an age of uncertainty - humanrights.gov.au

AU

ST

RA

LIA

N H

UM

AN

RIG

HT

S C

OM

MIS

SIO

N A

n A

ge

of

un

ce

rtA

int

y • 2012

An age of

uncertaintyInquIry Into the treatment of

IndIvIduals suspected of people smugglIng offences who say that they

are chIldren • 2012

Australian Human Rights Commissionwww.humanrights.gov.au

An age of uncertaintyInquiry into the treatment of individuals suspected of people smuggling offences who say that they are children

July 2012

© Australian Human Rights Commission 2012

ISBN 978-1-921449-28-4

This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Australian Human Rights Commission. Requests and enquiries concerning reproduction, rights and content should be addressed to:

Australian Human Rights Commission GPO Box 5218 Sydney NSW 2001

TitleThe Commission acknowledges that The Age of Uncertainty is the title of a 1977 book by John Kenneth Galbraith. The Commission also acknowledges that Network Ten journalist Hamish Macdonald’s report regarding Ali Jasmin published on 16 April 2012 in The Global Mail was entitled ‘An age of uncertainty’.

Design and Layout The Aqua Agency

Printing Breakout Media Communications

The Hon Nicola Roxon MP Attorney-General Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600

Dear Attorney

I am pleased to present An age of uncertainty, the Commission’s report of the Inquiry into the treatment of individuals suspected of people smuggling offences who say that they are children.

The report is furnished to you under Part II of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth). It is therefore subject to the tabling requirements in section 46 of that Act.

Yours sincerely

Catherine Branson President

July 2012

Australian

Human Rights

Commission

ABN 47 996 232 602

Level 3

175 Pitt Street

Sydney NSW 2000

GPO Box 5218

Sydney NSW 2001

General enquiries

Complaints infoline

TTY

www.humanrights.gov.au

1300 369 711

1300 656 419

1800 620 241

President

The Hon Catherine Branson QC

Table of contents

Foreword ................................................................................................................................... 1

Glossary of terms ....................................................................................................................... 5

Executive summary .................................................................................................................... 7

Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 12

___________________________________________________________________

Chapter 1: Introduction and background .................................................................................. 15

Chapter 2: Biomedical markers and the assessment of chronological age ................................ 49

Chapter 3: The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of biomedical markers for age assessment purposes ................................................................................. 93

Chapter 4: The use of wrist x-ray analysis ............................................................................... 161

Chapter 5: Focused age assessment interviews ..................................................................... 233

Chapter 6: Age enquiries in Indonesia ..................................................................................... 257

Chapter 7: Some further aspects of the treatment of the young Indonesians .......................... 287

Chapter 8: Findings and recommendations ............................................................................ 325

___________________________________________________________________

Appendix 1: Case studies ....................................................................................................... 339

Appendix 2: Individuals of concern to the Inquiry .................................................................... 377

Appendix 3: Submissions ....................................................................................................... 389

Appendix 4: Hearings and visits .............................................................................................. 393

Appendix 5: The use of statistical evidence ............................................................................. 395

Appendix 6: Responses to Inquiry report – Attorney-General’s Department, Australian Federal Police and Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions .................... 405

Appendix 7: Acknowledgments .............................................................................................. 429

1An age of uncertainty

Foreword

This report makes disturbing reading. It documents numerous breaches by Australia of both the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As a nation that is understandably anxious that the rights of our own children should be respected when they come into contact with the authorities of other countries, it is troubling that between late 2008 and late 2011 Australian authorities apparently gave little weight to the rights of this cohort of young Indonesians.

The events outlined in this report reveal that, in the above period, each of the Australian Federal Police, the Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General’s Department engaged in acts and practices that led to contraventions of fundamental rights; not just rights recognised under international human rights law but in some cases rights also recognised at common law, such as the right to a fair trial. It seems likely that some of those acts and practices are best understood in the context of heavy workloads, difficulties of investigation and limited resources. Others, however, seem best explained by insufficient resilience in the face of political and public pressure to ‘take people smuggling seriously’; a pressure which seems to have contributed to a high level of scepticism about statements made by young crew on the boats carrying asylum seekers to Australia that they were under the age of 18 years.

Support for this conclusion is perhaps most obviously found in the authorities’ failure for a significant period of time seriously to question practices and procedures that led to young Indonesians who said that they were children being held in detention in Australia for long periods of time.

• The average period of time spent in detention by a young Indonesian crew member whose wrist was x-rayed but who was not charged with any offence was 5.4 months – with the longest period that an individual in this class was held being 9.8 months.

• The average period of time spent in detention by a young Indonesian crew member whose wrist was x-rayed but whose prosecution for people smuggling was eventually discontinued, in most cases because it was doubted that the Commonwealth could prove that he was over the age of 18 years when apprehended, was 14.4 months (of which an average of 6.6 months was spent in an adult correctional facility). The longest period that an individual in this class was held was just over two years, of which over 21 months were spent in an adult correctional facility.

2

These are periods of detention that Australian authorities would ordinarily consider quite unacceptable for children – or for young people who might be children – who had not been convicted of any offence.

Fifteen young Indonesian crew members were ultimately released on licence because there was doubt about whether they were adults at the time of their apprehension. The average period of their detention was 31.6 months, of which 28.8 months were spent in adult correctional facilities. The longest period that an individual in this class was held was 34 months, of which 32.6 months were spent in an adult correctional facility. Each of these young Indonesians had been sentenced to a mandatory term of imprisonment applicable only to an adult.

It is plain that Australian authorities were until recently reluctant to question whether wrist x-ray analysis provides a sound basis for a determination that a young person is over the age of 18 years – notwithstanding the growing, and eventually compelling, evidence that it does not. It is difficult to judge whether this is further evidence of a high level of scepticism about claims to be under the age of 18 years or evidence simply of a strong desire for a scientific means of establishing chronological age – or perhaps both.

This reluctance to question the usefulness of wrist x-rays for the purpose for which they were being used is most clearly seen in the continued reliance by the AFP and the CDPP on a particular radiologist who used this technique – notwithstanding that each of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists; the Australian and New Zealand Society for Paediatric Radiology; the Australasian Paediatric Endocrine Group; and the Division of Paediatrics, Royal Australasian College of Physicians had expressed the view that the technique was unreliable and untrustworthy.

An unwillingness to question this inherently flawed technique can equally clearly be seen in the failure of the Office of the CDPP to identify that it was under a duty to examine whether it could continue to maintain confidence in the integrity of the evidence being given by the radiologist engaged by the AFP, and under an obligation to disclose to the defence the material in its possession that tended to undermine his evidence.

The same unwillingness is apparent in the failure by AGD to review the contemporary literature which critically examined the technique; to seek independent expert advice to assist its understanding of that literature; and thereafter to provide informed and frank policy advice to the Attorney General – including advice concerning the risk that reliance on the technique had led, and would continue to lead, to children wrongly being identified as adults.


The dogged reliance on wrist x-ray analysis as evidence of maturity appears for a significant period of time to have contributed to inadequate efforts being made to obtain documentary evidence of age from Indonesia and to the giving of limited, if any, weight to such evidence when assessments were made of the ages of the young Indonesians. Furthermore, that reliance appears to provide at least part of the explanation for the results of focused age assessment interviews conducted in late 2010 being disregarded.

The result of reliance on wrist x-ray analysis, together with inadequate reliance on other age assessment processes, was the prolonged detention, including in adult correctional facilities, of young Indonesians who it is now accepted were, or were likely to have been, children at the time of their apprehension.

I recognise that in late 2011 Commonwealth agencies stopped relying on wrist x-ray analysis where there was no other probative evidence of age; made increased efforts to obtain documentary evidence of age from Indonesia and modified their opposition to weight being given to evidence from Indonesia. At the same time, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship commenced to conduct focused age interviews with young Indonesian crew members who said that they were children and now only refers for criminal investigation those who are assessed by this process to be adults. These factors have led to a significantly improved approach to the assessment of whether young Indonesians suspected of people smuggling are older than 18 years of age – one which is less likely to lead to errors and therefore less likely to result in breaches of the rights of children.

Moreover, on 2 May 2012, the Attorney-General announced that a review would be conducted by AGD of the cases of 22 individuals identified by the Commission and the Indonesian Embassy as having been convicted of people smuggling offences in circumstances where substantial reliance had been placed on wrist x-ray evidence, or where age was raised as an issue but ultimately not pursued. The review involved further collaboration between the Commonwealth agencies, as well as the AFP’s engaging with the Indonesian National Police to seek verified age documents from Indonesia, and DIAC conducting age assessment interviews in order to assess retrospectively the ages of crew at their time of arrival in Australia. During the course of the review, its ambit was extended to include the re-examination of the cases of a further six individuals. The outcome of the review was announced on 29 June 2012. Of the 28 crew whose cases were re-examined as part of the review, 15 individuals were released early on license on the basis that there was a reasonable doubt that they were over 18 years of age at the time they were apprehended; a further two individuals were released early on parole; three crew completed their non-parole periods prior to the commencement of the review; and eight crew were assessed as likely to have been adults at the time they were apprehended.

4

The recommendations of this report are intended to assist in creating a lasting environment in which the rights of young Indonesians suspected of people smuggling are respected and protected in every interaction they have with Australian authorities.

It is my hope that this Inquiry will additionally lead to mature reflection on the strengths and weaknesses of our criminal justice system more generally. The Inquiry has revealed that this system may be insufficiently robust to ensure that the human rights of everyone suspected of a criminal offence are respected and protected.

To this end, I urge all of the agencies involved to give consideration to how the human rights of this cohort of young Indonesians came to be breached in the ways outlined in this report. Careful consideration should also be given to the steps that need to be taken to ensure that in the future Australia does respect the human rights of all who comes into contact with our system of criminal justice.

Catherine Branson QC


Glossary of terms

Abbreviation Term

AFP Australian Federal Police

AGD Attorney-General’s Department

ALARA As Low As Reasonably Achievable

ARPANSA Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency

CDPP Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

CJSC Criminal Justice Stay Certificate

CJSV Criminal Justice Stay Visa

CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child

DFAT Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

DIAC Department of Immigration and Citizenship

DOB Date of birth

IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency

ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

INP Indonesian National Police

MOB Ministers’ Office Brief

MRI Magnetic resonance imaging

NTLAC Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission

OIL Office of International Law, Attorney-General’s Department

OPG OrthoPantomoGraphic x-ray

6

QTB Question Time Brief

RANZCR Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists

SIEV Suspected Irregular Entry Vessel

UAM Unaccompanied minor

UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

VLA Victoria Legal Aid


Executive summary

This Inquiry is concerned with the human rights of children.

Between late 2008 and late 2011, 180 young Indonesians who said that they were children arrived in Australia having worked as crew on boats bringing asylum seekers to Australia.

In some cases, it was apparent that the young people were children and they were returned to Indonesia.

However, in many cases the young Indonesians were not given the benefit of the doubt and treated as children until it was established that they were in fact adults. Instead, in most cases until mid-2011, Australian authorities assessed whether they were adults by relying on wrist x-ray analysis.

Where wrist x-ray analysis suggested that a young Indonesian was skeletally immature and therefore likely to be a child, he was ordinarily returned to Indonesian (although in some cases only after a prolonged period of immigration detention).

However, in most cases where wrist x-ray analysis suggested that a young Indonesian was skeletally mature, Australian authorities immediately treated him as an adult, even if other age assessment processes suggested that he might be a child. The consequences for young Indonesians assessed to be skeletally mature included prolonged periods of detention.

We know now that many young Indonesians assessed to be adults on the basis of wrist x-ray analysis were in fact children at the time of their apprehension, or are very likely to have been children at that time.

It is now beyond question that wrist x-ray analysis has been discredited as a means of assessing whether an individual is an adult. A mature wrist is not informative of whether a person is over the age of 18 years. Having a mature wrist is quite consistent with a person being under the age of 18 years.

The consequence of reliance on wrist x-ray analysis to assess age, combined with a reluctance to rely on the outcomes of focused age assessment interviews, inadequate efforts to seek documentary evidence of age from Indonesia and, until mid-2011, opposition to the admission of documentary evidence from Indonesia in age determination proceedings, was that errors were made in the age assessment of young Indonesians suspected of people smuggling.

This led to the prolonged detention of some individuals likely to have been children in immigration detention facilities and, in many cases, thereafter in adult correctional facilities. For example, the

8

48 individuals who were charged as adults after their wrist were x-rayed, but ultimately had the prosecutions against them discontinued, spent an average of 431 days in detention, of which on average 199 days, or well over six months, were spent in adult correctional facilities. Many of these individuals are likely to have been children at the time of their apprehension.

In 15 cases where young Indonesians were convicted, it was eventually established by the Australian authorities that there was doubt about whether the individuals were adults at the time of their apprehension. These young Indonesians were released on licence, having spent on average 948 days in detention, of which on average 864 days, or well over two years, were spent in adult correctional facilities.

The approach to the age assessment of young Indonesians suspected of people smuggling has now changed. Since July 2011, only one individual has had his wrist x-rayed. In late 2011, the Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Office of the CDPP) stopped relying on wrist x-ray analysis as evidence of age where there was no other probative evidence of age. In December 2011, a new process commenced whereby the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) conducts focused age assessment interviews with all individuals whose age is in doubt and only refers to the Australian Federal Police (AFP) those individuals who it concludes are likely to be adults.

These are welcome developments. However, they came too late for the many young Indonesians who were not given the benefit of the doubt, whose ages were incorrectly assessed, and who consequently experienced significant breaches of their rights. Australia has committed to respect, protect and promote the rights of all children within its jurisdiction. This report demonstrates, that in many cases the rights of young Indonesians suspected of people smuggling who said that they were children were inadequately protected.

1 Major findings

The specific findings with regard to each of the issues considered during this Inquiry are detailed at the end of each chapter. Chapter 8 then draws on each set of specific findings to assess whether the system of treatment of the young Indonesians suspected of people smuggling who said that they were children breached Australia’s international human rights obligations.

The key specific findings of this Inquiry about age assessment techniques can be summarised as follows:

• wrist x-ray analysis is not informative of whether an individual is over 18 years of age

• dental x-ray analysis is not sufficiently informative of whether an individual is over 18 years of age for use in criminal proceedings


• any use of radiation for age assessment purposes should first be justified as required by internationally accepted standards

• there is no known biomedical marker which is sufficiently informative of age to be used with confidence in the context of a criminal proceeding

• there is no evidence that a multi-disciplinary approach to age assessment is more accurate than medical or non-medical approaches alone; consequently, if a multidisciplinary approach is used, a wide margin of benefit of the doubt should be afforded to individuals whose age is being assessed

• focused age interviews, if conducted appropriately, and if they afford a wide margin of the benefit of the doubt to individuals who say that they are children, are able to provide valuable information about an individual’s age.

The key specific findings of this Inquiry about the conduct of Commonwealth agencies are as follows:

• the Office of the CDPP should not have maintained confidence in the Commonwealth’s key expert witness, and should have ceased adducing wrist x-ray analysis as evidence that an individual was over the age of 18 years, at least by mid-2011 and possibly earlier

• the Office of the CDPP should have disclosed to defence counsel material of which it was aware that called into question the evidence of the Commonwealth’s key expert witness

• the AFP were aware of material that called into question reliance on wrist x-ray analysis as evidence that an individual was over the age of 18 years yet continued to use the procedure as a means of age assessment

• the AGD was aware of material that called into question reliance on wrist x-ray analysis as evidence that an individual was over the age of 18 years; however it continued to support the use of the procedure and did not provide the Attorney-General with a précis of the literature critical of the use of wrist x-ray analysis for this purpose

• in many cases the benefit of the doubt was not afforded to young Indonesians suspected of people smuggling – uniformly, a person assessed by wrist x-ray analysis to be skeletally mature was charged as an adult even when he said that he was a child

• in many cases, individuals arrested and charged as adults on the basis of wrist x-ray evidence ultimately had their prosecutions discontinued, but only after they had spent very long periods of time in detention

• some individuals were charged as adults despite the report on the analysis of their wrist x-ray being inconclusive as to whether they were an adult

10

• wrist x-ray analysis was relied upon as evidence of age despite alternative age assessment procedures, for example DIAC focused age assessment interviews, finding it likely that the individual was under 18 years of age

• in many cases it appears that the required consents for a wrist x-ray to be taken were not properly obtained in many cases inadequate efforts were made by the AFP to obtain from Indonesia age related information regarding young Indonesians suspected of people smuggling

• many young Indonesians who it is now accepted were likely to have been children at the time of their apprehension spent prolonged periods of time in immigration detention or in adult correctional facilities

• prolonged detention in adult correctional facilities was partly a consequence of the Commonwealth policy, until mid-June 2011, to oppose applications for bail made by individuals charged with people smuggling offences

• no steps were taken to ensure that young Indonesians suspected of people smuggling had a guardian in Australia.

The Commission recognises that steps were taken to ensure that young Indonesians suspected of people smuggling were generally offered an opportunity to speak with a lawyer prior to providing consent to a wrist x-ray or prior to making a decision to participate in an interview with the AFP.

Based on these findings, the Commission has concluded that the Australian Government failed to respect the rights of children. Specifically, the Australian Government failed to ensure:

• that the principle of the benefit of the doubt was afforded in all cases where an individual said that he was a child

• that the best interests of children were always a primary consideration

• that the detention of children was always a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time

• that children deprived of their liberty were separated from adults

• respect for the rights of children alleged to have committed an offence

• respect for the rights of children who were separated from their families.

These findings are explored in detail in Chapter 8.


2 Report overview

The structure of this report is as follows:

Chapter 1 provides a short background to the Inquiry and information about the way in which the Inquiry was conducted.

Chapter 2 considers the use of wrist x-ray analysis as a means of assessing age, and whether it is sufficiently informative of whether a young person has attained 18 years of age to be relied on in a criminal proceeding. It also considers whether it is appropriate to use dental x-ray analysis for that purpose. Finally, it gives brief consideration to the analysis of other biomedical markers for the purpose of assessing age in criminal proceedings.

Chapter 3 considers the Commonwealth’s approach to the use of wrist x-ray analysis to assess age. It adopts a chronological approach and examines what each relevant Commonwealth agency knew, or should have known, at particular times about the value of analysis of biomedical markers for the purpose of establishing whether an individual has attained 18 years of age.

Chapter 4 sets out some of the Commonwealth’s practices regarding the use of wrist x-ray analysis as a means of assessing chronological age in the context of a criminal prosecution. It highlights where those practices were contrary to stated Australian Government policy and circumstances where the use of wrist x-ray analysis as a means of assessing age resulted in individuals who may have been children spending long periods of time in detention, including in adult correctional facilities.

Whether focused age assessment interviews and requests for documentary evidence from an individual’s country of origin are appropriate processes for assessing age are discussed in Chapters 5 and 6 respectively. These chapters also consider the Commonwealth’s practices regarding the use of these processes with respect to young Indonesians suspected of people smuggling.

Chapter 7 discusses some further aspects of the treatment of individuals suspected of people smuggling offences who said that they were children, including the length of time for which they were detained, their place of detention, their access to legal advice and assistance and the issue of guardianship.

Finally, Chapter 8 sets out the Inquiry’s major findings and recommendations. It considers whether the human rights set out in the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights have been breached through the treatment of individuals suspected of people smuggling who have said that they were children at the time of their alleged offence.

12

Recommendations

Recommendation 1: The Migration Act 1958 (Cth), and if appropriate the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), should be amended to make clear that for the purposes of Part 2, Division 12, Subdivision A of the Migration Act, an individual who claims to be under the age of 18 years must be deemed to be a minor unless the relevant decision-maker is positively satisfied, or in the case of a judicial decision-maker, satisfied on the balance of probabilities after taking into account the matters identified in s 140(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), that the individual is over the age of 18 years.

Recommendation 2: An individual suspected of people smuggling who says that he is a child, and who is not manifestly an adult, should be provided with an independent guardian with responsibility for advocating for the protection of his best interests.

Recommendation 3: No procedure which involves human imaging using radiation should be specified as a prescribed procedure for the purposes of s 3ZQA(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), or remain a prescribed procedure for that purpose, without a justification of the procedure being undertaken in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs 3.18, 3.61–3.64 and 3.66 of the International Atomic Energy Agency Safety Standard: Radiation Protection and Safety of Radiation Sources: International Basic Safety Standards – Interim Edition (General Safety Requirements: Part 3) or any later edition of these requirements. Such justification should take into account contemporary understanding of the extent to which the procedure is informative of chronological age.

Recommendation 4: The Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and, if appropriate, the Crimes Regulations 1990 (Cth), or alternatively the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), should be amended to ensure that expert evidence which is wholly or substantially based on the analysis of a wrist x-ray is not admissible in a legal proceeding as proof, or as evidence tending to prove, that the subject of the wrist x-ray is over the age of 18 years.

Recommendation 5: Imaging of an individual’s dentition using radiation (dental x-ray) should not be specified for the purposes of s 3ZQA(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) as a prescribed procedure for the determination of age

Recommendation 6: Imaging of an individual’s clavicle using radiation (clavicle x-ray) should not be specified for the purposes of s 3ZQA(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) as a prescribed procedure for the determination of age.

Recommendation 7: If any forensic procedure is specified as a prescribed procedure for the purpose of age determination within the meaning of s 3ZQA(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), Part IAA Division 4A consideration should be given to amending the Crimes Act to provide that such a


procedure may only be undertaken in the circumstances in which a forensic procedure within the meaning of s 23WA of the Crimes Act may be undertaken with respect to a child.

Recommendation 8: Unless and until recommendation 9 is implemented, the Commissioner of Federal Police should ensure that all Federal Agents are aware of their obligations when acting as an ‘investigating official’ in reliance on s 3ZQC of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and should further ensure that protocols or guidelines are put in place to ensure that these obligations are met. Specifically, an investigating official should be aware that the role of any independent adult person is to represent the interests of the person in respect of whom the prescribed procedure is to be carried out and that he or she should be so advised.

Recommendation 9: Where it is necessary for an investigating official within the meaning of s 3ZQB(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), who suspects that a person may have committed a Commonwealth offence, to determine whether a person is, or was at the time of the alleged commission of an offence, under the age of 18 years, the investigating official should seek the consent of the person to participate in an age assessment interview.

Where reasonably possible, the interviewer should speak the language ordinarily spoken by the person whose age is to be assessed and should be familiar with the culture of the place from which the person comes. The interviewer, who ideally should be independent of the Commonwealth, should be instructed that he or she should only make an assessment that the person is over the age of 18 years if positively satisfied that this is the case after allowing for the difficulty of assessing age by interview.

All interviewers should be trained, should follow an established procedure and should record their interviews. Their conclusions and the reasons for their conclusions should be documented.

Recommendation 10: Any individual suspected of people smuggling who says that he is a child and who is not manifestly an adult should be offered access to legal advice prior to participating in any age assessment interview intended to be relied on in a legal proceeding.

Recommendation 11: If a decision is made to investigate or prosecute an individual suspected of people smuggling who does not admit that he was over the age of 18 years at the date of the offence of which he is suspected, immediate efforts should be made to obtain documentary evidence of age from his country of origin.

Recommendation 12: The Attorney-General should set and ensure the implementation of an appropriate time limit between the apprehension of a young person suspected of people smuggling who does not admit to being over the age of 18 years and the bringing of a charge or charges against him. The Attorney-General should further consult with the Commonwealth

14

Director of Public Prosecutions concerning procedures put in place by the Director to ensure the expeditious trial of any young person who does not admit to being over the age of 18 years and who is charged with a Commonwealth offence. Should the Attorney-General not be satisfied that appropriate procedures have been put in place by the Director, the Attorney-General should issue guidelines on this topic under s 8 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 (Cth).

Recommendation 13: The Commonwealth should only in exceptional circumstances, and after bringing those circumstances to the attention of the decision-maker, oppose bail where a person who claims to be a minor, and is not manifestly an adult, has been charged with people smuggling. Where a person who claims to be a minor, and is not manifestly an adult, has been charged with people smuggling and granted bail, he should be held in appropriate community detention in in the vicinity of his trial court. The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship’s guidelines for the administration of his residence determination powers should be amended so that such cases can be brought to the Minister’s immediate attention.

Recommendation 14: The Attorney-General should consult with the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions concerning procedures put in place by the Director to ensure that the Commonwealth does not adduce expert evidence in legal proceedings where the acceptance by the court of that evidence would be inconsistent with the accused person’s receiving a fair trial. Should the Attorney-General not be satisfied that appropriate procedures have been put in place by the Director, the Attorney-General should seek advice from an appropriately qualified judicial officer or former judicial officer as to the terms of guidelines on this topic that it would be appropriate for her to furnish to the Director under s 8 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 (Cth).

Recommendation 15: The Attorney-General’s Department should establish and maintain a process whereby there is regular and frequent review of the continuing need for each Criminal Justice Stay Certificate given by the Attorney-General or his or her delegate. The Attorney-General’s Department should additionally ensure that a Criminal Justice Stay Certificate is cancelled as promptly as compliance with s 162(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) allows when it is no longer required for the purpose for which it was given.

Recommendation 16: If, at any time, the Commonwealth becomes aware of information that indicates that an individual suspected of people smuggling whose age is in doubt may have been trafficked, he should be treated as a victim of crime and provided with appropriate support.

Recommendation 17: The Australian Government should remove Australia’s reservation to article 37(c) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.


Chapter 1:

Introduction and background

16

Chapter 1: Introduction and background

Chapter contents

1 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 18

1.1 TheCommission’spowertoholdanInquiry.............................................................. 20

1.2 TheInquirytermsofreference................................................................................... 21

1.3 TheInquirytimeperiod.............................................................................................. 22

1.4 Terminology............................................................................................................... 22

2 Methodology..................................................................................................................... 22

2.1 EvidenceproducedpursuanttoNotices.................................................................... 23

2.2 Publicsubmissions.................................................................................................... 24

2.3 Publichearings.......................................................................................................... 25

(a) Publichearingforkeymedicalexperts–9March2012....................................... 25

(b) PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies–19–20April2012......................... 25

2.4 Interviewswithindividualsconvictedofpeoplesmugglingoffenceswhosaidthattheywereunder18atthetimetheywereapprehended.............................. 26

2.5 ConfidentialityofmaterialprovidedtotheCommission.............................................. 27

3 Peoplesmugglingoffencesandageassessment............................................................... 27

3.1 Thecrimeofpeoplesmuggling.................................................................................. 27

3.2 Thesignificanceoftheageofapersonsuspectedofapeoplesmugglingoffence...................................................................................................................... 28

3.3 Thelegalframeworkthatgovernsageassessmentincriminalproceedings............... 29

4 AgeassessmentprocessesemployedinAustralia............................................................. 29

5 ThepeoplewhoarethesubjectofthisInquiry................................................................... 30

5.1 Whereindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingcomefrom................................... 30

5.2 Thenumberofindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingoffenceswhohavesaidthattheyarechildren................................................................................. 32

5.3 AnoutlineoftheexperienceinAustraliaofindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingoffenceswhosaytheyarechildren........................................................... 32

(a) Apprehension...................................................................................................... 32

(b) Immigrationdetention.......................................................................................... 33

(c) Investigation........................................................................................................ 33


(d) Charge................................................................................................................ 33

(e) Imprisonment...................................................................................................... 34

(f) Prosecution......................................................................................................... 34

6 Australia’shumanrightsobligations................................................................................... 35

6.1 Theprincipleofthebenefitofthedoubt.................................................................... 36

6.2 Thebestinterestsofthechildasaprimaryconsideration.......................................... 37

6.3 Incorrectageassessmentmayleadtosignificanthumanrightsbreaches.................. 38

(a) Therighttolibertyandtherightsofchildrendeprivedoftheirliberty.................... 38

(b) Therightsofchildrenallegedtohavecommittedanoffence................................ 41

(c) Therightsofchildrentobeprotectedfromallformsofphysicalormentalviolence............................................................................................................... 42

(d) Therightsofachildseparatedfromhisfamily..................................................... 42

(e) Therightofthechildtobeheard......................................................................... 43

18


1 Introduction

Between1September2008and22November2011,180youngIndonesianswhosaidthattheywerechildrenarrivedinAustralia,havingworkedascrewonboatsbringingasylumseekerstoAustralia.TheseyoungpeoplewereoftenfishermenfromimpoverishedcommunitiesinthesouthandeastofIndonesia.Manyofthemhavespentlongperiodsoftimeinimmigrationdetentionwithoutbeingcharged,orpriortobeingcharged,withanoffence.SomehavespentlongperiodsoftimeinadultcorrectionalfacilitiesinAustraliaafterbeingcharged,andinsomecasesafterbeingconvicted,asanadultofapeoplesmugglingoffence.

ThisInquiryisconcernedwithwhetherthehumanrightsoftheseindividualswereadequatelyprotectedbyAustralianauthorities.Itspecificallyconsiderswhethertheseyoungpeoplewereaffordedthebenefitofthedoubt;whethertheirbestinterestswereatalltimesaprimaryconsideration;whethertheyweredetainedonlyasalastresortandfortheshortestappropriateperiodoftime;whetherwhileindetentiontheywereseparatedfromadults;andwhethertheywereprovidedwiththespecialprotectionandassistancerequiredbychildrenseparatedfromtheirfamilies.

TheCommissionfirstbecameawareoftheissuesconsideredinthisInquiryinlate2010.InSeptember2010,theAustralianHumanRightsCommissionvisitedimmigrationdetentionfacilitiesinDarwin.AtthetimeoftheCommission’svisittherewere151adultcrewdetainedattheNorthernImmigrationDetentionCentre,and15boysdetainedatBerrimahHouse,afacilitydesignedtoaccommodateunaccompaniedminors.Theseboysrangedinagefrom11to17yearsofage.TheCommission’svisitoccurredjustdaysafteranumberofIndonesiancrewriotedatthecentre,allegedlyprotestingthelengthoftimethattheyhadbeenheldindetentionwithoutcharge.TheCommissionwasconcernedthattheunaccompaniedminorIndonesiancrewmembershadbeenheldindetentionwithoutchargeforperiodsofbetweenthreetoeightmonths.1

TheCommissionsoonbecameawareofconcernsthatIndonesianboyswhohadarrivedinAustraliaascrewonboatscarryingasylumseekershadbeenchargedandprosecutedasadultsandwerebeingheldinadultcorrectionalfacilities.AsfarastheCommissionisaware,theseconcernsfirstbecamepublicinanarticlepublishedinTheAustraliannewspaperinNovember2010.2ThearticleclaimedthattherewereatleastfourIndonesiannationalsdetainedinWesternAustralianjailswhoclaimedtobeunderage,andthatintwoofthesecasestheIndonesianConsulatehadprovidedextractsofofficialbirthcertificatessupportingtheirclaimstobeunder18yearsofage.Thearticlealsocontainedcriticismsofwristx-rayanalysis–theprocessbywhichagehasbeenmostcommonlyassessedincaseswhereanindividual’sageisindispute.


Alerttointernationalconcernabouttheextenttowhichwristx-raysareabletoprovideanaccurateestimationofaperson’schronologicalage,CommissionPresident,theHonCatherineBransonQC,commencedanexchangeofcorrespondencewiththethenAttorney-General,theHonRobertMcClellandMP.Herfirstletterwassenton17February2011.Itexpressedconcernaboutthereliancebeingplacedonwristx-raysforageassessmentpurposes;aboutaspectsoftheprocessofobtainingconsentfromeachoftheindividualswhosewristswerebeingx-rayed;andaboutwhetherallinformationregardingassessmentsoftheagesofindividualswhosaidthattheywereminorswasbeingdisclosedtothedefenceinthecourseofprosecutions.3

ThethenAttorney-Generalrepliedon31March2011informingtheCommissionthathehadaskedhisDepartmenttoleadaworkinggroupcomprisingtheDepartmentofImmigrationandCitizenship(DIAC),theAustralianFederalPolice(AFP)andtheOfficeoftheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions(CDPP)to:

examinewhatstepscanbetakentoensurethatagedeterminationproceduresprovidethebestevidenceforacourttodeterminetheageofpeoplesmugglingcrewwhoclaimtobeminors.4

ThethenAttorney-GeneralwrotetotheCommissionPresidentagainon30June2011toreportthatanenhancedageassessmentprocess,includingofferingvoluntarydentalx-rays,targetedageassessmentinterviewsbytheAFPandincreasedeffortstoobtainrelevantdocumentaryevidenceofagefromIndonesia,hadbeendevelopedbyaworkinggroupofCommonwealthagencies.5

AlthoughtheCommissionPresidentcautiouslywelcomedtheseinitiatives,sheexpressedconcernabouttheongoingrelianceonradiographyforthepurposesofdeterminingage.Shealsocontinuedtoexpressconcernthattheremayhavebeencaseswhereerrorsinageassessmenthadoccurred,resultinginjuvenilesbeingdetainedinadultcorrectionalfacilitiesforlengthyperiodsoftime.InJuly2011andagaininNovember2011,theCommissionPresidentwrotetothethenAttorney-Generaltoexpressthisconcernandtourgethattherebeanindependentreviewofwhetheraproperandreliableassessmentofagehadbeenconductedinallcaseswhereapersonhadsaidthathewasaminorbuthadbeenconvictedasanadult;aswellasinallcasesbeforethecourtswhereagewasindispute.6ThethenAttorney-Generaldeclinedtoconductsuchareview,sayingthathewassatisfiedthatcourtsconsideredallavailableevidenceandwerefullyawareofthelimitationsofwristx-rays,andbecausecrewhadindependentlegalrepresentation.7

Meanwhile,during2011,publicdiscussionoftheageassessmentofIndonesiancrewgrew.Numerousmediaarticlescanvassedthepossibilitythatindividualswhowereinfactjuvenileshadbeenconvictedasadultsandwerebeingdetainedinadultcorrectionalfacilities.8Inmid-2011,defencelawyersforthreecrewmemberswhosaidthattheywereminorstravelledfrom

20


BrisbanetoIndonesiatoseekaffidavitanddocumentaryevidenceoftheirclients’ages.FollowingthepresentationofthismaterialtotheOfficeoftheCDPP,theprosecutionwasreportedlydiscontinuedineachofthesethreecases.9Theninlate2011,individualswhohadclaimedtobechildrenwerefoundtobeunder18yearsofageinseveralagedeterminationhearingsconductedinWesternAustralia.Importantly,intwoofthesecases,thecourtcriticisedtheevidenceoftheCommonwealth’spreferredwitness.10

TheCommissioncontinuedtoholdconcernsthattheremayhavebeensomecasesinwhicherrorshadbeenmadeinageassessmentandthatindividualswhohadbeenchildrenatthetimeoftheirapprehensionremainedincarceratedinadultcorrectionalfacilities.Intheabsenceofanagreementtoconductacomprehensivereviewofthesecases,on21November2011theCommissionPresidentannouncedthatshewouldconductanInquiryintothetreatmentofindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingoffenceswhosaidthattheywerechildren.

