YVWV and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
[2015] AATA 66
•9 February 2015
[2015] AATA 66
Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION File Number(s)
2013/5407
Re
YVWV
APPLICANT
And
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal Deputy President J W Constance
Date 9 February 2015 Place Sydney In accordance with section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth):
1. the decision of the delegate of the Minister made 10 October 2013 refusing the Applicant’s application for a Protection (Class XA) visa is set aside;
2. the matter is remitted to the Minister with the direction that the Applicant is not a person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that he has committed a serious non-political crime outside Australia.
..............................[sgd]..........................................
Deputy President J W Constance
Catchwords
MIGRATION – refugees – protection visa – whether protection obligations to applicant – whether serious reasons for considering that applicant had committed a serious non-political crime prior to admission – decision set aside and remitted
Legislation
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 36(2)(a)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) cl 866.22
United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, Art 1FCases
Al-Sirri v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 54
Arquita v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2000) 106 FCR 465
Dhayakpa v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1995) 62 FCR 556
FTZK v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor [2014] HCA 26
FTZK v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor [2013] FCAFC 44
REASONS FOR DECISION
Deputy President J W Constance
INTRODUCTION
The Applicant is a citizen of Sri Lanka. He arrived in Australia as an “unauthorised maritime arrival” on 18 May 2012. On 23 August 2012, he lodged an application for a Protection (Class XA) visa.
On 10 October 2013, a Delegate of the Minister decided:
I am not satisfied that [the Applicant] is a person in respect of whom Australia has protection obligations under section 36 of the Migration Act and subclause 866.221 of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations. Accordingly, I refuse to grant [the Applicant] a Protection (Class XA) visa.
The Applicant has applied to the Tribunal for a review of this decision.
For the reasons which follow the reviewable decision will be set aside and remitted to the Minister with a direction that the Applicant is not a person in respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that he has committed a serious non-political crime outside Australia.
BACKGROUND
The criteria for the grant of a protection visa are set out in section 36 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) and clause 866.22 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). Relevantly to this matter, subsection 36(2)(a) of the Act provides that:
(2) A criterion for a protection visa is that the applicant for the visa is:
(a) a non-citizen in Australia in respect of whom the Minister is satisfied Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol; …
Clause 866.22 of the Regulations states similarly, in part:
866.22--Criteria to be satisfied at time of decision
866.221
(1) One of subclauses (2) to (5) is satisfied.
(2) The Minister is satisfied that the applicant is a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention.
…
Australia’s obligation to provide protection to refugees is governed by the provisions of the United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol.
The Convention provides for the exclusion of persons from the application of the Convention in certain circumstances. The applicable provision in this application is Article 1F which relevantly states:
The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that … he has committed a serious non-political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee.
Sri Lankan authorities have notified the Australian Federal Police that the Applicant is suspected of having murdered a woman in Sri Lanka in March 2009. He was held in custody for more than one year before being released on bail in June 2010. In May 2012 he travelled by boat from Sri Lanka to Australia.
THE ISSUE FOR DETERMINATION
I have to decide whether there are serious reasons for considering that the Applicant has committed the crime of murder in Sri Lanka prior to his admission to Australia as a refugee.
At the hearing it was not in dispute that the crime of murder alleged against the Applicant is a serious non-political crime under Article 1F. I am satisfied this is so.
EVIDENCE
Evidence of the Applicant
The Applicant filed a statement dated 26 March 2014 and gave evidence.
The Applicant is a Sri Lankan Tamil. He is 36 years old. He is married with children.
Destruction of the Applicant’s business
The Applicant gave evidence that for most of his working life he has been engaged in buying and selling fish. He was about 18 years old when he started his own business in Sri Lanka. He later moved his business from one region of the country to another
On 23 August 2012, the Applicant made a Statutory Declaration in support of his application for a protection visa.[1] In that Declaration he gave an account of an attack upon his business. He said that he operated his business in a particular area until May 2011. At that time, officers of the Sri Lankan Police in company with officers of the Criminal Investigation Department ordered him to leave the area. He did not do this. A few days later the storage room of his business was burnt down.
