SZMTJ v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2009] FMCA 18 (28 January 2009)

Last Updated: 4 March 2009

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SZMTJ v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & ANOR

[2009] FMCA 18

MIGRATION – Visa – Protection (Class XA) visa – Refugee Review Tribunal – application for review of RRT decision affirming decision of the Minister's delegate not to grant a protection visa – citizen of China claiming well founded fear of persecution as member of an underground church – credibility – bias – whether Tribunal decision was affected by bias – conduct engaged in by the applicant within Australia – whether Tribunal failed to determine whether it was satisfied in accordance with Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s.91R(3) – whether applicant's conduct should have been disregarded – mere technicality. PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Interpreter – where applicant sought an interpreter in the Fuqing dialect but only a Mandarin interpreter available – offer of adjournment declined.

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss.48B, 91R, 91X, 417, 424A, 474

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia (2001) 178 ALR 421 SBBS v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs (2002) 194 ALR 749; [2002] FCAFC 361 Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte H [2001] HCA 28; (2001) 179 ALR 425; 75 ALJR 982 SZJGV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2008] FCAFC 105 SZHFE v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (No 2) [2006] FCA 648 SZHFE v Minister for Immigration & Anor Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; ex parte Durairajasingham (2000) 168 ALR 407; [2000] HCA 1

Applicant:

SZMTJ

First Respondent:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

Second Respondent:

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

File Number:

SYG 2400 of 2008

Judgment of:

Scarlett FM

Hearing date:

26 November 2008

Date of Last Submission:

26 November 2008

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

28 January 2009

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Appeared in person

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Not legally represented

Counsel for the Respondents:

Mrs Sirtes

Solicitors for the Respondents:

Sparke Helmore

ORDERS

(1) The application is dismissed.
(2) The applicant is to pay the first respondent’s costs fixed in the sum of $5,000.00.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT SYDNEY

SYG 2400 of 2008

SZMTJ

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Application

1. The applicant is a citizen of the People’s Republic of China who is asking the Court to review a decision of the second respondent, the Refugee Review Tribunal, affirming a decision of a delegate of the first respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, refusing to grant him a Protection (Class XA) visa.
2. The applicant seeks the following orders and declarations:
   1. A writ of certiorari quashing the Tribunal decision.
   2. A declaration that the Tribunal’s decision is void and of no effect.
   3. A writ of prohibition preventing the Minister from acting upon the Tribunal’s decision.
3. The applicant relies upon the following grounds of review:
   1. The Tribunal’s investigation was affected by bias and preoccupied subjective reasoning; and
   2. The Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by not disregarding conduct engaged in by the applicant in Australia without being satisfied that he had engaged in that conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening his claim to be a refugee.
4. The Minister has filed a response claiming that the application does not establish any jurisdictional error.

