question.
AS:They asked me to operate with them.
In the Ng Transcript at p.29 line 24 the applicant’s response was recorded as “they asked me to stay with them”. In context, there is obviously a difference between staying with a particular group, and operating with them, and the interpretation given was the more benign “stay”. Once again, an interpretation which is possibly less beneficial to the applicant is one that emerges from the interpretation,
The Manahoran Transcript at p.31 records the following exchange:
TO:Okay so did they tell you who they are?
AS:They didn’t say but advised me to operate with them.
TO:So they said please join us but they didn’t tell you who they are?
I:I couldn’t understand the AS. He speak to fast.
The Ng Transcript at p.29 line 40 omits the words “but advised me to operate with them” in the above extract from the Manahoran Transcript. Once again, there is a non-interpretation of words which relates specifically to the applicant’s claim that he was being asked by a particular group to operate with them.
The Manahoran Transcript at p.35 has the applicant saying “Now the group has joins with the government, so they collaborate together and do anything against me”, whereas the Ng Transcript at p.33 line 29 does not interpret the words “so they collaborate together and do anything against me”. Once again, there is a non-translation in relation to a material issue.
The Manahoran Transcript at p.38 records the following exchange:
APPLI:I don’t understand some parts of that terminologies, please tell me in Tamil.
AS:Some words interpreter saying in English, I can’t understand … you keep using English words, please tell at least in future.
The Ng Transcript at p.35 to p.36 records the exchange as follows:
AS: I don’t understand some parts of that
…
AS: some words the interpreter is saying in English, I can’t understand
The above exchange again indicates that there is non-interpretation of certain words, and whilst those words do not go to the issues in the proceedings before the Tribunal, for present purpose they do indicate the interpreter may not have been interpreting what was said to the applicant in Tamil, and was using English words instead. Again, that might go to the broader issue of the overall quality of the interpretation in the second Tribunal hearing.
The applicant contends that the interpreter used the same English words used by the Tribunal to the applicant without interpreting them, or had to be prompted by the applicant or Tribunal to interpret them into Tamil.
In the Manahoran Transcript at p.38 the words “no systematic persecution” were interpreted English to English without any English to Tamil translation.
When the Tribunal intervened – seemingly to request that those words be interpreted – they were then interpreted as “no problems against the Tamils”.
The failure of the interpreter to interpret the words “no systematic persecution” in migration proceedings before the Tribunal in relation to a cohort - Tamils from Sri Lanka – that are among the most frequent cohorts appearing before the Tribunal is a concern. That when asked to interpret the words in Tamil they are interpreted as “no problems again the Tamils” is not apt to convey the proper meaning of what was being said by the Tribunal.
In the Ng Transcript at p.11 line 5 the interpreter is prompted by the Tribunal to interpret “amnesty” into Tamil.
In the Ng Transcript at p.11 line 35 it records that the applicant is asking for the question to be put in Tamil, and there are instances to the same effect in the Ng Transcript at p.19 line 5 and p.36 line 10.
In the Ng Transcript at p.42 line 40 the interpreter failed to translate the word “credibility” used by the Tribunal.
That the interpreter was not able to interpret, seemingly, words such as “amnesty” and “credibility” from English into Tamil is of concern (there being no indication that those words do not translate into Tamil), and particularly so the issue of credibility. It is however relevant that the Tribunal went on to explain the concept of credibility to the applicant who evidently grasped it because he told the Tribunal that he was telling the truth: Ng Transcript at p.43 line 6.
The applicant contends that the Tribunal member stated on a number of occasions that he did not understand portions of the applicant’s evidence. The examples cited by the applicant are as follows:
a)in the Ng Transcript at p.5 line 15 the Tribunal could not understand the responses by the applicant to his question regarding the Malaysia stay;
b)in the Ng Transcript at p.15 line 30 the Tribunal could not understand what the applicant was trying to say with respect to the Karuna group separation;
c)in the Ng Transcript at p.21 line 35 the Tribunal says “I don’t understand how them finding you a house in 2012 isn’t some way different to when they previously came to your house”;
d)in the Ng Transcript at p.21 line 41 both the Tribunal and the applicant are not understanding whether or not there is a difference in relation to the issue they are discussing;
e)in the Ng Transcript at p.22 line 40 the Tribunal was confused about a letter;
f)in the Ng Transcript at p.32 at line 30 the Tribunal says “I also don’t understand”;
g)in the Ng Transcript at p.30 line 10 the Tribunal states that it will just accept evidence as it is because the applicant could not provide more details.
