Quick and Tax Agent's Board of Victoria [2000] AATA 619; (2000) 45 ATR 1009; 2000 ATC 2062 (28 July 2000)

Last Updated: 7 October 2009

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2000] AATA 619

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No V2000/521
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )
Re ALAN RUSSELL QUICK
Applicant
And TAX AGENTS' BOARD OF VICTORIA
Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr B. H. Pascoe, Senior Member

Date 28 July 2000

Place Melbourne
Decision The decision under review is set aside and in its stead the applicant's registration as a tax agent is suspended for twelve months from 14 May 2000 pursuant to section 251K(2)(c) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936.

........(Sgd) B. H. Pascoe...........
Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
TAX AGENT – registration cancelled – theft of refund cheques in 1991 – convicted in March 2000 – whether cancellation appropriate – effect of time between offence and cancellation – whether offences since – whether remorse
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 s. 251K(2)
Re Su and Tax Agents' Board of South Australia 82 ATC 4284

REASONS FOR DECISION

28 July 2000 Mr B. H. Pascoe, Senior Member

1. This is an application for review of a decision of the respondent to cancel the applicant's registration as a tax agent pursuant to section 251K(2) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 ("the Act"). The notice of cancellation was given by letter of 14 April 2000 and to be effective 30 days from the date of that letter, namely 14 May 2000. The letter stated that the applicant's conviction and nature of the offences reflected on his "good fame, integrity and character" and that a person convicted of offences relating to theft was not "fit and proper" to be entrusted with the taxation affairs of taxpayers.
2. At the hearing the applicant was represented by Mr R. Anderson of counsel and the respondent by Ms H. Riley of counsel. Evidence was given by the applicant; two clients of the applicant, Mr H. Blumink and Mr R. Beckley; and a former partner of the applicant, Mr R. Colenso.
3. On 19 July 1999, the applicant, Mr Quick, was charged with two offences. The first was under section 74 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) in respect of an alleged theft in February 1991 of a Reserve Bank of Australia cheque in the amount of $17,986 payable to James Stewart. The second was under section 71(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cwlth) in respect of the alleged fraudulent conversion of property belonging to the Commonwealth, namely a Reserve Bank of Australia cheque in the amount of $65,292.19 payable to Helmut Schoo. At his committal hearing, Mr Quick pleaded guilty to both charges and, on 10 March 2000, was sentenced to eight months imprisonment, wholly suspended for twelve months, on the first offence and to 18 months imprisonment, wholly suspended for two years upon entering into a recognisance of $5,000, on the second offence. The respondent became aware of the pleas of guilty through a newspaper article of 25 February 2000 and obtained a report from the Director of Public Prosecutions dated 14 March 2000. At its meeting on 17 March 2000, the respondent resolved to write to Mr Quick asking him to show cause why his registration should not be cancelled or suspended. At its meeting on 10 April 2000, the respondent considered the applicant's submission of 29 March 2000 together with the remarks of Barnett J when imposing sentence on 10 March 2000 and resolved to cancel the registration.
4. Mr Quick was originally registered as a tax agent in 1970 and that registration was cancelled in 1993 as a result of his bankruptcy. A new registration was applied for and granted for three years from 1 September 1996 after his discharge from bankruptcy. Mr Quick applied for re-registration on 7 July 1999 and such re-registration was granted on 14 September 1999. In July 1996 the respondent was aware that Mr Quick was under investigation by police for alleged theft. However, no details were available and no charges had been laid.
5. Mr Quick is a 53 year old man who is married with two adult children who both work in his accountancy practice. After training with a Melbourne firm of accountants he joined a Geelong firm, GW & BG Thom in 1970 and became a partner on 1 July 1972 with a 20% equity. Mr Quick said that, at that time, some 70% of the firm's revenue was derived from a relationship with a building society which was effectively managed by the firm. In 1973, after the death of a senior partner, Mr Quick acquired a further 2½% equity. In 1985 the building society terminated its arrangement with the firm. The partner who had owned 55% of the equity resigned and Mr Quick, who was then responsible for the normal public accounting area of the practice acquired that interest plus the interest of the other remaining partner. He said that he sought to significantly reduce the purchase price set pursuant to the partnership agreement but was unsuccessful in defending a judgment against him for some $165,000. In 1986, he entered into partnership with a Mr Colenso, a former employee, but this partnership was terminated in March 1988. Mr quick said that he was left with a "burden of debt which was crushing" at a time when profitability of the practice had declined seriously. He was unable to service the mortgage on his home which was then sold in 1990 by the bank with a remaining debt shortfall. He managed, at that time, to avoid bankruptcy. Mr Quick said that he retained the staff after the termination of the partnership in 1988 although recognising that fees and profitability did not justify the number of staff as he was reluctant to leave them jobless in a declining economy.
6. On 10 February 1991 a cheque for $17,986 payable to the Estate of James Stewart was banked to the credit of Mr Quick's trust account. This was, apparently, a refund of provisional tax from the Australian Taxation Office. Mr Quick accepted that this refund was used to pay wages, rent and other practice expenses by cheques drawn on the trust account. He said that, with the demise of the Pyramid Building Society, the practice had very low profitability, clients were not paying their fee bills, he was struggling to stave off bankruptcy and he considered it necessary to keep servicing his clients.
7. On 18 March 1991 another refund cheque of $65,292.19 from the Australian Taxation Office was banked to Mr Quick's trust account. This cheque was payable to a Mr H. Shoo. Apparently, it has never been made clear how this cheque came into existence although every indication is that it was issued in error and a grossly inflated amount related to a refund of Prescribed Payment System credits. Again, the proceeds of this cheque were used to pay office expenses. Mr Quick said that he had assumed that the Taxation Office would seek a return of the money and that he would have to deal with that problem when it arose.
8. Notwithstanding the use of these funds, the existence of which was never made known to the relevant clients, Mr Quick said that his financial position continued to deteriorate. In 1993 he became bankrupt on a petition of the Commissioner of Taxation resulting from the non-payment of group tax instalments. His tax agent registration was cancelled and his membership of the Australian Society of Practising Accountants was suspended as a result of the bankruptcy. Mr Quick said that he became employed as an accountant by a Mr Nicholson during the three years of bankruptcy.