1.1 The Commission’s power to hold an Inquiry

TheCommissionwasestablishedbytheAustralianHumanRightsCommissionAct1986(Cth)(AHRCAct).ItisrecognisedbytheUnitedNationsasAustralia’sindependentnationalhumanrightsinstitution.

TheprimaryfunctionoftheCommissionundertheAHRCActthatisrelieduponfortheconductofthisInquiryisthatof:

• inquiringintoactsorpracticesthatmaybeinconsistentwithorcontrarytoanyhumanright(section11(1)(f)).

OtherCommissionfunctionsthatarerelevantto,andreliedupon,forthepurposeofthisInquiry,include:

• examiningenactmentsforthepurposeofascertainingwhethertheenactmentsareinconsistentwithorcontrarytoanyhumanrightandreportingtotheMinistertheresultsofanysuchexamination(section11(1)(e))

• promotinganunderstanding,acceptanceandpublicdiscussionofhumanrightsinAustralia(section11(1)(g))

• advisingonlawsthatshouldbemadebytheParliamentoractionthatshouldbetakenbytheCommonwealthonmattersrelatingtohumanrights(section11(1)(j)).

The‘humanrights’specifiedintheabovefunctionsareoutlinedinanumberofhumanrightstreatiesandinstrumentsidentifiedintheAHRCAct.InconductingthisInquiry,theCommission,byitsPresident,hasinvestigated,inparticular,whetherthetreatmentofindividualssuspected


ofpeoplesmugglingoffenceswhosaidthattheywerechildrenwasconsistentwithAustralia’sobligationsundertheConventionontheRightsoftheChild(CRC),aswellasthosesetoutintheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights(ICCPR).Seefurthersection6belowwhichdiscussestheinternationalhumanrightsobligationsthatarerelevanttothisInquiry.

1.2 The Inquiry terms of reference

ThetermsofreferenceforthisInquirywerepublishedon21November2011.TheTermsofReferenceareasfollows:

ThePresidentwillinquireintoAustralia’streatmentofindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingorrelatedoffenceswhoclaimtohavebeenundertheageof18yearsatthedateoftheoffencesofwhichtheyaresuspected(theindividualsofconcern),includingbyinquiringintoactsandpracticesoftheCommonwealthwithrespectto:

a) assessmentsoftheagesoftheindividualsofconcernmadebyoronbehalfoftheCommonwealthforimmigrationpurposes,includingbyany‘officer’asdefinedbysection5oftheMigrationAct1958(Cth);

b) assessmentsoftheagesoftheindividualsofconcernduringthecourseoftheinvestigationsofthepeoplesmugglingorrelatedoffencesofwhichtheyweresuspected;

c) assessmentsoftheagesoftheindividualsofconcernforthepurposeofdecisionsconcerningtheprosecutionofthepeoplesmugglingorrelatedoffencesofwhichtheyweresuspected;

d) decisionsconcerningwhether,andtheprocessesandproceduresused,to:

i. facilitatecontactbetweenparents/guardiansandtheindividualsofconcern;

ii. contactandobtaininformationrelevanttoageassessmentfromparents/guardiansoftheindividualsofconcern;

e) thepreparationforandtheconductoflegalproceedingsinwhichevidenceconcerningtheagesoftheindividualsofconcernwas,orwasintendedtobe,adduced;

f) thedetention,includingthedeterminationsoftheplacesofdetentionandtheconditionsofdetention,oftheindividualsofconcern;

g) theprovisionofguardiansorotherresponsibleadultstoensurethattheinterestsoftheindividualsofconcern,includingwithrespecttoageassessment,wereprotected;

h) theprovisiontotheindividualsofconcernoflegaladvice,assistanceandrepresentation,includingwithrespecttoageassessment;and

i) anyothermattersincidentaltotheabovetermsofreference.

NOTE:Referencesinthesetermsofreferenceto,ortothedoingof,actsincludereferencestorefusalsorfailurestodosuchacts(seesection3(3)oftheAustralianHumanRightsCommissionAct1986(Cth)).

22


1.3 The Inquiry time period

ForthepurposeofthisInquiry,theCommissionsoughtinformationaboutindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingorarelatedoffencewhoarrivedinAustraliabyboatbetween1September2008and22November2011whoclaimorclaimedtobeundertheageof18yearsatthedateoftheoffenceofwhichhewasorissuspected.ThemajorityofthematerialprovidedtotheCommissionrelatestoindividualswhowereapprehendedbetween2009and2011.Specifically,thestatisticsinthisreporthavebeencalculatedbyreferenceto180individualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhoarrivedinAustraliabetween29September2008and22November2011.

Thisreportalsocontainsdiscussionofsomeeventsupuntilmid-2012.

1.4 Terminology

Wherethisreportmakesreferencetospecificindividuals,itordinarilyidentifiesthembythealphanumericidentifiergiventothembyDIACwhentheyfirstarrivedinAustralia.TheonlycircumstancewhereanindividualisnamediswherehehasgiventheCommissionexpresspermissiontousehisnameorwherehisnamehasappearedinthemedia.TheCommissionhastakenthisapproachbecausemanyoftheindividualsofconcernarelikelytohavebeenunder18yearsofageatthetimeoftheirapprehension.

Inaddition,thisreportonlyusesmalepronounswhenreferringtoyoungIndonesians.ThisisbecausealloftheindividualsofconcerntothisInquiryaremale.ThesameissuesandconcernsthatarisewithrespecttoyoungIndonesianmaleswouldariseinthecaseofyoungfemaleIndonesians.11

2 Methodology

TheCommissionhassoughttohearfromasmanyindividualsandorganisationsaspossiblewhohavebeeninvolvedinsomewaywithindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhosaidthattheywerechildren.Thisincludestheindividualsthemselves,theirdefencelawyers,theCommonwealthagencieswhohaveresponsibilityfortheirtreatmentwhileinAustralia,non-governmentorganisationsandotherindividuals.

IndividualswhoaresuspectedofpeoplesmugglingcomeintocontactwithanumberofCommonwealthagencies.DuringthisInquiry,theCommissionhasconsideredparticularlytheconductofthoseagenciesthathavehadsomeinputintoageassessmentprocessesandalsothoseagenciesanddepartmentsresponsibleforlawenforcement,including:


• theDepartmentofImmigrationandCitizenship(DIAC),whichisresponsiblefortheindividualswhiletheyareinimmigrationdetention,andwhichmayassessageforthepurposeofdetermininganappropriateplaceofdetention

• theAustralianFederalPolice(AFP),whoareresponsibleforinvestigatingpotentialchargesofpeoplesmugglingandfordecidingwhetherchargesarelaid

• theCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions,whoisresponsibleforprosecutingallegedoffencesofpeoplesmuggling,andhisoffice(OfficeoftheCDPP)

• theAttorney-General’sDepartment(AGD),whichhasbroadresponsibilityforlawenforcementpolicy.

TheCommissionisgratefultoalloftheseagenciesfortheireffortstoassisttheCommissionintheconductofthisInquiry.

TheCommissiongatheredinformationthroughavarietyofmechanisms,including:

• noticesrequiringtheproductionofdocumentsandinformation

• publicsubmissions

• publichearings

• interviewswithindividualswho,atthetimethattheywereapprehendedorduringtheprocessofinvestigationandprosecution,saidthattheywerechildren.

Eachofthesesourcesofinformationisdiscussedinfurtherdetailbelow.

2.1 Evidence produced pursuant to Notices

On21November2011,theCommissionissued‘NoticestoProduce’tothefourCommonwealthagenciesinvolvedinthetreatmentoftheindividualsofconcerntothisInquiry:DIAC,theAFP,theCDPPandAGD.EachagencywasrequiredtoproduceinformationanddocumentsrelevanttotheInquiry.12Thenoticesrequiredtheagenciestoproduce:

• Informationaboutindividualsofconcern,includingtheirclaimeddateofbirth;whethertheirwristwasx-rayedand,ifso,whethertherequirementsofs3ZQC(2)oftheCrimesAct1914(Cth)weremet;whethertheywerechargedand,ifso,thedateofthecharge;wheretheyweredetainedandthelengthoftheirdetention;thestepstakentonotifytheirfamilymembersandtheIndonesianConsulateoftheircircumstances;andwhetherand,ifso,whentheywereprovidedwithlegaladvice.

24


• Documentsintheirpossessionabouttheassessmentsoftheagesoftheindividualsofconcernanddocumentsconcerningdecisionsmaderegardingtheiragesand,asrelevant,theirinvestigation,prosecution,convictionandsentencing.

• Documentsaboutwhethertheagencywasawareofthecriticismsofthewristx-rayprocedureasameansofassessingage,andwhatstepstheagencytookinresponsetotheletterdated17February2011fromthePresidentoftheCommissiontothethenAttorney-Generalregardingageassessmentprocesses.

• Allpolicy,guidelineandinstructiondocumentsaboutassessingaperson’sage,whenandhowtoconductawristx-ray,andnotificationoffamilymembersandtheIndonesianConsulate.

EachagencywasrequiredtoprovidethismaterialtotheCommissionby21December2011.TheCommissionpermittedanextensionoftimetoDIACwhichallowedinformationtobeprovidedprogressivelyfromshortlyaftertheduedateuntil21February2012.

TherequiredinformationandasignificantnumberofdocumentsweredulyprovidedtotheCommission.WhenagenciesbecameawareofrelevantdocumentsthattheyhadnotprovidedtheCommission,theynotifiedtheCommissionandofferedtomakethemavailable.TheCommissionacknowledgesandexpressesitsgratitudefortheconsiderableamountofworkthatwasinvolvedintheidentificationandcollationofthismaterial.

2.2 Public submissions

On21November2011,theCommissioncalledforpublicsubmissionsinrelationtotheInquiry.Thedeadlineforsubmissionswas3February2012.TheCommissionacceptedsubmissionsafterthatdateatitsdiscretion.

TheCommissioninvitedsubmissionsthroughtheinternetandemaillists.Submissionswerenumberedastheywerereceived.

TheCommissionreceived39submissionsinrespectoftheInquiry,includingfourthatwereconfidential.Submissionscamefromarangeofindividualsandorganisationsrepresentingmedicalbodies,membersofthelegalprofessionandlegalaidcommissions,children’scommissionersandguardians,membersofParliament,academics,advocacyandnon-governmentorganisations.TheCommissionalsoreceivedajointsubmissionfromAGD,theCDPPandtheAFP.AseparatesubmissionwasreceivedfromDIAC.Inordertoensurethatstandardsforconfidentialityandprivacyweremaintained,submissionswereamendedwherenecessarytoremovethenamesandidentifyingdetailsofanyindividualswhowerenamedorreferredto.


TheCommissionisgratefultoallthosewhodevotedtheirtime,energyandexpertisetoassistingtheCommissiononthisInquiry.ThesubmissionsreceivedbytheCommissionhavebeenausefulresource,canvassinganumberofkeyissuesindetail.Totheextentthatthecontentofthesubmissionscanbesummarised,theydiscusstheethicsandreliabilityofx-raytechnology,includingwrist,dentalandclaviclex-raystoassesschronologicalage;alternativeprocessesandmethodsofageassessmentincludingtheobtainingofdocumentaryevidenceofage;internationalpracticeandinternationallegalobligationsrelatedtominors;andobservationsabouttheexperiencesofIndonesianminorcrewwithinthecriminaljusticesystem.

2.3 Public hearings

TwopublichearingswereheldaspartoftheInquiry;thefirstformedicalexpertsandthesecondforCommonwealthagencies.ThehearingswereconductedbytheCommissionPresidentwhowassupportedbyCommissionstaff.TheoralevidenceatthehearingforCommonwealthagencieswasgivenonoathoraffirmation.

TranscriptsofbothpublichearingswereplacedontheInquirywebsite.Allwitnesseswereprovidedwithacopyofthedrafttranscriptoftheirevidencetoenablecorrectionstobemadepriortoitsbeingmadeavailableonline.

(a) Publichearingforkeymedicalexperts–9March2012

ThepublichearingforkeymedicalexpertswasheldinSydneyon9March2012.Theprimarypurposeofthehearingwastoobtainevidenceaboutthescienceandethicsofusingwristx-rays,dentalx-raysandalternativebiologicalmarkerstoassesschronologicalage.

Threemedicalexpertswerephysicallypresentatthehearingandtwomedicalexpertsparticipatedinthehearingviavideolink.Theparticipantswereexpertsinthefieldsofforensicodontology,paediatricradiology,paediatricendocrinology,generalradiologyandmedicalstatistics.

(b) PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies–19–20April2012

ThepublichearingforCommonwealthagencieswasheldinCanberraon19and20April2012.Theprimarypurposeofthehearingwastoprovideanopportunityto:

• explorethepolicyframeworkanddevelopmentsinthepolicyframeworkofeachagencywithrespecttoprocessesforassessingtheagesofindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmuggling

• examinetheactionsoftheCommonwealthinindividualcases

26


• clarifyissuesraisedinthejointsubmissionofAGD,theCDPPandtheAFP

andbythesemeans,obtainacomprehensivepictureoftheCommonwealth’streatmentofindividualsconvictedorsuspectedofpeoplesmugglingoffenceswhoclaimedtobechildren.

ThishearingwasattendedbytheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionsandseniormembersofhisOffice;theDeputyCommissionerOperationsoftheAFPandonefurthermemberoftheAFP;theFirstAssistantSecretary,CriminalJusticeDivisionofAGDandtwootherAGDofficers;andtheFirstAssistantSecretary,CommunityProgramsandChildrenDivisionofDIACandtwootherDIACofficers.TheCommissionisgratefultotherepresentativesoftheCommonwealthagenciesfortheirtimeandcooperationduringthetwodaysofhearings.

2.4 Interviews with individuals convicted of people smuggling offences who said that they were under 18 at the time they were apprehended

On26and27April2012,twomembersofthestaffoftheAustralianHumanRightsCommissionvisitedAlbanyRegionalPrisonandPardelupPrisonFarmforthepurposesofthisInquiry.TheCommissionchosetovisitthesetwofacilitiesbecauseoftheconcentrationofindividualsofconcerntotheInquirywhowereheldthere.TwelveIndonesianswhoweredetainedinthesefacilitieshadsaidthattheywerechildrenatthetimeoftheoffenceofwhichtheywerecharged.Thepurposeofthevisitswastospeakwithasmanyaspossibleofthese12individualsinordertounderstandtheirbackgroundsandhistories,andtohearfirst-handaccountsoftheirexperiencessincearrivinginAustralia.

OnlyindividualswhochosetospeakwiththeCommissionstaffwereinterviewed.EachinterviewwasconductedinprivatewiththeassistanceofanIndonesianinterpreter.Eachindividualinterviewedwasaskedanumberofquestionsconcerninghisfamilybackground,journeytoAustraliaandexperiencesduringtheinvestigationandprosecutionprocess;andaboutthetimespentbyhimindetention,histreatmentindetentionandcorrectionalfacilities,hiscontactwithrelatives,andtheavailabilityofevidenceconfirminghisclaimedage.

TheCommissionstaffundertookfourinterviewsatAlbanyRegionalPrisonandthreeinterviewsatPardelupPrisonFarm.Oneindividualwasunabletoparticipateduetoillness,andfourindividualsexpressedadesirenottospeakwithCommissionstaff.

DuringtheirvisittoAlbanyRegionalPrison,theCommissionstaffobservedthefacilitiesandservicesavailabletoallprisoners,andspoketoprisonofficialsabouteffortsmadetoaccommodatethelargenumberofIndonesianinmates.

TheCommissionthankstheWesternAustralianDepartmentofCorrectiveServicesforits


assistanceinfacilitatingthevisits.TheCommissionisparticularlygratefultothestaffatbothprisonfacilitiesfortheirattentivenessandwillingnesstoassisttheCommissionintheconductofthisInquiry.

2.5 Confidentiality of material provided to the Commission

TheCommissionhasreceivedagreatdealofconfidentialmaterialfromCommonwealthagenciesandinterestedpartiesduringthecourseofitsInquiry.TheCommissionrecognisestheimportanceofitsmaintainingtheconfidentialityofthismaterial.TheCommissionalsonotesthatthereispublicinterestinensuringtransparencyregardingthetreatmentoftheindividualsofconcerntothisInquiry.Consequently,theCommissionhasreliedheavilyondocumentsprovidedbyeachoftheCommonwealthagencies,andhasreferredto,andpublishedextractsfrom,manynon-confidentialdocumentsthroughoutthisreport.

Asnotedabove,theCommissionhassoughttoavoidpublishingthenameofanyyoungindividualexceptwherehehasgivenushisexpresspermissiontodosoorwherehiscasehasreceivedconsiderablepublicityandhisnamehasbeenpublishedinthemedia.

TheCommissionalsoofferedanopportunityforanypersonororganisationtomakeaconfidentialsubmissiontotheInquiryortomakepartsoftheirsubmissionconfidential.TheCommissionalsoprovidedeachCommonwealthagencyinvolvedwithadraftcopyofthisreportandtheopportunitytorequestthatparticularinformationremainconfidential.

3 People smuggling offences and age assessment

3.1 The crime of people smuggling

TheMigrationAct1958(Cth)makesitanoffenceforapersontoorganiseorfacilitatethearrivalorentryintoAustraliaofanindividualwhohasnolawfulrighttocometoAustralia.13Thisisknownastheoffenceofpeoplesmuggling.

ApersoncommitsanaggravatedoffenceofpeoplesmugglingifheorsheorganisesorfacilitatethearrivalorentryintoAustraliaofagroupofatleastfivepersonswhohavenolawfulrighttocometoAustralia.14

Themaximumpenaltyfortheoffenceofpeoplesmugglingistenyearsimprisonmentand/ora$110,000fine.15Themaximumpenaltyfortheaggravatedoffenceofpeoplesmugglingis20yearsimprisonmentand/ora$220,000fine.16

TheMigrationActprovidesformandatoryminimumsentencesofimprisonmentonconviction

28


forsomepeoplesmugglingoffences.Forexample,amandatoryminimumsentenceoffiveyears(withanon-paroleperiodofthreeyears)appliesonconvictionasafirstoffenderfortheaggravatedoffenceofpeoplesmuggling(atleastfivepeople).17

Thesemandatoryminimumsentencesdonotapplytominors.18Moreover,ifapersonhasbeenchargedwithapeoplesmugglingoffence,acourtmaydischargehimwithoutconvictionifitisfoundonthebalanceofprobabilitiesthathewasunder18yearsofageatthetimeoftheoffence.19

3.2 The significance of the age of a person suspected of a people smuggling offence

Astheaboveparagraphsmakeclear,adeterminationthatheorsheisanadulthassignificantconsequencesforanindividualwhoisconvictedofpeoplesmuggling.

Anassessmentthatanindividualisanadultisalsoimportantforotherreasons.First,currentgovernmentpolicyisordinarilynottoproceedwithaprosecutionifasuspectisfoundtobelessthan18yearsofageatthetimeofhisorherallegedoffence.TheProsecutionPolicyoftheCommonwealthstatesthattheprosecutionofajuvenileshouldalwaysberegardedasa‘severestep’.20Inlightofthispolicy,juvenilesshouldonlybechargedwithpeoplesmugglingin‘exceptionalcircumstances’onthebasisoftheir‘significantinvolvementinapeoplesmugglingventure’,their‘involvementinmultipleventures’orwherethereareother‘exceptionalcircumstances’.21

Secondly,individualsregardedasadultsaregenerallydetainedinadultcorrectionalfacilities.Unlesstheyaregrantedbail,theywillbeheldinadultfacilitieswhileonremandawaitingtrialandwhileservinganysentenceimposedafterconviction.

Accordingly,assessmentordeterminationofaperson’sageisextremelyimportantinthecontextofpeoplesmuggling.IfAustralianauthoritiesacceptthatapersonsuspectedofpeoplesmugglingisundertheageof18years,heisunlikelytofacecharges.Ifthereareexceptionalcircumstancesandheischargedandconvicted,hewillnotbesubjecttoamandatoryminimumsentence.Ontheotherhand,ifAustralianauthoritiesdonotacceptthatanindividualwhoallegedlybroughtasylumseekerstoAustraliabyboatisaminor,heislikelytobechargedwithpeoplesmuggling.Ifheisconvictedofaggravatedpeoplesmugglinghewillbesubjecttoamandatoryminimumsentenceofimprisonmentanddetainedinanadultcorrectionalfacility.


3.3 The legal framework that governs age assessment in criminal proceedings

ManyoftheindividualswhoaresuspectedofpeoplesmugglingarriveinAustraliawithoutidentityortraveldocuments.Australianauthorities,andindeed,oftentheindividualsthemselves,maybeuncertainastowhethertheywereundertheageof18yearsatthetimeoftheirallegedoffence.

In2001,theCrimesActwasamendedtoprovideforthecarryingoutbyaninvestigatingofficialofa‘prescribedprocedure’whereitisnecessarytodeterminewhetherornotapersonwhoissuspectedofaCommonwealthoffenceis,orwas,atthetimeoftheallegedcommissionoftheoffenceundertheageof18years.22TheseamendmentsweremadeinresponsetoadecisionoftheNorthernTerritorySupremeCourtin2000whichfoundthattheMigrationActdidnotprovidestatutoryauthorityforthetakingofawristx-rayforthepurposesofageassessment.23

Division4AofPartIAAoftheCrimesActnowauthorisesandregulatestheuseofa‘prescribedprocedure’fordeterminingage.24A‘prescribedprocedure’isdefinedbys3ZQA(1)oftheCrimesActtomeanaprocedurespecifiedbyregulationsmadeforthepurposeofsubsection(2)ofthatsectiontobeaprescribedprocedurefordeterminingaperson’sage.Currently,theonlyproceduresospecifiedisa‘radiograph…ofahandandwristofthepersonwhoseageistobedetermined’(wristx-ray).25

Anagedeterminationproceduremustbecarriedoutinamannerconsistentwithappropriatemedicalorotherrelevantprofessionalstandards.26

Aninvestigatingofficialmayarrangetocarryoutanagedeterminationprocedureeitherwiththeconsentofthepersonwhoseageistobedeterminedandtheconsentofaparentorguardianoranindependentadult,orbyorderofamagistrate.27

4 Age assessment processes employed in Australia

InconductingthisInquiry,theCommissionhasconsideredtherangeofageassessmentprocessesthathavebeenemployedinAustralia.

Theprimaryageassessmentprocessemployedinrespectofindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglinghasbeenwristx-rayanalysis.

Thisreportalsoconsiderstheotherageassessmentprocessesthathavebeenutilised,orofferedforuseinpeoplesmugglingmatterswhereageisindispute.Theseincludethe‘improvedageassessmentprocess’thatwasannouncedbytheAustralianGovernmentinJuly2011whichcomprised:

30


• dentalx-rays

• focusedageassessmentinterviewsconductedundercautionbyAFPofficers

• stepstakenbytheAFPasearlyaspossibletoseekinformationfromIndonesia,includingbirthcertificatesandotherrelevantinformationtohelpdetermineage.

ThisreportadditionallyconsiderstheuseoffocusedageassessmentinterviewsbyDIAC.AtrialofsuchinterviewswasconductedinOctober2010.Thereafter,interviewsofthiskindwerenotundertakenuntilDecember2011.Fromthistimeon,aDIACfocusedageassessmentinterviewhasbeenconductedwithanyindividualsuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhoseageisindoubt.CrewaretreatedasadultsandreferredtotheAFPforfurtherinvestigationonlywherethereareclearindicationsthattheyareover18yearsofage.Wherethereisdoubtthatapersonisover18yearsofage,orifDIACissatisfiedthatheisaminor,hewillbesenthometoIndonesiawithoutcharge.

5 The people who are the subject of this Inquiry

5.1 Where individuals suspected of people smuggling come from

TheInquiryhasreceivedalargeamountofinformationabouttheindividualssuspectedorchargedwithpeoplesmugglingwhosaidthattheywerechildrenatthetimeoftheoffenceofwhichtheyareorweresuspected.MuchoftheinformationinthissectionisdrawnfromthesubmissionmadetotheInquirybyVictoriaLegalAid.ThisinformationaccordswiththedocumentsaboutindividualsthathavebeenprovidedtotheCommissionbytheCommonwealthagencies.

Generally,peoplewhoworkascrewonboatsthatbringasylumseekerstoAustraliaarerecruitedfromremotefishingcommunitiesontheIndonesiancoast.Crewareoftenfromunsophisticatedbackgrounds,livinginconditionsofpoverty.28Manycomefromsingleparentfamilieshavingsufferedthedeathofoneparent.Asaresult,manyoftheyoungcrewarethesoleincomeearnersfortheirfamilies,carryingaheavyburdenofresponsibilityforyoungersiblingsandotherdependentrelatives.ChildrenasyoungaseightyearsoldhaveworkedascrewonboatsbringingasylumseekerstoAustralia.29

Themajorityofcrewhavealowlevelofeducation,oftennotaboveprimaryschoollevel,havingleftschoolatanearlyageinordertofindpaidwork.Thoughsomeoftheseyoungindividualshaveexperienceworkingasfishermen,manyothershavelittletonoexperienceatsea.Manyofthempreviouslyhadintermittentemploymentaslabourers,motorbikedrivers,andfarmworkers.Manyhadexperiencedfrequentperiodsofunemployment,takingupworkasandwhenanopportunityarose.Forthesecommunitiesinwhichfishingisthemainsourceofincome,


conditionsofpovertyappeartohavebeenexacerbatedbytheextensionofAustralia’sexclusivefishingzone,strictruleswhichpreventIndonesiansfromfishingatAshmoreIsland,anddepletingfishstocks.30

Fromthedocumentsreceivedandfromfirst-handaccountsobtainedduringthecourseoftheInquiry,itisclearthatmanyoftheseindividualsarenotawareofthepurposeoftheirtriporeventhattheyarecomingtoAustralia.Manycrewclaimtohavebeen‘tricked’intocomingtoAustralia.Typically,theyrelatebeingapproachedbytheircurrentemployerorbystrangersandgivenverylittle,andoftenfalse,descriptionsoftheworktheywillbeexpectedtoperformontheboat.TheyarepromisedwhatamountstolargesumsofmoneyinIndonesia–oftenrangingbetween300,000rupiah(approximatelyA$32)to5millionrupiah(approximatelyA$530).31ThearrangementwouldoftenbethatthiswouldbepaidtothemontheirreturntoIndonesia.32Fortheseindividuals,thereisasignificantincentivetoacceptworkwhichpromisesanincomeseveraltimeshigherthantheywouldnormallyreceive,especiallyincircumstanceswherethereislittlepaidworkavailabletothemandlimitedopportunitiesforsecuringsteadyemploymentandaregularincome.

TheyoungIndonesiansappeartorarelybetoldthattheywillbebringingasylumseekerstoAustralia.Occasionally,crewhavebeentoldthatthepeopleonboardwillbepickedupbyanotherboatininternationalwatersandtheywillreturntoIndonesiabeforeenteringAustralianwaters.

Inmanycases,theyoungIndonesiansaretoldthattheywillbetransportingcargo,riceorothergoodsaroundtheIndonesianislands.Oftentheasylumseekersareonlybroughtontotheboatviasmallerboatsadistancefromtheshore.33Insituationswheretheasylumseekersarealreadyontheboat,thecrewhavebeentoldthattheyareforeigntouristsorforeignmilitaryandtheywillberesponsiblefortakingtheforeigntouristsormilitaryaroundtheIndonesianislands.Inmanycases,‘thecrewareonlytransferredontotheboatshortlybeforeAustralianwatersandtheorganisersthendepartonasecondboat’.34

Crewareoftenresponsibleforperformingoddjobs;theymayworkasacookoradeckhand,lookaftertheengineoroccasionallysteerthevesselasdirected.InthevastmajorityofthecasesconsideredbytheCommissionaspartofthisInquiry,theroleoftheyoungcrewwasnomoresignificantthanplayingsupportingrolesontheboatsandfollowingthedirectionsofoldercrewmembers.

Itcanbeseveraldaysintothejourneybeforecrewbecomeaware–whetherbybeingtoldbyothercrew,orbyinferencesdrawnfromtheethnicityofthepassengersandtheircircumstances–thatthepeopletheyaretransportingaretobetakentoAustralia.Atthisstage,whentheboatisalreadywellintotheoceanthereisnoopportunityforcrewtoleavetheboat.35Insome

32


circumstances,thecrewhaveonlyrealisedtheywereinAustralianwatersuponinterceptionbytheAustralianauthorities.

5.2 The number of individuals suspected of people smuggling offences who have said that they are children

TheCommissionreceivedinformationfromtheCommonwealthabout180individualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingoffenceswho,atsomepoint,toldtheAustralianGovernmentthattheywereunder18yearsofagewhentheywereapprehended.36

Ofthe180individualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhoarrivedinAustraliaduringtherelevanttimeperiodandsaidthattheywerechildren:

• 51didnothavetheirwristsx-rayedandwereremovedfromAustraliawithoutcharge

• 33hadtheirwristsx-rayedandwereremovedfromAustraliawithoutcharge

• 29hadtheirwristsx-rayedandwerechargedandconvicted

• 2didnothavetheirwristx-rayedandwerechargedandconvicted

• 6hadtheirwristsx-rayedandwerechargedbutfoundnotguilty

• 2hadtheirwristsx-rayedandarecurrentlybeforethecourt

• 2werenotx-rayedandarecurrentlybeforethecourt

• 48hadtheirwristsx-rayed,werechargedwithpeoplesmugglingoffencesandultimatelyhadtheprosecutionagainstthemdiscontinued

• 7didnothavetheirwristsx-rayed,werechargedwithpeoplesmugglingoffencesandultimatelyhadtheprosecutionagainstthemdiscontinued.

5.3 An outline of the experience in Australia of individuals suspected of people smuggling offences who say they are children

AfterarrivinginAustralia,individualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhoclaimtobechildrenareusuallysubjecttoaprocessofdetention,investigationandpossiblyprosecution.

(a) Apprehension

TheprocesstypicallybeginswhenCustomsortheRoyalAustralianNavyinterceptsaSuspectedIrregularEntryVessel(SIEV)betweenIndonesiaandChristmasIslandorAshmoreReef.TheSIEV


crewandpassengersaretransferredtoCustomsorNavyvesselsandtransportedtoChristmasIslandforprocessing.37

(b) Immigrationdetention

AftertheyareprocessedbyCustomsandtheAustralianQuarantineandInspectionService,allpassengersandcrewaredetainedinimmigrationdetentionfacilities.OnarrivalatChristmasIslandallpeoplesmugglingcrewareinitiallyheldinimmigrationdetentioninalowsecurityclosedimmigrationdetentionfacilityknownastheConstructionCamp.IndividualcrewmemberswhoareassessedbyDIACtobeminorscontinuetobeheldinalternativeplacesofdetentionuntiltheyareremovedfromAustraliaorchargedandtransferredtoAFPcustody.CrewassessedbyDIACtobeadultsmaybetransferredtoanimmigrationdetentioncentre,whichisthehighestcategorysecurityfacilityintheAustralianimmigrationdetentionnetwork,untiltheyareremovedtoIndonesiaortransferredintoAFPcustody.38IndividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingareusuallyissuedwithaCriminalJusticeStayCertificatewhichpreventstheirremovalfromAustraliaforthedurationofacriminalinvestigationorprosecution,oruntilacustodialsentenceiscomplete.

(c) Investigation

TheAFPinvestigationprocessisgenerallyfocusedonascertainingtheroleplayedbythecrewmemberinbringingasylumseekerstoAustralia.Untilmid-2011,crewwhoclaimedtobeminorswouldordinarilybeaskedbytheAFPtogivetheirconsentfortheirwriststobex-rayed.

TheAFPofficerwillalsoofferavoluntaryinterview(whichisrecorded)withanindividualduringwhichtheofficerasksquestionsaboutwhytheindividualundertookthejourneytoAustraliaandwhatheknewaboutthejourneyandtherolehewouldplayontheboat.Individualsareofferedaccesstolegaladvicepriortoparticipatinginthisinterviewandareinformedoftheirrighttodeclinetoparticipateintheinterview.AFPofficersoftenaskindividualswhoseageisindoubtabouttheirageduringthisinterview.TheAFPwilloftenalsoconductinterviewswithasylumseekerstoobtainevidenceconcerningtheactivitiesofcrewmembersandtoseek‘photo-board’identification.

(d) Charge

AftertheAFPhascompletedtheirinvestigationconcerningacrewmemberandanAFPofficerissatisfiedthatthereissufficientevidencetochargehimwithapeoplesmugglingoffenceandthatitisappropriatetochargehim,thecrewmemberisarrestedandcharged.39

34


(e) Imprisonment

OnceadecisionistakenbytheAFPtochargeapersonwithapeoplesmugglingoffence,DIACarrangeforthetransferofthepersontotheStateinwhichheistobecharged.Uponarrival,theAFPthenarrestsandchargeshim.Generally,anaccusedpersonisinitiallyheldinapolicefacility,suchasapolicewatchhouse.SoonthereafterhewillbemovedtoaStateorTerritoryprisonwhereheisheldonremanduntilhiscaseisdetermined,oruntilheisreleasedonbail.TheStateandTerritoryprisonauthoritiesdecidewhatkindofprisonfacilitytohousehiminbyundertakinganassessmentofhissecurityclassification.Theywillalsoconsiderwhetheritisdesirabletoseparateanindividualwhoseageisindisputefromadultprisonersbecauseofhisclaimtobeachild.