The mere fact that the Tribunal does not understand what the applicant has said does not mean that it has been misinterpreted. Judges and Tribunal’s will often indicate that they do not understand something as a means of eliciting from a witness further information in order enable them to understand. Thus, it can mean that the Tribunal is not able to grasp mentally, or to perceive the significance of what is being said, or how it explains what the applicant is endeavouring to explain. The use of the phrase “I don’t’ understand” or words to similar affect are therefore often no more than an invitation to comment further upon particular aspects of a person’s evidence, and that appears to be the case here in relation to the above cited examples.
The applicant also submitted that the Tribunal had asked the applicant numerous long questions containing technical words which the applicant did not understand as follows:
a)in the Ng Transcript at pp.35 at lines 25-40 and 43 at lines 15-45. These are not questions, but summaries and in relation to the first of them there was subsequent clarification and explanation and the applicant ultimately indicated that he understood. Further, in relation to the second instance, whilst the applicant continued to say that he was confused and he did not understand, it is not evident that what he did not understand was the interpretation, but rather the Tribunal’s summary of the evidence;
b)in the Ng Transcript at p.41 at line 25 the applicant indicates that he was “confused about TMVP and Karuna Groups and would have to think about”: p.41 line 28. This is not however evidence of confusion in relation to the interpretation, but the applicant’s own confusion in relation to the TMVP or Karuna Group;
c)in the Ng Transcript at p.40 at line 15 the applicant did not understand “custody”, “bail” and “magistrate”. Once again, this is not evidence of the difficulty with the interpretation, but with the applicant’s actual understanding of the issues and an inability to explain what it is that he wants to explain: Ng Transcript at p.40, line 28;
d)in the Manahoran Transcript at p.26 second paragraph the Tribunal asked the applicant a compound question to which the applicant gave a single word answer, and the Tribunal responded indicating confusion on its part. The relevant passage is as follows:
MEM:
Alright then let me check one more thing with you to make sure I’ve understood you properly. Your brother was picked up by LTTE, the first letter was from the Karuna Group, the second letter is from TMVP. Am I correct?
APPLI: yes
That exchange does not evidence any difficulty either with the interpretation, or with the single word answer, which indicates no more than that the Tribunal’s understanding, as put to the applicant, was correct. The Tribunal’s subsequently expressed confusion arose from the circumstances confirmed by the applicant’s answer, not the interpretation of the Tribunal’s question or the applicant’s answer.
The applicant submits that the Tribunal asked the applicant to answer numerous short questions which the applicant did not understand and which were ambiguous by their brevity, including the following:
a)in the Ng Transcript at p.3 lines 30-45 the applicant replied wrongly because he did not understand the questions the Tribunal was asking. It is evident that the applicant did not initially understand the question asked by the Tribunal, and became confused as the Tribunal attempted to clarify the position. Ultimately, however the Tribunal got to the point and asked a question as to whether or not anything had happened since the previous July to which the applicant responded that nothing had happened: Ng Transcript at p.4 line12. It is not evident to the Court that the applicant “replied wrongly” once the position was clarified by the Tribunal;
b)in the Ng Transcript at p.6 lines 30-45 the Tribunal asked numerous short questions to ascertain where the applicant was after his departure from Quetta and it appears that the applicant did not understand as he repeated answers that were contradictory according to the Tribunal. It is not evident to the Court that the applicant did not understand the questions, or that there was any repetition of answers that were contradictory and even if there were, that was a matter for the Tribunal to deal with as part of their fact finding exercise; and
c)in the Ng Transcript at p.3 at line 25 the Tribunal asked the applicant whether there was “any new information you’d like to tell me?”, but the applicant did not understand that the Tribunal was asking whether there had been any further instances of persecution in Sri Lanka since the applicant came to Australia, as opposed to persecution in Australia. It is not evident to the Court, and there is otherwise no evidence which establishes that the answer that the applicant gave at this point was as a result of a lack of understanding, either per se or because of any difficulty of the question asked by the Tribunal or its interpretation.