9. Mr Quick said that he was first interviewed by police on 2 August 1996 in relation to the alleged theft of the two cheques. There had been no prior contact by anyone in relation to the matter. At that interview, Mr Quick denied any improper use of the money and made no admissions. He said that the next interview was on 19 July 1999 and he was "shattered" to find that he was being charged with two offences. At that second interview, Mr Quick stated that he had no recollection of receiving the cheque payable to the Estate of the late Mr Stewart and made no admissions relative to the cheque payable to Mr Shoo. However, Mr Quick said that when he saw the police brief of evidence for his committal hearing, he accepted that there was no point in doing anything other than to plead guilty. He said that no attempt at any restitution of the money had been made. He maintained that he had no funds out of which any restitution could be made and that any restitution was unlikely to influence the result of the charges made.
10. Mr Quick said that, while the greater proportion of his fees came from accounting and superannuation work, he did not believe that he could function as a self-employed accountant without a tax agent registration. He maintained that he was employed by Mr Nicholson during his bankruptcy in receipt of a fixed salary. In relation to this, it is noted that, at an earlier hearing of this Tribunal in considering an application by Mr Quick for a stay of the respondent's decision, he said that the arrangement with Mr Nicholson enabled him to retain his client base during his bankruptcy.
11. It was acknowledged by Mr Quick that he had continued to lodge some tax returns after 14 May 2000 notwithstanding the cancellation of his registration. He has not arranged to transfer any clients to another tax agent nor advised his clients of the cancellation of his registration. He said that after being charged with the offences, he called a meeting of clients to inform them of his problem. He could not recall the date of the meeting nor how many attended. He thought approximately 30 clients came and that he had made personal visits to approximately 15 other clients.
12. Mr Quick said that he had been brought up with strict Methodist beliefs and was very sorry that the offences had happened. He was disappointed at the effect of his having let down his family, friends and himself. He maintained that he had never let down a client. Initially, he did not see that the failure to pay the group tax instalments deducted from employees' salaries in 1993 was any different from a failure to pay a telephone or stationery account. Subsequently, in cross-examination, he accepted that group tax deductions were more akin to money held on trust. In answer to a question from the Tribunal, Mr Quick could not recall or explain what system had been in place in 1991 to reconcile the amount in his trust account. He said that it was normal practice to pay clients' refund cheques into his trust account, deduct the fee and pay the balance by cheque to the client on the same day.
13. Mr Blumink said that he was an operator of five taxis and chairman of Geelong Radio Cabs. He had known Mr Quick since 1968 and been a client since 1972. He considered Mr Quick as a man of integrity and has continued using his services. He said that Mr Quick had told him of the charges during a round of golf when both families were holidaying together. He had assumed that the disclosures were made in the context of being asked to be a character witness at the sentencing hearing. He was not aware of the full details of the offences but understood that two cheques were involved, one from the Taxation Office and one from a deceased estate, which had been "lost track of over many years", mislaid and had then "come to light". He had no knowledge of any client meeting and no knowledge of the offences until the day on the golf course. Mr Blumink said that he had been aware of Mr Quick's earlier financial problems and bankruptcy. He said that Mr Quick did not normally discuss his personal affairs and had difficulty communicating his feelings.
14. Mr Beckley is retired after being the managing director of a substantial transport company. He had been a client of Mr Quick since he commenced practice in Geelong. He had known Mr Quick's father and the whole family from much earlier days. He first knew of the offences of 1991 when Mr Quick asked him to be a character witness shortly before the sentencing hearing. He was not aware of any client meeting. He was not aware of the full circumstances of the offences and had not asked nor was offered any explanation. He was not aware of the payee of the cheques but understood that they had been put into the trust account and wrongly used. He had been aware of Mr Quick's financial worries in the late 1980s and early 1990s but not the extent of any problem. He had not had any deep discussion with Mr Quick about his feelings in relation to the offences but believed that he was concerned that they had happened and was "not proud of the fact".
15. Mr Colenso gave evidence of having known Mr Quick since 1972 and of being in partnership with him which was terminated on 31 March 1988. He said that in March 1991, Mr Quick telephoned him seeking his advice regarding a cheque for approximately $65,000 which Mr Quick believed to have been an overpayment. Mr Colenso believed that the call was made as a result of a newspaper article quoting Mr Colenso as identifying a situation in which the Taxation Office were issuing incorrect credits under the Prescribed Payments System. He said that his advice had been to return the cheque with an explanatory letter. Mr Colenso said that, in April 1991, a former employee of Mr Quick said that Mr Quick had misappropriated a refund cheque to a deceased estate in the amount of $17,000 to $18,000. Mr Colenso told the respondent of his suspicions and concerns in May 1991. Mr Colenso purchased the applicant's accounting practice from the Official Receiver in May 1993. Thereafter he discovered records of the trust account showing the two deposits had not been disbursed to clients. He informed the Official Receiver and, later, the National Crime Authority. It is noted that a letter from Victoria Police to the Australian Taxation Office seeking details of the two cheques refers to Geelong CIB having received a complaint in April 1996.
16. In imposing a suspended sentence, Barnett J in the County Court on 10 March 2000, referred to submissions by counsel for Mr Quick that the offences occurred at a moment of personal crisis involving financial difficulties after purchasing the balance of the accounting practice, expensive litigation, the downturn of the Geelong economy after the collapse of Pyramid Building Society, the loss of the family home and subsequent bankruptcy. Counsel had argued that there had been an inordinate delay in bringing the matter to the Court, notwithstanding that regulatory authorities were appraised of the thefts from 1991. His Honour said (at page 6 of the Transcript):