Ifanaccusedpersonisreleasedonbail,hewillbereleasedintoanimmigrationdetentionfacilityuntilbailisterminatedorhiscasefinalised.

(f) Prosecution

TheprosecutionprocessiscommencedbytheAFP.Oncecharged,thecourtdeterminestheprogressofthematter–thefastestmattersprogressfromchargetotrialinapproximatelysixmonths.40

Anindividualwhohasbeenchargedasanadultmaybeabletochallengethejurisdictionofthecourttohearhismatteronthegroundsthatheisachild.suchacircumstance,thechallengecanbemadeatanystageoftheprosecutionprocess.Whereageisraisedasanissuebeforethecourt,thecourtwillscheduleanagedeterminationhearing.Duringanagedeterminationhearing,theprosecutionandthedefencehavetheopportunitytopresentevidencetothecourtabouttheaccusedperson’sage.Evidencemayincludereportsfrommedicalexpertsbasedonawristx-rayandanydocumentsobtainedfromIndonesiaabouttheaccusedperson’sage.Thecourtwillassessalloftheevidenceandmakeanagedeterminationonthebalanceofprobabilities.Wherethecourtdeterminesthatanaccusedpersonisunder18yearsofage,theprosecutionisusuallydiscontinued.ThisisinlinewiththeProsecutionPolicyoftheCommonwealthwhichprovidesthattheprosecutionofajuvenileshouldalwaysberegardedasaseverestep.41

Alternatively,ifthecourtissatisfiedonthebalanceofprobabilitiesthatanaccusedpersonisanadult,theprosecutionwillproceed.Whereanaccusedpersonisconvicted,hemaybeabletoraisetheissueofhisageagainbeforebeingsentenced.Ifheisabletodothis,anewagedeterminationhearingwilltakeplace.Ifthesentencingcourtisnotsatisfiedthatthepersonisover18yearsofage,theprosecutionmaybediscontinuedinlinewiththeProsecutionPolicyoftheCommonwealth.


Wheretheageoftheindividualisnotchallenged,orisunsuccessfullychallenged,andheisconvictedasanadult,hewillbesentencedasrequiredbytheMigrationAct.Thismeansthatifheisconvicted,asafirstoffender,oftheaggravatedoffenceofpeoplesmuggling(atleastfivepeople)hewillbesentencedtoimprisonmentforaperiodofnolessthanthemandatoryminimumsentenceoffiveyearsimprisonmentwithanon-paroleperiodofthreeyears.42

Thetimeapersonhasspentinimmigrationdetentionandonremandwillordinarilybetakenintoaccountforsentencingpurposeswiththeresultthatitwillbedeductedfromtheperiodofimprisonmentrequiredtobeserved.Apersonconvictedandsentencedasanadultwillbetransferredtoanadultprisonfacilityforthedurationofhissentence.Oncehehasservedhissentence,hewillbereturnedtoIndonesia.

6 Australia’s human rights obligations

Asnotedabove,thisInquiryisprimarilyconsideringtheextenttowhichactsorpracticesoftheCommonwealthmaybeinconsistentwithorcontrarytoanyhumanright.ThissectionofthereportexplainstherelevanceofinternationalhumanrightslawtotheissuesofconcerntothisInquiry.

Australiahaschosentoenterintoagreements–conventions,covenantsortreaties–withothersovereignStates.IthastherebyagreedtobeboundbytheinternationalschemeofrightsandresponsibilitiesthatgovernsthewayinwhichsovereignStatesdealwitheachotherandtreatindividualswithintheirjurisdiction.

ForthepurposesofthisInquirythemostimportantofthetreatiestowhichAustraliaisapartyistheConventionontheRightsoftheChild(CRC).TheCRCrecognisesthatchildren,aswellasadults,areentitledtoprotectionoftheirbasichumanrights,butthatchildrenrequirespecialprotectionbecauseoftheirvulnerabilitytoexploitationandabuse.ForthepurposesoftheCRC,childrenaredefinedasindividualswhoareunder18yearsofage.43Australia’sobligationsundertheCRCapplytoallchildreninAustralia,regardlessofcitizenshiporimmigrationstatus.

ThearticlesoftheCRCthatarerelevanttothisInquiryinclude:

• article2(1)–thegeneralprohibitionagainstdiscrimination

• article3–theprotectionofthebestinterestsofthechild

• article9(3)–therightofthechildtomaintaincontactwithparentsonaregularbasis

• article9(4)–theState’sdutytoprovideparentsofseparatedchildrenwithinformationaboutthechildren’swhereabouts

• article12(1)–therightofthechildtobeheard

36


• article16–theprotectionofthechild’sprivacy,familyandhome

• article18(1)–thebestinterestsofthechildtobetheprimaryconcernofaguardian

• article19(1)–thephysicalandmentalprotectionofthechild

• article20(1)–thatspecialprotectionandassistanceistobeprovidedforachilddeprivedofhisorherfamilyenvironment

• article37(b)–thatdetentionisameasureoflastresortandfortheshortestappropriateperiodoftime

• article37(c)–thatchildrendeprivedoftheirlibertyaretreatedwithhumanityandrespectfortheinherentdignityofthehumanperson

• article37(d)–thatchildrendeprivedoftheirlibertytobeprovidedlegalassistanceandtherighttochallengetheirdetention

• article40(1)–concerningtreatmentofchildrenallegedtohaveinfringedpenallaw.

InadditiontotheCRC,thereareothergeneralhumanrightsobligationsofrelevancetothisInquiry.ObligationsunderthefollowingarticlesoftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights(ICCPR)areofparticularrelevance:

• article9–theprohibitiononarbitrarydetention

• article10–thehumanetreatmentofpeopledeprivedoftheirliberty

• article14–therighttohaveaconvictionandsentencereviewed.

6.1 The principle of the benefit of the doubt

TheCRCrequiresthatanindividualwhosaysthatheorsheisachildshouldbegiventhebenefitofthedoubtandtreatedasachildunlessoruntilitisconclusivelyshownthatheorsheisnotachild.

Whenmakinganassessmentofwhetheranindividualisachild,theUNCommitteeconsidersthatStatepartiesshouldapplytheprincipleofthe‘benefitofthedoubt’.Thismeansthat,‘ifthereisapossibilitythattheindividualisachild,sheorheshouldbetreatedassuch’.44ItfollowsthatallofthespecialrightsandprotectionscontainedwithintheCRCmustbeaffordedtoanindividualwhosaysheorsheisachildunlessoruntilitisestablishedthattheindividualisnotachild.ThesameviewhasbeenexpressedbytheOfficeofInternationalLawwithinAGDinanadvicetotheCriminalJusticeDivisionofAGD.45


TheUNCommitteehasmadeanumberofspecificcommentsregardingtheprincipleofthebenefitofthedoubt.Forexample,inassessingwhetheranindividualisachildforthepurposeofacriminalproceedingcarryingthedeathpenaltyinthePhilippines,theUNCommitteemadeaconcludingobservationthattheStateshouldcarrytheburdenofproofinthedeterminationofage.Itstatedthat:

TheStatepartyshouldalsotakeimmediatelegislativeandothermeasurestoobligeauthorities,suchaspolice,prosecutors,defence,judgesandsocialworkers,topresentevidenceincourtsregardingthepreciseageofanaccusedperson,oriffailingtodosogiveapersonthebenefitofthedoubt,inordertoensurethatpersonsunder18yearsofagearenotsentencedtodeathoranotheradultpunishment.46

TheUNCommitteehasfurthercommentedthatwhereageassessmentprocessesareinconclusive,theindividualshouldbegiventhebenefitofthedoubt,stating:

Ifthereisnoproofofage,thechildisentitledtoareliablemedicalorsocialinvestigationthatmayestablishhis/herageand,inthecaseofconflictorinconclusiveevidence,thechildshallhavetherighttotheruleofthebenefitofthedoubt.47

Intheeventthatthereisnoproofofageanditcannotbeestablishedthatthechildisatorabovetheminimumageofcriminalresponsibility,thechildshallnotbeheldcriminallyresponsible.48

TheprincipleofthebenefitofthedoubtrequiresthatanindividualwhosaysthatheorsheisachildbeaffordedallthespecialprotectionsandrightscontainedintheCRC.Ifthebenefitofthedoubtisnotgiventoanindividualwhoseageisindoubt,anditislaterdeterminedthatheorsheis,infact,achild,itispossiblethattheCommonwealthwillnothavemetitsobligationtoensurethattherightssetoutintheCRCwereaffordedtothechild.

6.2 The best interests of the child as a primary consideration

ThatthebestinterestsofthechildmustbeaprimaryconsiderationinallactionsconcerningchildrenisoneofthekeyprinciplesoftheCRC.ItisalsothehumanrightsprinciplethatisattheheartofthisInquiry.Article3(1)providesthat:

Inallactionsconcerningchildren,whetherundertakenbypublicorprivatesocialwelfareinstitutions,courtsoflaw,administrativeauthoritiesorlegislativebodies,thebestinterestsofthechildshallbeaprimaryconsideration.

AsanoverridingprincipleoftheCRC,article3(1)isapplicabletoeveryarticleoftheCRC.

Whiletherecanbenoonedefinitionofwhatwillbeinthebestinterestsofeachandeverychild,achild’sabilitytoenjoyallofhisorherrightsinagivenenvironmentisagoodindicationofwhetherthechild’sbestinterestsarebeingmet.49

38


Theeffectofarticle3(1)isthattheCommonwealthandallitsofficersmustensurethatthebestinterestsofindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingoffenceswhosaythattheyarechildrenareaprimaryconsiderationinalldecisionsandactionsconcerningthemunlesstheyaremanifestlyadults.Itisnotinconsistentwitharticle3(1)fortheretobeotherprimaryconsiderationsbuttheycannotberegardedasofgreatersignificancethanthebestinterestsofthechild.

TheUnitedNationsCommitteeontheRightsoftheChild(UNCommittee)emphasisestheimportanceofensuringthatdomesticlawreflectsarticle3(1),togetherwiththeotheridentifiedgeneralprinciples.Itstatesthatthebestinterestsprinciple:

requiresactivemeasuresthroughoutGovernment,parliamentandthejudiciary.Everylegislative,administrativeandjudicialbodyorinstitutionisrequiredtoapplythebestinterestsprinciplebysystematicallyconsideringhowchildren’srightsandinterestsareorwillbeaffectedbytheirdecisionsandactions–by,forexample,aproposedorexistinglaworpolicyoradministrativeactionorcourtdecision,includingthosewhicharenotdirectlyconcernedwithchildren,butindirectlyaffectchildren.50

ThereisnodirectreferencetoageassessmentprocessesintheCRC.However,theUNCommitteehasmadeplainthatarticle3requiresStatepartiessuchasAustraliatotakepositivestepstoensurethatageassessmentprocessesinthecaseofunaccompaniedandseparatedchildrenareconductedinachild’sbestinterests.51

6.3 Incorrect age assessment may lead to significant human rights breaches

Whereayoungpersonisnotaffordedthebenefitofthedoubtandismistakenlyassessedtobeanadult,itislikelythattherewillbesignificantbreachesofhisorherhumanrights.Ayoungpersonassessedtobeanadultisunlikelytohavehisorherbestinterestsregardedasaprimaryconsideration.Ifhisorherbestinterestsareregardedasaprimaryconsideration,theyoungpersonwillbetreateddifferentlyfromadultsandhisorherotherrightssetoutintheCRCrespected.

ThesectionsbelowoutlinesomeoftheotherrightssetoutintheCRCthatmaybebreachedwhereapersonsuspectedofapeoplesmugglingoffencewhosaysthatheisachildismistakenlyassessedtobeanadult.

(a) Therighttolibertyandtherightsofchildrendeprivedoftheirliberty

Article37(b)oftheCRCprovidesthatchildrenmustonlybearrested,detainedorimprisonedasameasureoflastresortandfortheshortestappropriateperiodoftime.

Article37(c)isthekeyrightcontainedwithintheCRCthatappliestothesituationofindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhosaidthattheywerechildrenoncetheyweredetained.It


appliestoallformsofdeprivationofliberty,andsomustbeconsideredinlightoftheholdingofyoungIndonesianssuspectedofpeoplesmugglinginimmigrationdetentionaswellastheirdetentioninadultcorrectionalfacilitiesaftertheyhavebeencharged.

Article37(c)requiresthatachilddeprivedofhisorherlibertybetreatedinamannerwhichtakesintoaccounttheneedsofapersonofhisorherageandthatthechildbeordinarilyseparatedfromadults.Itprovides:

Everychilddeprivedoflibertyshallbetreatedwithhumanityandrespectfortheinherentdignityofthehumanperson,andinamannerwhichtakesintoaccounttheneedsofpersonsofhisorherage.Inparticular,everychilddeprivedoflibertyshallbeseparatedfromadultsunlessitisconsideredinthechild’sbestinterestnottodosoandshallhavetherighttomaintaincontactwithhisorherfamilythroughcorrespondenceandvisits,saveinexceptionalcircumstances.

WhileAustraliahasareservationtoarticle37(c)oftheCRC,theAustralianGovernmentatthetimeofreservationmadeitclearthatitsconcernswiththearticlerelatedtowhetherchildreninjuveniledetentioncouldmaintaincontactwiththeirfamilies,giventhegeographyanddemographyofAustralia.52

TheserightsarealsosetoutintheICCPR.Article10(2)(b)providesthat‘[a]ccusedjuvenilepersonsshallbeseparatedfromadultsandbroughtasspeedilyaspossibleforadjudication’andarticle10(3)providesthat‘[j]uvenileoffendersshallbesegregatedfromadultsandbeaccordedtreatmentappropriatetotheirageandlegalstatus’.

Article37(d)furtherprovidesthat:

Everychilddeprivedofhisorherlibertyshallhavetherighttopromptaccesstolegalandotherappropriateassistance,aswellastherighttochallengethelegalityofthedeprivationofhisorherlibertybeforeacourtorothercompetent,independentandimpartialauthority,andtoapromptdecisiononanysuchaction.53

Therighttochallengethelegalityofdetentionisalsosetoutinarticle9(4)oftheICCPRwhichstatesthat‘anyonewhoisdeprivedofhislibertybyarrestordetentionshallbeentitledtotakeproceedingsbeforeacourt,inorderthatthatcourtmaydecidewithoutdelayonthelawfulnessofhisdetentionandorderhisreleaseifthedetentionisnotlawful’.

TheUNCommitteehasrecommendedthatonceachildisarrestedandplacedindetention,thechildistobebroughtbeforeacompetentauthoritytoexaminethelegalityofhisdetentionassoonaspossible.54Inrelationtoextendeddetentionandpre-chargedelay,theUNCommitteehascommentedthat:

inmanycountries,childrenlanguishinpretrialdetentionformonthsorevenyears,whichconstitutesagraveviolationofarticle37(b)ofCRC.Aneffectivepackageofalternativesmustbeavailable…forthe

40


Statespartiestorealizetheirobligationunderarticle37(b)ofCRCtousedeprivationoflibertyonlyasameasureoflastresort.55

Accordingly,Statesshouldenactlegislativeandpolicymeasurestoreducetheuseofpre-trialdetention,forexample,bygrantingbailwherepossibleintheindividualcircumstancesandconsideringthebestinterestsofthechild.

Article9(3)oftheICCPRisalsorelevanttolengthypre-chargedetention.Itstates:

Anyonearrestedordetainedonacriminalchargeshallbebroughtpromptlybeforeajudgeorotherofficerauthorizedbylawtoexercisejudicialpowerandshallbeentitledtotrialwithinareasonabletimeortorelease.Itshallnotbethegeneralrulethatpersonsawaitingtrialshallbedetainedincustody,butreleasemaybesubjecttoguaranteestoappearfortrial,atanyotherstageofthejudicialproceedings,and,shouldoccasionarise,forexecutionofthejudgement.

Article9(3)containsanindirectentitlementtoreleasefrompre-trialdetentioninexchangeforbailorsomeotherguarantee.56TheHumanRightsCommitteeconsidersthatbailshouldordinarilybegrantedunlesscircumstancesexistwhichwouldmakeitunreasonabletodoso.Ithascommentedthat:

pre-trialdetentionshouldbetheexceptionand…bailshouldbegranted,exceptinsituationswherethelikelihoodexiststhattheaccusedwouldabscondordestroyevidence,influencewitnessesorfleefromthejurisdictionoftheStateparty.Themerefactthattheaccusedisaforeignerdoesnotofitselfimplythathemaybeheldindetentionpendingtrial.57

Finally,therighttobefreefromarbitrarydetentionisalsorelevanttotheissuesunderconsiderationinthisInquiry.Article37(b)oftheCRCprovidesthat‘[n]ochildshallbedeprivedofhisorherlibertyunlawfullyorarbitrarily’.Inaddition,article9(1)oftheICCPRprovides:

Everyonehastherighttolibertyandsecurityofperson.Nooneshallbesubjectedtoarbitraryarrestordetention.Nooneshallbedeprivedofhislibertyexceptonsuchgroundsandinaccordancewithsuchprocedureasareestablishedbylaw.

Detentionmaybearbitrarynotwithstandingthatitisauthorisedbylaw.TheICCPRhasbeeninterpretedasprovidingthat‘allunlawfuldetentionsarearbitrary;andlawfuldetentionsmayalsobearbitrary,iftheyexhibitelementsofinappropriateness,injustice,orlackofpredictabilityorproportionality’.58Further,detentionmustbenecessaryinallthecircumstancesandmustnotcontinuebeyondtheperiodforwhichaStatepartycanprovideappropriatejustification.59Forthisreason,pre-chargedetentionforaperiodoftimethatisunjust,unreasonableanddisproportionatetoaState’slegitimateaim,maybecontrarytotheprohibitionagainstarbitrarydetentioninarticle9(1).60


(b) Therightsofchildrenallegedtohavecommittedanoffence

Inrecognisingtherightofeverychildsuspectedofcommittinganoffencetobetreatedinamannerconsistentwiththechild’ssenseofdignityandworth,article40(2)(b)oftheCRCprovidesminimumproceduralguaranteesinthecriminalprocess.OfrelevancetothisInquiry,everychildisentitled:

• tobepresumedinnocentuntilprovenguiltyaccordingtolaw61

• tobeinformedpromptlyanddirectlyofthechargesagainsthimorher,andifappropriate,throughhisorherparentsorlegalguardians,andtohavelegalorotherappropriateassistanceinthepreparationandpresentationofhisorherdefence62

• tohavethematterdeterminedwithoutdelaybyacompetent,independentandimpartialauthorityorjudicialbodyinafairhearingaccordingtolaw,inthepresenceoflegalorotherappropriateassistanceand,unlessitisconsiderednottobeinthebestinterestsofthechild,inparticular,takingintoaccounthisorherageorsituation,hisorherparentsorlegalguardians63

• ifconsideredtohaveinfringedthepenallaw,tohavethisdecisionandany[other]measuresimposedinconsequencethereofreviewedbyahighercompetent,independentandimpartialauthorityorjudicialbodyaccordingtolaw64

• tohavethefreeassistanceofaninterpreterifthechildcannotunderstandorspeakthelanguageused.65

IntheviewoftheUNCommittee,childrenwhoareinconflictwiththelawshouldbetreatedinamannerthatisconsistentwiththeirsenseofdignityandworththroughouttheentirecriminaljusticeprocess.Theirtreatmentshouldtakeintoaccounttheirageandpromotetheirreintegrationinsociety.66Ofparticularrelevance,theUNCommitteeisconcernedaboutthelengthofdelayinjudicialprocesses,havingstated:

Internationallythereisaconsensusthatforchildreninconflictwiththelawthetimebetweenthecommissionoftheoffenceandthefinalresponsetothisactshouldbeasshortaspossible.Thelongerthisperiod,themorelikelyitisthattheresponselosesitsdesiredpositive,pedagogicalimpact,andthemorethechildwillbestigmatized.…

TheCommitteerecommendsthattheStatespartiessetandimplementtimelimitsfortheperiodbetweenthecommissionoftheoffenceandthecompletionofthepoliceinvestigation,thedecisionoftheprosecutor…tobringchargesagainstthechild,andthefinaladjudicationanddecisionbythecourt.…Thesetimelimitsshouldbemuchshorterthanthosesetforadults.Butatthesametime,decisionswithoutdelayshouldbetheresultofaprocessinwhichthehumanrightsofthechildandlegalsafeguardsarefullyrespected.67

42


Finally,underarticle40(3),Statesarerequiredtopromotemeasuresforchildreninconflictwiththelawthatdonotinvolvejudicialproceedings,providedthathumanrightsandlegalsafeguardsarefullyrespected.

(c) Therightsofchildrentobeprotectedfromallformsofphysicalormentalviolence

Ifachildisdetainedorsentencedasanadultduetoinadequateageassessmentprocedures,thatchildmaybeatriskofmistreatment.Article19(1)oftheCRCprovidesthat:

StatesPartiesshalltakeallappropriatelegislative,administrative,socialandeducationalmeasurestoprotectthechildfromallformsofphysicalormentalviolence,injuryorabuse,neglectornegligenttreatment,maltreatmentorexploitation,includingsexualabuse,whileinthecareofparent(s),legalguardian(s)oranyotherpersonwhohasthecareofthechild.

Article19(1)reachestothetreatmentofchildrenwithininstitutionsandinthejusticesystem.68

Article19recognisestheparticularvulnerabilityofchildrentoviolence,injuryorabuse,neglect,maltreatmentorexploitation.Childrenwhoaremistakenlyheldinadultfacilitiesfaceaheightenedriskinthisregard.Anobviouspreventiveand‘protectivemeasure’asrequiredinarticle19(2)wouldbetoensurechildrenareseparatedfromadults,includingwhereageisindispute.

(d) Therightsofachildseparatedfromhisfamily

TheCRCrequiresAustraliatoensurethatchildrenlackingthesupportoftheirparentsreceivetheextrahelpthattheyneedtoguaranteetheenjoymentofallrightssetoutundertheCRCandotherinternationalhumanrightsinstruments.

Article20(1)oftheCRCrecognisestheparticularvulnerabilityofunaccompaniedchildrenwhofacelanguageandculturalbarriers,andprovidesthat‘[a]childtemporarilyorpermanentlydeprivedofhisorherfamilyenvironment…shallbeentitledtospecialprotectionandassistanceprovidedbytheState’.

Effectiveguardianshipisanimportantelementofthecareofunaccompaniedchildren.Article20(2)oftheCRCrequiresAustraliatoensurethe‘alternativecareforsuchachild’,whichmaybemetthroughtheappointmentofaguardian.

Article18(1)oftheCRCspecifiesthatthebestinterestsofthechildshallbethebasicconcernofalegalguardian.GeneralComment6oftheUNCommitteeexplainsthisobligationfurther:

Statesarerequiredtocreatetheunderlyinglegalframeworkandtotakenecessarymeasurestosecure


properrepresentationofanunaccompaniedorseparatedchild’sbestinterests.Therefore,Statesshouldappointaguardianoradviserassoonastheunaccompaniedorseparatedchildisidentifiedandmaintainsuchguardianshiparrangementsuntilthechildhaseitherreachedtheageofmajorityorhaspermanentlylefttheterritoryand/orjurisdictionoftheState.…Theguardianshouldbeconsultedandinformedregardingallactionstakeninrelationtothechild.Theguardianshouldhavetheauthoritytobepresentinallplanninganddecision-makingprocesses,includingimmigrationandappealhearings,carearrangementsandalleffortstosearchforadurablesolution.Theguardianoradvisershouldhavethenecessaryexpertiseinthefieldofchildcare,soastoensurethattheinterestsofthechildaresafeguardedandthatthechild’slegal,social,health,psychological,materialandeducationalneedsareappropriatelycoveredby,interalia,theguardianactingasalinkbetweenthechildandexistingspecialistagencies/individualswhoprovidethecontinuumofcarerequiredbythechild.Agenciesorindividualswhoseinterestscouldpotentiallybeinconflictwiththoseofthechild’sshouldnotbeeligibleforguardianship.69

Article16oftheCRCprovidesthatnochildshallbesubjectedtoarbitraryorunlawfulinterferencewithhisorherprivacy,familyandhome.Consequently,achildwhoisseparatedfromoneorbothparentshastherighttomaintainpersonalrelationsanddirectcontactwithbothparentsonaregularbasis,exceptifthiswouldbecontrarytothechild’sbestinterests(article9(3)).WheresuchseparationresultsfromanyactionbyaStateparty(includingdetentionofthechild),theStatepartyshall,onrequest,providebothparents,thechildor,ifappropriate,anothermemberofthefamily,withtheessentialinformationconcerningthewhereaboutsoftheabsentmembersofthefamilyunlessitwouldbedetrimentaltothewell-beingofthechild(article9(4)).

(e) Therightofthechildtobeheard

Achildhastherighttoexpresstheirviewsandtohavethoseviewstakenintoaccountindecisionsthataffectthem.

Article12(1)oftheCRCprovidesthat:

StatesPartiesshallassuretothechildwhoiscapableofforminghisorherownviewstherighttoexpressthoseviewsfreelyinallmattersaffectingthechild,theviewsofthechildbeinggivendueweightinaccordancewiththeageandmaturityofthechild.

Article12underlineschildren’sstatusasindividualswithfundamentalhumanrights,viewsandfeelingsoftheirown.70

Article12(2)specificallyprovidesthechildwiththerighttobeheardinanyjudicialandadministrativeproceedingsaffectinghim,whichwouldincludeproceedingsinvolvingthedeterminationofage,andwiththerightforthoseviewstobegiven‘dueweight’.Inthisregard,theUNCommittee’sGeneralComment5highlightsthatforrightstohavemeaning,effectiveremediesmustbeavailabletoredressviolations:

Children’sspecialanddependentstatuscreatesrealdifficultiesfortheminpursuingremediesfor

44


breachesoftheirrights.…SoStatesneedtogiveparticularattentiontoensuringthatthereareeffective,child-sensitiveproceduresavailabletochildrenandtheirrepresentatives.Theseshouldincludetheprovisionofchild-friendlyinformation,advice,advocacy,includingsupportforself-advocacy,andaccesstoindependentcomplaintsproceduresandtothecourtswithnecessarylegalandotherassistance.71

TheextenttowhichalloftherightsdiscussedabovewererespectedandprotectedduringtheinvestigationandprosecutionofcasesofyoungIndonesianssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingisdiscussedinChapter8.

__________________________________________________________________________________

1AustralianHumanRightsCommission,ImmigrationDetentioninDarwin(2010),p9.Athttp://www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/idc2010_darwin.html(viewed9July2012).

2PMaley,‘ChildreninWAjailsonsmugglercharges’,TheAustralian,11November2010.Athttp://www.news.com.au/children-in-wa-jails-on-smuggler-charges/story-e6frg13u-1225951673558(viewed9July2012).

3HonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,CorrespondencetoHonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,17February2011.

4HonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,31March2011,p3.

5HonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,30June2011.

6HonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,CorrespondencetoHonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,14July2011;HonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,CorrespondencetoHonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,8November2011.

7HonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,22August2011.

8See,forexample,RCarbonell,‘Allegedpeoplesmugglersx-rayedtoproveage’,ABCNews,27June2011.Athttp://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-06-27/alleged-people-smugglers-x-rayed-to-prove-age/2773398(viewed9July2012);MDodd,‘Alarmatabuseofasylumboatboys’,TheAustralian,12July2011.Athttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/alarm-at-abuse-of-asylum-boat-boys/story-fn59niix-1226092675802(viewed9July2012);‘Indonesianboys“wallowing”inAustralianjails’,ABCNews,17October2011.Athttp://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-17/indonesian-boys-held-in-aust-jails/3574268(viewed9July2012);MCarlton,‘Theshamewekeeplockedaway’,SydneyMorningHerald,22October2011.Athttp://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/the-shame-we-keep-locked-away-20111021-1mc7p.html(viewed9July2012).

9HCohenandRHenschke,‘Casualtiesinthewaronpeople-smuggling’,ABCRadioNational,30October2011.Athttp://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/casualties-in-the-war-on-people-smuggling/3601454(viewed9July2012);NO’BrienandCMarriner,‘Pluckedfrompoorvillages,boyslandinjail’,SydneyMorningHerald,6November2011.Athttp://www.smh.com.au/national/plucked-from-poor-villages-boys-land-in-jail-20111105-1n14h.html(viewed9July2012);KMarks,‘Australia’sshameoveritsforgottenteenageprisoners’,TheIndependent,14November2011.Athttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/australias-shame-over-its-forgotten-teenage-prisoners-6261947.html(viewed9July2012).


10RvDaud[2011]WADC175,255;RvRMA[2011]WADC198,69.InRvDaudthejudgenotedthattheexpertwitnesscalledbytheprosecution(DrLow)wasnotaqualifiedstatistician.HisHonouracceptedthecriticismsmadeofhisevidencebydefencewitnesses,acceptingtheirevidencewhereitconflictedwithDrLow’sandrejectingthestatisticalprobabilitiesoftheaccusedbeingthechronologicalagereportedbyDrLow.InRvRMAthejudgeacceptedthatthemethodemployedbyDrLowwasflawedandexpressedtheopinionthat‘themethodemployedbyDrLowandtheassumptionsuponwhichitisbasesrenderhisopinionunreliable’.

11Itappearsthatthetendencyoffemalestoachieveskeletalmaturityearlierthanmalesmeansthattheuseofwristx-raystoassesswhethertheywereovertheageof18yearswouldbeevenmoreproblematicintheircase.

12AustralianHumanRightsCommissionAct1986(Cth),s21(1).13MigrationAct1958(Cth),s233A(1).14MigrationAct1958(Cth),s233C(1).15MigrationAct1958(Cth),s233A;CrimesAct1914(Cth),s4AA.16MigrationAct1958(Cth),s233C;CrimesAct1914(Cth),s4AA.17MigrationAct1958(Cth),ss233C,236B.18MigrationAct1958(Cth),s236B(2).19MigrationAct1958(Cth),s236A.20CommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions,ProsecutionPolicyoftheCommonwealth:Guidelinesfor

themakingofdecisionsintheprosecutionprocess,November2008(CommonwealthProsecutionPolicy),p9.Athttp://www.cdpp.gov.au/Publications/ProsecutionPolicy/ProsecutionPolicy.pdf(viewed9July2012).

21AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,p6.22CrimesAmendment(AgeDetermination)Act2001(Cth).23RvHatim[2000]NTSC53.24CrimesAct1914(Cth),s3ZQB.25CrimesRegulations1990(Cth),reg6C(2).26CrimesAct1914(Cth),s3ZQH.27CrimesAct1914(Cth),ss3ZQB,3ZQC.28LegalOfficer,CDPPSydneyOffice,MinutetoSeniorAssistantDirector,CDPPSydneyOffice,3September

2011(GEO028–CDPPdocument006.0071).29FederalAgent,AFPOffice,CaseNote:Crewidentifiedasaminor,29March2011(CLA061–AFP

document1).ThischildwasdeportedtoIndonesiabyDIACwithinthreeweeksofinterception.30GregHogan,Submission24,pp7–10.31FiguresdrawnfromdocumentsprovidedtotheCommission.32VictoriaLegalAid,Submission13,p4.VictoriaLegalAidprovidedthisinformationbasedonavisittoRote

IslandmadebyVLAlawyers.33VictoriaLegalAid,Submission13,p4.34VictoriaLegalAid,Submission13,p4.35VictoriaLegalAid,Submission13,p4.

46


36TheCommissionhasonlyconsideredthoseindividualswhoarrivedinAustraliabetween28September2009and22November2011.

37AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,p22.38DepartmentofImmigrationandCitizenship,Submission37–Attachment,p1.39AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,p24.40AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,p24.41CommonwealthProsecutionPolicy,note20.42MigrationAct1958(Cth),ss233C,236B.43ConventionontheRightsoftheChild,1989(CRC),art1.Athttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/

treaties/1991/4.html(viewed9July2012).44UNCommitteeontheRightsoftheChild,GeneralCommentNo.6–TreatmentofUnaccompaniedand

SeparatedChildrenOutsidetheirCountryofOrigin,UNDocCRC/GC/2005/6(2005)(GeneralComment6),para31(i).Athttp://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/42dd174b4.html(viewed9July2012).

45SeniorLegalOfficer,OfficeofInternationalLaw,AGD,LettertoPrincipalLegalOfficer,PeopleSmugglingandBorderProtectionSection,AGD,2May2011(AGDdocumentPROS-27),p8.

46UNCommitteeontheRightsoftheChild,ReportoftheUNCommitteeontheRightsoftheChild,Thirty-NinthSession,UNDocCRC/C/150(2005),para130.Athttp://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/44182d714.html(viewed9July2012).

47UNCommitteeontheRightsoftheChild,GeneralCommentNo.10–Children’sRightsinJuvenileJustice,UNDocCRC/C/GC/10(2007)(GeneralComment10),para39.Athttp://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4670fca12.html(viewed9July2012).

48GeneralComment10,above,para35.49RHodgkinandPNewell,ImplementationHandbookfortheConventionontheRightsoftheChild(3rded,

2007)(CRCImplementationHandbook),pp37–38.Athttp://www.unicef.org/publications/files/Implementation_Handbook_for_the_Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child_Part_1_of_3.pdf(viewed9July2012).

50UNCommitteeontheRightsoftheChild,GeneralCommentNo.5–GeneralMeasuresofImplementationoftheConventionontheRightsoftheChild,UNDocCRC/GC/2003/5(2003)(GeneralComment5),para12.Athttp://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4538834f11.html(viewed9July2012).GeneralCommentsareconsideredtohaveinterpretativevalueinconsideringrightsundertheCRC.

51GeneralComment6,note44,para31.52SeeAustralianGovernment,Australia’sCombinedSecondandThirdReportsundertheConventiononthe

RightsoftheChild,Attorney-General’sDepartment(2003),paras466–467.Athttp://www.dfat.gov.au/hr/downloads/australia_2nd_3rd_reports_convention_rights_child.pdf(viewed9July2012).