The applicant submitted that the Tribunal became impatient with the applicant as a result of the “communication difficulties” as evident from the following passages:
a)the Ng Transcript at pp.18 lines 20, 30 and 45 where the Tribunal states that the applicant is repeating himself and seemed to become impatient as the applicant does not understand the question;
b)the Ng Transcript at p.21 at line 45 where the Tribunal becomes “irritable” saying that “Because I just asked you was that the time before you went to Quetta and the time while you were in Quetta, the only time they came to your house!”;
c)the Ng Transcript at p.22 at line 20 where the Tribunal becomes impatient;
d)the Ng Transcript at p.23 at line 30 where it said the Tribunal becomes impatient again because the Tribunal doesn’t understand the letter connection; and
e)the Ng Transcript at the beginning of p.38 where it is said that the Tribunal exhibits “impatience” and “irritability”.
In relation to the manner or mode of expression used by the Tribunal it is important to note that:
a)where credibility is in issue, the Tribunal will necessarily have to test the evidence presented – often vigorously: Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte H [2001] HCA 28; (2001) 75 ALJR 982; (2001) 179 ALR 425 (“Ex parte H”) at [30] per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron and Gummow JJ. The requirements of procedural fairness will often require that an applicant be plainly confronted with matters bearing adversely on their credit or which bring their account into question, and the Tribunal’s assessment of credit will often depend upon the demeanour of the witness and the manner in which they give evidence: Ex parte H at [34] per Gleeson CJ, Gaudron and Gummow JJ;
b)consideration of the question of apprehended bias must take into account the legislative context in which a decision is being made: NADH of 2001 v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 328; (2004) 214 ALR 264 (“NADH”) at [19] per Allsop J;
c)in the context of the Tribunal, “robust and forthright testing of the [applicant's] claims by the Tribunal ... does not sustain a finding of apprehended bias”: SZRUI v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural Affairs & Citizenship [2013] FCAFC 80 at [24] per Flick J;
d)occasional displays of impatience and irritation (justified or not), momentary outbursts and misunderstandings, and mere insensitivity will not necessarily lead to a reasonable apprehension of bias: VFAB v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 872, (2003) 131 FCR 102; (2003) 77 ALD 23 at [81] per Kenny J; Re Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs; Ex Parte AB (2000) 177 ALR 225 at 230 per Kirby J; and
e)“harsh tones” do not necessarily give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias: SZNVM v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship [2010] FCA 261 at [31] per Katzmann J.
Setting aside the issues as to the nature and quality of the interpretation at the second Tribunal hearing, the two transcripts are unremarkable and show a Tribunal properly and appropriately engaged in the task of ascertaining what the claims of the applicant were, and what his evidence was, and testing it appropriately and relevantly in relation to issues about which the Tribunal must be satisfied in order to grant a Protection Visa: NADH at [19] per Allsop J. There is nothing in any of the material tendered in relation to the second Tribunal hearing which can sustain, or which even suggests, in the Court’s view, any pre-judgment of the applicant’s claims by the Tribunal or hostility toward the applicant or the applicant claims by the Tribunal.
The applicant submitted that the Tribunal accused the applicant of not mentioning important information which the applicant had in fact mentioned earlier in the hearing. It is submitted that in the Ng Transcript at p.14 at line 25 the Tribunal asked “Are you saying that because you applied for refugee status, that’s the reason why you would be killed in Sri Lanka?” to which the applicant replied “This is one of the reason”. It is then said that in the Ng Transcript at p.38 at lines 30-45 the Tribunal said that the applicant had not discussed with it at all “today” any fear about what might happen to him because he left Sri Lanka illegally. This submission is misconceived. In the earlier transcript that applicant was being asked about being killed by reason of having applied for refugee status, whilst in the latter he was being asked whether he had any fear arising from his having left Sri Lanka “unlawfully”: Ng Transcript p.38, line 34. The Tribunal was therefore correct to make the observation that it did.