Background

5. The applicant has been in Australia since 22nd June 1999. He applied for a protection visa on 30th July 1999 in the name of WWC.[1] In his application he disclosed that he had the help of a registered migration agent, one Linda Liu, in preparing his application. He did not give any reason in his application as to why he sought protection in Australia. The applicant enclosed a declaration with his application, saying that:
   • I have been told by my agent my application for protection has little chances to be successful. However, I would like to apply by giving this writing[2] permission to my agent.[3]
6. The applicant provided a United Kingdom passport issued in Hong Kong showing that he was a British National (Overseas).[4]
7. A delegate of the Minister refused the application for a visa on
   16th September 1999. The delegate stated:
   • The applicant has not forwarded any claims. As the applicant has not forwarded any claims of harm to, mistreatment or persecution, I can not be satisfied that he has a well founded fear of persecution for a convention reason.[5]
8. The applicant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal for review of the delegate’s decision and on 28th March 2000 the Tribunal handed down its decision, affirming the decision not to grant the applicant a protection visa. The Tribunal Decision and Reasons for Decision show that, although the applicant was invited to attend a hearing, he did not do so.[6]
9. The applicant wrote to the minister on 22nd May 2000, asking that the Minister exercise his discretion under s 417 of the Migration Act to substitute a decision more favourable than the decision of the Tribunal. The Minister declined to do so.
10. The applicant was apprehended by officers from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship on 12th September 2007 and taken into Immigration detention. Departmental officers ascertained that the applicant had entered Australia on a false passport in the name WWC, which was not his real name. They located at his residence a passport in his real name issued by the People’s Republic of China.
11. On 24th October 2007 the applicant applied, in his real name, to the then Minister, seeking the exercise of the Minister’s discretion in his favour. He claimed to have been a member of an unregistered underground church. He said that people called his church the “shouters”. Because the church was not registered, it was regarded by the authorities as an illegal cult. He produced a number of testimonials from people who attested to his church membership.
12. On 26th March 2008 the Department wrote to the applicant, advising him that the Minister had decided that it was in the public interest to exercise his power under s. 48B of the Migration act to allow him to make another application for a protection visa.
13. The applicant applied for a Protection (Class XA) visa on 1st April 2008. He was assisted by Mr Michael McCrudden, a solicitor and migration agent, of the firm Craddock Murray Neumann, lawyers. With his application, the applicant provided a 5 page statutory declaration in which he set out his claims for protection. He claimed to be a devout Christian from a devout Christian family. He claimed to fear that he would be harmed if he were to return to China because of his previous involvement in an unregistered church and his commitment to practising his Christian faith outside the official church in the PRC.
14. On 21st May 2008 a delegate of the Minister refused the applicant’s application for a protection visa. The delegate noted that in January 2005 the applicant had applied for and was issued a travel document from the People’s Republic of China Consulate in Sydney. Although the applicant claimed that he decided not to return to China because his family had begged him not to return because it was not safe to do so, the delegate considered that the applicant’s willingness to approach the Chinese Consulate and apply for a travel document in his own name raised serious concerns about the genuineness of his fear of persecution in the PRC.[7]
15. The delegate also noted that when the applicant was interviewed by Departmental officers after he was detained in September 2007, he had said that he was not fearful of returning to the PRC and that the reason he had travelled to Australia was to earn money.[8]
16. After his application for a visa was refused the applicant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal for review of that decision.

Application for Review by the Refugee Review Tribunal

17. The Tribunal received the application for review on 23rd May 2008. The application showed that the applicant was still represented by his migration agent.
18. The Tribunal invited the applicant to appear at a hearing on 23rd June 2008. Through his migration agent, the applicant indicated that he wished to attend to attend the hearing and needed the assistance of a Mandarin interpreter. He also provided a further statutory declaration in which he sought to reply to and comment on some of the statements made by the delegate in refusing his application for a visa. He also provided some testimonials attesting to his church attendance and supporting his application for a visa.
19. The applicant attended the hearing on 23rd June, accompanied by his migration agent and several supporters. He gave evidence, as did a witness on his behalf. The hearing was not completed on that day, so it was adjourned to 10th July 2008. On each occasion the applicant gave evidence with the assistance of a Mandarin interpreter. However, on the second hearing day, the applicant said that he would prefer an interpreter in the Fuqing dialect. The Tribunal agreed, saying:
    • The applicant then stated that he could not speak proper Mandarin and his preferred dialect was Fuqing. He stated that he found it easier to express himself when he had a Fuqing interpreter on the last occasion.[9] The Tribunal decided to adjourn the Hearing to a date when a Fuqing interpreter was available.[10]
20. The applicant attended the adjourned hearing on 24th July 2008, accompanied by his migration adviser and two supporters, one of whom gave evidence on his behalf. The applicant had the assistance of the same interpreter as had assisted on 23rd June, this time in the Fuqing dialect.
21. After the hearing, on 28th July 2008, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant’s migration adviser, inviting the applicant to comment on or respond to certain information in writing. The letter was intended to comply with the requirements of s. 424A of the Migration Act.
    The information included reference to a document dated
    12th November 2007 containing anonymous information that contradicted the applicant’s refugee claims.
22. The Tribunal’s letter asked the applicant to provide his response by
    4th August 2008.
23. In a letter dated 1 August 2008, the applicant’s migration adviser said:
    • During the hearing the member indicated that she would not rely on the contents of the anonymous letter received by DIAC when considering her decision in this matter.
    • Despite this indication the applicant has been invited to comment on the contents of the anonymous letter as part of his response to adverse information.
    • As the Tribunal is unable to test the contents of the anonymous letter, which, as far as we are aware, has not been put in the form of a statutory declaration or affidavit, we submit that it is inappropriate for the Tribunal to rely on the contents of the anonymous letter.
    • Can you please indicate whether the Tribunal proposes to rely on the contents of the aforementioned anonymous letter.[11]
24. The Tribunal replied on 4th August 2008, advising that:
    • The Tribunal member has requested that I confirm that she will not be relying on any of the information in the anonymous letter in making her decision, as stated at the hearing. This material was referred to in the recent letter seeking comment as a courtesy.[12]
25. The Tribunal extended the time for the applicant to provide his comments or response until 8th August 2008.
26. The applicant’s adviser provided a lengthy response to the s. 424A letter on 5th August 2008.[13] The letter referred to independent country information and enclosed a copy of a report from Amnesty International.[14]
27. Later that same day the applicant’s adviser forwarded to the Tribunal a statutory declaration by the applicant.[15]