"Mr Bourke pointed out that, during that time, as I have already indicated, you have gone from the depths of your despair and rebuilt for yourself a new life, re-established your practice, been released from bankruptcy, re-registered as a tax agent and it is argued, at this stage, some ten years after the initial theft, it would be harsh and unfair upon you to ask you now, not only to undergo a term of actual imprisonment, but to have a conviction recorded against you. Mr Bourke instances the fact that, in one form or another, for example, the Tax Agent Registration Board being aware of your criminal conduct, both has de-registered and re-registered you, and now if a conviction was imposed, there is every chance that your professional body that regulates the accountancy profession may well take away your professional accreditation and, of course, in taking that course, would be to punish you in a way that you have already been punished, that is, you would fall from grace a second time in relation to the very same facts that caused you to be de-registered and lose your practice in 1991 to 1993 or thereabouts. I accept the thrust of Mr Bourke's remarks that, to interfere at this stage with your ability to practice as an accountant, to interfere with your ability to further your professional career may well, in reality, amount to a form of double jeopardy. However, I have come to the view that is between you and the authorities that regulate your professional affairs."
With the greatest respect to His Honour, it should be noted that the respondent Tax Agents' Board was not aware of Mr Quick's "criminal conduct" prior to February 2000 and did not de-register him in 1991 or 1993 in relation to the facts of the thefts in 1991. In 1991 the respondent was advised of Mr Colenso's suspicions and concerns regarding the $17,986 cheque only. There was no supporting evidence much less a police report or conviction. His registration was required to be cancelled in 1993 under section 251K(3C) of the Act as a consequence of bankruptcy not because of any known or alleged offence. There has been no prior action of the respondent which, when coupled with the cancellation in April 2000, could be regarded as "double jeopardy" in relation to the one offence.
17. It was submitted for the applicant that prior to the offences and subsequently he had been an upright and worthwhile member of the community with no criticism of his professional ability and that the offences, in themselves, did not result in him being not a fit and proper person to be registered as a tax agent. It was said that the two year suspended sentence provided a protection to the community. Mr Anderson argued that Mr Quick had indicated appropriate remorse for his actions although, as a person with some inability to properly confront and convey his feelings, he was not the best advocate in his own defence. It was said that the plea of guilty at the first opportunity was evidence of remorse. The circumstances in which the offences occurred with the financial difficulties in which Mr Quick had found himself, his unpreparedness to dismiss staff, the use of the funds to meet operating expenses and not for personal benefit and the lack of any attempt to disguise the offences were said to be factors which should count in his favour. In particular, the considerable length of time since the offences occurred with no subsequent offences or misconduct was said to be an appropriate consideration indicating that there was no likelihood of repeating the offence.
18. For the respondent it was submitted that the applicant was not a fit and proper person to remain registered. It was said that the offences, involving the misappropriation of trust funds to which Mr Quick knew he had no entitlement, were serious, he had not expressed remorse at his actions, had not attempted or suggested any restitution of the stolen funds, had not cooperated in the police investigation and had pleaded guilty only when it was clear that there was adequate evidence against him. It was submitted that further offences had occurred since the 1991 offences for which Mr Quick was convicted. These were said to be the failure to remit group tax instalment deductions which resulted in bankruptcy in 1993 and the continuation of acting as a tax agent beyond the date of the cancellation of the registration.
19. Section 251K(2) of the Act, so far as it is relevant to this matter, provides:

"251K(2) A Board may suspend or cancel the registration of any tax agent upon being satisfied that:

(a) ...

(b) the tax agent:

(i) has neglected the business of a principal; or

(ii) has been guilty of misconduct as a tax agent; or

(c) ...

(d) if the agent is a natural person – the tax agent is not a fit and proper person to prepare income tax returns and transact business on behalf of taxpayers in income tax matters;

(e) ...

(f) ..."
The wording of the resolution passed by the respondent Board at its meeting of 10 April 2000 and the notice of cancellation sent to the applicant on 14 April indicate that the decision to cancel was pursuant to paragraph (d) of section 251K(2). However, this Tribunal, standing in place of the Board, is not necessarily limited to matters or the specific provision considered by the Board.
20. An oft-quoted description of the term "fit and proper person" in the context of section 251K(2) is that of Davies J sitting as the Tribunal in Re Su and the Tax Agents' Board of South Australia 82 ATC 4282, where His Honour said (at pages 4286-4287):

"The function of a tax agent is to prepare and lodge income tax returns for other persons. A person is a fit and proper person to handle the affairs of a client if he is a person of good reputation, has a proper knowledge of taxation laws, is able to prepare income tax returns competently and is able to deal competently with any queries which may be raised by officers of the Taxation Department. He should be a person of such competence and integrity that others may entrust their taxation affairs to his care. He should be a person of such reputation and ability that officers of the Taxation Department may proceed upon the footing that the taxation returns lodged by the agent have been prepared by him honestly and competently.