The applicant submits that the Tribunal conducted the Tribunal hearing over a period of almost three and half hours with only one five minute break, and that during the hearing time the Tribunal questioned the applicant intensively, and that there was minimal contribution from the applicant’s migration agent who was present by telephone, but who appeared not have been giving her complete attention to the Tribunal hearing proceedings: Ng Transcript at p.34 from line 45 to p.35, and that the Tribunal did not afford the applicant any opportunity to seek advice from his migration agent in circumstances where the Tribunal had said that the applicant could discuss with his migration agent certain matters but did not give the applicant time to do so: see Ng Transcript at pp.2 at line 40, 19 at line 20, 34 at line 15 and 40 at line 30.
The length of the Tribunal hearing is of no moment, and there is nothing to indicate the applicant was concerned by it. The inattentiveness of the migration agent is also of no moment; mere negligence, incompetence or inadvertence by a migration agent will not establish jurisdictional error: SZFDE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] HCA 35; (2007) 232 CLR 189; (2007) 81 ALJR 1401; (2007) 237 ALR 64; (2007) 96 ALD 510 at [45] per Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Kiby, Hayne, Callinan, Heydon and Crennan CJ; Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZLIX [2008] FCAFC 17; (2008) 245 ALR 501; (2008) 100 ALD 443 at [33] per Tambelin, Finn and Dowsett JJ. The assertion that the applicant did not get time to discuss matters raised by the Tribunal with his migration agent is also of no moment. That is because the applicant was permitted to, and did, file post second Tribunal hearing submissions, in some considerable detail on 9 January 2013, and again on 10 March 2013: see CB 248-276 and 292-307 for copies of the respective submissions.
The applicant submits that the hearing was flawed as a result of the myriad complaints set out above, and in circumstances where the Tribunal relied upon listening to a recording of the Tribunal hearing to make its decision after having reserved for more than 12 months post-hearing: CB 331 at [6], the Tribunal Decision to reject the applicant’s protection claims and to affirm the Delegate’s Decision, ought not to be upheld.
Having regard to the matters set above, and having read the Ng Transcript and the Manahoran Transcript again, the Court considers that:
a)the interpretation given to the second Tribunal hearing was affected by a significant number of errors, and those errors were sufficiently numerous, overall, to lead the Court to consider that the quality of the interpretation of the second Tribunal was poor, and not of the appropriate standard;
b)the errors range from the minor and immaterial right through to the significant and material, as set above;
c)many of the errors are material to claims made by the applicant, and a significant number of the matters concern non-interpretation of matters which gave expression to the applicant’s claims and fears, and which as a consequence of their non-interpretation, were not claims and fears which were heard by, or put before, the Tribunal; and
d)the net effect, particularly of the number of errors and the significant non-interpretation errors, is such as to lead the Court to the conclusion that the applicant was not afforded a fair hearing: SZSEI at [73] per Griffiths J, and it follows that the Tribunal Decision is affected by jurisdictional error in relation to the interpretation given at the second Tribunal hearing. The Court is therefore satisfied that ground 1 is made out in part, and therefore the Tribunal Decision is affected by jurisdictional error in that regard.
Ground 2
Ground 2 is as follows:
Ground 2 – The Tribunal failed to invite the Applicant to give evidence and present arguments relating to certain particular issues arising in relation to the decision under review, namely the genuineness, reliability and potential probative value of two letters from the TMVP to the applicant dated 21 May 2008 and 5 February 2012 (CB 87-90) (TMVP Letters), breached s 425 of the Migration Act 1958 and thereby made a jurisdictional error.
Particulars
(i) The Tribunal found that the TMVP letters were fabricated (CB 342, [30]).