The Refugee Review Tribunal Decision

28. The Tribunal signed its decision on 26th August 2008 and handed the decision down the following day. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Protection (Class XA) visa.
29. In its Decision Record, the Tribunal set out a summary of the evidence from the Departmental file, from the applicant’s written submissions, his application for review, his statutory declaration dated 15th June 2008, his oral evidence to the Tribunal on 23rd June, 10th and 24th July 2008, the applicant’s adviser’s submissions, the Tribunal’s s. 424A letter dated 28th July 2008, the applicant’s statutory declaration dated 3rd August 2008, and the applicant’s response to the s. 424A letter dated 5th August 2008.[16]

The Tribunal’s Findings and Reasons

30. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant was a citizen of the People’s Republic of China. It noted his claims that before he left China in 1999 he was practising as an underground Christian and was wanted by the police for that reason. He claimed to have fled China via Hong Kong on a Hong Kong passport in a different name. He claimed that if he returned to China he would be persecuted if he returned because of his religion.
31. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant entered Australia on a Hong Kong passport in a different name. It also accepted that the applicant attended church in Australia from November 2000 until he was detained in September 2007 and had been attending various Christian services since he was detained.
32. However, the Tribunal formed the overall view that the applicant lacked credibility and it did not accept his Convention related claims. The Tribunal set out a number of matters that led it to conclude that the applicant was not a reliable witness in relation to certain material aspects of his claims.[17]
33. The Tribunal stated that those matters collectively led it to find that the applicant was not a credible witness, and it rejected his claim to have been a prominent member or organiser of an underground Christian church in China. Consequently, it rejected all of his claims that flowed from that claim.
34. The Tribunal went on to consider the applicant’s evidence about his church attendance in Australia from November 2000:
    • The Tribunal accepts that he has been attending the church at Ashfield on a regular basis. However, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant attended because of his Christian faith. The applicant stated that he was missing his family and it is the view of the Tribunal that the applicant joined the Chinese Christian church at Ashfield because he was lonely and that he continued to attend because he found it comforting to be with his friends at that church.[18]
35. The Tribunal considered the evidence by the applicant’s witnesses about his Christian beliefs, but did not give any weight to that evidence due to the adverse view it had formed about the applicant’s credibility. Referring to “the fundamental lack of credibility”[19] of the applicant’s evidence, the Tribunal stated that it was not satisfied that:
    1. the applicant was a Christian;
    2. the applicant would practise Christianity in the reasonably foreseeable future if he returned to China; or
    100. that there was a real chance that the applicant would suffer serious harm for the reasons of his being a Christian or being imputed to be one.
36. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had a well founded fear of persecution for a convention reason if he returned to China and, accordingly, was not satisfied that the applicant was a person to whom Australia has protection obligations under the Refugees Convention.