There are certain convictions which, in themselves, may be inconsistent with the holding of a tax agent's registration. If a lawyer is convicted of fraud, his name may be struck from the roll of practitioners, for fraud is inconsistent with the practice of the law. If a doctor is convicted of a serious offence relating to illegal drugs, his name may be struck from the register because the offence is inconsistent with the task which medical practitioners perform. If a tax agent is convicted of an offence of tax evasion, his name may be taken from the register, for tax evasion is inconsistent with the role which tax agents are called upon to perform.

If offences for which a tax agent is convicted are not of that character, they may nevertheless justify the removal of his name from the register if, of themselves, or in combination with other factors, they indicate that the tax agent is not a person of such integrity and competence that client's affairs should be entrusted to him or that he is not of such integrity and competence that officers of the Taxation Department may place reliance upon returns prepared and lodged by him."
21. In this case, I have no doubt that the offences committed by Mr Quick were such that, at the time of their commission and for a period thereafter he was not a fit and proper person to be registered as a tax agent. In one sense, the theft of the first cheque for $17,986 could be seen as a more reprehensible offence than the fraudulent conversion of the second. This money rightfully belonged to, and Mr Quick knew that it belonged to, a deceased estate and its beneficiaries. It can be presumed that neither the executor or the beneficiaries knew of the entitlement to a refund which allowed Mr Quick to appropriate the funds to meet expenses of his own for which he was liable. It was a clear case of stealing money held in trust for clients. The second cheque for $65,292.19 was in a somewhat different category. It appeared to have been issued in error by the Taxation Office and was not money belonging to or expected by a client. The how and why have never been explained but it would seem that the error was not recognised by the Taxation Office and, consequently, no person or authority was likely to seek to recover the funds. Nevertheless, it was not money to which Mr Quick had any entitlement, it is clear that he was aware of that and simply saw an opportunity to, again, meet his expenses. The only basis on which it could be possible to believe that Mr Quick was not fully aware of the misappropriation of this significant amount of money is that he was a completely incompetent accountant. He stated that it was normal practice for him to bank a client's refund cheque to his trust account, deduct his professional fees and, on the same day, send a cheque for the balance to the client. Any moderately competent accountant would at regular intervals, reconcile the balance of such trust account and identify any amount which had not been dealt with appropriately. A tax agent who can, without apparent concern at the time, misappropriate trust funds belonging to clients or the Taxation Office can hardly be described as a fit and proper person to transact business on behalf of taxpayers. The clear impression of the facts in 1991 is that, if Mr Quick has financial problems and money belonging to someone else is available for use without the rightful owner being aware, he will readily use such money for his own purpose. As such, if the facts of this case had been known by the respondent and/or this Tribunal in 1991 or soon after, I have no doubt that a cancellation under section 251K(2)(c) would have been clearly appropriate.
22. The difficulty with this case is that the facts were not known to the respondent until some nine years later. Consequently, the decision now facing this Tribunal is somewhat akin to a decision which would be faced if, having appropriately cancelled the registration of Mr Quick in, say, 1993, he was now applying for re-registration having served his conviction and arguing a clean and clear record since the offences. A question which might be asked is how long is long enough before a person can recommence their profession after serving a period of cancellation. For the respondent it was argued that the protection of the community is of significant importance and it is necessary to consider whether there were special circumstances in relation to the offence and whether the person is clearly remorseful about the commission of the offence so that it is unlikely that he will ever re-offend.
23. It has to be said that Mr Quick spoke of regret, disappointment and concern that the offences had occurred and the effect of the conviction on himself and his family. In neither the answer to a show cause letter from the respondent, his response to questions put to him by the Investigation Committee of the Australian Society of Practising Accountants, his evidence before this Tribunal at the stay application hearing nor at this hearing did Mr Quick appear to express sincere remorse at a dishonest action. During his cross-examination at this hearing, Ms Riley in dealing with an objection by Mr Anderson, explained why she was seeking a clear expression of remorse. Notwithstanding that, by this, the words were effectively framed for use by Mr Quick, he was unable to use them. Perhaps this could be explained by his inability to express feelings clearly, as submitted by Mr Anderson, but he certainly left the impression that it was regret, disappointment and concern felt on being found out and penalised. He did not believe that he had "fallen from grace".