(ii) The Tribunal questioned the applicant about the TMVP Letters during the hearing (Transcript p 15-23), but did not tell the applicant that it had concerns about the genuineness or reliability of them;
(iii) When summing up the matters to be addressed by the applicant's migration agent post-hearing (Transcript p 35), the Tribunal did not mention to the agent the issue of the reliability of the TMVP Letters;
(iv) When describing to the applicant the matters that would be addressed by the agent in a post hearing submission (Transcript p 35), the Tribunal did not mention to the applicant the issue of the reliability of the TMVP Letters;
(v) The applicant in any event failed to understand what the Tribunal told him about the matters that would be addressed by the agent (Transcript p 35-36);
(vi) The post-hearing submission dated 19 March 2013 lodged by the agent (CB 293-307) did not address the issue of the reliability of the TMVP Letters.
Applicant’s submissions
The applicant submitted that:
a)the Tribunal questioned the applicant about the TMVP letters, but did not tell him it had concerns about the genuineness or credibility of them;
b)the Tribunal did not mention to the migration agent the issue of reliability of the TMVP letters, nor invite any post-hearing submissions on this point;
c)the Tribunal failed to ensure the applicant understood the matters that would be addressed by the migration agent;
d)the 19 March 2013 post hearing submissions did not address the issue of reliability of the TMVP letters; and
e)accordingly, the Tribunal made a jurisdictional error by failing to invite the Applicant to give evidence and present arguments relating to the genuineness, reliability and potential probative value of the TMVP Letters: WZANF v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2010] FMCA 110 (“WZANF”) at [15]-[18] and [84] per Lucev FM.
Minister’s submissions
The Minister submitted that:
a)the Tribunal’s finding at CB 342 at [30] that the two TMVP letters were fabricated does not give rise to jurisdictional error as contemplated by the Federal Court in Commissioner of the Australian Capital Territory Revenue v Alphaone Pty Ltd (1994) 49 FCR 576; (1994) 127 ALR 699; (1994) 34 ALD 324 at [30] per Northrop, Miles and French JJ;
b)on the facts and circumstances, the applicant was not led to believe that the two TMVP letters would be accepted by the Tribunal as credible, nor that the Tribunal’s adverse conclusion was not open on the known material;
c)the Delegate’s Decision refers to a discussion the Delegate had with the applicant about the authenticity of the documents placing the applicant on notice of that issue. Further, while not expressly finding that the letters were fabricated, the Delegate found that the letters were “unconvincing” and “not genuine” and concluded that he did “not accept as plausible that the applicant has ever faced any direct threat from the TMVP”. This could not have failed to have alerted the applicant to the possibility that the letters may be rejected by the Tribunal as corroborative of his claims;
d)it must have been clear to the applicant from the Tribunal’s questioning and its expressed concerns about difficulties with his evidence that his credibility about all of his claims generally was in issue, and that accordingly any corroborative evidence such as the TMVP letters may be found to be fabricated;
e)the well having been poisoned, the further inconsistencies between the letters and the applicant’s claims regarding them were discussed with him by the Tribunal, and should have alerted him to concerns the Tribunal had about their authenticity;
f)in any event, the Tribunal specifically advised the applicant towards the end of the second Tribunal hearing that he may find that the first letter was not genuine; and
g)in all the circumstances, ground 2 cannot establish any jurisdictional error on the part of the Tribunal.
Consideration of ground 2
The applicant’s reliance on WZANF is misconceived. The paragraphs referred to in the applicant’s submissions merely set out the role of the Tribunal on a review as set out in s.414 of the Migration Act and the Tribunal’s findings particular to that case, and the Court’s finding of jurisdictional error in circumstances where there were no factual indicators that the authorship of the relevant letter was in issue, and where the Tribunal did not give the applicant any opportunity to comment on the relevant letter prior to making a finding that it was not genuine: WZANF at [15]-[18] and [78]-[84] per Lucev FM. WZANF is a case decided on its particular facts, and its particular facts are not necessarily analogous to the facts in this case. In WZANF there was simply no indication prior to the Tribunal’s decision in that case that the authenticity of the letters was in issue.
In the Delegate’s Decision at CB 79 the Delegate found as follows:
Considering the available evidence, I consider the applicant has fabricated the various claims concerning the TMVP/Karuna interest in him. The photocopies of the letters purportedly sent to him by the TMVP are unconvincing and in my view, add to my concern that the claims are not genuine.