[1] Exhibit R1 p.129.
The Applicant stated in his Declaration that shortly after the fire, he, and other businessmen, complained to the Police concerning their treatment. Their complaints were ignored. In May 2011, he received telephone calls threatening that he would be harmed unless he withdrew his complaint. In November 2011 he was told to report to the Criminal Investigation Department where he was tortured and beaten because he refused to move out of the area. He was released the same day.
The Applicant further stated that:
After this incident I then went into hiding for approximately one year and decided to flee Sri Lanka in April/May 2012 as I feared the Sri Lankan CID/other Sinhala men would harm or kill me if they found me. It was not possible to continue to remain in hiding for a long period of time.[2]
[2] Exhibit R1 p.129, para. 26.
The above account of the 2011 incidents is inconsistent with a later statement and his evidence before the Tribunal. Both the later statement and the evidence to the Tribunal were given after the Applicant became aware that the Australian authorities knew of the criminal proceedings against him in Sri Lanka.
In his statement of 26 March 2014 (prepared and filed for the purpose of these proceedings),[3] the Applicant said that he relocated his fishing business in 2006. At the end of that year the Sri Lankan Army assumed control of the area. Thereafter, the Applicant experienced difficulties in continuing his business. In August 2006, a number of Tamil fishermen and businessmen (including the Applicant) were ordered to leave the land on which they operated their businesses and to leave the area. Arguments as to the ownership of the land developed, the Applicant's business was destroyed and he lost his livelihood.
[3] Exhibit A1.
When he gave evidence, in answer to a question by his Counsel, the Applicant said:
I mean, because I had this land dispute with the CID and they were not happy with me, so they wanted to connect me with some crime. That’s why they actually connected me to this crime [the alleged murder].[4]
[4] Transcript 07/11/14 p.17.
The Applicant was cross-examined as to the apparent inconsistency in his evidence as to the time when the property dispute occurred. He denied the suggestion that he had changed the date of this incident from 2011 to 2006 to provide an explanation of why he was accused of the murder by the CID in 2009.
The events leading up to the Applicant's being taken into custody in March 2009
In 2008, the Applicant commenced working for a company which was involved in rebuilding after the tsunami. He became friends with a woman who operated a tea shop in front of his employer’s offices. The woman became pregnant and the Applicant was suspected of being the father of her child. The woman’s father contacted the Applicant and alleged that this was the case. The Applicant has always denied fathering the child. The Applicant believes the woman was raped by members of a Sri Lankan government authority. She disappeared in March 2009.
In March 2009, the Applicant was arrested by police and appeared in Court. He was told he was suspected of having murdered the woman. He was released by the Court, but three days later he was taken into custody again. He was told he would be held in custody for 14 days; in fact he was held for six weeks. He appeared in Court at the end of that time and was again released. He was told that there was no evidence that he had committed the murder but that he was still a suspect.
The Applicant described his subsequent treatment as follows:
But on my release from jail, about 100 metres from the Court building, I was picked up by the CID, They blindfolded me and took me to a dark room where they held me and tortured me for four days. They beat me on my feet, tied my hands behind my head and suspend me from the wall, and lay me on the ground and stamped on my back in their boots. They would put a plastic bag filled with petrol on my head, and leave me to suffocate on the smell. It was a terrifying experience.
I was taken to the police station where I was forced to sign a confession written in Singhalese, which I could not understand. I believe it stated that I was confessing to having killed Ms [x]. I signed the document because I could not stand the torture any longer. Following the torture, 1 was placed in jail, where I remained for 18 months.
While in jail, I was taken by the Singhalese jailors into a separate room and threatened that I was not to tell anyone about the CID torturing me.[5]
[5] Exhibit A1, para [14-16].
The Applicant again appeared before the Court in May 2010. He was granted bail on condition that he report to the police every day. He was released from remand in June 2010. When he gave evidence, the Applicant said that he had not applied for bail earlier than he did because his wife had been told by a police officer that if he was released on bail he would be killed. It was only after this officer was transferred away from the area that a bail application was made. The application took four months to be heard by the Court.