Application for Judicial Review

37. The applicant commenced proceedings in this Court on 15th September 2008. He obtained legal advice from a lawyer on the RRT Legal Advice Scheme Panel, Mr Michael Jones, on 12th November 2008.
    He filed an amended application on 14th November 2008.
38. In his amended application the applicant seeks orders in the nature of certiorari and prohibition and a declaration that the Tribunal decision is void and of no effect. He relies on two grounds of review:
    • (i) The investigation conducted by the second respondent was affected by bias and preoccupied subjective reasoning.
    • (ii) The Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by not disregarding conduct engaged in by the applicant in Australia without being satisfied the applicant had engaged in that conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening his claim to be a refugee within the meaning of the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol.
    • Particulars
    • The Tribunal took into account against the applicant’s credibility the applicant’s conduct in relation to his participation in religious activities in Australia, his lodgement of a protection visa application and subsequent appeal and Ministerial request in a false name, and his application for a Chinese travel document in his real name, without first determining whether it was satisfied in accordance with s 91R (3) in respect of that conduct.
39. He seeks orders in the nature of certiorari and prohibition and a declaration that the Tribunal decision is void and of no effect.
40. The applicant did not file any written outline of submissions.
41. When the hearing commenced, the Court was unable to provide an interpreter in the Fuqing dialect. There was, however, an interpreter in Mandarin. When it was put to the applicant that the Court would consider an adjournment in order to obtain the services of a Fuqing interpreter, he said “Since I am here, just go ahead with it.”
    The hearing proceeded.
42. The applicant told the Court that he believed that the Tribunal Member was biased because she supported the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and did not accept his explanations. He also said that he did not believe that the Tribunal decision was a fair one. He said that he had at one stage agreed to return to China because he missed his family but his wife and parents told him not to return for his own safety.
43. Counsel for the Minister, Mrs Sirtes, submitted that the applicant’s claim of bias must fail because the applicant had not made his obligation to make the allegation of bias distinctly and to prove his claim (see Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia[20] at [69] and SBBS v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs[21]). Nor, she submitted, was there anything to suggest that a hypothetical fair-minded lay person, properly informed as to the nature of the proceedings, the matters in issue and the conduct concerned might reasonably apprehend that the Tribunal might not bring an impartial mind to the resolution of the questions to be decided (Re Refugee Review Tribunal; Ex parte H[22]).
44. As to the applicant’s second ground, that the Tribunal breached
    s. 91R(3) of the Migration Act by taking various matters into account without first determining whether it was satisfied in accordance with
    s. 91R(3), Mrs Sirtes submitted that if by that ground the applicant sought to allege that the Tribunal had failed to consider whether the particular conduct had occurred, it was discernible from the Tribunal’s reasons that it accepted that the particular conduct had occurred (see SZHAY v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs[23]).
45. Accordingly, she submitted, the second ground could be seen as a complaint that the Tribunal, having found that the conduct had occurred, should have disregarded that conduct. Relying on the decision of Jacobson J in SZHFE v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (No 2)[24], cited in SZJGV v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship[25] at [17], counsel for the Minister submitted that, whilst the Tribunal found that there had been some conduct in Australia, it was entitled to have regard to that conduct in the manner in which it did, having proper regard to the principles that govern s. 91R (3).
46. Specifically, s. 91R(3) did not require the Tribunal to disregard the applicant’s participation in religious activities in Australia because it implicitly[26] found that the applicant’s purpose in attending church was for a purpose other than strengthening his protection visa claims, and it explicitly[27] found an alternate explanation for the applicant’s attending church, namely companionship.
47. Similarly, the applicant’s lodgement of an earlier application for a protection visa was not conduct that could be said to enhance the applicant’s claims for a protection visa and therefore it was not required by s. 91R (3) to be disregarded.
48. Again, the fact that the applicant had obtained a travel document did not need to be disregarded by s. 91R(3). It did not enhance the applicant’s claims for refugee status. If anything, this conduct detracted from the applicant’s claims for a protection visa.
49. Consequently, counsel for the Minister submitted that there was no jurisdictional error constituted by a breach of s. 91R(3) of the Migration Act, or at all.