53Seealso,InternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights,1966,art9(4).Athttp://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1980/23.html(viewed9July2012).

54GeneralComment10,note47,para83.TheCommitteehasmadearecommendationthatchildrenbebroughtbeforeacompetentauthoritywithin24hours.

55GeneralComment10,above,para80.56MNowak,U.N.CovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights:CCPRCommentary(2nded,2005),p234.57HumanRightsCommittee,HillvSpain,CommunicationNo.526/1993,UNDocCCPR/C/59/D/526/1993

(1997),para12.3.Athttp://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/SDecisionsVol6en.pdf(viewed9July2012).


58MangavAttorney-General[2000]2NZLR65,[40](HammondJ).SeealsoHumanRightsCommittee,VanAlphenvTheNetherlands,CommunicationNo.305/1988,UNDocCCPR/C/39/D/305/1988(1990).Athttp://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/a4269194de1b9228c1256ac700449405?Opendocument(viewed9July2012);HumanRightsCommittee,AvAustralia,CommunicationNo.560/1993,UNDocCCPR/C/59/D/560/1993(1997).Athttp://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/30c417539ddd944380256713005e80d3?Opendocument(viewed9July2012);HumanRightsCommittee,SpakmovNorway,CommunicationNo.631/1995,UNDocCCPR/C/67/D/631/1995(1997).Athttp://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/237a8e226edb906f8025686b005b511b?Opendocument(viewed9July2012).

59HumanRightsCommittee,CvAustralia,CommunicationNo.900/1999,UNDocCCPR/C/76/D/900/1999(2002),para8.2.Athttp://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/3f588ef00.html(viewed9July2012);DandEvAustralia,CommunicationNo1050/2002,UNDocCCPR/C/87/D/1050/2002(2006),para7.2.Athttp://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/9dbcb136a858ebc5c12571cc00532f41?OpenDocument(viewed9July2012);OmarSharifBabanvAustralia,CommunicationNo1014/2001,UNDocCCPR/C/78/D/1014/2001(2003),para7.2.Athttp://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/404887ee3.html(viewed9July2012);BakhtiyarivAustralia,CommunicationNo1069/2002,UNDocCCPR/C/79/D/1069/2002(2003),para9.2.Athttp://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,HRC,,PAK,,404887ed0,0.html(viewed9July2012).

60HumanRightsCommittee,GeneralCommentNo.31–NatureoftheGeneralLegalObligationImposedonStatesPartiestotheCovenant,UNDocCCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13(2004)para6.Athttp://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/58f5d4646e861359c1256ff600533f5f?Opendocument(viewed9July2012).

61CRC,note43,art40(2)(b)(i).62CRC,above,art40(2)(b)(ii).63CRC,above,art40(2)(b)(iii).64CRC,above,art40(2)(b)(v).65CRC,above,art40(2)(b)(vi).66GeneralComment10,note47,para13.67GeneralComment10,above,paras51–52.68CRCImplementationHandbook,note49,pp264–265.69GeneralComment6,note44,para33.70CRCImplementationHandbook,note49,p149.71GeneralComment5,note50,para24.


Chapter 2:

Biomedical markers and the assessment of chronological age

50

Chapter 2: Biomedical markers and the assessment of chronological age

Chapter contents

1 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 52

2 Theuseofwristx-rayanalysisfortheassessmentofchronologicalage............................. 53

2.1 Theprocessfortakingandanalysingawristx-rayinAustralia................................... 54

2.2 Wristx-rayanalysisusingtheGPAtlasisnotinformativeofwhetheramalehasattained18yearsofage..................................................................................... 56

(a) TheGPAtlasdoesnotconsiderthechronologicalageatwhichskeletalmaturityisattained.............................................................................................. 56

(b) TheCommonwealth’sprimarywitnessreliedupontheGPAtlastocalculatetheprobabilityofattainingskeletalmaturitypriortotheageof18........................ 59

(c) Alternativeanalysisdemonstratesthatwristx-raysareinsufficientlyinformativeofwhethersomeonehasreached18yearsofage.............................................. 60

(d) Otherexpertopinionconfirmsthatwristx-rayanalysisisuninformativeofwhetheramalehasreached18yearsofage...................................................... 62

2.3 TheGPAtlasisoflimiteduseforassessingthechronologicalageofpopulationsdissimilartothatofthestudysample......................................................................... 65

2.4 Errorsofinterpretationmayimpactontheaccuracyofwristx-rayanalysisofskeletalage............................................................................................................... 67

2.5 Wristx-rayanalysiscouldbereliedupontoconcludethatanindividualwithanimmaturewristisundertheageof18years.............................................................. 68

3 Theuseofdentalx-rayanalysisfortheassessmentofchronologicalage.......................... 68

3.1 Theprocessfortakingandanalysingdentalx-raysforthepurposesofageassessment............................................................................................................... 69

3.2 Expertsdisagreeonhowinformativedentalx-rayanalysisisofwhetherapersonhasattained18yearsofage..................................................................................... 70

3.3 Thereisawidenormalvariationintheageatwhichyoungpeoplegenerallyreachdentalmaturity.......................................................................................................... 72

3.4 Ethnicity,socio-economicstatusandnutritionmayimpactontheattainmentofdentalmaturity.......................................................................................................... 73

3.5 Thereisnoevidencethatawristx-rayplusadentalx-rayimprovesreliabilityintheassessmentofage.............................................................................................. 74


4 Theethicalimplicationsoftheuseofx-rayanalysisfortheassessmentofchronologicalage.............................................................................................................. 74

5 Theuseofotherbiomedicalmarkersfortheassessmentofchronologicalage................... 77

5.1 Physicalexaminationssufferthesameweaknessesasx-raysandraiseseriousethicalissues............................................................................................................. 77

5.2 Assessingageusinganx-rayoftheclaviclerequiresfurtherresearch........................ 78

5.3 Assessingageusingmagneticresonanceimagingrequiresfurtherresearch.............. 78

5.4 Assessingageusinganultrasoundofwristandelbowrequiresfurtherresearch........ 79

6 Theuseofmultifactorialmedicalapproachesfortheassessmentofchronologicalage...... 79

7 Theuseofamulti-disciplinaryapproachfortheassessmentofchronologicalage.............. 81

8 Findings............................................................................................................................. 83

8.1 Findingsregardingwristx-rayanalysisfortheassessmentofchronologicalage........ 83

8.2 Findingsregardingdentalx-rayanalysisfortheassessmentofchronologicalage...... 84

8.3 Findingsregardingtheethicalimplicationsoftheuseofx-rayanalysisfortheassessmentofchronologicalage............................................................................... 85

8.4 Findingsregardingtheuseofotherbiomedicalmarkers,multifactorialmedicalapproaches,andmulti-disciplinaryapproachestotheassessmentofchronologicalage............................................................................................................................ 85

52


1 Introduction

Since2001,theprimarymethodofassessingwhetheranindividualisundertheageof18yearsinthecontextofcriminalproceedingsinAustraliahasbeenthroughtheanalysisofanx-rayoftheyoungperson’swrist.AsthisInquiryisconsideringthetreatmentofyoungIndonesianmalessuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhosaythattheyarechildren,itisimportanttoconsidertheappropriatenessofthisandotherageassessmentprocessesinthiscontext.Consequently,thischapterconsiderswhetheritisappropriatetoadduceexpertanalysisofawristx-ray,oranyotherbiomedicalmarker,asevidenceinacriminalproceedingontheissueofwhetherayoungmaleisundertheageof18years.AsnotedinChapter1,theCommissionisnotawareofanyfemalepersonhavingbeensuspectedofpeoplesmuggling.

Thischapterconsiderstheuseofwristx-rayanalysisasameansofassessingage,andwhetheritissufficientlyinformativeofwhetherayoungmalepersonhasattained18yearsofage.Thequestionofhowwristx-rayanalysishasbeenusedinpracticeduringinvestigationandprosecutionprocesses,andtheimpactofitsuseinspecificcases,isconsideredinChapter4.

Althoughdentalx-rayanalysishasnotbeenusedasameansofassessingageinthecontextofcriminalproceedingsinAustralia,theprocesshasbeenofferedtoanumberofindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingoffenceswhoseagewasindoubt.Also,asrecentlyasNovember2011,theCommonwealthwasconsideringspecifyingdentalx-raysasaprescribedprocedurefordeterminingageforthepurposesoftheCrimesAct1914(Cth).Consequently,considerationisadditionallygiveninthischaptertothequestionofwhetheritisappropriatetousedentalx-rayanalysisasameansofassessingageincriminalproceedings.

Thischapteralsogivesbriefconsiderationtotheanalysisofotherbiomedicalmarkersforthepurposesofageassessmentincriminalproceedings.Itspecificallyconsidersthefollowing:

• theuseofwristx-raysfortheassessmentofchronologicalage

• theuseofdentalx-raysfortheassessmentofchronologicalage

• theethicalimplicationsoftheuseofx-raysfortheassessmentofchronologicalage

• theuseofotherbiomedicalmarkersfortheassessmentofchronologicalage

• theuseofmultifactorialmedicalapproachesfortheassessmentofchronologicalage

• theuseofamulti-disciplinaryapproachfortheassessmentofchronologicalage.


2 The use of wrist x-ray analysis for the assessment of chronological age

Giventheheavyreliance,since2008,onwristx-rayanalysisasameansofassessingchronologicalageinpeoplesmugglingmatterswhereageisindoubt,oneofthemostimportantquestionsforthisInquiryis:howinformativeiswristx-rayanalysisforassessingwhetherayoungmalepersonisover18yearsofage?

AsdiscussedinChapter1above,thechronologicalageofanindividualsuspectedofapeoplesmugglingoffenceisanimportantissueforthefollowingreasons.

First,itwillordinarilybeinconsistentwiththeProsecutionPolicyoftheCommonwealthforajuveniletobeprosecutedunlesstheseriousnessoftheallegedoffenceorthecircumstancesofthejuvenileconcerneddictateotherwise.1ThispolicypositionpresumablyinformedthemoreparticularpolicypositionarticulatedbytheAustralianGovernmentthatjuvenilessuspectedofpeople-smugglingoffenceswillonlybeprosecutedinexceptionalcircumstancesonthebasisoftheirsignificantinvolvementinapeoplesmugglingventureormultipleventures.2

Second,therearemandatoryminimumpenaltiesforcertainpeoplesmugglingoffences,includingthe‘aggravatedoffenceofpeoplesmuggling(atleast5people)’,theoffencewithwhichmostindividualssuspectedofapeople-smugglingoffencearecharged.3Theminimumpenaltyforthisoffenceis,forafirstoffence,asentenceofimprisonmentofatleastfiveyearswithanon-paroleperiodofatleastthreeyears.4Importantly,however,thismandatoryminimumpenaltyhasnoapplication‘ifitisestablishedonthebalanceofprobabilitiesthatthepersonwasagedunder18yearswhentheoffencewascommitted’.5

Hence,ifwristx-rayanalysisisnotadequatelyinformativeofwhetherayoungpersonsuspectedofapeoplesmugglingoffencewasovertheageof18yearswhentheallegedoffencewascommitted,thepotentialconsequencesofrelianceonsuchanalysisareserious.TheyincludeprosecutingajuvenilecontrarytotheProsecutionPolicyoftheCommonwealthandamorespecificpolicypositionadoptedbytheAustralianGovernment;prosecutingajuvenileinanadultcourt;theimpositiononajuvenileofamandatorysentenceofimprisonmentapplicableonlytoadults;andthedetentionofajuvenileinanadultfacility.Eachoftheabovepotentialconsequenceswould,ifrealised,involveafailuretorespectrightsrecognisedbytheConventionontheRightsoftheChild(CRC).

Thereisalsoanethicaldimensiontoadecisiontosubjectanyperson,butparticularlyachild,toradiation,asradiationispotentiallyharmful.Thisethicaldimensionwillbethemoreacutewhentheexposuretoradiationisforanadministrative,ratherthanamedical,purposeandwherethebenefitfromtheexposureisdoubtful.Thisissueisconsideredfurtherbelow.

54


Thissectionofthereportdiscussestheprocessfortakingandanalysingawristx-rayinAustralia.Itthenconsidersthefollowingquestions:

• Iswristx-rayanalysisusingtheGreulichandPyleAtlas(GPAtlas)informativeofwhetherapersonhasattained18yearsofage?

• Howwideisthenormalvariationintheageatwhichyoungpeoplegenerallyachieveskeletalmaturity?

• DoestheGPAtlashavelimitationswhenusedforassessingthechronologicalageofapopulationdissimilartothestudysampleonwhichtheGPAtlasisbased?

• Canerrorsofinterpretationimpactontheaccuracyofwristx-rayanalysisofskeletalage?

2.1 The process for taking and analysing a wrist x-ray in Australia

Theuseofwristx-rayanalysisasevidenceofagehasreliedonopinionevidence,ordinarilygivenbyaradiologist.Thisevidenceconcernstheprobablechronologicalageofanindividualbasedupontheexpert’sassessmentoftheskeletalmaturityofhiswristasshownbythex-ray.

Theordinaryprocessofobtainingthisevidenceinvolvesthefollowingsteps:

• Aftertherequiredconsentsareobtained,theAustralianFederalPolice(AFP)organisesforaradiographertotakeawristx-ray,usuallyoftheindividual’sleftwrist.

• Thisimageisinterpretedbyaradiologistwho,aftercomparingthex-raywiththeplatescontainedintheGPAtlas,givesanestimationoftheindividual’slikelyskeletalage.

• Unlessthatestimationisundertheageof19years,theAFPthenrequestsadetailedexpertreportfromasecondradiologistwhichcanbereliedoninalegalproceeding;thisreportcalculatesastatisticalprobabilitythattheindividualisundertheageof18years.

InAustralia,whenwristx-raysaretakenforthepurposesofageassessment,theyareusuallyinterpretedwiththeaidofthepublicationARadiographicAtlasofSkeletalDevelopmentoftheHandandWrist,publishedin1950byStanfordUniversityPressandOxfordUniversityPress.ThesecondeditionofthisAtlaswaspublishedin1959.ThisAtlasiscommonlyreferredtoasthe‘GreulichandPyleAtlas’asitwascompiledbyProfessorWilliamWalterGreulichofStanfordUniversitySchoolofMedicineandDrSarahIdellPyle,ResearchAssociate,DepartmentsofAnatomy,WesternReserveUniversityandStanfordUniversitySchoolsofMedicine.ThesecondeditionofthisAtlas,whichhasbeenreliedonineverycaseinwhichawristx-rayofanindividualsuspectedofapeoplesmugglingoffencehasbeenplacedbeforeacourtinAustralia,willbereferredtoasthe‘GPAtlas’.


TheGPAtlasconsistsofaseriesofplatesofstandardhand-wristx-raysforspecifiedskeletalages.6ThestandardplatesintheGPAtlaswereselectedfromx-rayfilmsofhealthy,whitechildrenofNorthEuropeanancestryintheUnitedStateswhosefamiliesmaybeassumedtohavebeensomewhatabovetheaverageineconomicandeducationalstatus.Eachstandardisbasedonagroupof100childrenofthatchronologicalage.Thex-raysonwhichtheGPAtlasisbasedwereoriginallyobtainedaspartofastudybytheBrushFoundationwhichwasconductedbetween1930and1942.7

Whilethereareotheratlasesthathavebeendevelopedtohelpassessskeletalage,includingtheTW3manualanditsTW2predecessor,8theGPAtlasismostcommonlyused,andappearstobetheonlyatlastohavebeenusedforageassessmentpurposesinAustralia.

Wristx-rayanalysisismostcommonlyusedbymedicalpractitionerstoassesstheskeletaldevelopmentofachildwhosechronologicalageisknown.Anassessmentofthiskindisundertakenforthepurposeofevaluatingotheraspectsofthechild’sgrowthanddevelopment.Ordinarily,themedicalpractitionerwantstoknowhowthechild’sdevelopmentcompareswiththatofotherchildrenofthesamesexandage.9Bycomparingachild’swristx-raywiththestandardplatescontainedintheGPAtlas,amedicalpractitionercancomparetheskeletaldevelopmentofthatchildwithotherchildrenofthesamesexandageforthepurposeofformingajudgmentaboutthechild’shealthanddevelopmentstatus.10

ThespecialisedknowledgewhichinformsrelianceontheGPAtlas,andothercomparableatlases,forthepurposeofassessingskeletaldevelopmentofachildwhosechronologicalageisknownincludesthedemonstratedclosecorrespondencebetweenthedevelopmentalstatusofthehumanreproductivesystemandthehumanskeletalsystemasdisclosedbyanx-rayofthehandandwrist.Anx-rayofayoungperson’swristaffordsanobjectivemeasureoftheamountofprogresswhichtheyoungpersonhasmadetowardsattainingphysical(includingskeletal)maturity.11

ItisimportanttobearinmindthattheauthorsoftheGPAtlaswerenotseekingtocreateamethodofestablishingthechronologicalageofyoungpeople.Rather,theirconcernwastoestablishameansofassessingtheskeletaldevelopmentofchildrenwhosechronologicalageisknown.TheauthorsoftheGPAtlasstate,inthetextthatprecedesthestandardplates,thatinconstructingthestandardscontainedintheGPAtlastheirfirstobjectwastoselectfilmwhichwouldprovideanadequaterecordofdiscerniblestagesofnormaldevelopmentofthebonesofthehandandwrist.Theirsecondobjectwastorelatethosestagesasaccuratelyaspossibletothechronologicalageatwhichtheytypicallyoccurredinthechildrenoftheirstudysample.Theyindicatethat‘[i]nasense,thefirstoftheseobjectivesismoreimportantthanthesecond’.12

56


ThecriticalquestionforthisInquiry,whichisaddressedbelow,is:howinformativeisanassessmentofawristx-rayundertakenbyreferencetotheGPAtlasforthepurposeofdeterminingwhetheranindividualIndonesianmalewasovertheageof18yearsatthetimeofhisallegedoffence?

2.2 Wrist x-ray analysis using the GP Atlas is not informative of whether a male has attained 18 years of age

Expertopinionevidenceconcerningayoungperson’schronologicalagewhichisbasedonawristx-rayisultimatelydependentonstatistics.Themannerinwhichwristx-rayanalysishasbeenundertakeninthecasesunderconsiderationhasinvolvedtheexpertradiologistseekingtocalculatethestatisticalprobabilityofapersonwiththedegreeofskeletalmaturityshownbythex-raybeingunderthechronologicalageof18years.

Statisticsbytheirnatureareconcernedwithpopulations,notwithindividuals.Forthisreason,greatcaremustbetakenwhenplacingrelianceonstatisticstodrawaninferenceaboutaparticularindividual.TheextenttowhichitisappropriatetorelyonstatisticsasevidenceconcerninganindividualisdiscussedinmoredetailinthepaperwrittenbythePresidentoftheCommissionwhichisreproducedinAppendix5.

Evenifthisissueisputtooneside,alimitationinherentintheuseofawristx-raytoassessayoungperson’schronologicalageisthatawristx-rayisonlyinformativetothepointatwhichtheindividualachievesskeletalmaturity.Thereaftertheskeletalstatusoftheyoungperson’swristwillremainunchanged.Forthisreason,ifawristx-rayistobeusedforthepurposeofassessingwhetherayoungmalepersonhasachievedtheageof18years,itiscriticaltoknowtheageatwhich,onaverage,youngmalesachieveskeletalmaturity.

Thefactthatamalepersonhasamaturewristwillnotindicatethatheisovertheageof18yearsif,onaverage,malesachieveamaturewristwhenundertheageof18yearsor,alternatively,atanagesufficientlycloseto18yearsofagetorendertheGPAtlas,oranyothersourceofcomparativedata,unhelpful.

(a) TheGPAtlasdoesnotconsiderthechronologicalageatwhichskeletalmaturityisattained

Asnotedabove,theGPAtlasdepicts,byaseriesofstandardx-rayplates,thedegreeofskeletaldevelopmentthatitsauthorsconsideredrepresentativeofthegroupofchildreninitsstudysample,atsuccessivechronologicalagesuntiltheachievementofskeletalmaturity.


Thefinalstandardmalex-rayintheGPAtlasshowsamaturewristwhichisassignedtheageof19years.Itmaybededucedfromthemethodofselectionusedbytheauthors,whichisdescribedbelow,thatamongtheindividualswhosehandfilmswereconsideredforinclusionintheGPAtlasforthisstandard,mostwereskeletallymature.Theimmediatelyprecedingmalestandardisassignedtheageof18yearsandshowsawristextremelyclosetomaturity.AstheevidenceofProfessorTimColediscussedbelowindicates,itisappropriatetoregardeachoftheseplatesasrepresentativeofapopulationofyoungmalesfromwhichearlymaturingindividuals(thatis,fortheplatefor18years,thosewhowerematurebeforetheyreachedtheageof17yearsandfortheplatefor19years,thosewhowerematurebeforetheyreachedtheageof18years)hadbeenremoved.

ThetextwhichaccompaniestheplatesintheGPAtlasrevealsthatthestandardswereselectedfromx-raystakenon,orrelativelycloseto,the18thand19thbirthdaysoftheindividualswhosewriststheydepict.13TheGPAtlascontainsnomalestandardforanyagebetween18and19years;thatis,thereisnoplate,forexample,for18.5years.

ThemethodofselectionofthestandardsintheGPAtlasisdescribedinthetextasfollows:

EachofthestandardsinthisAtlaswasselectedfromonehundredfilmsofchildrenofthesamesexandage.Thefilmsofeachoftheserieswerearrayedintheorderoftherelativeskeletalstatus,fromtheleastmaturetothemostmature.Inmostcasesthefilmchosenasthestandardistheonewhich,inouropinion,wasmostrepresentativeofthecentraltendencyoftheparticulararray.Theanatomicalmodewasfrequently,butnotalways,atornearthemidpointofthedistributionoftheonehundredfilms.14

TheGPAtlasdoesnotgivetheaverageageatwhichthechildreninthestudysampleachievedskeletalmaturity.Thiswasnotthepurposeoftheauthors’study.Interestingly,however,TableIIIoftheGPAtlasshowsthevariabilityoftheskeletalageofboysincludedintheBrushFoundationStudy.Thedatapresentedinthistablearederivedfromthex-raysthatformedthebasisoftheGPAtlas,buttheyarebasedonanassessmentofthosex-raysmadebyreferencetoanearliersetofstandards.15TheauthorsoftheGPAtlasconcludethat‘thereisnoreasontobelievethatthevariabilitywouldbesignificantlygreaterthanthatrecordedinthetablesifthoseassessmentshadbeenbasedonthestandardspresented[intheGPAtlas]’.16Someinformationabouttheaveragechronologicalageatwhichsubjectsachievedaspecificskeletalagecanbeinferredfromthistable.

58


ThefollowingisanextractfromTableIIIoftheGPAtlas:

ChronologicalAge NumberofHandFilms

SkeletalAge(inmonths)

Mean StandardDeviation

14yr 163 170.02 10.72

15yr 124 182.72 11.32

16yr 99 195.32 12.86

17yr 68 206.21 13.05

TableIIIconcludesatthechronologicalageof17years.17

TableVoftheGPAtlasprovidesthemeanandstandarddeviationforskeletalageforboyswhosegrowthanddevelopmentwerestudiedoveralongperiodoftimebyresearchersattheHarvardSchoolofPublicHealthinBoston.Thedatapresentedinthistablearebasedonanassessmentofthex-raysusingthestandardscontainedintheGPAtlas.18

ThefollowingisanextractfromTableVoftheGPAtlas:19

ChronologicalAge NumberofHandFilms

SkeletalAge(inmonths)

Mean StandardDeviation

14yr 65 168.5 12.0

15yr 65 180.7 14.2

16yr 65 193.0 15.1

17yr 60 206.0 15.4

TableValsoconcludesatthechronologicalageof17years.20

Thefailureofthesetwotablestoprovideinformationfortheageof18yearsgivesrisetoaninferencethattheauthorsoftheGPAtlasdidnotconsiderthatameanorstandarddeviationforskeletalagewasmeaningfulatthechronologicalageof18years.

SupportforthisinferenceisfoundinthewrittensubmissionandintheoralevidencetothisInquirybyProfessorCole,ProfessorofMedicalStatistics,UniversityCollege,London.TheapplicationofstatisticstohumangrowthhasbeenProfessorCole’smainresearchfocusforthepast30years.21ProfessorColearguesthatthereasoneachoftheabovetablesconcludesattheageof17yearsisthatthereweretoofewchildrenwitholderboneagestobeincluded;thatis,thatmostchildrenolderthan17yearshavematurewristx-rays.HedrawsadditionalsupportforthisconclusionfromthedropinthenumberofchildrenintheBrushFoundationStudy,particularlyaftertheageof14years.22


HeexplainsthattheGPAtlasdidnotattempttodocumentthedifferentagesatwhichawristmightmature,asthepurposeoftheGPAtlaswastoplotallthestagesofskeletaldevelopmentupuntilwristmaturity.AttheInquiry’shearingformedicalexpertsProfessorColeexplained:

Wellthisisthefundamentalquestion.Howcanwegetahandleontheageofattainmentofamaturex-ray.That’swhyIwenttoTW3[analternativedatabasetotheGPAtlas],becauseithadatablewhichgaveagesofattainment.There’snothingaboutthatinGreulichandPylebecauseGreulichandPylewerenotremotelyinterestedinmaturex-raysasneedsemphasising.Theyreallywerenotinterestedinthem.23

Thus,ProfessorColeargues,theGPAtlasdoesnothelpamedicalpractitionerassesswhetherapersonwithamaturex-raymightbeunderorovertheageof18years.

(b) TheCommonwealth’sprimarywitnessreliedupontheGPAtlastocalculatetheprobabilityofattainingskeletalmaturitypriortotheageof18

IncontrasttoProfessorCole,DrVincentHockSengLow,thewitnessmostcommonlycalledbytheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionsinpeoplesmugglingmatterswhereageisindispute,hasusedtheGPAtlasasthebasisfordevelopingaprobabilityofamalepersonwhohasamaturex-raybeingundertheageof18years.DrLowisaConsultantRadiologistattheInsightClinicalImagingGroup,WesternAustraliaandformerHeadoftheRadiologyDepartmentandConsultantRadiologistattheSirCharlesGairdnerHospitalinNedlands,WesternAustralia.

TheimportofDrLow’sanalysisofwristx-raysinpeoplesmugglingmatterswhereagewasindisputecanbeseenintheJointCommonwealthsubmissionprovidedtotheInquiry:

BasedonexpertadvicetheCommonwealthhassought,thewristX-rayprocedurecanassistindeterminingwhetherapersonis19yearsorolderasmalewristskeletalmaturationoccursonaverageatthatage.TheCDPPwillonlyrelyuponwristX-raysincircumstanceswherethewristX-rayindicatesthatskeletalmaturityhasbeenreachedandanexpertradiologiststatesthatthereisthehighestlevelofprobabilitythatthepersonisanadult.Accordingly,onlythosecaseswherethereisthehighestprobabilitythatthedefendantwas18yearsorolderatthetimeoftheoffencearebroughtbeforethecourts.24

DrLowisoftheopinionthat:

Inmales,skeletalmaturityatthehandisreachedatapproximately19yearsofage.Thismeansthatatthispointintime,allthegrowthplateshavefused.25

Tocalculatetheprobabilitythatamalepersonshowingskeletalmaturityisofaparticularchronologicalageoryounger,DrLowusesthestandarddeviationfortheageof17yearsidentifiedinTableVoftheGPAtlas.DrLowstartsbymakinganassumptionthatskeletalmaturityisattainedonaverageat19yearsofage.UsingthelargerofthestandarddeviationsprovidedintheGPAtlasfortheageof17years,hethenextrapolatestoconcludethatthereisa21.79%probabilitythatapersonwithamaturewristis18yearsorless.26

60


DrLow’sevidenceonthistopicdidnotattractsupportfromanywitnessatthepublichearingformedicalwitnessesconductedaspartofthisInquiry;norhassupportforitbeenfoundinanysubmissionmadetotheInquirybyamedicalexpert.

Forexample,DrJamesChristie,aSpecialistRadiologistattheChildren’sHospitalatWestmead,NewSouthWales,explainedwhytheassumptionsonwhichDrLowbaseshiscalculationsarewronginthefollowingway:

Theuseofsuchprecisenumberssuggeststothereaderofthereportthatthereisscientificaccuracytotheestimate,wherenoneexists.Itisscientificallywrongtosuggestthatastandardvariationcurvecanbeappliedtotheendpointofapopulationdistribution,inthiscasethe19yearstandard.Forexamplebotha17yearoldboyora60yearoldmanmaybothhavethesameskeletalageof19.Byassessingonlytheskeletalage,andusingDrLow’sassumptions,youcouldcometotheclearlyfalseconclusionthateachofthemhasexactlythesameprobabilityofbeing18yearsold.

Theskeletalagevalueassignedtoeachstandardinthe[GPAtlas]isnottheaverageorevenmedianageatwhichtheskeletonreachesthisappearance,butmerelythex-raythattheauthorssubjectivelyfeltmostcloselyrepresentedthatage.Clearlythe19yearvaluecannotbeanaverageofthevaluesbetween15yearsand60years.Italsoisnotthemedianageformaturity,(thatisthevaluewhere50%willbeaboveand50%willbebelow),butismerelyadescriptorthatishigherthanthe18yearvalue.[GreulichandPyle]couldhavecalledthis20or30orjustMature.Theactualnumbermeansverylittle.27

ProfessorCole,whounlikeDrLowisanexpertbio-statistician,expressedtheopinionthatDrLow’sconclusionsbasedontheGPAtlasarewrongandshouldbedismissed.28Asnotedabove,ProfessorColestressesthattheauthorsoftheGPAtlaswerenotconcernedwithidentifyingtheaverageageatwhichskeletalmaturityisattained.

ProfessorColearguesthattherealquestionis:whatistheaverageageatwhichapersonmighthaveamaturewristx-ray?Inhiswrittensubmission,ProfessorColeasserted:

Thisleadstothefollowingquestions:whatproportionarematureatyoungeragesthan19,andwhatistheyoungestagethatadultx-raysareseen?Thesequestionsrelatetotheageofattainmentofasubject’smaturex-ray,whichisquitedistinctfromtheircurrentage.Sincemostx-raysarematurebyage19,theageofattainmentmustformostsubjectsbeearlierthan19.29

(c) Alternativeanalysisdemonstratesthatwristx-raysareinsufficientlyinformativeofwhethersomeonehasreached18yearsofage

ProfessorColesuggeststhatitispossibletocalculatethedistributionoftheageofattainmentofskeletalmaturityinmalesbyreferencetoamorerecentpublication,theTW3boneagemanualpublishedin2001.Thismanualaddressesdirectlythequestionoftheageatwhichskeletalmaturityisattained.30ProfessorColehascalculatedthattheaveragechronologicalageatwhich


amaleachievesskeletalmaturityis17.6years;thatis,inProfessorCole’sopinion,onaveragemalesachieveskeletalmaturityearlierthattheageof18years.

ProfessorCole’swrittensubmissionillustratesthebasisofhiscalculation:

ThedistributionoftheageofattainmentofskeletalmaturitycanbeestimatedfromthethreecentilesinTable8ofTW3,reproducedhere.

Centile 97th 90th 75th

Age(years) 15.1 15.8 16.7

Assuminganormaldistributionofthemeanisabout17.6yearsandSD16.5months.Fromthistheprobabilityofattainingmaturitybeforeage18isabout61%.31

OnProfessorCole’sanalysis,thereisa61%statisticalprobabilitythatayoungmalewillhaveamaturewristonhis18thbirthday.Inotherwordsamaturewristx-rayisnotinformativeofwhetherayoungmaleisovertheageof18yearsasmorethanhalfofallyoungmenwillhaveachievedskeletalmaturitybeforethatage.

ProfessorColefurthersuggeststhatitisimportanttolookbeyondasimpleprobabilityfiguretotherelevant‘likelihoodratio’.ProfessorColegaveevidencethat:

Onemightthinkthatthe61%probabilityofbeingmaturebeforeage18iswhatshouldinterestthecourt.Inasenseitis,butmoregenerallythecourtwantstodecidewhichofthetwoalternativescenarios–theindividualbeingeitherover18orunder18–isbettersupportedbytheevidence.Forthisthecourtneedstocomparetwodifferentprobabilities–thatofbeingover18withamaturex-rayversusthatofbeingunder18withamaturex-ray.Ideallytheprobabilityshouldbecloseto100%over18andcloseto0%under18,andtheratioofthetwoprobabilitiesisaconcisesummaryoftheevidentialvalueofthex-ray.Thisratioisknownasthelikelihoodratio(LR),andthefurtheritisfrom1thenthemoreinformativethex-rayis.32

ProfessorColecalculatestherelevantlikelihoodratioas2.64andexplainsthat:

Toputthisincontext,[alikelihoodratio]oflessthan5–10inmedicaldecision-makingisviewedasweak–thedegreeofmisclassificationistoohigh.Herethe[likelihoodratio]iswellbelow5,acogentargumentthattheevidentialvalueofthematurex-rayispoor.Ifreliedonitwouldleadtotoomanyminorsbeingincorrectlyassessedasadult.33

Inotherwords,bythisadditionalcalculation,ProfessorColeseekstoshowthat,statisticallyspeaking,amaturewristx-rayisnotinformativeofwhetherapersonhasreached18yearsofage.

62


(d) Otherexpertopinionconfirmsthatwristx-rayanalysisisuninformativeofwhetheramalehasreached18yearsofage

OthermaterialbeforetheCommissionprovidessupportfortheconclusionthat,onaverage,malesattainskeletalmaturityeitherbefore,orataboutthetime,thattheyattaintheageof18years.