24. It is not clear what was expected to be accomplished by having the two character witnesses, Mr Blumink and Mr Beckley, give evidence. Both were old friends of Mr Quick. Neither had any real understanding of the facts of the offence. Neither were aware of the commission of the offences until very shortly before the sentencing hearing and, clearly, were made aware of the offences in order that they could be asked to provide character evidence. Notwithstanding that they were prominent citizens and, presumably, important clients, they knew nothing of any meeting said to have been called by Mr Quick to explain his arrest to his clients nor were they one of those major clients whom Mr Quick said he visited personally. Neither was in any position to give evidence of remorse by Mr Quick. In relation to the alleged meeting with clients, it is with some concern that I note that Mr Quick was unable to recall the date or how many were invited or attended. It would have been expected that an open admission to his clients and their subsequent preparedness to continue using his services would have been seen by Mr Quick as a significant event and clearly imprinted on his memory supported by some tangible evidence of such a meeting.
25. Much was made of the long delay between the commission of the offences, the investigation by police and the subsequent charges and sentencing. I note the remarks of Barnett J and the fact that charges were not laid until some three years after the first interview. However, it must be said also that Mr Quick contributed directly to this long delay. As an honest upright accountant that he sought to demonstrate, he could have significantly shortened the time by acknowledging his misappropriation at a much earlier stage. Instead he continued to deny any wrongdoing until presented with the prosecution brief prior to the committal hearing. He has never acknowledged any liability towards those whose funds he misappropriated nor contemplated any restitution. He excuses this by saying that no demand has ever been made and "you can't get blood out of a stone". Nevertheless, he says that he has a viable ongoing practice supporting himself and staff.
26. It was put that Mr Quick has only that one blemish against his name which occurred nine years ago. However, there are three events which lead to questions. In 1993 Mr Quick became bankrupt primarily as a result of failure to remit group tax deductions from employees' salaries. In the absence of the bankruptcy, it is likely that the respondent would have considered whether suspension or cancellation was appropriate in consequence of that failure. In Re Su (supra) one of the offences seen as warranting cancellation was such a failure to account for moneys held from salaries of employees. In the evidence given at the stay hearing, Mr Quick gave a clear indication that "to get around the provisions of bankruptcy that one cannot be self-employed" he entered into an arrangement with Mr Nicholson which enabled him to continue practising. While the evidence is not such to enable a finding that he continued to practice as a tax agent without being registered, there is a clear concern about the validity of the alleged employment by Mr Nicholson. The third event is the admission by Mr Quick that he contravened section 251L and/or section 251O of the Act by continuing to lodge returns after the date of cancellation of his registration. The letter of advice dated 14 April 2000 gave him a period of 30 days before the cancellation would be effective providing "the opportunity to organise your business affairs and to lodge 'work in progress' tax returns prior to cancellation". The letter advised of the existence and penalties of section 251L and 251O for continuing beyond 14 May 2000. In his evidence, Mr Quick appeared to be somewhat unconcerned in his admission that he had unilaterally extended that 30 day period of grace and continued to lodge returns after 14 May. He thought that there were four or five returns. He has taken no action to advise clients that he is no longer registered nor sought to transfer his clients or practice to another practitioner. He gives the impression of having every confidence of being allowed to continue in practice.
27. As indicated earlier, the major problem with this case is the fact that the penalty imposed by the respondent was imposed some nine years after commission of offences which, in my view, would clearly justify cancellation of the tax agent registration. Whether such penalty is appropriate so long after and on top of convictions imposed by the Court is the dilemma. Given the seriousness of the offences, the question of whether Mr Quick does feel sincere remorse for his actions and his somewhat cavalier disregard for the date of the present cancellation, some penalty is appropriate. A cancellation of registration leaves open the question of when it would be appropriate to allow him to re-apply for registration in the future. Consequently, the decision to cancel the registration is set aside and in its stead the Tribunal determines to suspend the registration of Mr Quick for twelve months. Such suspension is to take effect from 14 May 2000. It should be unnecessary to remind Mr Quick of the consequences of continuing to practice while suspended.

I certify that the twenty-seven (27) preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of

Mr B. H. Pascoe, Senior Member

Signed: .....................................................................................

Personal Assistant

Date/s of Hearing 12 July 2000

Date of Decision 28 July 2000

Counsel for the Applicant Mr R. Anderson

Solicitor for the Applicant Ms M. Diamond

Counsel for the Respondent Ms H. Riley

Solicitor for the Respondent Australian Government Solicitor