Conclusions

50. This is a case where the Tribunal found that the applicant was not a credible witness and rejected his claims to have been a prominent member or an organiser of an underground Christian church in China. Consequently, the Tribunal rejected all of the applicant’s claims that flowed from that assertion.
51. It is well known that credibility findings are factual findings that are matters for the Tribunal Member (Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; ex parte Durairajasingham[28] per McHugh J at [67]). So long as there is evidence upon which it is open to the Tribunal to make a factual finding, a Court conducting judicial review will not interfere.
52. The applicant complains that the Tribunal decision is affected by bias and “preoccupied subjective reasoning”. Bias is, of course, a serious allegation which must be strictly alleged and proved. The applicant has not, in my view, provided any evidence of any bias on the part of the Tribunal. All he has done is complain about the Tribunal decision and assert that the decision is unfair because the Tribunal did not accept his evidence. There is no evidence of bias and the applicant’s first ground has not been made out.
53. The applicant claims in his Ground 2 that the Tribunal has fallen into jurisdictional error by breaching the requirements of s. 91R(3) of the Migration Act. The claim is that the Tribunal erred by not disregarding the applicant’s conduct in Australia without being satisfied that he had engaged in that conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening his claim to be a refugee.
54. The conduct that the applicant claims that the Tribunal wrongly took into account are:
    1. his participation in church activities;
    2. his previous application for a protection visa and request for the exercise of Ministerial discretion in a false name; and
    100. his application for a Chinese travel document in his own name.
55. Subsection 91R(3) of the Act requires the Tribunal to disregard any conduct engaged in by the person in Australia unless:
    • (b) the person satisfies the Minister that the person engaged in the conduct otherwise than for the purpose of strengthening the person’s claim to be a refugee within the meaning of the Refugees Convention as amended by the Refugees Protocol.
56. First of all, it is clear that the Tribunal did accept that the applicant attended church in Australia from November 2000 until he was detained in September 2007 and that he had been attending various Christian services since his detention.[29]
57. However, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had been attending church because of his Christian faith, but because of his need for companionship:
    • The applicant stated that he was missing his family and it is the view of the Tribunal that the applicant joined the Chinese Christian church at Ashfield because he was lonely and that he continued because he found it comforting to be with his friends at that church.[30]
58. In my view, this is a clear finding by the Tribunal that it was satisfied that the applicant engaged in this conduct in Australia for a purpose other than that of strengthening his claim to be a refugee. Consequently, the Tribunal was not required by subsection 91R(3) to disregard that conduct.
59. The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had previously applied for a protection visa in a name other than his own and that his application had been rejected by the Department and the Refugee Review Tribunal, and that an application for Ministerial intervention had been made.[31] The Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant was not aware that his protection visa application had been refused and that he had become an unlawful non-citizen.[32]
60. Counsel for the Minister refers to the decision of Jacobson J in SZHFE v Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs[33], which was an appeal from a decision of Driver FM in the Federal Magistrates Court. The facts in that case concerned an applicant who only made a claim for a protection visa after he had been taken into immigration detention, seven years after he had arrived in Australia. The Tribunal considered that the applicant had not shown a genuine fear of persecution because, if he had, he would have applied for a protection visa much earlier than he had done. Driver FM found no error in the Tribunal’s approach, reasoning that the applicant’s failure to make any claim for refugee status over a seven year period could not be understood as an attempt to enhance his claim to be a refugee.
61. In my view, the decision in SZHFE can be distinguished on its facts. Unlike the applicant in SZHFE, who did not apply for a protection visa until he had been taken into detention, seven years after his arrival in Australia, this applicant did apply for a protection visa about five weeks after he arrived in Australia, admittedly under a false name.
    The applicant also applied for the exercise of Ministerial discretion, again under that same false name.
62. This conduct can not, to my mind, be characterised as conduct that could not be understood as an attempt to enhance the applicant’s claim to be a refugee. He certainly practised deception, but the motive appears to be an attempt to enhance his claim for a protection visa. Accordingly, the Tribunal was required to disregard it under the provisions of s. 91R(3).
63. The third matter for consideration is the Tribunal’s consideration of the fact that the applicant applied for a Chinese travel document in his own name in 2005. The Tribunal said:
    • The Tribunal is of the view that had the applicant feared persecution as claimed, he would not have approached the Chinese Consulate and obtained a travel document in his real name. The Tribunal accepts that he was depressed because he missed his family and that was why he contemplated returning to china in 2005 after he obtained his travel document. However, the Tribunal is of the view that he changed his mind and decided to remain in Australia with the intention of earning more money and also because he was aware that if he departed Australia, he would be very unlikely to be issued with another visa, given the long period he over-stayed his visa.[34]
64. The Tribunal also considered the applicant’s answers when he was interviewed by Departmental officers when he was detained on
    12th September 2007. This was put to the applicant for comment on the Tribunal’s s. 424A letter of 28th July 2008:
    • You also indicated that you were willing to depart Australia. You were asked why you did not return to China after you had been issued with a travel document by the Chinese consulate in Sydney in January 2005. You replied that you thought about it but then realised how much money you could make in Australia compared to China and decide to remain in Australia.[35]
65. The Tribunal referred to this information in its Findings and Reasons and found:
    • It is the Tribunal’s view that the applicant came to Australia with the sole intention of earning money and not because he was in fear of any Convention related persecution.[36]
66. Clearly, the actions of the applicant in obtaining a Chinese travel document in his real name cannot be characterised as conduct intended to enhance the applicant’s claims to be a refugee, quite the reverse, in my view. Consequently, the Tribunal was not required to disregard this behaviour under s. 91R(3) and was entitled to take it into account when assessing the applicant’s credibility.
67. What remains to be considered, therefore, is whether the Tribunal’s failure to disregard the applicant’s conduct in applying for a protection visa in a false name and also applying for the exercise of the Minister’s discretion in that same false name is a failure to comply with s. 91R(3) and therefore a jurisdictional error.
68. In my view, the Tribunal failed to comply with s. 91R(3) in this instance and therefore fell into jurisdictional error.
69. However, I am not satisfied that the Court should grant to the applicant the relief that he seeks. The balance of the evidence before the Tribunal is of such weight that the Tribunal’s adverse credibility finding against the applicant can stand even if the evidence of the earlier application for a protection visa and the exercise of the Minister’s discretion were to be disregarded. It is not in the interests of the administration of justice for the applicant to be granted relief by way of certiorari and mandamus because of a mere technicality.
70. The applicant will be dismissed with costs.