DrEllaOnikul,DirectorofMedicalImagingattheChildren’sHospitalatWestmead,NewSouthWales,gaveoralevidencetotheInquiryonbehalfoftheRoyalAustralianandNewZealandCollegeofRadiologists(RANZCR).SheexpressedhersupportfortheopinionofProfessorColethatthestatisticalprobabilityofamaleattainingamaturex-raybeforetheageof18yearsis61%.34DrChristie,inawrittensubmission,similarlysupportedtheopinionofProfessorCole.35

ProfessorSirAlAynsley-Green,apaediatricendocrinologistandProfessorEmeritusofChildHealth,UniversityCollege,London,hasshownthatthemethoddevisedbyTannerandWhitehousein1962toassessskeletalmaturity(theTW2method)indicatesthat50%ofboyswillhaveachieved‘adult’appearancesbytheageof17years,50%havingyettoreachthatstage;butsome10%ofnormalboyswillhaveyettoachievefullmaturityattheageof19.5yearswhilst3%willhaveachievedthisattheageof16years.36

Additionalsupportforaconclusionthat,onaverage,malesachieveskeletalmaturityat,orearlierthan,18yearsofageisfoundinashortcommunicationfrom2006publishedinForensicScienceInternational:‘[t]heskeletaldevelopmentofhandbonesiscompleteattheageof17yearsingirlsandattheageof18yearsinboys’.37Thisstatementisinconsistentwithmalesachievingskeletalmaturityonaverageat19yearsofage,aspositedbyDrLow.

Asillustratedabove,theevidencebeforethisInquirystronglyfavourstheconclusionthatonaveragemalesachieveskeletalmaturityat,orslightlybefore,the18thanniversaryoftheirbirth.Thisconclusionisofitselfsufficienttorendermedicalopinionevidencebasedonanassessmentofskeletalmaturityasshownbyawristx-rayunhelpfulforthepurposeofdeterminingwhetheraparticularmalepersonisoverthechronologicalageof18years.

Inotherwords,onDrLow’sapproach,amaturewristx-raycanberelieduponasevidencethatthesubjectwaslikelytobeatleast18andthereforeanadultatthetimeoftheoffence.TheevidencebeforetheInquiry,however,stronglysuggeststhatatleast50%ofmalesattainskeletalmaturityatorbeforetheageof18,leadingtoaveryrealrisk,onDrLow’sapproach,ofminorsbeingincorrectlyassessedtobeadults.

Thereare,however,otherproblemsinrelyingonawristx-raywhichshowsskeletalmaturityasevidencethatitssubjectisovertheageof18years.Thefirstoftheseisthatthereisawidenormalvariationintheageatwhichyoungpeoplegenerallyachieveskeletalmaturity.


Theevidenceisoverwhelmingthatusingskeletalagetoassesschronologicalageisanimprecisetechnique.Youngpeopledevelopskeletallyatdifferentratesandreachskeletalmaturityatvaryingages.ThemeanandstandarddeviationfigurescontainedinTableIIIandVoftheGPAtlasreferredtoinsection2.2(a)aboveareonemeasureofthisvariation.

TheauthorsoftheGPAtlasthemselvesobservedthat‘[i]nthestudyofanyaspectofthegrowthanddevelopmentofchildrenoneisconstantlybedevilledbytheirvariability’.38Theystate:

ThesystemdescribedinthisAtlas…isintendedtoprovidemerelyusefulestimatesofskeletalstatus–andwilldoso,ifitisproperlyused.Unfortunately,asinmanyothersimilarprocedures,thereisatendencytoattributetoandtoexpectfromitagreaterdegreeofprecisionthanintendedbythosewhodesigneditor,indeed,thanispermittedbythenatureofthechangesaboutwhichitisdesignedtomeasure.39

ExpertopinionevidencehasbeengiveninAustraliancriminalcaseswhichcalculatestotwodecimalpointstheprobabilitythatapersonshowingskeletalmaturityisaparticularchronologicalage.40ThislevelofprecisionfindsnosupportintheGPAtlasandtendstosuggest(wrongly)thatthecalculationhasahighlevelofscientificaccuracy.

Australia’sChiefScientist,ProfessorIanChubbAC,inabriefenclosedwithaletterdated11January2012addressedtoAGDadvised:

Radiologicalbaseddeterminationofskeletalmaturitydoesnotallowforaprecisedeterminationofchronologicalage.Outcomesofradiologicalassessmentsofbonesvarywithethnicityandsocio-economicconditions(nutritionanddiseasestatus).Thereisobservedvariationinskeletalmaturityof2yearswithineachgender.41

ThemajorityofmedicalexpertswhogaveevidencetotheInquiryconfirmedthatthereissignificantvariationintherateatwhichnormalchildrendevelop.Forexample,ProfessorColegaveevidencethat:

developmentalageingeneral,andboneageinparticular,isonlyweaklylinkedtoanindividual’schronologicalage.Theageofpubertybasedonboneagehasastandarddeviation(SD)ofover15months.Sotherangeofchronologicalagesseenin95%ofthepopulationatthisdevelopmentalstageextendsover5years(±2SDs),andtwoboysatthisstagecouldbe5yearsapartinchronologicalage.Thesameobservationappliestootherdevelopmentalmarkerssuchasageatpeakheightvelocityordentalage42

Furthermore,anumberofAustralasianmedicalprofessionalassociationsmadeajointsubmissiontotheInquiryinwhichitisstated:

Variationsinthetempoofphysicalmaturationhavelongbeennoted.Forinstancesomechildrenenterpubertybefore10yearsofagewhileothersarenotinpubertyuntillateteenageyears.…Pubertalvariationhasamajorimpactonboneageestimation.…Likemostbiologicalvariablespubertyoccursin

64


a‘bell-shaped’curve....Thetempoofpubertyisusuallysimilaramongindividualsandtakes3to4yearstocomplete.Thusthereisapproximatelya4to5yearrangefornormalpubertytostartinbothgendersand,asexpected,asimilardifferenceinboneageestimationsisalsoobservedduringthistime.43

Itmaythereforebeconcludedthatwristx-rayscanneverprovidethebasisforanaccuratepredictionofchronologicalage.Thisisbecause,astheauthorsoftheGPAtlasthemselvesobserved,thereissubstantialvariabilityinthegrowthanddevelopmentofchildren.

ItisnodoubtbecauseoftheinabilityofskeletaldevelopmenttodefineagepreciselythattheStudyGroupofForensicAgeEstimationoftheGermanAssociationofForensicMedicine,initspublicationGuidelinesforAgeEstimationinLivingIndividualsinCriminalProceedings,specifiesthat:

Theexpertreporthastoquotethereferencestudiesonwhichtheageestimationisbased.Foreachfeatureassessed,thereportmuststatethemostprobableageincludingtherangeofscatterofthereferencepopulation.Whatmustalsobenotedisthatthisrangemayincreasefurtherbyanempiricalobserver’serror.

Theage-relatedvariationsresultingfromapplicationofthereferencestudiesinanindividualcasesuchasdifferentgenetic/geographicorigin,differentsocioeconomicstatusandtheirpotentialeffectonthedevelopmentalstatus…aswellasdiseasesthatmightaffectthedevelopmentoftheindividualexaminedmustbediscussedinthereportincludingtheireffectontheestimatedage.Ifpossible,aquantitativeassessmentofanysucheffectshouldbegiven.44(citationsomitted,emphasesadded)

The‘improvedprocessforagedeterminationinpeoplesmugglingmatters’jointlyannouncedbythethenAttorney-GeneralandthethenMinisterforHomeAffairsandJusticeinJuly2011waspurportedlybasedonthispublicationfromtheyear2000.45Itmaybeobserved,however,thatnoexpertreportrelieduponinagedeterminationproceedingsregardinganindividualsuspectedofapeoplesmugglingoffencecomplied,orevensubstantiallycomplied,withtheaboveguidelines.

ItcanbeconcludedfromtheevidencebeforethisInquirythatthenormalvariationinthechronologicalageatwhichmalesgenerallyachieveskeletalmaturityisnotlessthantwoyearsandispossiblyashighasfiveyears.

Thisconclusionisanimportantone.Thisisbecause,asnotedabove,anyassessmentofchronologicalagewhichisbasedonskeletalageasshownbyawristx-rayceasestobeinformativeupontheattainmentofskeletalmaturity;theindividual’swristx-raywillremainunchangedthereafter.Evenifitbeassumed,contrarytotheoverwhelmingweightoftheevidence,thatskeletalmaturityisachievedbymalesonaverageattheageof19years,normalvariationoftwoyearsmeansthatnoconclusioncansafelybedrawnfromskeletalmaturitythataparticularmalepersonisnotundertheageof18years.Normalvariationofeventwoyearsrendershisskeletalmaturityentirelyconsistentwithhisbeingbetween17and18yearsofage.


2.3 The GP Atlas is of limited use for assessing the chronological age of populations dissimilar to that of the study sample

Anotherproblemassociatedwithusingwristx-raysasevidenceofchronologicalageisthatthepopulationinthestudysampleusedintheGPAtlasdiffersfromthepopulationfromwhichtheyoungIndonesianscome.

ThestandardplatesintheGPAtlaswereselectedfromx-rayfilmsofhealthy,whitechildrenofNorthEuropeanancestryintheUnitedStateswhosefamiliesweresomewhatabovetheaverageineconomicandeducationalstatus.46TheauthorsoftheGPAtlasobservethat‘[t]hesestandardscanbeexpectedtofitreasonablywellwithotherchildrenofcomparablegeneticandenvironmentalbackground’.47Theyexplain,however,thatvariabilityisespeciallymarkedina‘countrywhosepeopleareasheterogeneousinnationalandeveninracialantecedentsasthoseofmanypartsoftheUnitedStates’.48Theyobservethat,asaresult,oneusuallycannotapplyfindingsbasedonstudiesonchildreninonesectionofthecountrytochildrenofanotherwithoutsomemodification.49Theynotethatoneshouldbereluctanttoattributetherelativeskeletalretardationofchildreninsomeotherpartsoftheworldtoracialdifferencesasillnessanddeprivationmightprovideamorelikelyexplanation.50TheyillustratethispointbyreferencetoastudyofAmerican-bornJapanesechildrenlivinginCalifornia.51TheboysinthatstudywerefoundtobesignificantlymoreadvancedskeletallythanCaucasianchildrenfromClevelandat13,14,15,16and17yearsofage.

Onthisissue,theJointCommonwealthsubmissionnotesthat:

TheCDPPhasbeenadvisedthatwhilethereisracialdifferenceinskeletalsize,thereisnochangeacrossracesinskeletaldevelopment.Accordingly,theGreulichandPyleAtlascanbeappliedasastandardformakingforensicagedeterminationsinethnicgroupsthatdifferfromthereferencepopulation.52

Inlate2010aseniorofficeroftheOfficeoftheCDPPidentifiedtwopapersthatarguedthatGPAtlasisvalidforuseacrossracialandethnicgroups.53Inaddition,DrLowprovidedtheOfficeoftheCDPPwithareportonthisissueinMay2011.DrLow’sreportreferredtothestudiescomparingJapaneseandAmericanchildrenfromthe1950s,studiesfromthe1990swhichhesuggestedindicatethattheGPAtlascanbeusedwithconfidenceforyoungThaipeople,andameta-analysisconductedbySchmelingwhichfoundthatsocio-economicstatusratherthanethnicityislikelytoaffecttherateofskeletalmaturation.54

However,otherstudiesconfirmthatcertainpopulationsofchildrenmaydevelopatdifferentratesfromthestudysampleuponwhichtheGPAtlasisbased.Forexample,anappraisaloftheGPAtlasforskeletalassessmentinPakistanfoundsignificantdifferencesbetweenskeletalageassessedbytheGPAtlasandchronologicalageinasubsetofPakistanichildren.InPakistani

66


males,skeletalagewasadvancedduringearlychildhood,delayedduringmiddleandlatechildhood,andagain,advancedduringadolescence.55

AstudyhasalsobeenundertakentodetermineifvariationbetweenboneageandchronologicalageexistsinchildrenofdifferentethnicgroupswithintheUnitedStatespopulation.ItconcludedthatthestandardsoftheGPAtlastodetermineboneagemustbeusedwithreservation,particularlyinAsianandHispanicboysinlatechildhoodandadolescence,whenboneagemayexceedchronologicalagebyninemonthsto11months15days.56OtherstudieshaverevealedracialdifferencesinMiddleEastern,AfricanandAfricanAmericanpopulationswithboneagedisparitiesbetweensixto12monthsdependingonwhenthechildrenwereassessed.57

DrLowhasdrawntotheattentionoftheCommissionastudypublishedin2008entitled‘SkeletalMaturationinIndonesianandWhiteChildrenAssessedwithHand-WristandCervicalVertebraeMethods’.58ItdoesnotappearthatthisstudyassessedskeletalmaturitybyreferencetotheGPAtlas,anditonlystudiedboysbetweentheagesof10to17years.TheIndonesianchildrenthesubjectofthestudywereschoolchildrenfromJakartaanditsvicinity,andtheradiographsweretakenduringroutineorthodonticexaminations.Dataforthewhitechildrencamefrompre-existingradiographstakenaspartofroutineorthodonticexaminationsattheUniversityofRochesterMedicalCentre,Rochester,NewYork,USA.59Itmaythereforebeassumedthatbothgroupsprobablycamefromrelativelyaffluentfamilies.ThestudyshowedthatduringthepubertalgrowthspurtperiodthereweredifferencesbetweentheIndonesianandwhitechildrenwiththewhitechildrenreachingeachskeletalmaturityindexstageearlierthantheIndonesians.However,at‘abouttheageof17years,theIndonesianchildrenappearedtoequalizewiththewhiteones’.60Thestudythusseemsofsome,albeitlimited,relevanceforpresentpurposes.ItappearsthatnootherbonestudieshavebeendoneofanIndonesianpopulation.

Additionally,itmaybethecase,asDrPaulHofman,PresidentoftheAustralasianPaediatricEndocrinologyGroup,speculatedinhisevidencetotheInquiry,thatthepopulationofindividualswithwhichthisInquiryisconcernedmayvarygeneticallyfromtheIndonesianmalepopulationgenerally.DrHofmanspokeofthepossibilitythatapersonwhowasseekingtorecruitasailortocrewaboatintendedtobeusedforpeoplesmugglingwouldbemorelikelytochooseapersonwhoappearedmature,eventhoughyoung,sothattherecruiterwouldhave,intellectuallyandemotionally,ayoungpersonwhocoulddomorework.61

Whilethispossibility,asDrHofmanappropriatelyacknowledged,ispurelyspeculative,itdrawsattentiontothecomplexitiesinvolvedinseekingtodeterminewhetheranindividualsuspectedofapeople-smugglingoffencewhosaysthatheisachildcomesfromapopulationthatisrelevantlycomparablewiththestudysampleonwhichtheGPAtlasisbased.


ThedifferencesinopinionoutlinedaboveindicatethatthereisnoconclusiveevidenceaboutthedegreetowhichanyrelevantgeneticdifferencebetweenthepopulationonwhichtheGPAtlasisbasedandthepopulationwithwhichthisInquiryisconcernedmightimpactontheaccuracyofageassessments.AsProfessorColeputitatthemedicalhearing:

Ithinktheimportantpointtomakeisthatalthough…itisknownthatsocio-economicstatus,ethnicgroupandnutritionalstatusmayallimpactontheboneage,it’sveryhardtoactuallycomeupwithanumberthatonecanusetomakeanysortofadjustment.Allonecandoreallyiswaveone’shandintheairandsaywhatevercertaintywehadbasedonaEuropeanpopulation,thatcertaintydecreasedsubstantiallywhenwemovedtotalkingaboutanIndonesianfishermanpopulation.62

2.4 Errors of interpretation may impact on the accuracy of wrist x-ray analysis of skeletal age

Anotherunquantifiablefactorwhichmayimpactonthereliabilityofanageassessmentbasedonawristx-rayisthesubjectivenatureoftheassessmentofanx-ray.

TheauthorsoftheGPAtlasdrawattentiontothesubjectivenatureofanassessmentofawristx-ray.Theyalsopointouttheneedforpracticebeforeonebecomesefficientinduplicatingbysubsequentindependentassessmentsone’spreviousestimates.63

ThejointsubmissiontotheInquirybytheAustralasianmedicalprofessionalassociationsstates:

Allboneageestimationmethodshaveerrorinvolved.InotherwordsifthesameX-rayisassessedeitherbythesameordifferentassessorstheassignedboneagemayvary.Intra-observererrorreferstothevariationofoneclinician’sassessmentwhileinter-observererrorreferstothevariationbetweendifferentclinicians.…Anumberofstudieshaveinvestigatedtheseeffectsandinsummaryhavedemonstratedanaverageintra-observererrorofbetween2and9monthsandanaverageinter-observererrorbetween1and12months.However,thesewereaverageerrorsandtheerrorrangeinthesestudieswas0toover2years.Combiningboththeintra-andinter-observer,variationdifferencesofover12monthsfrequentlyoccur.64(Citationomitted)

TheGuidelinesforAgeEstimationinLivingIndividualsinCriminalProceedingsreferredtoaboveincludetwoguidelinesexplicitlyconcernedwithqualityassurance.65Thefirstrequiresannualringexperimentsforcontinualqualityassurance.A‘ringexperiment’inthiscontextapparentlyinvolvesanumberofexpertsundertakingthesameassessmentforpurposeofcomparingtheresultsandtherebyenhancingtheirskills.Thesecondguidelineisthatanexpertmayrequestanevaluationofanageestimationbeforehisorherreportiswritten.

TheexpertreportsthatarebeforethisInquirydemonstratevariationsofassessmentbetweendifferentradiologists.Inatleasteightcases,DrLowassessedawristx-rayasshowingamaturewristwhenanotherradiologistconsideredthatthewristwasnotyetmature.66

68


2.5 Wrist x-ray analysis could be relied upon to conclude that an individual with an immature wrist is under the age of 18 years

Asdiscussedabove,wristx-rayanalysisdoesnotassistindeterminingwhetheramaleyoungpersonisover18yearsofage.Thisisbecauseonaveragemalesattainskeletalmaturityatorjustbeforetheageof18years.

However,severalsubmissionstotheInquiryarguedthatwristx-rayanalysisshouldbeabletobeusedtoshowthatapersonisunder18yearsofage.Forexample,LegalAidQueenslandsubmittedthat:

theuseofthetechniqueshouldnotbeabandonedcompletely.Wristx-rayshaveinthepastbeenabletofacilitatethespeedyrepatriationofchildrentoIndonesiaincaseswheretheirx-ray’sshowedclearskeletalimmaturity.Forthisreasonthewristx-raytechniquemaystillhaveavaluable[role]indeterminingthestatusofapersonasachild.However,theyshould…notberelieduponassufficientbythemselvestoestablishanindividualasbeinganadult.67

VictoriaLegalAidmadeasimilarargument:

VLAdoesnotsupportabandoningtheuseofx-raytechniquesaltogether.Theproblemwithprohibitingtheuseofx-rayanalysisisthatweknowthatx-raysaresometimesaquickandeffectivemechanismtodeterminetheveracityofachild’sclaimabouttheiryouth.ChildrenhavebeenappropriatelyandquicklyreturnedtoIndonesiainsuchsituations.Toavoidchildrenbeingunnecessarilydetained,apreferablepositiontooutlawingtheuseofx-rayanalysiscompletelywouldbetoprohibittherelianceonsuchevidenceinisolationshouldtheanalysispointtotheclaimantbeinganadult.68

Becauseamalepersonwillattainamatureskeleton,onaverage,atorjustbeforetheageof18years,itisstatisticallyprobablethatamalepersonwhohasanimmaturewristisaminor.Forthisreasonandapplyingtheprincipleofthebenefitofthedoubt,itmaybeconcluded,subjecttotheethicalconsiderationsdiscussedbelow,thatthepracticegenerallyfollowedbytheCommonwealthofdiscontinuingtheinvestigationandprosecutionofanyindividualwhosex-rayshowsanimmaturewristshouldcontinue.

3 The use of dental x-ray analysis for the assessment of chronological age

InJuly2011,theAustralianGovernmentannouncedan‘improvedprocessforagedeterminationinpeoplesmugglingmatters’whichwastoincludeofferingvoluntarydentalx-raystoindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhoseagewasindoubt.69Inaddition,ataboutthistimetheworkinggroupofCommonwealthagenciesrecommendedtothethenAttorney-Generalthatdentalx-raysbeprescribedintheCrimesRegulations1990(Cth)soastomakebothwristx-raysanddentalx-raysprescribedproceduresforthepurposeofs3ZQBoftheCrimesAct.70TheJoint


Commonwealthsubmissionnotesthat:

TheCommonwealthisconsideringaddingdentalX-raysasaprescribedprocedureintheCrimesRegulations,whichwouldallowinvestigatingofficialstoseekanorderfromacourttoconductadentalX-ray.71

Ifthisweretooccur,dentalx-rayanalysiscouldbeusedforageassessmentpurposesinthesamecircumstancesinwhichwristx-rayanalysiscannowbeused.TheformerAttorney-Generalhassaidthat,ifprescribed,dentalx-rayswouldsupplementwristx-raysinallmatterswhereageisindispute.72

SeveraldentalforensicexpertshavegivenevidencetotheInquirythat,whileadentalx-rayanalysiscannotprovideafullyaccurateageassessment,itismoreinformativethananyothermethodforassessingwhetherapersonhasreachedtheageof18years.73OthersmakingsubmissionstotheInquiryhavesuggestedthatdentalx-rayssufferfromthesameweaknessesaswristx-rays.74

Thequestioniswhetherdentalx-raysareanappropriatesubstitutefor,orsupplementto,wristx-raysor,indeed,anyothermethodofassessingchronologicalage.Itappearsthat,whiledentalx-rayanalysismaybemoreinformativeofchronologicalagethanwristx-rayanalysis,itsuffersfrommanyofthesameissuesthatmakewristx-rayanalysisinsufficientlyinformativeofchronologicalagetobeappropriateforusewithinthecontextofacriminalprosecution.

Further,thereisnoevidencethatadentalx-raytogetherwithawristx-raywillprovideamoreaccurateassessmentofagethaneitheroneofthesemethodsalone.

Thissectionofthereportwilldiscusstheprocessoftakingandanalysingadentalx-ray.Itwillthenconsiderthefollowingquestions:

• Isdentalx-rayanalysisinformativeofwhetherapersonhasattained18yearsofage?

• Howwideisthenormalvariationintheageatwhichyoungpeoplegenerallyachievedentalmaturity?

• Doesethnicity,socio-economicstatusandnutritionimpactontheattainmentofdentalmaturity?

3.1 The process for taking and analysing dental x-rays for the purposes of age assessment

Thereareseveraldifferenttypesofdentalexaminationthatcouldbeusedtoassesstheageofpersonsindifferentageranges.ThisInquiryhasfocussedonlyonthosemethodsthatmightbe

70


usefulforthepurposeofdeterminingwhetheranindividualisunder,oralternativelyover,18yearsofage.

ThereappearstobeagreementthattheonlyviableexaminationmethodforthispurposeistotakeanOrthoPantomoGraphic(OPG)x-raytoanalysethedevelopmentofthethirdpermanentmolar(wisdomtooth).75Essentiallythismeanstakinganx-raybyaprocedurethatiswhollyexternaltothemouth(asopposedtoplacingx-rayfilmsinsidethemouth),todeterminewhetherthepersonhasawisdomtooththathasreachedacertainstageofmaturity.

Unlikewristx-rays,thereappeartobesomedentaldatabasesexpresslydevelopedforthepurposesofassessingchronologicalage(asopposedtoskeletalage).ThemostwidelyusedofthesedatabasesistheDemirjiandentalageassessmentscale,whichwasdevelopedin1973basedonaFrench-Canadianstudysample.76Inthecontextofdeterminingadulthood,aforensicodontologistneedstoassesswhethertheOPGindicatesthatthewisdomteethhavereached‘StageH’ontheDemirjianscale.77

3.2 Experts disagree on how informative dental x-ray analysis is of whether a person has attained 18 years of age

SomesubmissionstotheInquiryassertedthatdentalx-raysaresufficientlyaccuratetobeusefultoacourtmakingadeterminationofageonthebalanceofprobabilities.Forexample,theAustralianSocietyofForensicOdontologycitesrecentresearchontheuseofthirdmolardevelopmentwhichfinds‘analysisofthirdmolardevelopmenttobeaccurateandsufficientlycorrelatedwithchronologicalagetobeofforensicvalue’.78

However,DrAnthonyHill,thePresidentofthisSociety,gaveevidencethatadentalx-raywillonlybeabletotellwhetherapersonis18yearsold‘plusorminus1.2years’.Hesaid:

Despitetheincredibleamountofrobustresearchthathasbeendoneandtheinvestigationandscientificresearchthathasbeenundertakenovertheyears,lookingatandfocusingonthedevelopmentandthematurationofthewisdomtooth,weareunabletostatedefinitivelytheageoftheindividual.Inotherwordswecan’tsaythisperson’s18,wecan’tsaythisperson’s18.5,wecan’tsayifthisperson’s19atall.Wearenotabletodothat.Butwhatweareabletodowithongoingresearchandongoingscienceisthatweareabletoreducetheparametersofourconfidenceintervalsandourstandarddeviationstothepointwherewearecomfortablewithstatingthatapersonis18yearsofageplusorminus1.2years.79

Similarly,forensicodontologist,DrStephenKnott,gaveevidencethat:

Itisnotpossibletogiveaspecificageof18years,theageassessmentwouldneedtoincludeaconfidenceinterval.80


DrHillfurtherstated:

Idon’tuseconfidencelevelsbecausebasicallywhatwe’resayinghereisthatin61%ofthecaseswe’vegotitright,butin39%ofthecaseswe’vegotitwrong.Idon’twanttobesittinginthe39%ofcaseswhereI’mwrongandI’veofferedthisopinion.Imeanthat’snotreallygoododds.WhatI’msayingisthatweshouldnotbetalkingabouttheseconfidenceintervals,weshouldbetalkingaboutthispersonis18plusorminus.81

TheInquiryhasreceivedtwosubmissionswhichattempttoconductastatisticalanalysisonthereliabilityofdentalageassessmentsatthe18yearthreshold;onefromProfessorColefromUniversityCollege,London(whoalsoprovidedananalysisinthecontextofwristx-rays),andtheotherfromProfessorGrahamRobertsfromtheKing’sCollegeLondonDentalInstitute.82Thetwomethodologiesleadtodifferentresults.

ProfessorColeusesrecentlygathereddataonover2600individualsattendingtheEastmanDentalHospitalinLondon.Theirteethwerex-rayedandstagedusingtheDemirjianclassificationandinformationontheirfourthirdmolarswasextracted.ThedatawascollectedbyaPhDstudentbeingsupervisedbyProfessorRoberts.Fromthisdataset,ProfessorColecalculatesthemeanageofattainmentofoneormoreStageHthirdmolarstobe19.6yearswithastandarddeviationof1.3years.Usingthesefigureshecalculatesthatthereisa24%chanceofapersonhavingaStageHwisdomtoothbeforeage18.83

ProfessorColeacknowledgesthatthisisabetterprobabilityresultthanwiththewristx-rays,buthegoesontocalculatealikelihoodratiowhichsuggeststhattheresultisstillhighlyuninformative.Hestated:

oneshouldrelyonthe[likelihoodratio]tomakethejudgement.Inthepresenceofamaturethirdmolar,comparingtheprobabilitiesofbeingunder18andover18gives[alikelihoodratio]ofjust5.2…whichisonlymarginallyinformative.…Thusdentalagesuffersfromthesamelackofprecisionasboneageforforensicageassessment.Agesolderthan16cannotconvincinglybeexcludedusingeithermethod.84

InthemostrecentfiguresprovidedbyProfessorRoberts(usinganupdatedversionofthedatasetusedbyProfessorCole),hehascalculatedthemeanageofattainmentofStageHoftheLowerLeftthirdmolartobe20.7yearswithastandarddeviationof2.3years.Fromthesefigureshecalculatesthatthereisa12%chanceofhavingaLowerLeftStageHwisdomtoothbeforetheageof18.85

ProfessorRobertsandProfessorColehaveengagedinadetailedexchangeofviewsregardingtheirrespectiveresultsandstatisticalmethodologies,bothinthecontextofthisInquiry86and,in2008–09,intheBritishDentalJournal.87Brieflysummarised,ProfessorRobertssuggeststhat

72


ProfessorColehasneitherusedthemostappropriatedatasetnorappliedthemostappropriatestatisticalmethodologytodeterminehisstatisticalprobabilities.88ProfessorCole,inturn,suggeststhatProfessorRobertshasnotconsideredtheappropriatedataandthathisstatisticalmethodologyiswrong.89

ThedebatebetweenProfessorColeandProfessorRobertsoverthestatisticalaccuracyofdentalx-rayshasnotbeensubjectedtothesamescrutinyasthedebatebetweenProfessorColeandDrLowinrelationtowristx-rays.Consequently,thereisinsufficientadditionalinformationbeforetheCommissionforaconclusiontobereachedastotherelativeaccuracyofthecalculationsofthesetwoacknowledgedexperts.

Itmay,nonetheless,beconcludedthatneitherofthefiguresadvancedbyProfessorColeandProfessorRobertsisparticularlyinformativeastowhetheranindividualis,orisnot,over18yearsofage.Withinanypopulation,itappearsthateither24%,oralternatively12%,ofthepopulationwouldbeincorrectlyassessedasbeinganadultifreliancewereplacedsolelyonwhetherhehadattaineddentalmaturity.ThedifficultiesinherentinrelyingonstatisticalevidenceasevidenceconcerningaparticularindividualisexaminedinAppendix5.

3.3 There is a wide normal variation in the age at which young people generally reach dental maturity

Aswithskeletalmaturity,thereappearstobeawidenormalvariationintheageatwhichyoungpeoplegenerallyreachdentalmaturity.

Forexample,theAustralianSocietyofForensicOdontologygaveevidencethatwisdomteethcanstartdeveloping‘frommid-teenstoearly20s’.90Thissuggestsawiderangeofagesoverwhichdentalmaturityisnormallyachieved.TheSocietygoesontostatethat‘[p]recisedeterminationofageisnotpossibleduetohumanvariation;anagerange,withconfidenceintervalsisthebestexpressionofageestimation’.91

TheVictorianInstituteofForensicMedicineconfirmsthat:

biologicalvariationinhumandevelopmentmeansthananyassessmentofagebasedonanalysisofanatomicalgrowthmarkersisonlyanestimate,andthuswillcontainadegreeoferror.92

Similarly,TheGeorgeInstituteforGlobalHealthstatesmoregenerallythat:

Cautionshouldbeexercisedwhenusingmethodsofbiologicalageassessment(i.e.skeletalage,dentalageorbiomarkers)todeterminechronologicalageinadolescents.Therangeofbiologicalageswithinachronologicalagegroupmayexceed2yearsevenwiththemostaccurateofthesemethods.93


3.4 Ethnicity, socio-economic status and nutrition may impact on the attainment of dental maturity

TheDemirjianscaleisbasedonastudysampleofFrench-Canadiangirlsandboys.ThisraisesthequestionofwhetherassessingtheteethofIndonesianboysagainstthatageassessmentscalemightbesubjecttoinherenterrorbasedondifferingethnicity,socio-economicstatusandnutrition.

Thereappearstobesubstantialscientificdebateabouttheextenttowhichthedevelopmentofwisdomteethisaffectedbythesefactors.Somestudiessuggestthatthevariationinageestimatesbetweendifferentgroupsarequitesignificantandthatpopulation-specificstandardswouldincreaseaccuracy.94Otherssuggestthattherearedifferencesbuttheyareinsignificant.95Somestudiessuggestthatthirdmolarmineralisationisstandardacrosspopulationgroups.96However,itappearsthatatleastsomeofthesestudiesfocusonagegroupsyoungerorolderthan18yearsofage.97Itisthereforenotclearhowdirectlyapplicablethisresearchmaybeattheageof18years.

However,thereseemstobeaconsensusamongthoseexpertswhogaveevidencetotheInquirythattherearedifferencesbetweendifferentpopulationgroups.Anycontroversyseemstoconcernthesignificanceoftheimpactofthosedifferences.Forexample,theVictorianInstituteofForensicMedicinesuggestedthatethnicityisnotabigconcerninthecontextofwisdomteeth,stating:

Totheextentthishasbeenresearched,thereappearstobesomerobustnessinthedevelopmentofthethirdmolarbetweendifferentpopulations.98

DrHillstated:

Therearesubtledifferencesbuttheyareofverylittleconsequencetowhatwearedoinginourageassessments.99

DrKnottalsosubmittedthattheremaybevariationsbetweenethnicgroupsbutsaidthattherewouldneedtobeextrememedicalproblemsfortheretobeasignificanteffect.Hisevidencewasthat:

Biologicaldevelopmentwillvaryslightlybetweensexes,ethnicgroupsandanindividual’soverallhealth.…Variationinchronologicalageassessmentduetomedicalconditionsareminimal.Theindividualwouldneedtobesufferingfromanoticeableextrememedicalproblemtohaveanysignificanteffect,eg:starvation,syndromalvariations,severeVitaminDdeficiency,etc.100

Ontheotherhand,TheGeorgeInstituteforGlobalHealthbelievesthatvariationsindevelopmentonthebasisofethnicitycouldbequitesubstantial.Itssubmissionstated:

74


ArecentsystematicreviewofthirdmolarageestimationinvariousAmericanpopulationgroupsreinforcedarequirementfortheuseofpopulationspecificstudieswhenestimatingagefromdentalx-rays.WithinanumberofnotedAmericanpopulations,varyingratesofthirdmolardevelopmentwereseen.Thereviewconcludedthatundoubtedly,additionalandlargerpopulationspecificstudiesareneeded.101(Citationomitted)

3.5 There is no evidence that a wrist x-ray plus a dental x-ray improves reliability in the assessment of age

GiventheAustralianGovernment’sannouncedintentiontospecifybothwristanddentalx-raysasprescribedproceduresforthepurposesofs3ZQBoftheCrimesAct,itisappropriatetoconsiderwhetherthereisanyevidencethattheaccuracyofageassessmentswillbesignificantlyenhancedbythetakingofbothwristx-raysanddentalx-rays.