From the time of his release until 5 May 2012 (a period of almost two years) the Applicant reported daily in accordance with his bail conditions. When he did so he ensured that he was accompanied by others as he feared being again taken into custody and tortured.
In addition to reporting to the police, the Applicant was required to appear in Court at approximately six week intervals. He was legally represented but was never given any papers detailing the offence which he was said to have committed.
The Applicant’s travelling to Australia
On 5 May 2012, the Applicant left Sri Lanka by boat. He arrived in Australia on 17 May 2012. He took the opportunity to leave Sri Lanka as he was extremely fearful that he would again be imprisoned and tortured.
After the Applicant's arrival in Australia
After he arrived in Australia the Applicant was held in detention. He was interviewed by immigration officials on two occasions. At each interview he was asked why he had left Sri Lanka. He did not tell the officials that he had been held in custody and tortured. He said that on the first occasion he was unsure what to say and on the second occasion he did not disclose these events as he had been told by other detainees that if he did so he would be sent back to Sri Lanka. Also he was told by others not to go to trauma and torture counselling as this would cause him trouble.
In a second Statutory Declaration signed on 23 August 2012,[6] the Applicant stated:
I have not been charged with any offence that is incomplete or awaiting legal action, nor am I aware of any investigation into my affairs that has the potential to lead to such charges.
[6] Exhibit R1 p.126.
In September 2012,[7] the Applicant was released into the community on a bridging visa.
[7] Exhibit R1 p.194.
The Applicant denies having committed any serious offence in Sri Lanka and in particular denies having committed murder. He says that attempts are being made to implicate him in a murder because of his past complaints about the alleged illegal takeover of his land. Further he believes that if he returns to Sri Lanka he will be arbitrarily imprisoned and it is likely that he will be tortured. In his opinion he will not be given a fair trial and, if convicted, it is likely he will be executed.
Correspondence from Criminal Investigation Department, Sri Lanka
On 30 April 2013 the Criminal Investigation Department wrote to the Australian Federal Police.[8] The letter stated in part:
2.2 [The Applicant] had been suspected to have committed the murder and accordingly, he had been arrested on 03.05.3009 [sic] and produced before [the] Magistrate Court ...
2.3 The suspect had since failed to appear before the courts, and as such, a warrant had been issued against the suspect, which is still outstanding.
[8] Exhibit R1 p.229.
Warrant for Arrest
In May 2013, a warrant was issued for the arrest of the Applicant by reason of his failure to attend Court.[9]
THE ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE MINISTER
[9] Exhibit R1 p.257.
Statement of Facts and Contentions
In the Statement of Facts and Contentions filed on behalf of the Minister it was put in summary that the following facts were “strong evidence … upon which it could be reasonably and properly concluded that the applicant has committed the crime alleged”[10] :
·the ongoing proceedings in Sri Lanka relating to the CID’s suspicion that the applicant murdered Ms [X];
·the arrest of the applicant and his detention on remand for the offence for over one year;
·the arrest warrant issued in respect of the applicant for his failure to attend court in relation to the offence of murder;
·the involvement of the Australian Federal Police, and the applicant’s failure to disclose the proceedings relating to the murder of Ms [X] to immigration authorities before being informed of the information.
[10] Respondent’s statement of Facts and Contentions filed 1 August 2014.
Counsel’s Submissions
Counsel for the Minister argued correctly that it was not in dispute that the Applicant was arrested and detained on suspicion of murder and was remanded in custody for a long time.[11] Counsel accepted that this was the start, not the end, of the enquiry.
[11] Transcript 07/11/14 p.56.
Counsel submitted that apart from the two letters from the Criminal Investigation Department, the basis upon which Article 1F is satisfied “relates to what might be considered corroborative or circumstantial evidence and questions of credit ...”[12] Counsel’s submissions in this regard are set out in the following eight paragraphs.
[12] Transcript 07/11/14 at p.55.
It is to be taken into consideration that a charge was brought “because it would establish that Sri Lankan authorities considered after the initial arrest that there was a basis for the suspicion.” [13]
[13] Transcript 07/11.14 p.56.
The Applicant was required to report once a day which indicates that the authorities in Sri Lanka considered that there was a strong case against the Applicant.