The Delegate went on to observe that it was not accepted as plausible that the applicant had ever faced any direct threat from the TMVP, Karuna or any other group in Sri Lanka: CB 79.
The Tribunal also questioned the applicant about the letters, and inconsistencies in relation to them: CB 337-339 at [27(a)]. The Tribunal also told the applicant at the second Tribunal hearing that he might not find the first of the letters concerned to be genuine: Ng Transcript, p.41; Manoharan Affidavit, p.43.
In the Court’s view, the applicant was sufficiently on notice that the genuineness of the letters was in issue. The finding by the Delegate that the claims were fabricated carries with it the implication that the letters were fabricated, and although the Delegate describes them as “unconvincing”, the Delegate goes on to observe that they “add to my concern that the claims are not genuine”. In the circumstances, the applicant (who was assisted by a migration agent) could not be said not to be on notice that the genuineness of the letters was in issue. Further, there was nothing to preclude the applicant from dealing with this issue in the further submission filed in January and March 2013.
In the above circumstances, ground 2 is not made out, and does not establish jurisdictional error in the Tribunal Decision.
Ground 4
Ground 4 is as follows:
Ground 4 – the Tribunal made a jurisdictional error in finding at [26] that the applicant had fabricated key parts to his claims and was not a credible witness in circumstances where there were:
(i) technical difficulties in the teleconferencing of the hearing;
(ii) problems between the interpreter and other participants in being understood;
(iii) contradictory and inconclusive findings made by the Tribunal as to whether the standard of the interpreting or the technical difficulties in teleconferencing affected the Tribunal’s assessment of the credibility of the applicant.
Particulars of contradictory and inconclusive findings
(a) The Tribunal noted in its reasons for decision that:
(i) the applicant appeared before the Tribunal before video conference on 10 January 2013 assisted by a Tamil interpreter;
(ii) The hearing was adjourned after the interpreter indicated difficulty to the Tribunal in interpreting specific terms;
(iii) The hearing was resumed on 6 March 2013 again by video conference;
(iv) the second interpreter on 6 March 2013 indicated difficulty hearing the applicant clearly through the video conference equipment ([13]);
(v) The applicant repeated his evidence as relevant ([13]);
(vi) The applicant indicated difficulty understanding the interpreter due to technical difficulties ([28]).
(b) The Tribunal stated in its reasons for decision:
(i) On each occasion the interpreter repeated the interpretation, after which, the applicant indicated no further difficulty in understanding ((28]);
(ii) It was satisfied the standard of interpreting at the second hearing was reasonable ([13]);
(iii) The applicant was 'otherwise. able to communicate effectively, understood the Tribunal proceedings and participated in a meaningful way' ([13]);
(c) The Tribunal also stated in its reasons for decision that it 'is satisfied' the standard of interpreting or that the hearing was conducted by video conferencing has affected its assessment of the credibility of the applicant ([28]).
Applicant’s submissions
The applicant submitted that:
a)the Tribunal made a jurisdictional error in finding at CB 337 at [26] that the applicant had fabricated key parts to his claims and was not a credible witness in circumstances where there were:
i)technical difficulties in the teleconferencing of the second Tribunal hearing; and
ii)problems between the interpreter and other participants in being understood;
b)the Tribunal made contradictory and inconclusive findings as to whether the standard of the interpreting or the technical difficulties in teleconferencing affected the Tribunal's assessment of the credibility of the applicant; and
c)the Tribunal Member certified on the first page of his decision the statement of decision and reasons is the Tribunal's statement of decision and reasons and the document therefore stands as the Tribunal's written statement of decision for the purposes of s.430(1) of the Migration Act, and the Tribunal did not state in its statement of decisions and reasons why it decided to affirm the Delegate’s Decision, notwithstanding its affirmative conclusion at CB 342 at [28] that the standard of interpreting or that the second Tribunal hearing was conducted by video conferencing has affected the Tribunal's assessment of the credibility of the applicant (emphasis in applicant’s submissions).