TheCommissionisawareofsomeexpertmedicalopinionthatusingacombinedmethodofphysicalexaminationaswellaswristx-rays,dentalx-raysandclaviclex-rayscanincreasediagnosticaccuracy.However,theauthorsofthereportinwhichthisopinionisexpressedstatethat:

Foreachexaminedfeature,thereportmustindicatethemostprobableageandtherangeofscatterofthereferencepopulation.Furthermore,itshouldbenotedthattherangeoftolerancemaybeincreasedbyanempiricalobservererror.Theage-relevantvariationsresultingfromtheapplicationofthereferencestudiesinanindividualcasesuchasdeviatinggenetic/geographicorigin,differentsocio-economicstatus,andwiththatapossibledifferencedegreeofacceleration,developmentaldisordersoftheindividual,havetobediscussedinthereportincludingtheireffectontheestimatedageand,ifpossible,aquantitativeassessmentofanysucheffectshouldbegiven.102(Citationsomitted)

TheCommissionisnotawareofanyevidencewhichdemonstratesthatcombiningdentalandwristx-rayanalysesleadstoamorereliableindicationofagethanoneorotheroftheseanalysesalone.Further,theradiationexposureinvolvedintwox-rayproceduresraisesevengreaterethicalconcernsthanasinglex-rayprocedure.

4 The ethical implications of the use of x-ray analysis for the assessment of chronological age

Theradiationexposureassociatedwithx-raysgivesrisetoimportantethicalissues.

AsnotedinarecentpublicationregardingageassessmentofindividualssubjecttoimmigrationcontrolintheUnitedKingdom:

Inconsideringtheethicsofradiographyitisnecessarytoweighuptheactualorpotentialbenefitsofradiographywiththepotentialdamagethatmightbecausedtoagroupofchildrenandyoungpeople


whoarepotentiallyvulnerableasaconsequencenotonlyoftheiragebutalsotheirbackgroundandexperiences.103

Thereisnodoubtthattheamountofradiationexposureinvolvedinwristordentalx-raysislow.TheAustralianRadiationProtectionandNuclearSafetyAgency(ARPANSA)statesthattheradiationexposureassociatedwithwristanddentalx-raysisminimalandthatthereiswideacceptanceinthescientificcommunitythattheradiationdosagefromawristx-rayposesnegligibleriskstoaperson’shealth.ARPANSAestimatesthattheradiationdosereceivedfromasinglex-rayexaminationofthehandisapproximately0.01millisievert(mSv),adosagethattheJointCommonwealthsubmissionnotesiscomparabletoflyingfromDarwintoSingapore.104Further,theAustralianSocietyofForensicOdontologyprovidesatableinitssubmissionsuggestingthatadentalOPGexposesapatientto0.02mSv,whichthesubmissionshowsisequivalenttothreedaysbackgroundradiation.Thisexposurelevelisclassed‘negligible’underthecategoryof‘additionallifetimeriskoffatalcancerfromexamination’.105Nonetheless,thereiswideagreementthatalldeliberateexposurestoradiationshouldbejustifiedandsubjecttocontrol.

TheInternationalAtomicEnergyAgency(IAEA)publication,RadiationProtectionandSafetyofRadiationSources:InternationalBasicSafetyStandards–InterimEdition(GeneralSafetyRequirements:Part3)publishedin2011includesanumberofgeneralrequirementsforprotectionandsafety.Requirement10isconcernedwith‘JustificationofPractice’.Theopeningstatementunderthisrequirementis:‘Thegovernmentortheregulatorybodyshallensurethatonlyjustifiedpracticesareauthorized’.106Paragraphs3.16and3.18ofthispublication,whichformpartofRequirement10,state:

3.16Thegovernmentortheregulatorybody,asappropriate,shallensurethatprovisionismadeforthejustificationofanytypeofpracticeandforreviewofthejustification,asnecessary,andshallensurethatonlyjustifiedpracticesareauthorized.…

3.18Humanimagingusingradiationthatisperformedforoccupational,legalorhealthinsurancepurposes,andisundertakenwithoutreferencetoclinicalindication,shallnormallybedeemedtobenotjustified.If,inexceptionalcircumstances,thegovernmentortheregulatorybodydecidesthatthejustificationofsuchhumanimagingforspecificpracticesistobeconsidered,therequirementsofparas3.61–3.64and3.66shallapply.

Paragraph3.61fromthispublicationsetsouttherequirementsofthejustificationprocesswhenradiationistobeusedforapurposeotherthanformedicaldiagnosisormedicaltreatmentoraspartofaprogramofbiomedicalresearch.Theparagraphcallsforajustificationprocessthatincludestheconsiderationofthebenefitsanddetrimentsofimplementingthetypeofhumanimagingprocedureandthebenefitsanddetrimentsofnotimplementingthetypeofhumanimagingprocedure.

76


Further,inAustralia,theCodeofPracticeadoptedbyARPANSArequiresmedicalpractitionerstoapplytheAsLowAsReasonablyAchievable(ALARA)principleinanydecisionrelatingtoradiographicimaging.107

ItisimportanttonotethattheALARAprinciplerequiresthatradiationbejustified,regardlessofthedosageofanyradiologicalprocedure.ARPANSAisclearthat‘theuseofwristanddentalx-raysforagedeterminationpurposesmustsatisfyinternationallyacceptedprinciplesofradiationprotection,inparticulartheprinciplesofjustificationandoptimisation’.108

RANZCRgavethefollowingevidencetotheInquiry:

OneofthemostimportantprinciplesunderpinningmedicalimagingistheALARAPrinciple(AsLowAsReasonabl[y]Achievable).Thisrequiresthreefactorstobemetintheperformanceofimagingexaminations,withaparticularemphasisonthoseusingionisingradiation–justification,optimisationanddoselimitation.Justificationrequiresanyproposedimagingexaminationtoyieldasufficientbenefittosocietytojustifytherisksincurredbytheradiationexposure,andisbasedonthehypothesisthatanyradiationexposure,nomatterhowsmall,carrieswithitacertainlevelofrisk.…

Determiningtheriskofthelevelofradiationinvolvedwithaproceduremustinvolveconsiderationofnotjusttheamountofradiationinvolved,butalsotheclinicalbenefitoftheproceduretothesubject.Ifaprocedureiswithoutbenefitanditsapplicationisnotevidencebased,anylevelofradiationexposureisconsideredunacceptable,nomatterhow‘trivial’theradiationdosemaybeconsidered.109

ThemajorityofmedicalexpertswhomadesubmissionstotheInquiryarguedthattheuseofx-rayanalysistoassessagecannotbejustifiedandthereforeisunethical.Forexample,thejointsubmissionofAustralasianmedicalprofessionalassociationsstatesthat:

theaccuracyofX-raymethodstodetermineageisnotreliableandthebenefitoftheiruseisnotproven;thereforesuchexaminationsarenotconsistentwiththeALARAprincipleandcannotbejustified.110

Inhissubmission,DrChristiegoesfurtherandsubmitsthathe:

deplore[s]theuseofanon-validatedandunprovenx-raytechniquethatexposestheseyoungpeopletoradiationforadministrativepurposes,withoutanyclearopportunitytoimprovetheirhealthorlives.111

Importantly,ARPANSAadvisedtheCommonwealththat:

CurrentinternationalbestpracticewouldrequirethatanyuseofionisingradiationforthepurposeofdentalorwristX-raysforagedeterminationmustbesubjecttoaformalprocessofjustification,todemonstratethatthereisanetbenefitfromtheexposure.112

AsdiscussedinChapter3,thereisnoevidencethatsuchaformaljustificationprocesshasbeenundertaken.


5 The use of other biomedical markers for the assessment of chronological age

TheCommissionisawareofanumberofotherprocessesthatinvolveusingbiomedicalmarkersfortheassessmentofchronologicalage,includingphysicalexamination,clavicle(collarbone)x-ray,magneticresonanceimaging,andultrasoundofthewristorelbow.However,theCommissionisnotpersuadedthatanyofthesemethodsconstitutesamoreinformativemeansofassessingagethantheanalysisofwristx-rays.

5.1 Physical examinations suffer the same weaknesses as x-rays and raise serious ethical issues

Physicalexaminationsrequireamedicalpractitioner–ideallyapaediatrician–toassessheight,weight,skinandvisiblesignsofsexualmaturity.Theindicatorsofpubertaldevelopmentinboysincludepenileandtesticulardevelopment,pubichair,axillaryhair,beardgrowthandlaryngealprominence.113Theseassessmentswouldneedtobecomparedtoreferencedatatoallowanapproximateagetobecalculated.114Thus,whiletheexaminationwouldbeexternal,itwouldinvolvetheexaminationofgenitalia.

Themainadvantageofthismethodisthatitisrelativelysimpleanddoesnotrequireanyradiationexposure.However,thesearetheonlyadvantagesofthismethodandtheyareoutweighedbythedisadvantages.

Thedisadvantagesare,first,thatthesetypesofphysicalexaminationssufferfromthesameinherentunreliabilityasx-raysandotherbiomarkersincluding:

• thewidevariationintherateofpubertaldevelopmentbetweenindividualswithinanygivengroup

• theimpactofethnicity,socio-economicandnutritionalbackgroundaswellasillness

• theabsenceofcurrentandculturallyrelevantreferencesets.115

DrKnottsubmittedthatvisualageassessmentispatentlyunreliable.116CourtsintheUnitedKingdomhavealsourgedgreatcautioninrelyingonpaediatricreports,particularlywheretheypurporttopinpointanexactage.117

Second,therehasbeenconsiderablecontroversyintheUnitedKingdomovertheappropriatenessofincludingpaediatricreportsinofficialageassessmentprocesses.Inparticular,thereareconcernsabouttheabsenceofrigorousprotocolsandthesubjectivenatureofpaediatricreports.118OneUnitedKingdomcourtdecisionheldthatareportfromapaediatriciancannot

78


generally‘attractanygreaterweightthantheobservationsofanexperiencedsocialworker’.119

Third,physicalassessmentofaperson’sgenitaliaraisesethicalissues.120Ethically,itisquestionablewhethersuchintrusivenessisjustifiedforadministrativepurposes.121

TheCommissionnotesthattheAustralianGovernmenthasrejectedphysicalassessmentofgenitaliaasanageassessmenttechnique.InJune2011,thethenAttorney-GeneralRobertMcClellandadvisedthePresidentoftheCommission:

IdonotconsiderpaediatricexaminationsappropriatefortheCommonwealthtoutiliseaspartoftheagedeterminationprocess.Thisisbecauseoftheinvasivenatureoftheprocedure.Theworkinggrouphasinvestigatedthisprocedureandreportedthatitinvolvesexaminationofaperson’sgenitalsandislikelytocausesignificantdistress,fear,embarrassmentanddiscomfort.122

5.2 Assessing age using an x-ray of the clavicle requires further research

Somescientistshaverecommendedanexaminationofthe‘ossificationstatusofthemedialepiphysisoftheclavicle’toestimatetheageofpeoplewhoareassumedtobeolderthan18‘becauseallotherdevelopmentalsystemsunderexaminationhavecompletedtheirgrowthbythistime’.123Thus,thisproceduremayhavesomeuseforthoseindividualswishingtochallengeanassessmentofadulthood.Thenecessaryexaminationwouldinvolvetakinganx-rayorCTscanandthereissomeresearchsuggestingthatmagneticresonanceimaging(MRI)oranultrasoundcouldbeusedinthefuture.124However,itappearsthatfurtherresearchisrequiredbeforethismethodcanberelieduponforageassessment.125

5.3 Assessing age using magnetic resonance imaging requires further research

TheCommissionunderstandsthatassessingagethroughMRIhaspotentialforfutureuse,butthatasignificantamountofresearchneedstobeconducted.TheGeorgeInstituteforGlobalHealth’ssubmissiontotheInquirystates:

TheclinicaluseofMRIintheassessmentofgrowthplatematurityiscurrentlylimited.TherearesomepreliminarystudiesusingMRIfortheassessmentoftheextensionofthegrowthplate;specificclosurepatternsofthenormalphysisaroundjointsandphysialarrest;however,atpresentnoneofthesemethodsiswidelyused.126(Citationsomitted)

TheGeorgeInstituteforGlobalHealthreportsthatthemethodhasbeenusedinthecontextofageassessmentforthepurposesofinternationalsportingcompetition,butconcludesthatthereisnoevidencetosupporttheuseofthistechnologyforagedeterminationofyoungpeoplebelow14yearsandabove17yearsandthatmoreresearchintothemethodologyisrequired.127


5.4 Assessing age using an ultrasound of wrist and elbow requires further research

TheGeorgeInstituteforGlobalHealthhasalsosuggestedthatthereissomepotentialforusingultrasoundsofthewristandelbowasatoolforagedetermination.

TheGeorgeInstituteforGlobalHealthliststhemainadvantagesofultrasoundsasincluding:thatitisaradiation-freeimagingtechnique;itisrelativelyinexpensiveandwidelyavailable;itcanbeeasilyappliedusingportablesystems;andthatpatientcomplianceisgenerallygood.Theynotethatdisadvantagesinclude:thereislikelytobehigherinter-andintra-ratererror;difficultiesinstandardisingdocumentationandimagingtransfer;andverylittledataisavailableregardingagedeterminationfromtheultrasoundofawrist.Theythusconcludethatfurthervalidationisneededbeforethistechniqueispreferredoveranyothermethod.128

ProfessorAynsley-Greenalsohighlightsthat,butfortheradiationexposure,theweaknessesofwristx-rayswillcarryovertoultrasoundsofthewrist.129

6 The use of multifactorial medical approaches for the assessment of chronological age

MostsubmissionstotheInquiryopenlyacknowledgethatthereisnosinglereliablescientificmethodfordeterminingaperson’sage.However,somegoontosuggestthata‘multifactorial’approachwillprovidemorereliableassessments.Amultifactorialapproachinvolvesemployingacombinationofmedicalageassessmentprocesses.

SubmissionsfrommedicalandforensicexpertsthatsupportedamultifactorialapproachincludedthosefromAssociateProfessorDanielFranklinfromtheCentreforForensicScience130andtheVictorianInstituteofForensicMedicine.131AssociateProfessorFranklinarguesthatthere‘appearstobestrongevidenceshowingthatmultifactorialtechniquesincreaseaccuracyandhelpcontrolforvariationthatmayoccurinanyonesingleageindicator’.132Healsonotesthat‘[t]heredoesnotyet,however,appeartobeanygeneralconsensusastowhichmethodsshouldbecombined,iftheyshouldbeweighted,andhowthiscanbeachieved’.133

TheJointCommonwealthsubmissionstatesthattheCommonwealth’sJuly2011decisiontoadoptacombinationofdifferentagedeterminationprocedureswasbasedonacademicliteraturesuggestingthatmultipleprocedureswould‘increasediagnosticaccuracy’.134However,itisimportanttonotethatthestudiescitedintheJointCommonwealthsubmission,andseveraloftheothermedicalexperts,openlyacknowledgethattheyareassuminganimprovementinthequalityofresults.Theyarequiteclearthatthereisnowayofquantifyingthoseimprovements.For

80


example,onepublicationcitedintheJointCommonwealthsubmissionstates:

foragediagnosesobtainedwithacombinationofmethodsthereisstillnosatisfactorywaytoscientificallydeterminethemarginoferror.…Ifindependentfeaturesareexaminedaspartofanagediagnosisthatcombinesseveralmethodsitmaybeassumedthatthemarginoferrorforthecombinedagediagnosisissmallerthanthatforeachindividualfeature.Howeverithasnotyetbeenpossibletoquantifythisreduction.135

Similarly,themostrecentstudyfromtheinternationalinterdisciplinaryStudyGrouponForensicAgeDiagnostics(basedinGermany),whichhasfocusedonthequestionofageassessmentsforcriminalprosecutions,foundthatwhenageestimationsfrommultiplesourcesarediscussedcriticallyinanindividualcase‘itcangenerallybeassumedthattherangeofscatterisreduced.Sofar,however,thisreductioncouldonlybeestimated’.136

TheCommissionhasheardcriticismofamultifactorialapproachonethicalgrounds.Themoreproceduresthatanindividualissubjectto,thegreatertheirradiationexposure.AsProfessorAynsley-Greenhasobserved,thereisriskassociatedwithadministeringanyamountofradiation.137Further,theremustbeconsiderationofwhetheritisethicallyjustifiedtoaskindividualstoundertakemoreprocedureswhenithasnotbeenestablishedthatthiswillmakeasignificantdifferencetoobtaininganaccurateassessmentofchronologicalage.

TheCommissionisalsoconcernedatthepracticalityandthecostinvolvedinamultifactorialmedicalapproach.Forexample,theAustralianSocietyofForensicOdontologyhassuggestedthattoachieveamoreaccurateageassessmentfromdentalx-rays,a‘panelofspecialistsexperiencedintheinterpretationofboththeOPGanddentaldevelopment’isrequired.138ThisrecommendationwasexploredfurtherwithDrHillatthehearinginthefollowingexchange:

DrAnthonyHill: Iamproposingthattheinvestigationshouldbeheadedupbyadentistsimplybecausewearefocusingonthedentition,teeth,andthatisourfieldofexpertise.Ibelieveweshouldhaveradiographerswithusonapanel,weshouldhavepaediatricianswithusonapanel,Ibelieveweshouldhaveorthodontistsonthatpanel,Ibelieveweshouldhaveotherexpertswithinthisfield,sothatyouarenotgoingtogetaskewedorbiaseddentalopinion.Youwillgetanopinionacrosstheboardfromvariousexpertswithinthisfield.

CatherineBranson: DrHillfromwhatyou’vesaidIthinkyou’reenvisagingapanelofsixormoreexpertmedicalpractitionersordentalpractitionersofonesortoranother,isthatright?

DrAnthonyHill: Yes.

CatherineBranson: Haveyouturnedyourmindtowhatthecosttothepublicpursemightbeofusingsuchapanel,withrespecttoeveryIndonesiannationalsuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhoassertedthathewasachild?


DrAnthonyHill: Weneedtohaveonedentist,whoisexaminingtheclient.WeneedoneradiographerwhowillbetakingoneOPG.ThatOPGcanbedigitalisedandcanbesentaroundAustralia.Wedonotneedtoconveneaboardofpeople;wedonotneedtoconveneanyone.Thiscanallbedonedigitallyandsecurelyandthatopinioncanbesourcedandcanbearrivedatwithinamatterofdays,verysimply.Thenareportwouldbewrittenbytheforensicdentist,theforensicodontologistorwhoever’sheadingthispanelandcanbeagainsenttoacommission,senttoacourt,sentelectronically.Butthecosttothecommunity–wellthecosttothecommunityquitefrankly,ifwegetitwrong,isfaroutweighedbywhatit’sgoingtocostusandwhatit’sgoingtocostustosetupthetakingofanX-ray.EverystateandeverycapitalandeveryareainAustraliawherethesepeoplearehoused,imprisoned,hasradiographicfacilities.Soit’snotasthoughweareexpectingextrafundingtodothis.139

Finally,theCommissionhasheardrobustcriticismofthisapproach,withProfessorColecommentingthatitis‘pieinthesky’tosuggestthatmultipleassessmentmethodswillprovidebetteranswers.Heobserved:

There’sabeliefthatifyoucollectextrainformationyoucancomeupwithamorepreciseestimateofage.Imeanthefirstthingtosayisthatthisisoptimisticbecausemanyofthemeasurementsthatyouwillbemakingwillbecorrelatedwitheachothersothey’llalltendtogivethesameansweranyway,butthemuchmoreimportantpointisthatifyouaregoingtocombineinformationfromlotsofdifferentdirectionsthenyouhavetooperatetoaverytightlydevelopedandvalidatedprotocolsothatyoucutoutpersonalbiasinthewaythatindividualsassesswhateverparticularmarkerthey’regoingtoassess.

SoIwouldargue(a)you’renotlikelytoimproveprecisionbyusingamultidimensionalassessmenttoolandthedifficultyinvolvedinsettingitup,developingitandvalidatingitwouldruleitoutinpracticeinanyway.SoIwouldsayverybluntlythattheideathatyoucantakelotsofdifferentmeasurementsandcomeupwithabetteranswerispieinthesky.140

Itmustbenotedthatifaconclusionisdrawnthatneitherwristnordentalx-rayanalysisissufficientlyinformativeofchronologicalagetobeofuseinthecontextofcriminalproceedings,thenitishighlyunlikelythatincombinationtheywillbeappropriateasanageassessmentmethodinthiscontext.TheCommissionhasseennoevidencethatcombiningtheseprocedureswouldleadtobetterresults.

7 The use of a multi-disciplinary approach for the assessment of chronological age

Severalsubmissionsandsomeoftheresearchpapersinthisareaadvocatefora‘multi-disciplinary’or‘holistic’approachtoageassessment.Whilethereisnoconsistentdescriptionofwhatthismightmean,itappearsthattheproponentsofthisapproacharesuggestingamixofmedicalandnon-medicalapproachestoageassessment.

82


Aswellasmedicalprocedures,aholisticapproachmightincludeconductingfocusedageinterviewssuchasthosethatarediscussedindetailinChapter5below.

AnumberofsubmissionstotheInquirysupporteda‘holistic’approach,includingProfessorAynsley-Greenwhorecommendsthat:

Multi-professionalassessment–a‘holistic’approach–involvingateamofsocialworkers,educationists,paediatriciansandpsychologistsworkinginspecialisedAgeAssessmentReferralUnitsorwithintheexistingstructuresforchildprotectionwouldseemtobeapragmaticwayforwardinordertoobtainaconsensusdecisiononage.141

Severalmedicalbodiesalsosuggestamulti-disciplinaryapproach.RANZCRstatesthat:

Whilstthereisnosinglemedicalwaytoaccuratelydetermineanindividual’sage,thegovernmentshouldconsiderdevelopingaprocesswhereageisassessedinanumberofways;thisisoftenreferredtoas‘holistic’ageassessment.Thisapproachincorporatesnarrativeaccounts,physicalassessmentofpubertyandgrowth,andcognitive,behaviouralandemotionalassessments.142

TheRoyalAustralasianCollegeofPhysicianssubmittedthatitwouldbeappropriatetoinvestigate:

comprehensiveassessmentswhichmayincludepsychological,cognitive,developmentalandculturalfactors,aswellascomprehensiveeffortstosourceaccuratedocumentationofagewhereitexists.143

TheAustralianSocietyofForensicOdontologyarguedthat,eveninthecontextofmedicalevidence,thereshouldbeamulti-disciplinarymedicalteam.Itadvised:

Currentthinkingwouldsuggestthatageestimationisbestpracticedasamulti-disciplinaryspecialty,inthatpractitionersengagedshouldbefamiliarwiththetheoryandpracticeofforensicanthropology,forensicodontology,medicalimaging,humangrowthanddevelopment,andanatomy.Toobtainthemostaccurateageestimates,itisevidentthatpractitionersfromdifferentdisciplinesneedtoworktogetherandreportsshouldbewrittenfollowingconsultationfromapanelofexpertswhohaveexaminedallrelevantdata.Thiswouldmaximisetheaccuracyofageestimations.144

Internationalcommentaryonageassessmentalsosupportsaholisticapproach.ForexampletheSeparatedChildreninEuropeProgamme’sStatementofGoodPracticestatesthat:

The[ageassessment]procedureshouldbemulti-disciplinaryandundertakenbyindependentprofessionalswithappropriateexpertiseandfamiliaritywiththechild’sethnicandculturalbackground.Theymustbalancephysical,developmental,psychological,environmentalandculturalfactors.145

However,whileabroaderapproachtoageassessmentappearstobecommonsense,theCommissionisnotawareofanyevidencethatsupportstheviewthataphysicalandpsychosocialassessmentwillgiveanybetterresultthaneitheroneofthosemethodsalone.Individual


differencesinphysicalandsocialmaturitywillremain,andbothapproachesarevulnerabletothesubjectiveviewsoftheassessor.

Further,itispossiblethatina‘holistic’assessmentthatincludesbothmedicalandnon-medicalageassessmenttechniques,preferencewillstillbegiventotheresultsofmedically-basedprocessesduetoaperceptionthattheyarescientificallybased.

Forthesereasons,ifa‘holistic’ageassessmentprocessisconducted,itiscriticalthatawidemarginofbenefitofthedoubtisaffordedtotheindividualwhoseageisbeingassessed.TheimportanceofaffordingthebenefitofthedoubtwhenconductingfocusedageinterviewsisdiscussedfurtherinChapter5below.

8 Findings

8.1 Findings regarding wrist x-ray analysis for the assessment of chronological age

TheoverwhelmingweightoftheevidencebeforethisInquiryisthat,onaverage,malesachieveskeletalmaturityasshownbyawristx-ray,beforetheyreachtheageof18yearsor,alternatively,atabouttheageof18years.

DrLow’sevidencethat,onaverage,malesachieveskeletalmaturityofthewristat19yearsofageisinconsistentwithallotherevidenceonthisissuebeforetheCommission.ItalsoappearstobeinconsistentwiththeGPAtlasitself;theverytoolonwhichDrLowplacesreliancewhengivingopinionevidenceastoage.Thisconclusioncanbedrawnfromtheauthors’descriptionofthemethodbywhichthestandardplateswereselectedforinclusionintheGPAtlasandfromtheabsenceofdatafortheageof18yearsinTablesIIIandVoftheGPAtlas.DrLow’sevidenceinthisregardcannotreasonablybeaccepted.

Itmaythereforebeconcludedthatanexpertassessment,madebyreferencetotheGPAtlas,thatawristx-rayshowsamaturewristisnotinformativeforthepurposeofestablishingthattheindividualisovertheageof18years.Havingamaturewristisquiteconsistentwithapersonbeingundertheageof18years.

Itdoesnotfollowfromtheaboveconclusionthatanassessmentthatawristx-rayshowsanimmaturewristisnotinformativeforthepurposeofestablishingthatanindividualisundertheageof18years.Astheabovediscussionmakesplain,subjecttothemattersdiscussedbelow,animmaturewristisstatisticallyconsistentwithapersonbeingundertheageof18years.

Eveniftheaboveconclusionconcerningtheageatwhichmalesonaverageachieveamature

84


wristisputtooneside,problemsremaininrelyingonamaturewristx-rayasevidencethatanindividualisovertheageof18years.Themostsignificantoftheseproblemsarisesfromtheextentofnormalvariationinthechronologicalageatwhichmalesgenerallyachieveskeletalmaturity.Theextentofthisnormalvariationisnotlessthantwoyears.Forthisreason,expertopinionthatayoungmanisanadultthatisbaseduponanalysisthatheisskeletallymature,isoflimited,ifany,probativevalue.Evenifitwerethecase,contrarytothestrongweightofexpertevidence,thatonaverageyoungmenachieveskeletalmaturityattheageof19years,therangeofnormalvariationwouldreachtoatleasttheageof17years.

AnothercomplexityisthatitcannotbeknownwhethertheindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhosaythattheyarechildrencomefromapopulationthathasadifferentmeanageofskeletaldevelopmentthanthestudysampleonwhichtheGPAtlasisbased.Shouldthisbethecase,thepotentialmarginoferrorinageassessmentsbasedontheGPAtlascouldbeincreased.

Additionally,itmaybeconcludedthatthepotentialforerrorsintheuseofwristx-raysasevidenceofchronologicalageisreal–particularlywherethemedicalpractitionerwhointerpretsthewristx-raydoesnotregularlyinvolvehimselforherselfinaqualityassuranceprogram.

Theaboveconclusionsdemonstratethatexpertopinionevidencebasedonwristx-rayanalysisshouldnotbeacceptedforthepurposeofestablishingthatanindividualisovertheageof18years;evidenceofthischaracterisnotprobativeofthisissue.Consequently,wristx-raysshouldnotremaina‘prescribedprocedure’forthepurposesofs3ZQBoftheCrimesActunlessthepurposeforwhichthey,orevidencebasedonthem,maybeadducedinevidenceislimitedtoestablishingthatayoungpersonisunder18yearsofage.Thatis,wristx-raysshouldonlybeabletobereliedon,whereappropriate,asevidencetendingtoestablishthatanindividualisundertheageof18years.

8.2 Findings regarding dental x-ray analysis for the assessment of chronological age

Evenifthecurrentstatisticalanalysissuggeststhatdentalx-raysaremorestatisticallyreliablethanwristx-rays,itdoesnotfollowthatdentalx-raysshouldreplaceorsupplementwristx-raysforageassessmentpurposesinAustralia.Nor,forthefollowingreasons,doesitfollowthatdentalx-raysshouldbecomeaprescribedageassessmentprocedureundertheCrimesAct.

First,dentalx-raysarenotsufficientlyinformativeofwhetheranindividualisover18yearsofageforthemtoberelieduponasevidenceofageincriminalproceedings.

Second,dentalx-raysappeartosharemanyoftheinherentweaknessesofwristx-raysasameansofassessingchronologicalage.Inparticular,theinescapablefactorofsubstantialvariation


indentaldevelopmentbetweenindividualsmeansthatdentalx-raysareunlikelytoprovidereliableevidenceofageinindividualcases.

Third,thereisnoevidencetosuggestthatawristx-raytogetherwithadentalx-raywillallowmorereliableageassessmentthaneitherofthosemethodsalone.

Finally,asshowninChapter3,givingwristx-raysthestatusofaprescribedprocedureundertheCrimesActforthepurposeofagedeterminationhasresultedintheirbeingseenasfarmoreinformativeforthispurposethantheyreallyare.Thereisarealriskthatthesameresultwillfollowifdentalx-raysaregiventheequivalentstatus.

8.3 Findings regarding the ethical implications of the use of x-ray analysis for the assessment of chronological age

AstheIAEAhasmadeplain,humanimagingusingionisingradiationwhenundertakenforoccupational,legalorhealthinsurancepurposes,andwithoutreferencetoclinicalindication,shouldnormallybedeemedtobenotjustified.

Evenwherehumanimagingofthischaractercanotherwisebejustified,itwillonlybeethicallyacceptable,accordingtoprinciplesacceptedbothinternationallyandinAustralia,iftheparticularuseissubjecttoaformalprocessofjustification.

Giventheabovefindingsthatwristanddentalx-rayanalysescanprovidelimited,ifany,reliableinformationconcerningwhetheranindividualhasattainedtheageof18years,itisverydifficulttoseehowtheiruseforageassessmentpurposescouldbejustified.

8.4 Findings regarding the use of other biomedical markers, multifactorial medical approaches, and multi-disciplinary approaches to the assessment of chronological age

ThereareinherentproblemswiththeuseofallotherbiomedicalmarkersofageofwhichtheCommissionisaware.Physicalexaminationsarenotappropriateforusebecauseofthewidevariationinpubertaldevelopmentbetweenindividualswithinanyagegroup,andbecausetheyinvolveexaminationofaperson’sgenitalia,anintrusiveprocessthatisnotjustifiedforadministrativepurposes.

Theprocessesofassessingagethroughanx-rayoftheclavicle,MRI,orthroughanultrasoundofthewristorelbowallrequirefurtherresearchbeforetheycanbeappropriatelyusedforageassessmentpurposes.

86


AlthoughsomesubmissionstotheInquiryindicatethatamultifactorialmedicalapproachmightleadtoamoreaccurateassessmentofchronologicalage,thereappearstobenoconsensusastowhichmethodsshouldbecombinedorhowtheyshouldbeweighted.

Finally,whileamulti-disciplinaryapproachtoageassessmentappearstobeacommonsenseapproach,andappearstohavesomesupportamongstbothmedicalandnon-medicalauthorities,theCommissionisnotawareofanyevidencethatacombinedapproachwillprovideamoreaccurateageassessmentthaneithermedicalornon-medicalapproachesalone.Individualdifferencesinphysicalandsocialmaturitywillremain,andbothapproachesarevulnerabletothesubjectiveviewsoftheassessor.Therealsoremainsapossibilitythatwithinamulti-disciplinaryapproach,greaterweightwillbegiventomedically-basedprocesses.Ifamulti-disciplinaryageassessmentprocessisconducted,awidemarginofbenefitofthedoubtshouldbeaffordedtoindividualswhoseageisbeingassessed.

__________________________________________________________________________________

1CommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions,ProsecutionPolicyoftheCommonwealth:Guidelinesforthemakingofdecisionsintheprosecutionprocess,para2.15.Athttp://www.cdpp.gov.au/Publications/ProsecutionPolicy/ProsecutionPolicy.pdf(viewed9July2012).

2AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,p6.3MigrationAct1958(Cth),s233C.4MigrationAct1958(Cth),s236B.5MigrationAct1958(Cth),s236B(2).6WWGreulichandSIPyle,RadiographicAtlasofSkeletalDevelopmentofHandandWrist(2nded,1959)

(GPAtlas),p27.7GPAtlas,above,preface.8TannerandWhitehouseintroducedamorecomplexprocessofwristx-rayassessmentin1962(TW2

method)inwhicheveryoneofthe20bonesofthehandandwristisscoredagainstpictorialandwrittencriteriafrom2700Britishlowerandmiddleclasschildren’sx-rays.Thedataforthismethodwereupdatedin1995and2001(TW3method),soastoreflectthesecularchangesthathaveoccurredinthespeedofbonedevelopmentinadolescence:JMTanner,RHWhitehouse,WAMarshall,MJRHealyandHGoldstein,AssessmentofSkeletalMaturityandPredictionofAdultHeight(TW2Method)(1sted,1975);JMTanner,RHWhitehouseandNCameron,AssessmentofSkeletalMaturityandPredictionofAdultHeight(TW3Method)(3rded,2001)(TW3Method).

9GPAtlas,note6,p28.10GPAtlas,above.11GPAtlas,above,pp15–18.12GPAtlas,above,p33.13GPAtlas,above,pp31,51.14GPAtlas,above,p32.15GPAtlas,above,p49.


16GPAtlas,above,p49.17GPAtlas,above,p51.18GPAtlas,above,p49.19GPAtlas,above,p55.20GPAtlas,above,p55.21TimJColePhDScDFMedSci,ProfessorofMedicalStatistics,MRCCentreofEpidemiologyforChild

Health,InstituteofChildHealth,UniversityCollegeLondon,UK.In2006theBritishRoyalCollegeofPaediatriciansandChildHealthbestowedonhimthetitleofHonoraryFellowforresearchofgrowthassessmentinpaediatrics.