It was implausible that the Applicant was being tortured whilst he was imprisoned in view of the fact that he did not apply for bail for approximately 12 months, notwithstanding that the Court invited him to make such an application. It was argued that this evidence went to the circumstances in which the Applicant was being held in custody.
In his Statutory Declaration made in August 2012, the Applicant stated that the events relating to his property dispute with authorities took place in 2011. When the allegations of murder were later put to him by an Immigration Officer (this being the first time the Applicant became aware that Australian authorities had been informed of the allegations) he changed his evidence and stated that these events had happened in 2006. He said that the dispute was the reason for the allegation of murder being made against him. This was a lie in relation to the crime alleged against the Applicant and is an incriminating statement consistent with a consciousness of guilt.
The Applicant also lied when he declared that he had never been charged with an offence which was incomplete or awaiting legal action and that he was not aware of any investigation into his affairs that had the potential to lead to such charges. The lie was told “to cover up the charges and to cover up his involvement in the murder ...”[14]
[14] Transcript 07/11/14 p.59.
The Applicant’s evidence was inconsistent in that he claimed that he was not prepared to disclose that he had been tortured whilst in custody in relation to the alleged murder but was prepared to disclose torture which he said happened as a result of the land dispute. The failure to initially disclose the alleged torture in his application for a visa coupled with his implausible explanation for not doing so, shows a consciousness of guilt.
In cross-examination it was put to the Applicant that when he was in custody the police took him to a site where the victim’s body was recovered. The Applicant said that he was taken to a lagoon and shown a tree but no body was discovered. The Applicant’s denial was unconvincing.
The involvement of the Australian Federal Police in this matter means that the Tribunal can be “comforted that the claims are not spurious, that police in Australia have not dismissed them without further investigation ...”.[15]
CONSIDERATION
[15] Transcript 07/11/14 p.64.
The question to be answered
In FTZK v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection & Anor,[16] French CJ and Gageler J stated the question to be answered as follows:
…… whether there [is] a rational connection between the material before it [the decision maker] and an inference that the appellant had committed a serious non-political crime in China.” [17]
[16] [2014] HCA 26.
[17] FTZK v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] HCA 26, at para[6].
The standard of satisfaction required
In their judgment in FTZK,[18] Crennan and Bell JJ cited the following passage from the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in Al-Sirri v Secretary of State for the Home Department.[19] Their Honours described the passage as drawing together “international consensus about an exacting standard of satisfaction which is not derived from domestic standards of proof”;[20]
We are, it is clear, attempting to discern the autonomous meaning of the words ‘serious reasons for considering’. We do so in the light of the UNHCR view, with which we agree, that the exclusion clauses in the Refugee Convention must be restrictively interpreted and cautiously applied. This leads us to draw the following conclusions: (1) ‘Serious reasons’ is stronger than ‘reasonable grounds’. (2) The evidence from which those reasons are derived must be ‘clear and credible’ or ‘strong’. (3) ‘Considering’ is stronger than ‘suspecting’. In our view it is also stronger than ‘believing’. It requires the considered judgment of the decision-maker. (4) The decision maker need not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt or to the standard required by the criminal law. (5) It is unnecessary to import our domestic standards of proof into the question.[21]
[18] FTZK v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] HCA 26, at para.[82].
[19] [2012] UKSC 54.
[20] FTZK and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] HCA 26, at para [82].
[21] Al-Sirri v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 54, at para [75].
Principles to be applied
The Federal Court has set out a number of principles which are relevant in deciding the issue in this application. These principles were approved by the High Court in the FTZK judgment.[22]
[22] FTZK v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] HCA 26, at para [5].
These principles can be summarised as follows:
1)the provisions of the Convention are beneficial and should not be construed narrowly, however the provisions of Article 1F are protective of the order and safety of the State in which refuge is being sought;[23]
2)it is not necessary that the Tribunal be satisfied that the alleged crime has been committed;[24]
3)strong evidence that the person has committed the alleged offence is sufficient;[25]
4)the evidence need not be of such weight as to meet either the criminal or civil standard of proof.[26]
[23] Dhayakpa v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1995) 62 FCR 556, 565; [1995] FCA 1653 (9 November 1995) [29].