Minister’s submissions
The Minister submitted that:
a)the basis for this ground of review is the Tribunal’s statement at CB 342 at [28] that:
The Tribunal therefore is satisfied the standard of interpreting or that the hearing was conducted by video conferencing has affected the Tribunal’s assessment of the credibility of the applicant.[Emphasis added]
b)it is clear from the context in which the above sentence appears that there is a typographical error in this particular sentence in the Tribunal Decision, and that the word “not” has been inadvertently omitted immediately before the word “affected”;
c)immediately prior to the sentence in question the Tribunal had noted that the applicant had indicated difficulty understanding the interpreter due to technical difficulties, but that on each occasion the interpreter repeated the interpretation, following which the applicant indicated no further difficulty in understanding;
d)following the sentence in question the Tribunal noted that the applicant had attempted to explain inconsistencies in his evidence on his misunderstanding an earlier question, but that the Tribunal was not persuaded by that explanation, and was similarly not persuaded by the migration agent’s explanation that anxiety or nerves were the reason for the inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence, and that he repeated the same inconsistencies in his evidence to the Tribunal; and
e)the Court should not make any finding of jurisdictional error in relation to ground 4 of the Amended Application.
Consideration
The gist of ground 4 relates to what was written by the Tribunal at CB 342 at [28], set out at [100(a)] above. It is plain that what was written there was a typographical error when considered in the context of the Tribunal Decision as a whole. The following passages plainly evidence the error is a typographical one:
The Tribunal is satisfied the standard of interpreting at the second hearing was reasonable and that the applicant participated in a meaningful way: CB 332 at [13];
As noted above, at various times the applicant indicated difficulty understanding the interpreter due to technical difficulties. On each occasion, the interpreter repeated the interpretation, after which the applicant indicated no further difficulty in understanding: CB 342 at [28];
Due to the material inconsistencies and omissions in his evidence and non-persuasive explanations, the Tribunal finds the applicant was not a credible witness… :CB 342 at [29]
In Foroghi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1875 (“Foroghi”) at [48] per Marshall J the Federal Court, when referring to typographical errors, observed that:
The existence of a typographical error is best acknowledged rather than attempted to be exploited…
and cited CCC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 682 (“CCC”), a case where a ground of the appeal fastened on the omission of the word “not” prior to the word “satisfied”, and where at [29] per Marshall J the Federal Court said there is:
… no reason to defy commonsense by not observing that a typographical error was made. I would read in the word “not” prior to the word “satisfied”…
The applicant sought to distinguish Foroghi and CCC by asserting that those cases were based entirely on facts the applicant had put to the Tribunal, whereas in the present case the technical difficulties have resulted in the Tribunal saying two different things. The reality in this case is that the Tribunal has not meant to say said two different things, rather the Tribunal has made a typographical error in trying to say the same thing twice. That was a proposition put to, and accepted by, Counsel for the applicant at hearing: Transcript, p.36. It was therefore simply a mistake not picked up in proofreading. In the Court’s view it should adopt the approach adopted by the Federal Court in CCC and treat the phrase in the Tribunal Decision at CB 342 at [28] as if it reads “has not affected”.
This typographical error is not the type of error that affects the exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunal. It is well established the Court should not engage in an overzealous search for error when considering the Tribunal Decision: Wu Shan Liang, CLR at 271-272 per Brennan CJ, Toohey, McHugh and Gummow JJ; Fang Wang v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 1044 at [14] per Allsop J.
Ground 4 is not made out and does not establish jurisdictional error in the Tribunal Decision.
Conclusions and orders
The Court has concluded that:
a)ground 1 of the Amended Applicant has been made out in part, and insofar as it is made out it establishes jurisdictional error in the Tribunal Decision, but otherwise ground 1 is not made out;
b)grounds 2 and 4 are not made out.
It follows from the Court’s conclusion with respect to that part of ground 1 which has been made out and which establishes jurisdictional error in the Tribunal Decision that appropriate prerogative relief ought to be granted to the applicant.
There will also be orders that the name of:
a)the Tribunal be changed to “Administrative Appeals Tribunal”; and
b)the Minister be changed to “Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services & Multicultural Affairs”.
The Court will hear the parties as to costs.
I certify that the preceding one hundred and nine (109) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Judge Antoni Lucev
Deputy Associate:
Date: 27 September 2019
0
35
3