22ProfessorTimCole,Submission5,p5.23ProfessorTimCole,Transcriptofhearing,Publichearingforkeymedicalexperts(9March2012),p17.24AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,p11.25DrVincentLow,Submission15,p2.26DrVincentLow,Submission15,p2.27DrJamesChristie,Submission19,pp4–5.28ProfessorTimCole,Submission5,p1.29ProfessorTimCole,Submission5,p4.30TW3Method,note8.31ProfessorTimCole,Submission5,p7.32ProfessorTimCole,Submission5,pp8–9.33ProfessorTimCole,Submission5,p9.34DrEllaOnikul,Transcriptofhearing,Publichearingforkeymedicalexperts(9March2012),p16.35DrJamesChristie,Submission19.36ProfessorAlAynsley-Green,Expertcommentaryontheageassessmentof[WIL024]preparedforFisher

DoreLawyers,BrisbaneAustralia,June2011(WIL024–CDPPdocument066.0023)p8.37ASchmeling,WReisinger,GGeserickandAOlze,‘AgeEstimationofUnaccompaniedMinors,PartI.

GeneralConsiderations’(2006)159SForensicScienceInternationalS61,S62.38GPAtlas,note6,p40.39GPAtlas,above,p44.40Forexample,DrVincentLow,Opinionregardingtheuseofskeletalagedeterminationtechniqueto

estimatechronologicalage,CDPP,May2011(OFD030–CDPPdocument293.0505)(DrLowOpinionforCDPP).

41ChiefScientist,OfficeoftheChiefScientist,LettertoDeputySecretary,NationalSecurity&CriminalJusticeGroup,AGD,11January2012.

42ProfessorTimCole,Submission5,p8.43PresidentsofAustralasianPaediatricEndocrinologyGroup,PaediatricsandChildHealthDivision–

AustralasianCollegeofPhysicians,RoyalAustralianandNewZealandRoyalCollegeofRadiologists,AustralianandNewZealandSocietyforPaediatricRadiology,AustralianSocietyforAdolescentMedicine,PaediatricImagingReferenceGroup–RANZCR,Jointsubmission,Submission9,pp1–2.

88


44ASchmeling,H-JKaatsch,BMarré,WReisinger,TRiepert,SRitz-Timme,FWRösing,KRötzscherandGGeserick,StudyGroupofForensicAgeEstimationoftheGermanAssociationforForensicMedicine:GuidelinesforAgeEstimationinLivingIndividualsinCriminalProceedings(2000)(GuidelinesforAgeEstimation),p3.

45HonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,CorrespondencetoDrACotterill,President,AustralianPaediatricEndocrineGroup,18October2011(AGDdocumentCORRO-5),p1.

46GPAtlas,note6,preface,pxii.47GPAtlas,above,p40.48GPAtlas,above,p40.49GPAtlas,above,p40.50GPAtlas,above,pp42–43.51WWGreulich,‘AComparisonofthePhysicalGrowthandDevelopmentofAmerican-bornandNative

JapaneseChildren’(1957)15(4)AmericanJournalofPhysicalAnthropology489.52AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,p12.53ASchmeling,WReisinger,DLoreck,KVendura,WMarkusandGGeserick,‘EffectsofEthnicityon

SkeletalMaturation:ConsequencesforForensicAgeEstimations’(2000)113InternationalJournalofLegalMedicine253;RRvanRijn,MHLequin,SGRobben,WCHopandCvanKujik,‘IstheGreulich&PyleAtlasStillValidforDutchCaucasionChildrenToday’(2001)31PediatricRadiology748,ascitedinSeniorAssistantDirector,PeopleSmugglingBranch,CDPP,PeopleSmugglingProsecutionsAgeDeterminationIssues,15December2010(CDPPdocumentAttachmentDdocument4).

54DrLowOpinionforCDPP,note40.55AMZafar,NNadeem,YHusenandMNAhmad,‘AnAppraisalofGreulich-PyleAtlasforSkeletalAge

AssessmentinPakistan’(2010)60(7)MedicalAssociationofPakistanJournal552,554.56FKOntell,MIvanovic,DSAblinandTWBarlow,‘BoneAgeinChildrenofDiverseEthnicity’(1996)167

AmericanJournalofRoentgenology1395,1398.57K-HChiang,AS-BChou,P-SYen,C-MLing,C-CLin,C-CLeeandP-YChang,‘TheReliabilityofUsing

Greulich-PyleMethodtoDetermineChildren’sBoneAgeinTaiwan’(2005)17(6)TzuChiMedicalJournal417;AZhang,JWSayre,LVachon,BJLiuandHKHuang,‘RacialDifferencesinGrowthPatternsofChildrenAssessedontheBasisofBoneAge’(2009)250(1)Radiology228;BBüken,AASafak,BYazici,EBükenandASMayda,‘IstheAssessmentofBoneAgebytheGreulich–PyleMethodReliableatForensicAgeEstimationforTurkishChildren?’(2007)173ForensicScienceInternational146,ascitedinPresidentsofAustralasianPaediatricEndocrinologyGroup,PaediatricsandChildHealthDivision–AustralasianCollegeofPhysicians,RoyalAustralianandNewZealandRoyalCollegeofRadiologists,AustralianandNewZealandSocietyforPaediatricRadiology,AustralianSocietyforAdolescentMedicine,PaediatricImagingReferenceGroup–RANZCR,Jointsubmission,Submission9.

58BMSoegiharto,SJCunninghamandDRMoles,‘SkeletalMaturationinIndonesianandWhiteChildrenAssessedwithHand-WristandCervicalVertebraeMethods’(2008)134(2)AmericanJournalofOrthodonticsandDentofacialOrthopedics217.

59BMSoegihartoetal,above,218.60BMSoegihartoetal,above,221.61AssociateProfessorHofman,Transcriptofhearing,Publichearingforkeymedicalexperts(9March2012),

p23.62ProfessorTimCole,Transcriptofhearing,Publichearingforkeymedicalexperts(9March2012),p24.


63GPAtlas,note6,p43.64PresidentsofAustralasianPaediatricEndocrinologyGroup,PaediatricsandChildHealthDivision–

AustralasianCollegeofPhysicians,RoyalAustralianandNewZealandRoyalCollegeofRadiologists,AustralianandNewZealandSocietyforPaediatricRadiology,AustralianSocietyforAdolescentMedicine,PaediatricImagingReferenceGroup–RANZCR,Jointsubmission,Submission9,p1.

65GuidelinesforAgeEstimation,note44,p4.Asnotedearlier,thisisthepublicationonwhichthe‘improvedprocessforagedeterminationinpeoplesmugglingmatters’jointlyannouncedbythethenAttorney-GeneralandthethenMinisterforHomeAffairsandJusticeon8July2011waspurportedlybased.

66AsdiscussedinChapter4,section5.67LegalAidQueensland,Submission6,p2.68VictoriaLegalAid,Submission13,p13.69Attorney-GeneralandMinisterforHomeAffairsandJustice,‘Improvedprocessforagedeterminationin

peoplesmugglingmatters’(Mediarelease,8July2011).Athttp://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22media%2Fpressrel%2F906838%22(viewed9July2012).

70Consultationwithagencies,CrimesActRegulations–Prescribingdentalandclavicalx-raysasadditionalagedeterminationprocedures,15November2011(AGDdocumentIMP-18).

71AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,p13.72HonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,Australian

HumanRightsCommission,30June2011.73Seeforexample,VictorianInstituteofForensicMedicine,Submission18;AustralianSocietyofForensic

Odontology,Submission4;DentalAgeAssessmentTeam,King’sCollegeLondonDentalInstitute,Submission7.

74Seeforexample,ProfessorTimCole,Submission5;ProfessorAlAynsley-Green,Submission38.75AustralianSocietyofForensicOdontology,Submission4,pp3,7;DrAnthonyHill,Transcriptofhearing,

Publichearingforkeymedicalexperts(9March2012),pp31–32.76OnestudyexaminingavarietyofclassificationmethodsfoundDemirjiantobethemostreliable.SeeA

Olze,DBilang,SSchmidt,KWerneke,GGeserickandASchmeling,‘ValidationofCommonClassificationSystemsforAssessingtheMineralizationofThirdMolars’(2005)119InternationalJournalofLegalMedicine22.

77DentalAgeAssessmentTeam,King’sCollegeLondonDentalInstitute,Submission7.78AustralianSocietyofForensicOdontology,Submission4,p7.79DrAnthonyHill,Transcriptofhearing,Publichearingforkeymedicalexperts(9March2012),p30.80DrStephenKnott,Submission17,p5.81DrAnthonyHill,Transcriptofhearing,Publichearingforkeymedicalexperts(9March2012),p33.82TheKing’sCollegesubmissiontotheInquiryalsoincludesanumberofresearcharticlescalculatingthe

reliabilityofdentalassessmentsmoregenerally,butnoneofthosearticlesfocusonthe18yearthreshold–thecloseststudyfocusesonthe16yearthreshold:DentalAgeAssessmentTeam,King’sCollegeLondonDentalInstitute,Submission7.

83ProfessorTimCole,Submission5,p11.84ProfessorTimCole,Submission5,p11.85ProfessorGrahamRoberts,EmailstotheAustralianHumanRightsCommission,5March2012and16

April2012.

90


86ProfessorGrahamRoberts,EmailstotheAustralianHumanRightsCommission,5March2012and16April2012;ProfessorTimCole,EmailtotheAustralianHumanRightsCommission,7March2012;ProfessorTimCole,Transcriptofhearing,Publichearingforkeymedicalexperts(9March2012),pp34–37.

87TJCole,‘HotPotatoTopic’(2008)205BritishDentalJournal581;GJRobertsandVSLucas,‘EthicalDentalAgeAssessment’(2009)207BritishDentalJournal251.

88DrGrahamRoberts,EmailtotheAustralianHumanRightsCommission,16April2012.89ProfessorTimCole,Transcriptofhearing,Publichearingforkeymedicalexperts(9March2012),p35.90AustralianSocietyofForensicOdontology,Submission4,p7.91AustralianSocietyofForensicOdontology,Submission4,p11.92VictorianInstituteofForensicMedicine,Submission18,p1.93TheGeorgeInstituteforGlobalHealth,Submission22,p10.94Seeforexample,AOlze,ASchmeling,MTaniguchi,HMaeda,PvanNiekerk,KWerneckeandG

Geserick,‘ForensicAgeEstimationinLivingSubjects:TheEthnicFactorinWisdomToothMineralization’(2004)118InternationalJournalofLegalMedicine170;DLZeng,ZLWu,MYCui,‘ChronologicalAgeEstimationofThirdMolarMineralizationofHaninSouthernChina’(2010)124InternationalJournalofLegalMedicine119;HCrawley,WhenIsaChildNotaChild?Asylum,AgeDisputesandtheProcessofAgeAssessment,InternationalLawPractitionersAssociationResearchReport(May2007)(WhenIsaChildNotaChild),pp31–32;EFHarrisandJHMcKee,‘ToothMineralisationStandardsforBlacksandWhitesFromtheMiddleSouthernUnitedStates’(1990)35(4)JournalofForensicScience859;ADemirjian,HGoldsteinandJMTanner,‘ANewSystemofDentalAgeAssessment’(1973)45HumanBiology221;AOlze,WReisinger,GGeserickandASchmeling,‘AgeEstimationofUnaccompaniedMinors,PartII.DentalAspects’(2006)159SForensicScienceInternationalS65.

95PWThevissen,SFieuwsandGWillems,‘HumanThirdMolarsDevelopment:Comparisonof9CountrySpecificPopulations’(2010)201ForensicScienceInternational102.

96HMLiversidge,‘InterpretingGroupDifferencesUsingDemirjian’sDentalMaturityMethod’(2010)201ForensicScienceInternational95.

97AOlze,WReisinger,GGeserickandASchmeling,note94.98VictorianInstituteofForensicMedicine,Submission18,p5.99DrAnthonyHill,Transcriptofhearing,Publichearingforkeymedicalexperts(9March2012),p40.100DrStephenKnott,Submission17,p4.101TheGeorgeInstituteforGlobalHealth,Submission22,p8.102ASchmeling,CGrundmann,AFuhrmann,HJKaatsch,BKnell,FRamsthaler,WReisinger,TRiepert,S

Ritz-Timme,FWRosing,KRotzscherandGGeserick,‘CriteriaforAgeEstimationinLivingIndividuals’(2008)122InternationalJournalofLegalMedicine457,459.

103AAynsley-Green,TJCole,HCrawley,NLessof,LRBoagandRWallace,‘Medical,Statistical,EthicalandHumanRightsConsiderationsintheAssessmentofAgeinChildrenandYoungPeopleSubjecttoImmigrationControl’(2012)BritishMedicalBulletin1(forthcoming).

104AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,p14.105AustralianSocietyofForensicOdontology,Submission4,p23.


106IAEA,RadiationProtectionandSafetyofRadiationSources:InternationalBasicSafetyStandards–InterimEdition,GeneralSafetyRequirements:Part3(2011).Athttp://www-pub.iaea.org/books/iaeabooks/8736/Radiation-Protection-and-Safety-of-Radiation-Sources-International-Basic-Safety-Standards-Interim-Edition-General-Safety-Requirements-Part-3(viewed9July2012).

107ARPANSA,CodeofPractice:RadiationProtectionintheMedicalApplicationsofIonizingRadition,RadiationProtectionSeriesNo.14,May2008,para2.2.1.

108ARPANSA,‘ResponsetoAGDre:humanimagingforagedetermination’,6March2012,Attachment–EmailfromPrincipalLegalOfficer,AGD,toAustralianHumanRightsCommission,6March2012(ARPANSAResponsetoAGD),p1.

109TheRoyalAustralianandNewZealandCollegeofRadiologists,Submission14,pp2-3.110PresidentsofAustralasianPaediatricEndocrinologyGroup,PaediatricsandChildHealthDivision–

AustralasianCollegeofPhysicians,RoyalAustralianandNewZealandRoyalCollegeofRadiologists,AustralianandNewZealandSocietyforPaediatricRadiology,AustralianSocietyforAdolescentMedicine,PaediatricImagingReferenceGroup–RANZCR,Jointsubmission,Submission9,p2.

111DrJamesChristie,Submission19,p2.112ARPANSAResponsetoAGD,note108,p1.113ASchmelingetal,note37,p17.114SeeASchmelingetal,above.115Seeforexample,WhenIsaChildNotaChild,note94,p33;TSmithandLBrownlees,AgeAssessment

Practices:ALiteratureReviewandAnnotatedBibliography,UNICEFDiscussionPaper(2011)(AgeAssessmentLiteratureReview),pp20–21.

116DrStephenKnott,Submission17,p5.117AvLondonBoroughofCroydon&SSHD;WKvSSHD&KentCountyCouncil[2009]EWHC939,as

citedinUKBorderAgency,GuidelinesforAssessingAge,2011,section6.5.118ProfessorAlAynsley-Green,Submission38,p19.119A,R(ontheapplicationof)vLondonBoroughofCroydon[2009]EWHC939,ascitedinRefugeeStudies

Centre,NegotiatingChildhood:AgeAssessmentintheUKAsylumSystem,WorkingPaperSeriesNo67(2010),p21.

120Seeforexample,ProfessorAlAynsley-Green,Submission38,pp16–17;WhenIsaChildNotaChild,note94,p33;AgeAssessmentLiteratureReview,note115,pp21,28.

121ProfessorAlAynsley-Green,Submission38,p16.122HonRobertMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,

AustralianHumanRightsCommission,30June2011.123ASchmelingetal,note37,S62.SeealsoAssociateProfessorDanielFranklin,Submission16,citing

variousstudies;SBlack,AAggrawalandJPayne-James,AgeEstimationintheLiving:ThePractitioner’sGuide(2010)(AgeEstimationintheLiving),p142.

124AgeEstimationintheLiving,above,pp142–144.125AgeEstimationintheLiving,above,p144.126TheGeorgeInstituteforGlobalHealth,Submission22,p7.127TheGeorgeInstituteforGlobalHealth,Submission22,p7.128TheGeorgeInstituteforGlobalHealth,Submission22,p8.129ProfessorAlAynsley-Green,Submission38,p28.

92


130AssociateProfessorDanielFranklin,Submission16.131VictorianInstituteofForensicMedicine,Submission18.132AssociateProfessorDanielFranklin,Submission16,p2.133AssociateProfessorDanielFranklin,Submission16,p2.134AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,p7.135AgeEstimationintheLiving,note123,p144.136ASchmelingetal,note102,459.137ProfessorAlAynsley-Green,Submission38,p26.138AustralianSocietyofForensicOdontology,Submission4,p7.139DrAnthonyHill,Transcriptofhearing,Publichearingforkeymedicalexperts(9March2012),p43-4.140ProfessorTimCole,Transcriptofhearing,Publichearingforkeymedicalexperts(9March2012),p44-5.141ProfessorAlAynsley-Green,Submission38,p31.142TheRoyalAustralianandNewZealandCollegeofRadiologists,Submission14,p2.143TheRoyalAustralasianCollegeofPhysicians,Submission11,p2.144AustralianSocietyofForensicOdontology,Submission4,p10.145AgeAssessmentLiteratureReview,note115,p12.


Chapter 3:

The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of biomedical markers for age assessment purposes

94

Chapter 3: The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of biomedical markers for age assessment purposes

Chapter contents

1 Introduction....................................................................................................................... 96

2 AgeassessmentprocessesthathavebeenemployedinAustraliasince2001................... 96

3 TheCommonwealth’sunderstandingoftheusefulnessofwristx-rayanalysisforageassessmentpurposes................................................................................................. 98

3.1 Concernsraisedduringthe2001Senateinquiry....................................................... 99

3.2 Concernsraisedincasesdecidedbetween2000and2003.................................... 101

(a) TheQueenvAstarUdinandSaniaAman.......................................................... 101

(b) ThePolicevHenryMazela................................................................................ 102

(c) TheQueenvHermanSafrudinandLukmanMuhamad..................................... 103

(d) ApplicantVFAYvMinisterforImmigration.......................................................... 103

3.3 Commonwealthagencies’awarenessofconcernsin2010..................................... 104

(a) TheDepartmentofImmigrationandCitizenship’sapproachtoageassessment....................................................................................................... 105

(b) ConcernsraisedbyDIACwithotherCommonwealthagencies......................... 106

(c) Concernsheldbymedicalserviceproviders...................................................... 108

(d) AnalysisbytheOfficeoftheCDPP.................................................................... 108

(e) Questionsraisedinmediacommentary............................................................. 110

(f) InterventionbytheAttorney-General’sDepartment........................................... 110

3.4 Commonwealthagencies’awarenessofconcernsin2011..................................... 113

(a) QuestionsraisedwithintheOfficeoftheCDPP................................................. 113

(b) FurtherinformationrequestedfromDrLowbytheOfficeoftheCDPP.............. 114

(c) ExpertmedicalopinionpresentedtotheCommonwealthbydefencecounsel... 114

(d) ImpactoftheevidencepresentedtotheCommonwealthbydefencecounsel... 116

(e) CorrespondencefrommedicalprofessionalassociationstotheMinisterforImmigrationandCitizenship.............................................................................. 118

(f) Expertevidencepresentedinlegalproceedings................................................ 120

(g) PotentiallymisleadingmaterialpreparedbytheCommonwealththroughout2011................................................................................................................. 123

(h) OpinionofAustralia’sChiefScientist................................................................. 125


3.5 TheCommonwealth’sfailuretoheedadviceconcerningethicalconsiderations....... 125

3.6 TheCommonwealth’sresponsetotheconcernsraisedbytheAustralianHumanRightsCommission................................................................................................. 127

4 TheCommonwealth’sunderstandingoftheusefulnessofdentalx-rayanalysisforageassessmentpurposes...................................................................................................... 130

5 Disclosureofallrelevantmaterialtothedefence.............................................................. 133

5.1 Thedutytodisclose................................................................................................ 133

5.2 TheOfficeoftheCDPPfailedtomeetitsdisclosureobligationsincaseswhereagewasindoubt..................................................................................................... 134

6 Findings........................................................................................................................... 138

6.1 FindingsregardingtheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecution’sunderstandingoftheusefulnessofwristx-rayanalysisforageassessmentpurposes................................................................................................................. 138

(a) ConfidenceintheevidenceofDrLowshouldnothavebeenmaintained........... 138

(b) Disclosureofmaterialtendingtosupportthedefencecase............................... 140

6.2 FindingsregardingtheAFP’sunderstandingoftheusefulnessofwristx-rayanalysisforageassessmentpurposes.................................................................... 142

6.3 FindingsregardingtheAttorney-General’sDepartment’sunderstandingoftheusefulnessofwristx-rayanalysisforageassessmentpurposes.............................. 143

6.4 FindingsregardingDIAC’sunderstandingoftheusefulnessofwristx-raysforthepurposesofageassessment................................................................................... 147

6.5 FindingsregardingtheCommonwealth’sunderstandingoftheusefulnessofotherbiomedicalmarkersforageassessmentpurposes.................................................. 147

96


1 Introduction

ThischapterconsiderstheCommonwealth’sapproachtotheuseofbiomedicalmarkerstoassessagesincewristx-raysbecameaprescribedprocedureforthepurposeofagedeterminationfollowingtheenactmentoftheCrimesAmendment(AgeDetermination)Bill2001(Cth).ItalsoconsiderswhateachrelevantCommonwealthagencyknew,orshouldhaveknown,aboutthevalueofspecificageassessmentprocessesforthepurposeofestablishingwhetheranindividualisundertheageof18years.

Thischaptertakesalargelychronologicalapproach.ThisisbecauseitisnecessarytoestablishwhattheCommonwealthknewabouttheeffectivenessoftheseageassessmentprocessesatparticulartimesinordertodrawconclusionsabouttheconductofinvestigationsandprosecutions.IssuesrelevanttotheuseoffocussedageassessmentinterviewsandageenquiriesinIndonesiaarediscussedinChapter5andChapter6respectively.

Accordingly,thischapteropensbyidentifyingtheageassessmentprocessesthathavebeenemployedinAustraliasince2001.Itthenconsiders:

• whattheCommonwealthknewatvarioustimesabouttheextenttowhichanalysisofwristx-rayswasinformativeforageassessmentpurposes

• whattheCommonwealthknewatvarioustimesabouttheextenttowhichanalysisofdentalx-rayswasinformativeforageassessmentpurposes

• issuesrelatedtothedisclosureofmaterialtothedefence.

2 Age assessment processes that have been employed in Australia since 2001

Variousageassessmentprocesseshavebeenused,orofferedforuse,duringtheinvestigationorprosecutionofyoungIndonesianssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingoffenceswhoseagewasindoubt.

Theprimaryageassessmentprocessthathasbeenusedsince2001isexpertanalysisofawristx-ray.Asnotedabove,in2001wristx-rayswerespecifiedasaprescribedprocedureforthepurposesofs3ZQA(2)oftheCrimesAct1914(Cth).1DocumentsprovidedtotheCommissionindicatethatfromlate2008,whenboatscarryingasylumseekersagainbeganarrivinginAustralia,untilJuly2011,awristx-raywastakeninthemajorityofcaseswheretheageofanindividualsuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwasindoubt.Thereafter,itappearsthatonlyonecrewmemberhashadawristx-raytaken.


Otherageassessmentprocessesthathavebeenused,orofferedforuse,inAustraliaincludedentalx-rays,focusedageassessmentinterviews,andthemakingofenquiriesinthecrewmember’scountryoforigin;thatis,Indonesia.

Thefirstageassessmentprocess,otherthanwristx-rayanalysis,tobeusedintheperiodunderconsiderationwasafocusedageassessmentinterview.InOctober2010,theDepartmentofImmigrationandCitizenship(DIAC)soughtforthefirsttimetoassesstheageofindividualmembersofagroupof27Indonesianyoungpeoplewhoseagewasindoubt,bymeansoffocusedageassessmentinterviews.ForthereasonsdiscussedinChapter5,DIACdidnotconductanyfurtherinterviewsofthiskinduntillate2011.InNovember2010,theAustralianFederalPolice(AFP)alsoconductedfocusedageassessmentinterviewswith12individuals.TheseinterviewsarealsodiscussedinChapter5.

On8July2011,theAustralianGovernmentannouncedan‘improvedageassessmentprocess’whichincludedthefollowingmeasuresinadditiontowristx-rays:

• theofferofdentalx-raysasasupplementaryproceduretowristx-rays

• theofferoffocusedageassessmentinterviewsconductedundercautionbyAFPofficers

• theAFPtakingstepsasearlyaspossibletoseekbirthcertificatesandotherrelevantinformationfromIndonesiawheretheageofanindividualsuspectedofpeoplesmugglingoffenceswascontested.2

The‘improvedprocess’wasdevelopedbyaworkinggroupofCommonwealthagencies,chairedbytheAttorney-General’sDepartment(AGD).Theworkinggroupwasformedtoconsiderconcernsraisedinaletterdated17February2011fromthePresidentoftheAustralianHumanRightsCommissiontothethenAttorney-General.3ThecorrespondencebetweentheCommissionPresidentandtheAttorney-GeneralregardingtheCommonwealth’srelianceonwristx-raysisdiscussedfurtherinsection3.6below.

Atthetimeofitsannouncement,the‘improvedprocess’appearedtooffersomepositivechangeinprocesseswherebytheagesofindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingoffenceswhosaidthattheywerechildrenwereassessed.However,theadditionalageassessmentmethodshavenotbeenwidelyused.Althoughdentalx-rayswereofferedtosomeyoungIndonesians,nonehasbeenconducted.4Followingtheannouncement,theAFPassessedwhetherfocusedageassessmentinterviewwouldprovideanyevidentiaryorprobativevalue,andbaseduponexpertacademicopinions,foundthatitwasnotpossibletoconducttheseinterviewsduetothecultural,linguistic,geographicalandreligiousdiversityofsuspects.5NointerviewsofthiskindhavebeenconductedbytheAFPsincetheJuly2011announcement,withquestionsaboutageinsteadbeingaskedduringAFPinterviewsconductedaspartoftheinvestigationprocess.Finally,there

98


appeartohavebeensignificantimpedimentstoobtainingdocumentaryevidenceofagefromIndonesia.

InDecember2011,anewprocessforassessingagewasadoptedwhichinvolvesDIACconductinganageassessmentinterviewwithanyyoungpersonsuspectedofapeoplesmugglingoffencewhoseagewasindoubt.DIACnowonlyrefersthoseindividualstotheAFPforinvestigationwhomitconcludesareover18yearsofageorwhoaresuspectedofbeingrepeatoffendersorofbeinginvolvedinaseriousincident.TheyoungpeoplewhomDIACdoesnotrefertotheAFPforinvestigationarereturnedtoIndonesia.6

3 The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of wrist x-ray analysis for age assessment purposes

ThissectionprovidesachronologicalappraisaloftheCommonwealth’sdevelopingunderstandingsince2001oftheusefulnessofwristx-rayanalysisasameansofageassessment.

AsnotedinChapter1,theCrimesActwasamendedin2001toallowaninvestigatingofficial,whosuspectsonreasonablegroundsthatapersonmayhavecommittedaCommonwealthoffence,toseekauthoritytocarryouta‘prescribedprocedure’whereitisnecessarytodeterminewhetherornotthepersonis,orwasatthetimeoftheallegedcommissionoftheoffence,under18yearsofage.7TheCrimesActauthorisestheinvestigatingofficialtoarrangeforthecarryingoutofaprescribedprocedureinrespectofthepersononlyifthatofficialobtainstherequiredconsentsorifamagistrateordersthecarryingoutoftheprocedure.8Currently,theonlyprocedureprescribedforthepurposesofthispartoftheCrimesActisa‘radiograph…ofahandandwristofthepersonwhoseageistobedetermined’(wristx-ray).9

TheamendmentsreferredtoabovewereenactedinresponsetoadecisionoftheNorthernTerritorySupremeCourtwhichfoundthattheMigrationAct1958(Cth)didnotprovidestatutoryauthorityforthetakingofawristx-rayforthepurposesofageassessment.10

SofarastheCommissionisaware,theresultingprovisionshaveonlybeenreliedoninthecontextofprosecutionsforpeoplesmugglingoffences.Since2001,expertanalysisofwristx-raysobtainedinrelianceontheseprovisionshasbeentheprimary,andonoccasionstheonly,evidenceofageadducedinsuchprosecutions.

Concernsabouttheextenttowhichitisappropriatetorelyonwristx-rayanalysisforageassessmentpurposesarenotnew.TheywereraisedduringtheparliamentaryprocessessurroundingtheCrimesAmendment(AgeDetermination)Bill2001(Cth),includingbytheSenateLegalandConstitutionalLegislationCommitteeduringitsinquiryintotheBill.Theywerealsoconsideredinaseriesofcourtandtribunalcasesbetween2000and2003.However,the


concernsdidnotresurfacethereafteruntil2010.Thisappearstobebecausebetween2002andlate2008veryfewboatsarrivedinAustralianwaterscarryingasylumseekers.

Boatsstartedarrivingagaininlate2008,withalargeincreaseinnumberstowardstheendof2009andinearly2010.DocumentsprovidedtotheCommissionindicatethatduringthisperiodthefirstwristx-rayofanindividualsuspectedofapeoplesmugglingoffencewastakeninSeptember2008.Wristx-raysappeartohavebeenroutinelytakenbetweenSeptember2009andJuly2011incaseswhereagewasindoubt.During2010and2011,asthenumberofinvestigationsandprosecutionsofindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhoseagewasindoubtrose,thequestionoftheappropriatenessoftheuseofwristx-raysforageassessmentpurposesbecameincreasinglyimportant.

3.1 Concerns raised during the 2001 Senate inquiry

TheCrimesAmendment(AgeDetermination)Bill2001(Cth)wasintroducedintotheHouseofRepresentativeson7March2001.TheBillwasreferredtotheSenateLegalandConstitutionalLegislationCommitteeforinquiryandreport.Duringthisinquiry,theSenateCommitteeheardevidencethatquestionedtheusefulnessofwristx-rayanalysisforthepurposesofageassessment.11

TheSenateCommitteeacceptedthisevidence,statinginitsreportthatthereisnorealcorrelationbetweenboneageandchronologicalage.12TheSenateCommitteealsonotedthatreservationsabouttheaccuracyofx-raysasameansofassessingagewerenotreflectedintheBilloritsaccompanyingExplanatoryMemorandum.

TheSenateinquiryprocessalsorevealedsomeimportantaspectsofthewayinwhichwristx-rayevidencewasintendedtobeused.TheSenateCommitteereportnotedthat:

theAFPadvisedthatitwaspreparedtotreatallpersonswhowerenotclearlyadultsasiftheywerejuvenile:

Intheabsenceofanyotherageidentificationdocumentationorothermeansofdoingit,anyonewhotestedupto19wouldbetreatedasjuvenile,becausethex-rayswouldindicatethattheywerebelowthatpointajuvenile.13

Itappears,however,thatnoformalstepsweretakentoensurethattheAFP,inpractice,treatedallpersonswhowerenotclearlyadultsasiftheywerejuvenile;thatis,togivethemthebenefitofthedoubt.AseniormemberoftheAFPgaveevidencetothiscurrentInquiryinwhichheacceptedthatitislikelythatnowrittendirectionorprotocolwasissuedtoFederalAgentstoensurethattheAFPactedinthismanner.14TheCommissionacceptsthattheCrimesActasamendeddidnotcontainalegalobligationtotreatallpersonswhowerenotclearlyadultsasiftheywerejuvenile.15NonethelesstheSenateCommitteenotedtheAPF’spreparednesstoactin

100


thismanneranditisapparentthattheAFPhasnotdonesoinallcases.SomeofthesecasesarediscussedinChapter4.

Notwithstandingitsreservationsabouttheuseofwristx-raysforageassessmentpurposes,theSenateCommitteeformedtheviewthattheBillmadeprovisions‘thatmayassistinclarifyingtheageofsomepersonssuspectedof,orchargedwith,Commonwealthoffences’.16ItrecommendedthattheBillbeamendedtoincludeastatementthat‘allotherappropriateagedeterminationprocedureswillbeundertakenbeforeanyprescribedprocedureisundertaken’.17ItalsorecommendedthattheExplanatoryMemorandumbechangedtoincludeastatement‘thatpersonswhoseagecannotbepreciselydeterminedwillbegiventhebenefitofthedoubtandtreatedasjuveniles’.18Additionally,theSenateCommitteerecommendedthat‘information,includingradiologicalstudies,relevanttotheagedeterminationofyoungpersonsofvariousracialandculturalbackgrounds…beregularlysoughtandusedinordertoensurethattheprescribedproceduresareofmaximumuse’.19

TheBillwasnotamendedtoincludeastatementtotheeffectthataprescribedprocedurewouldbeusedasameasureoflastresort.ThereasonforrejectingthisrecommendationwasprovidedduringdebateoftheBillintheHouseofRepresentatives:

Thefirstpartofrecommendation6wouldrequireinvestigatorstoexhaustallotheravenuesbeforedeterminingaperson’sageunderthebill.Ofcourse,inpracticeallreasonablealternativeswouldbepursuedbeforeusingtheprovisionsunderthebill.20

Further,theExplanatoryMemorandumwasnotchangedastheSenateCommitteerecommended.However,somestepsweretakentoaccommodatetheSenateCommittee’sconcerns.BoththeRevisedExplanatoryMemorandumandtheSecondReadingSpeechoftheSpecialMinisterofStateinsupportoftheBillstate:

Inthoseinstanceswheretheageofasuspectordefendantcannotbeaccuratelydeterminedthecurrentlegalpositionwillprevail.Unlesstheprosecutioncandischargetheburdenofestablishingonthebalanceofprobabilitiesthatadefendantisanadult,thedefendantwillbetreatedasajuvenile.Thisensuresthatnoinjusticewilloccurifadefendant’sageisstillindoubtatthetimeoftrial.21

TheRevisedExplanatoryMemorandumfurtherstatesthat:

TheBilldoesnotcontainanexpressrequirementtoexhaustallotheravenuesbeforeseekingaperson’sconsentto,ormagisterialauthorisationfor,aprescribedprocedure.However,inpractice,investigatingofficialswillseektodetermineaperson’sagebyallreasonablemeansbeforeexercisingthepowerscontainedintheBill.22

TheAFPalsoacceptsthatnodirectionorprotocolwasputinplacetoensurethatFederalAgentswouldseektodetermineaperson’sagebyallreasonablemeansbeforeexercisingthepowersintheCrimesAct.Further,theAFPacceptsthatinanumberofcases,wristx-rayswerethe


principalmeansbywhichitsoughttodetermineage.23SomeofthesecasesarediscussedinChapter4.TheysupporttheconclusionthatitwasnotunusualfortheAFPtousewristx-raysasboththefirstandtheprincipalmeansofdeterminingtheageofanindividualsuspectedofapeoplesmugglingoffencewhosaidthathewasachild.