[24] Dhayakpa v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (supra) 563.
[25] Dhayakpa v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (supra).
[26] Arquita v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2000) 106 FCR 465, 478; [2000] FCA 1889 (22 December 2000) [54].
In their judgment in FTZK, Crennan and Bell JJ said that the approach taken by Kerr J, when the matter was before the Full Court of the Federal Court,[27] was correct and should be followed. His Honour ‘found that each of those findings made by the Tribunal was of no probative value unless linked to a further fact or circumstance which the Tribunal was required to find, being motive or consciousness of guilt’.[28]
[27] FTZK v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] FCAFC 44 commencing at para.52.
[28] Crennan and Bell JJ at para.67.
Discussion
By letter of 30 April 2013,[29] the Criminal Investigation Department of the Sri Lanka Police advised the Australian Federal Police that the Applicant was arrested on 3 May 2009 on suspicion of murder. On the evidence available I cannot determine whether, at any time, the Applicant has been charged with murder. The warrant which has been issued for the arrest of the Applicant is in relation to his failure to appear before the Court, not in relation to the alleged crime.[30]
[29] In exhibit R1 p.229 the date referred to is 03.05.3009. I am satisfied that this is a typographical error and that the date of arrest was 3 May 2009.
[30] Exhibit R1 p.256-7.
I am satisfied that the Applicant is suspected of having committed murder in Sri Lanka and that he was held in custody for the times he has stated. I make these findings on the basis of the letter from the CID and the evidence of the Applicant. At times when he gave evidence the Applicant said that he had been charged, but on other occasions he repeatedly said that he has been “connected with” the murder. I am satisfied the Applicant is uncertain as to the exact status of the proceedings against him. Clearly proceedings against him commenced in 2009 and have not been resolved. I am not satisfied that the Applicant has been charged.
In his judgment on the appeal to the High Court by FTZK Hayne J said:[31]
The bare fact that an allegation of crime is made (whether by one or more public officials of the country in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, or by one or more private individuals) represents the starting point for the inquiry about “serious reasons for considering”, not its end. Putting the matter shortly, the decision maker must decide what credence may be given to the allegations that are made.
[31] FTZK and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] HCA 26, at para [37].
In my view, even if I was satisfied that a charge had been laid, in this case it would not elevate the situation beyond an allegation that the Applicant had committed the crime.
The principle stated by Hayne J is an important consideration in this matter. As Counsel for the Minister acknowledged, apart from the suspicion held by the Authorities in Sri Lanka, the evidence is “circumstantial”.
The fact that the Applicant was required to report daily while on bail is not a factor which weighs significantly in favour of a conclusion that there are strong reasons for considering that the Applicant has committed the crime alleged. There is no evidence to support the contention of Counsel for the Minister that the frequency of reporting reflects the view of the Sri Lankan authorities as to the strength of the case against the Applicant.
I do not accept Counsel’s argument that I cannot be satisfied that the Applicant was ill-treated whilst held in custody. The Applicant offered an explanation as to why he delayed seeking bail. His ill-treatment in custody, and the threat conveyed to his family, provided a plausible reason for his fear of what may occur if he was released. This is particularly so considering it was at a time when the individual who had threatened his life was working at the local CID office.
Having listened to and observed the Applicant give evidence I am satisfied that he was telling the truth in relation to the treatment he had received in Sri Lanka. I make this finding notwithstanding that the Applicant has not always been honest in his dealings with the Department’s officers and with the Tribunal. I will refer to these instances later in these reasons.
I am satisfied also that the Applicant left Sri Lanka by boat when he was not entitled to do so and that thereafter he breached his bail conditions. I am satisfied also that he entered Australia without the permission of the Australian authorities.
I am not satisfied that there is a rational connection between the fact, and manner, of the Applicant’s leaving Sri Lanka and a consciousness of guilt. His actions are equally consistent with a desire to escape the possibility of renewed detention and ill-treatment such as he had previously experienced.