I certify that the preceding seventy (70) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Scarlett FM

Associate: S.Polley

Date: 15 January 2009

---

[1] The name will not be disclosed in accordance with Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 91X.
[2] sic
[3] Court Book 25
[4] Court Book 26
[5] Court Book 34
[6] Court Book 39
[7] Court Book 175
[8] Ibid
[9] This is a reference to the hearing on 23rd June 2008, when the interpreter was one who can speak both Mandarin and Fuqing. The applicant’s migration agent had written to the Tribunal on 24th June, advising that he would again require the assistance of a Mandarin interpreter but asked that the particular interpreter from the day before should again assist on 10th July (see Court Book 203).
[10] Court Book 273
[11] Court Book 215
[12] Court Book 218
[13] Court Book 219 - 232
[14] Court Book 233 - 248
[15] Court Book 250 - 253
[16] Court Book 260 - 283
[17] Court Book 284 - 286
[18] Court Book 286
[19] Ibid
[20] (2001) 178 ALR 421
[21] (2002) 194 ALR 749; [2002 FCAFC 361
[22] [2001] HCA 28; (2001) 179 ALR 425; 75 ALJR 982
[23] (2006) 199 FLR 148; [2006] FMCA 261
[24] [2006] FCA 648
[25] [2008] FCAFC 105
[26] emphasis added
[27] Again, emphasis added
[28] (2000) 168 ALR 407; [2000] HCA 1
[29] See Court Book 284
[30] Court Book 286
[31] Court Book 284
[32] Court Book 286
[33] supra
[34] Court Book 285
[35] Court Book 213
[36] Court Book 285