On the basis of the Applicant’s evidence, I am satisfied that he deliberately did not tell the truth to the Australian Immigration Officers when he stated that his business was destroyed in 2006. I am satisfied that this not happen until 2011, as he said in his Statutory Declaration in support of his application for a protection visa. The dates and details the Applicant gave in August 2013 relating to events he said took place in 2011 cause me to decide that this was an accurate recollection of the circumstances and timing of the property dispute. His evidence when questioned as to why he said the events occurred in 2006 was not convincing and he was prepared to say only that he thought the events occurred in 2006.[32]
[32] Transcript 07/11/14 p.31.
I do not accept the argument of Counsel for the Minister that this lie was intended to provide a reason for his treatment by the Criminal Investigation Department unrelated to the alleged murder and therefore shows a consciousness of guilt. I accept the Applicant’s evidence that he had been told by other detainees that, if he informed the Australian authorities of the allegations and the subsequent torture, he would be returned to Sri Lanka. Whilst, as Counsel pointed out, it is strange that the Applicant would consider that telling the Australian authorities that he had been tortured would be a ground for returning him to Sri Lanka, it is logical that he would think that disclosing allegations of murder would have that result. Taking into account what he was told by other detainees and his experiences in prison, his failure to tell the truth is as equally consistent with a desire to continue to live in Australia and to escape the risk of further ill-treatment as it is with consciousness of guilt.
Similarly, the fact that the Applicant lied in his Statutory Declaration made 23 August 2012 when he stated that he was not aware of any investigation into his affairs which had the potential to lead to a charge is equally consistent with a desire to remain in Australia as with a consciousness of guilt of the crime of murder.
I do not consider that the involvement of the Australian Federal Police in this matter is a factor which assists in deciding the issue before me. In the circumstances of the Applicant arriving in Australia and seeking a protection visa, having left Sri Lanka in the circumstances he did, it is to be expected that the Australian Federal Police would have some involvement.
The documents provided by the Sri Lankan authorities establish that there is a suspicion that the Applicant has committed this crime and that a warrant has been issued for his arrest for failing to appear in court. There is no evidence of the results of any investigation carried out since the disappearance of the woman, a period of almost six years.
Further, the Applicant's untruthful statements, although deliberate, are as consistent with his desire to remain in Australia as with a consciousness of guilt of the crime alleged. In the circumstances, I am not satisfied that such lies are logically probative of the proposition that the Applicant committed the alleged murder.
Before the Tribunal, the Applicant sought to explain that the police action to connect him with the crime was a result of the property dispute. In view of my finding that the property dispute arose after the Applicant was first taken into custody, this is not a valid explanation. However, this does not mean that the fact that the proceedings against him in Sri Lanka are still ongoing is strong evidence that the Applicant committed murder. It is an equally consistent proposition that the proceedings were commenced, and have continued, by reason of Ms [X]’s father alleging that the Applicant was the father of his daughter’s child.
In my view, the evidence falls far short of establishing “serious reasons” for considering that the Applicant committed murder. Apart from the documentary evidence establishing a suspicion that such was the case, much of the remaining evidence relates to the Applicant's untruthfulness in his dealings with Australian authorities. There is no rational connection between this material and an inference that the Applicant committed the crime alleged. The evidence relied upon by the Minister in support of the argument that there are “serious reasons for considering” that the Applicant has committed murder, is not itself “clear and credible” or “strong”.[33] The “exacting standard of satisfaction” referred to by the High Court has not been met.
[33] See paragraph 47 above.
CONCLUSION
The reviewable decision made 10 October 2013 will be set aside and the matter will be remitted to the Minister with a direction that the Applicant is not a person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that he has committed a serious non-political crime outside Australia.
I certify that the preceding 69 (sixty -nine) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of
Deputy President J W Constance........................[sgd]................................................
Associate
Dated 9 February 2015
Date(s) of hearing 7 November 2014 Date final submissions received 7 November 2014 Counsel for the Applicant J Gormley Advocate for the Applicant J Murphy; Australian Migration Options Pty Ltd Counsel for the Respondent P Knowles Solicitors for the Respondent Australian Government Solicitor
0
5
0