TheSenateCommittee’srecommendationthatinformationrelevanttotheagedeterminationofyoungpersonsofvariousracialandculturalbackgroundsberegularlysoughtandusedhasapparentlynotbeenimplemented.

Initsresponsetothedraftofthisreport,theAFPsubmittedthat:

theprovisionsoftheCrimesActenactedfollowingtheSenateCommittee’sinquiryandthedebatethatconsideredthatCommittee’sfindingsdidnotcreatealegalobligationontheAFPtoexhaustallotheravenuesofenquiryinordertodetermineasuspect’sageortogiveasuspectthebenefitofthedoubtbeforeseekingtorelyonaprescribedagedeterminationprocedure.24

TheCommissionacceptstheaccuracyoftheabovesubmission.However,italsonotesthestatementcontainedwithintheExplanatoryMemorandumthatinpracticeotherenquirieswouldbeundertakenbeforeawristx-raywasconducted.

3.2 Concerns raised in cases decided between 2000 and 2003

FourcasesdecidedinAustraliancourtsbetween2000and2003canbeseentojustifytheconcernsexpressedbytheSenateCommitteeandtoforeshadowlaterdebatesabouttheextenttowhichwristx-raysareinformativeofchronologicalage.OneofthesecaseswasdecidedbeforetheCrimesActwasamendedin2001andthreeweredecidedthereafter.Withoutunderestimatingthebenefitsofhindsight,itislegitimatetoquerywhetherthevaryingexpertevidencegiveninthesecasesoughttohavealertedtheAFPandtheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionstotheneedtosatisfythemselvesthattheexpertevidencethattheywereplacingbeforethecourtswascredible,andthatitwasapttoassistthosecourtstodojusticeaccordingtolaw.25

(a) TheQueenvAstarUdinandSaniaAman

RvUdinisthefirstcaseofwhichtheCommissionisawareinwhichopinionevidencebasedontheGreulichandPyleAtlas(GPAtlas)wasgiven.26Inthiscase,DrSvenThonnell,aradiologist,wascalledasanexpertbytheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions,indicatingthathe,andpresumablytheAFP,acceptedDrThonnellasacredibleexpertwitness.AfterexplainingthecontentoftheGPAtlas,DrThonnellexpressedtheopinionwithrespecttoyoungmalesgenerallythatthegrowthplateoftheforearmhasalmosttotallyfusedatage18yearsandbytheageof19yearshascertainlytotallyfused.27

102


DrThonnellwentontoexplaintothecourtwhythetablecalculatingthestandarddeviationforboneageintheGPAtlasonlygoesupto17years,stating:

after[17years]it’sverydifficulttojudgetheage,asIsay,becausethebonesareexpectedtohavefusedattheageof18soIsupposeyoucouldputitanotheryear.Theycouldhavedonethatiftheyreallywantedto,butthedifferenceatthatstage–thestandarddeviationoftwo-thirdsofthesepatientsisabout13monthseitherway,aboveandbelow17years,sothatabovethattheywouldhavefusedanditreallydoesn’thelpatallindeterminingthechronologicalageortheskeletalage.28

DrThonnellobservedthat:

Ittakesabout2or3yearsforthebonestofuseaftertheageof15atleast.29

TheCourtacceptedDrThonnellasanexpertintherelevantfield.Thecourtnotedthelimitationsofx-rayevidenceforthepurposeofascertainingchronologicalageandultimatelyfoundonthebalanceofprobabilitiesthatneitherofthetwodefendantswasovertheageof18yearsatthetimeofhisoffence.30

(b) ThePolicevHenryMazela

Lessthan17monthsafterDrThonnellgaveevidencefortheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionsinRvUdin,DrLow,alsoaradiologist,wascalledbytheDirectortogiveexpertevidenceintheChildren’sCourtofWesternAustraliainThePolicevMazela.31O’BrienJnotedthatDrLow’sevidencewastheonlyevidencethatcouldpossiblythrowdoubtonMrMazela’saccountofhisage.

TheevidencegivenbyDrLowinthiscaseisatoddswithDrThonnell’searlierevidenceinacriticalrespect.DrLow’sreportonMrMazela’swristx-rayidentifiedthatthebonesofhiswristhadfusedandwentontostate:

Accordingtothestandardreference,RadiographicAtlasofSkeletalDevelopmentoftheHandandWristbyGreulichandPyle,secondedition,thiseventoccursinthemaleatskeletalage19years....MrMazelahadanestimatedskeletalageof19years.32

FromherHonour’sreasonsforjudgment,itappearsthatinhisoralevidenceDrLowclarifiedthat,inhisopinion,theprobabilityofa19yearoldmaleshowingamaturewristonx-raywas50%.33HenonethelessdescribedMrMazelaashavingthehandofa19yearold.34O’BrienJnotedthisinconsistencyandalsodrewattentiontotheunscientificwayinwhichDrLowhadcalculatedastandarddeviationforskeletalageattheageof18years.HerHonouradditionallyreferredtothestatementmadebytheauthorsoftheGPAtlasthatthemethoddevisedbythemwasintendedmerelytoprovideausefulestimateofskeletalageandthattherewasatendencytoattributetoitagreaterdegreeofprecisionthanispermittedbythenatureofthechangesitisintendedtomeasure.35


Ultimately,O’BrienJacceptedtheunchallengedevidenceofthedefendantastohisagenotwithstandingtheevidencegivenbyDrLow.36

Somewhatsurprisingly,thisdecisionwasappealedtotheFullCourtoftheSupremeCourtofWesternAustralia.Itwouldseemthatthewristx-rayanalysisinthiscasewasseenbytheOfficeoftheCDPPtobedeterminativeofMrMazela’sage;thatis,thattheOfficeoftheCDPPheldanunwarrantedbeliefthatchronologicalagecanbedeterminedwithsomeprecisionbyanalysisofawristx-ray.

Theappealwasdismissed.37

(c) TheQueenvHermanSafrudinandLukmanMuhamad

InRvSafrudinandMuhamad,RileyJoftheSupremeCourtoftheNorthernTerritorysentencedtwoindividualswhohadbeenconvictedofpeoplesmugglingoffences.38TherewasnoagreementbetweentheprosecutionandthedefenceastotheiragesandevidenceonthisissuewasledfromDrThonnell.

ThesentencingremarksofRileyJrecordthat:

Itisnotindisputethat,ataskeletalageof19years,skeletalgrowthandfusionarecomplete.39

ItmaythusbeassumedthatDrThonnell,consistentlywithhisearlierevidenceinRvUdin,hadgivenunchallengedevidencetothiseffect;thatis,evidencedirectlyatoddswiththeevidencegivenonlytwomonthsearlierbyDrLowinThePolicevMazelathatskeletalmaturityisachievedonaverageat19yearsofageandthat50%of19yearoldsdonothavehandswiththeskeletalmaturityofa19yearold(thatis,handsinwhichthebonesaretotallyfused).40

Afternotingthatchronologicalagemayvaryfromskeletalageandthatthedegreeofvariationmaydependonmanyfactors,HisHonourconcludedthatHermanSafrudinwasajuvenilebutthatLukmanMuhamadwasanadult.41

(d) ApplicantVFAYvMinisterforImmigration

The2003decisioninApplicantVFAYvMinisterforImmigration42concernedtheeligibilityforabridgingvisaofanapplicantwhoseagewasindisputeratherthananallegedpeoplesmugglingoffence.ItisthereforeacaseinwhichDIAC,butnottheAFPortheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions,maybeassumedtohavebeeninvolved.Thiscaseisofinterestastwoexperts,describedbythecourtas‘veryexperiencedandhighlyqualifiedpaediatricradiologists’,43gaveevidenceaboutthevalidityofusingbonex-raysasameansofdeterminingage.

104


Theapplicant’swristx-rayshowedaskeletallymaturewrist.DrJohnRadcliffe,whogaveevidenceonbehalfoftheapplicant,stressedthevariationintherateofskeletalmaturitywithinnormalpopulationsanddrewattentiontothestandarddeviationsrecordedinTablesIIIandVoftheGPAtlas.Hepointedoutthatitiscommonlyregardedthateverythingwithintwostandarddeviationsisnormal.HefurtherobservedthattheauthorsoftheGPAtlasdidnotconsidertheestimationofchronologicalageasapotentialuseoftheirdataandthatinscienceitisgenerallyunderstoodthattousedataforpurposesforwhichitwasnotcollectedcanbefraughtwithhazards.Additionally,DrRadcliffereferredtopublishedstudiesthatshowedthatcertainpopulationsmaturedearlierthanthestudysampleofGreulichandPyle.Hisconclusionwasthattherearefundamentalflawsintryingtoassesschronologicalagefromanassessmentofskeletalage.

DrFrederickJensengaveevidenceonbehalfoftherespondent.HewasalsoatpainstoexplainthattheGPAtlasisnotordinarilyusedasameansofassessingchronologicalage.Hehadneverbeenaskedtodosobefore.However,afterhavinghisattentiondrawntoapaperentitled‘Effectsofethnicityonskeletalmaturation:consequencesforforensicestimations’bySchmelingetal,hewasopentotheviewthattheGPAtlascouldbeusedforthispurpose.HeexpressedagreementwiththeconclusionssetoutintheSchmelingpaper,whichincludeconclusionstendingtominimiseproblemsarisingfromethnicdifference.Asignificantfeatureofthispaper,towhichDrJensendrewattention,isthatitsuggeststhatageassessmentsshouldinvolvenotonlyawristx-raybutalsoaphysicalinspectionbyaforensicpathologistandadentalassessmentbyaforensicallyexperienceddentist.

TheFederalMagistrateconcludedthattheapplicantwasundertheageof18years.

ItisnotclearthatthisdecisionoftheFederalMagistratesCourtofAustraliacametotheimmediateattentionoftheOfficeoftheCDPP,theAFPor,indeed,AGD.Nonetheless,decisionsoftheFederalMagistratesCourtarepublishedelectronicallyandcanbereadilyidentifiedbyaresearcher.

3.3 Commonwealth agencies’ awareness of concerns in 2010

Asexplainedabove,thefactthatprosecutionsforpeoplesmugglingoffencesdidnotrecommenceuntil2009meansthattheappropriatenessoftheuseofwristx-rayanalysisdidnotreceivefurtherconsiderationforsometime.DocumentsprovidedtotheCommissionshowthatdetaileddiscussionbetweenCommonwealthagenciesabouttheseissuesbeganinlate2010.ItappearsthatthisdiscussionwaslargelyprecipitatedbyDIAC’spresentingitsconcernstootherCommonwealthagencies.


(a) TheDepartmentofImmigrationandCitizenship’sapproachtoageassessment

DIAChasnotusedwristx-rayanalysisforthepurposeofassessingageinrecentyears.Thereferencetowristx-raysasameanstoassessagewasremovedfromtheDIACProtectionVisaProceduresAdviceManualinMarch2010.44

InearlyJune2010,DIACbegantoconsideroptionsforassessingtheageofasylumseekerswhereitheldrealdoubtabouttheveracityoftheirclaimstobeundertheageof18years.Atthistime,DIACwasgivingthebenefitofthedoubttoanyindividualwhoclaimedtobeaminorunlesstherewasevidencetocontradicttheclaim.On11June2010,aDIACsubmissiontotheMinisterforImmigrationandCitizenshipproposedapilotprogramtoassesswhetherapproximately50‘disputedminors’wereoverorunder18yearsofage.45ThesubmissionrecommendedthatDIACassessagethroughfocusedageassessmentinterviews.

InthesubmissiontotheMinister,DIACofficersexaminedtheuseofwristx-rayanalysisforthepurposeofdeterminingchronologicalageinthecontextofrefugeestatusdeterminations.Thesubmissionidentifiedthecontroversysurroundingwristx-rayanalysisandrecommendedthatDIACusefocusedageassessmentinterviewsasameansforassessingage.Specifically,thesubmissionnotedthat:

• theGPAtlasdoesnottakefactorssuchasclimate,ethnicity,health,nutritionandenvironmentintoaccount

• theresultsofwristx-raysarenotdefinitiveandprovideonlyameanageestimationandanerrorrangeofatleasttwoyearseitherway

• theresultsofwristx-raysaresubjectiveanditispossiblefortwoprofessionalstointerpretthesamedatadifferently

• theGPAtlaswasnotdesignedforthepurposeofagedetermination.46

ThesubmissionalsonotedthattherehadbeencasesinwhichagedeterminationonthebasisofbonescanshadbeendisputedinAustraliancourts.Itidentifiedthatinatleasttwocasesthecourthadgivenanindividualthebenefitofthedoubt,findingonthebalanceofprobabilitiesthathewasunder18yearsofageattherelevanttime,notwithstandingexpertevidenceofaboneageofatleast18yearsofage.

Finally,itobservedthat,whilethepolicyandpracticeinrelationtotheuseofbonescansvariesacrossEurope,thosejurisdictionsthatdousebonescansdonotrelyonthemexclusivelyandtakeintoaccountsocialandculturalfactorsinanyassessmentofage.ItnotedthattheUKGovernmentreliesonTheHealthofRefugeeChildren–GuidelinesforPaediatricians,published

106


bytheRoyalCollegeofPaediatricsandChildHealth,toinformitspolicyonagedeterminationforthepurposesofrefugeestatusdetermination.47TheGuidelinesstate:

Inpractice,agedeterminationisextremelydifficulttodowithcertainty,andnosingleapproachtothiscanbereliedon.Moreover,foryoungpeopleaged15–18itisevenlesspossibletobecertainaboutage.Theremayalsobedifficultiesindeterminingwhetherayoungpersonwhomightbeasoldas23could,infact,beundertheageof18.Agedeterminationisaninexactscienceandthemarginoferrorcansometimesbeasmuchasfiveyearseitherside....Theissueofwhetherchronologicalagecanbedeterminedfromtheestimateofboneagehasbeendiscussedatgreatlengthintheliterature.Theansweristhatitcannot.48

Amongtheannexurestothesubmissionwasasummaryofinternationalpractice.Thissummarynotedthat:

• InSwitzerland,theuseofwristx-rayforagedeterminationpurposeswasstoppedin2000.TheSwissAsylumAppealCommissiondeterminedthatboneagemaybeuptothreeyearsdifferentfromchronologicalage.

• IntheUK,theRoyalCollegeofPaediatriciansadvisethatwristx-rayagedeterminationtestingcanbeincorrectbyuptofiveyears.

• InAustria,theuseofwristx-rayshasbeendiscontinuedasithasbeendeemedunreliable.49

(b) ConcernsraisedbyDIACwithotherCommonwealthagencies

Inlate2010,DIACofficersmadeconcentratedeffortstoensurethatinformationquestioningtheappropriatenessofusingwristx-rayanalysisforageassessmentpurposeswasprovidedtotheotherCommonwealthagencieswitharoleintheinvestigationandprosecutionofpeoplesmugglingoffences.Belowisabriefchronologyoftheseefforts.

On3September2010,seniorofficialsfromDIAC,theAFPandtheOfficeoftheCDPPattendedameetingtodiscussapproachestoagedetermination.Asaresultofthisconference,theSeniorAssistantDirector,PeopleSmugglingBranch,OfficeoftheCDPPwasprovidedwiththefollowingdocuments:

• asummaryofthecasesApplicantVFAYvMinisterforImmigration[2003]FMCA289andV0504672[2007]MRTA385

• anextractrelatingtopubertyandagedeterminationfromapublicationGuidelinesforPaediatricians(UK)

• acopyofthepublicationTheHealthofRefugeeChildren:GuidelinesforPaediatricianspublishedbytheRoyalCollegeofPaediatricsandChildHealth(UK).50


TheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionsgaveevidencetothisInquirythatinaboutSeptember2010hewasnotawareofthepublicationTheHealthofRefugeeChildren–GuidelinesforPaediatricians.51Heagreedthathewouldhavebeenseriouslytroubledhadhebeenawareatthattimethatitcontainedthestatementextractedabove.52

TheDirectoracceptedthatareasonwhyhewouldhavebeenseriouslytroubledwasthathewasawarethattheOfficeoftheCDPPhadbeenadducingevidencefromDrLowthatsuggestedtothecontrary.53

TheAFPacceptsthatDIACofficersprovideditsofficerswiththesamedocumentsastheOfficeoftheCDPPfollowingthemeetingon3September2010.54

Asaresultofthe3September2010meeting,theAFPbecameconcernedthattherewerediscrepanciesintheexpertevidencewithrespecttotheprocessofdeterminingagebyreferencetoskeletalage.55On5October2010,theAFPpresentedtheresultsofitsownresearchtoDIAC.TheAFPindicatedthatitslikelypreferredoptionfordeterminingagewouldbeacombinationoftheDIACfocusedageinterviewandawristx-ray.56ItisclearfromthedocumentsprovidedtotheCommissionthatbythistimetheAFPwasinpossessionofasubstantialamountofinformationconcerninginternationalapproachestousingx-raystodetermineage.

On14October2010,DIACofficersrepliedtotheAFPexpressingtheircontinuedconcernaboutthewaywristx-rayswerebeingusedtodetermineage.DIACofficersdrewattentiontothestrongviewsexpressedbyauthoritativebodiesinotherjurisdictionsaboutthemarginoferrorassociatedwiththeassessmentofwristx-rays.DIACofficersalsoobservedthat‘itisnotcleartousthatthemarginoferrorisreflectedinthewristx-rayreportpresentedtothecourt(wheretheclaimedageandwristx-rayagediffer)’.57Atthattime,DIACofficersprovidedtheAFPwithanumberofresearchreportsaboutthereliabilityofwristx-raysforassessingage,includingtheUKGuidelinesonAssessingAgeandaletterdated23May2007fromthePresidentoftheRoyalCollegeofRadiologiststotheUKUnaccompaniedAsylumSeekingChildrenReformProgramme,thatquestionedhowusefulx-raysweretodeterminetheageofunaccompaniedasylumseekingchildren.58Thisletterstates:

weareconcernedaboutboththereliabilityofx-rayexaminationsfortheaccurateassessmentofageandtheclinicalgroundsforjustificationofthesex-rayexposures.59

On26October2010,ameetingdescribedasa‘PeopleSmugglingBriefManagementConference’washeld.RepresentativesoftheOfficeoftheCDPP,theAFP,DIACandAGDattendedthemeeting,itsfocusbeing‘theevidencewhichneededtobecollectedinpeoplesmugglingmattersgenerallyinorderforthemtobeproperlyputbeforethecourt’.60Afilenoteofthemeeting,undertheheading‘Juveniles’,notedincreasinglevelsofdifficultiesinusingx-ray

108


machinestodeterminebonedensityagereadings.Itfurtherreferredtocaseswherecourtshadexpressedlackofcredibilityinanalysisofindividuals.61

DIACofficersalsosharedtheirconcernsabouttheuseofwristx-raystoassessagedirectlywithAGDofficers.On10January2011,aDIACofficersentanemailtoanAGDofficerattachinganumberofacademicandscientificjournalarticlesrelatingtotheuseofwristx-raystodetermineage.OneofthosearticleswasTheHealthofRefugeeChildren–GuidelinesforPaediatricians.62

(c) Concernsheldbymedicalserviceproviders

Commonwealthagencieswereawareatleastbylate2010ofconcernsheldbysomemedicalpractitionersabouttheuseofwristx-rayanalysisfortheassessmentofchronologicalage.Thisisrevealedbythenotesofthemeetingheldon26October2010.Bythistime,theCommonwealthwasalsoawarethatsomemedicalserviceproviders,suchastheIndianOceanTerritoriesHealthServicewhichoperatedonChristmasIsland,wererefusingtotakewristx-raysforthepurposeofdeterminingage.InlateNovember2010,AGD,attherequestoftheAFP,madeenquiriesaboutwhythiswasthecase.Inresponsetotheseenquiries,anofficerfromtheDepartmentofRegionalAustralia,RegionalDevelopmentandLocalGovernment,advisedAGDthatoneofthethreereasonstheIndianOceanTerritoriesHealthServicewasrefusingtocarryouttheprocedurewas,‘fromaclinicalpointofview,theyhaveadvisedthatagedeterminationusingwristx-raysishighlyunreliableandtheywouldbereluctanttounnecessarilyexposeindividualstoradiation’.63

(d) AnalysisbytheOfficeoftheCDPP

Inlate2010,theSeniorAssistantDirectorofthePeopleSmugglingBranch,OfficeoftheCDPPproducedaresearchpaperentitled‘PeopleSmugglingProsecutionsAgeDeterminationIssues’.64

On8November2010,theSeniorAssistantDirectorwrotetoaDIACofficerrequestinginformationaboutthemethodologyusedbyDIACtoassessage.Inthesubsequentemailexchange,hestatedthatthepositionoftheOfficeoftheCDPPwastouseallavailableinformationadmissibleinproofoftheagedeterminationissueandnottorelysolelyonwristx-rayevidence.TheSeniorAssistantDirectorstated:

Furtherwearecognisantoftheprofessionalmedicalandscientificviewsbackedbyjudicialandlegalconceptsthatacceptamultidisciplineapproachislikelytoleadtoamoreaccurateandsaferresultthananysinglemethod.65

TheOfficeoftheCDPP’sresearchpaperdiscussestheagedeterminationprocessandhowtheresultsofthewristx-rayprocedureareusedinthecriminaljusticesystem.Thepaperdescribes


thecourseofeventsthatordinarilyfollowsthetakingofawristx-ray,includingthepreparationbyaradiologistofashortreportonthex-ray.Thepaperstates:

Assumingthedetermination[bytheradiologist]isthatthesuspectedpersonisanadult,thatisovertheageof18years,andassumingthattheAFPhavesufficientevidencetoinitiateaprosecution,theAFPwillproceedtochargethesuspectedpersoninanadultcourt,andif(asisnormallythecase)thesuspectedpersonisremandedincustodyhewillberemandedtoanadultcorrectionalservicesfacility.66

ThepapermakesnoreferencetotheobservationmadebytheSenateLegalandConstitutionalLegislationCommitteein2001that‘theAFPadvisedthatitwaspreparedtotreatallpersonswhowerenotclearlyadultsasiftheywerejuvenile’andspecificallythat‘anyonewhotestedupto19wouldbetreatedasajuvenile’.67Itseemslikelythatthepaper’sauthordidnotknowofthisobservation.

ThepapergoesontostatethattheexpertwitnessusuallygivesevidencedrawingontheGPAtlastotheeffectthat‘astandarddeviationindevelopmentofskeletalmaturityis13.05monthsand15.4months’.68ThepaperthensetsoutthetabledevisedbyDrLowwhichpurportedlyshowstheprobabilitiesthatapersonshowingskeletalmaturityisinfacttheirstatedchronologicalage.ItdoesnotappearthatanymedicalorotherexpertsapartfromDrLowwereconsultedinthepreparationofthispaper.

TheresearchpapermakesnoreferencetothefactthattheOfficeoftheCDPPhadinthepastcalledexpertevidencethatwasinconsistentwiththetableofprobabilitiesdevisedbyDrLow.However,afootnoterecognisesthatalthough:

themostcommonlyusedexpertisDrVincentHSLow,thereareotherradiologistswhohavealsogivenevidenceincriminalproceedingsincludinginAustraliaDrJensen,DrRadcliffe,andDrThonnell.69

Itisclearfromthisfootnote,andfromalaterexpressreferencetothecase,thatthedecisionoftheFederalMagistratesCourtinApplicantVFAYvTheMinisterforImmigrationhadbythistimecometotheattentionoftheOfficeoftheCDPP.

Theresearchpaperincludesadiscussionofthedisclosureobligationsofprosecutingauthorities.ItconcludesthatanyDIACfocusedageassessmentinterviewreportwouldneedtobedisclosedtothedefencebytheprosecution.Thepaperdoesnotgiveconsiderationtotheissueofwhethermaterialinconsistentwithexpertevidenceformingpartoftheprosecutioncasealsooughttobedisclosed.

Undertheheading‘Borderlinecases’,theSeniorAssistantDirectordemonstrateshisacceptanceofDrLow’sopinionthatonaveragethefusionofthebonesofthewristcommencesatabout

110


theageof18yearsandconcludesatabouttheageof19years.Onthisbasis,heidentifiesthepracticeoftheOfficeoftheCDPPtreatingeveryonewhosewristhasnotfusedasajuvenileasausefulapproach.70

(e) Questionsraisedinmediacommentary

MediacommentarysuggestingthatIndonesianminorsweredetainedinadultcorrectionalfacilitiesinAustralia,andquestioningtheuseofwristx-rayanalysisforthepurposeofassessingage,commencedinlate2010.On11November2010,anarticlewaspublishedbyTheAustraliannewspaperwhichdiscussedthecaseoffourIndonesiancrewmembersheldinadultprisonsinWesternAustraliawhohadsaidthattheywereminors.Thearticlequestionedwhetherwristx-rayswereareliablemethodofdeterminingage,stating:

TheAustralianFederalPolicereliesonwristX-raystodeterminetheskeletalmaturityofthecapturedIndonesians,manyofwhomlieabouttheiragetoescapeprosecution.Butthereisseriousdoubtaboutthereliabilityofthetest,withonepediatricradiologist,DavidChristie,describingitas“amazinglyinaccurate”.DrChristiesaidwristX-rayshadanerrormarginofupto26monthsinboysaged17yearsold.“It’satest,butit’sarelativelypoortest,”hesaid.71

Therehasbeensustainedmediainterestintheseissuesthroughout2011andinto2012.

(f) InterventionbytheAttorney-General’sDepartment

AGDistheleadpolicyagencyonpeoplesmugglingcrewissues.72FromdocumentsprovidedtotheInquiry,itappearsthatAGDbegantakinganactiveroleinissuesrelatedtoageassessmentofpeoplesmugglingcrewfromlate2010.Inmid-November2010,anofficeroftheDepartmentofPrimeMinisterandCabinetforwardedtoanAGDofficeradraftQuestionTimeBrief(QTB)ontheissueof‘ChildPeopleSmugglers’.ThepreparationoftheQTBwasapparentlyprecipitatedbythereportinTheAustralianmentionedaboveandafurtherreportintheHeraldSunnewspaperaboutadultasylumseekersclaimingtobechildren.TheQTBstressedthatthe‘Governmenttakesveryseriouslytheprosecutionofpeoplesmugglers’.73

AnAGDofficerexpressedconcernthattheQTB‘appearstoconflateinplacesagedeterminationprocessesusedinthecriminaljusticecontextandforimmigrationpurposes’.HeexpressedparticularconcernaboutthefollowinglinesinthesectionoftheQTBheaded‘Background’,andsuggestedthattheyberemovedfromtheQTB.

DIAChasmovedawayfromtheuseofwristx-raysasthesolemethodtodetermineaclient’slikelyage,becausereliabilityofwristx-raystodetermineagehasbeenquestionedinaninternationalcontext.Theinherentmarginoferrorwiththisprocesshascausedmuchdebatewithinthemedicalprofessionandmorebroadlyinasylumseekerreceivingcountries.74


TheexplanationforthissuggestionofferedatthetimebytheAGDofficerwasthat:

Astherearetwoagedeterminationprocessesbeingusedinseparatecontexts,andongoingagencydialoguewhich(overtime)willensureeachagencyhasaccesstorelevantinformationabouttheotherprocessresult,itwouldbebesttoavoidreferencestoindividualagencyviewsaboutthereliabilityofthetest.75

IngivingevidencetothisInquiry,theofficeracknowledgedtheaccuracyofthestatementthathesuggestedberemovedfromtheQTB,butdeniedthathisconcernwastominimisepotentialcriticismofrelianceonwristx-rays.76HeacknowledgedthathewasawarethatDIACandtheAFPtookintoaccounttheresultsofeachother’sprocesses.Thiswas,ofcourse,notsurprisingastheywerebothconcernedtoascertainthesamething;thatis,whetheraparticularindividualwasunderorovertheageof18years.Hesaidthathewantedtomakeitclear‘thatthereweretwoprocessesandtheimmigrationprocessesarebetteroffbeingreferredtotheMinisterforImmigrationandthelawenforcementprocesstotheMinisterforHomeAffairs’.77Thesuggestion,whichcontinuedtobemadeindocumentspreparedwithinAGD,thatproblemsconcerningtheuseofwristx-raysforageassessmentsundertakenbyDIACdidnotaffecttheirusebytheAFPforageassessmentpurposeswasdisingenuous.

On22November2010,AGDofficersconvenedameetingwithDIACofficerstodiscussthedifferentapproachestoagedeterminationtakenbytheCommonwealthagenciesandtoensurethatpublicstatementsbyoneagencyaboutthedifferentprocesses‘shouldnotcastdoubtonthereliabilityoftheprocessesundertakenbytheotheragency’.78DIACexplainedtheresearchthathadbeenundertakeninternationallyintothereliabilityofwristx-raysforassessingageintherefugeecontext.Asnotedabove,DIACagreedtoprovidetoAGDcopiesofthescientificpapersonageassessmentthattheyhadpreviouslygiventotheOfficeoftheCDPP.

AgainanAGDofficersoughttodrawadistinctionbetweenageassessmentbyDIACandageassessmentforthepurposesofthecriminaljusticesystem.AccordingtoaDIACofficer’sreportofthemeeting,theAGDofficerexpressedtheviewthatthedifferentapproachestoageassessmenttakenbyDIACandtheAFPwerejustifiedbythedifferentpurposeforwhichtheassessmentwasmade,observing:

DIAC’sprocessesareusedtoassesswhetherapersonisaminororanadultforthepurposesofidentifyingappropriateplacementinadministrativedetention(forwhichalessscientific,moreflexibleapproachgivingthebenefitofthedoubtisappropriate),whiletheAFP’spurposeistodecidewhethertoprosecutethepersonforacriminaloffence,andifso,whethertoincarceratetheminachildren’soradult’scriminalprison.79

WereitthecasethatanAGDofficerimpliedthatthebenefitofthedoubtisoflessimportanceinthecriminaljusticecontextthaninthecontextofadministrativedetentionthiswouldbeacause

112


forconcern.However,astheabovestatementisdrawnfromareportbyDIAC,notbyAGDitself,itmaybethatitdidnotaccuratelyrecordwhatwassaidbytheAGDofficer.

InearlyJanuary2011,aMinisters’OfficeBrief(MOB)waspreparedbyAGDfortheOfficeoftheAttorney-General/MinisterforHomeAffairstitledPeoplesmuggling–childreningaols.TheMOBreferredtothreeseparatearticlesthathadbeenpublishedinTheAustraliannewspaperwhichquestionedrelianceonwristx-raysasevidenceofage.TheMOBopenswiththefollowingpoints:

• TheAustralianGovernmenttakestheprosecutionofpeoplesmugglingmattersseriously.

• Lawenforcementauthoritiesinvestigateallpersonssuspectedofbeinginvolvedinpeoplesmuggling,includingminors.

• WherethereisdoubtaboutwhetherapersonarrivinginAustraliaasanirregularmaritimearrivalisagedoverorunder18yearsofage,andthepersonissuspectedofcommittingaCommonwealthoffence,theAustralianFederalPoliceconductsanagedeterminationprocessinaccordancewiththeCrimesAct1914.

• ThisinvolvesawristX-rayconductedbyanindependentmedicalexpertwhotheninterpretsthatX-raytodeterminetheageoftheperson.80

TheMOBinaccuratelystatesthat,tothatdatetheCommonwealthhadnotproceededwithapeoplesmugglingprosecutionwherethecourthasdeterminedadefendanttobeaminor.81ItfurtherstatesthattheagedeterminationprocessusedbytheAFP‘requiresawristx-raytobeundertakenonallpersonswhoclaimtobeaminor’.82TheAFPacknowledgedattheInquiryhearingforCommonwealthagenciesthat‘requires’istoostrongawordinthiscontextandthatitwasmadeveryplainwhentheCrimesActwasamendedin2001thatawristx-raywouldnotberequired,butwouldratherbeanoptionoflastresort.83

TheMOBfurtherstatesthat‘AustraliancourtshaveacceptedtheaccuracyoftheX-raytestinagedeterminationproceedings’and‘[a]nyissueabouttheaccuracyofevidenceisamatterforassessmentbythecourts’.84TheFirstAssistantSecretary,CriminalJusticeDivisionofAGDgaveevidenceattheInquiryhearingthatthefirstofthesestatementswasintendedtoconvey‘thatcourtshavenotuniformlyfoundproblemswiththeX-raytest’andthat‘ifwemeanttoconveythatithadbeenuniformlyaccepted,wewouldsayineverycase’.85ItisclearthatthestatementcontainedintheMOBislikelytoconveytoareaderthatAustraliancourtsgenerallyhadfoundthewristx-raytesttobeaccurate.ItisconcerningthatanAGDofficerwouldincludeinaMOBastatementwithsuchpotentialtomislead.

Thesecondoftheabovestatementsalsohadatendencytomislead.Itoverlookstherealityofthewayinwhichtrialsareconductedunderourcommonlawsystem.Thisissueisconsideredinmoredetailinsection5.1below.ItmaybeassumedthatanofficerintheCriminalJusticeDivision


ofAGDwouldbeawarethatacommonlawcourtisdependentontheparties,andparticularlytheprosecutorastherepresentativeoftheState,toassistitindeterminingtheextenttowhichexpertevidenceiscredibleandinformative.HeorshemayalsobeassumedtobeawarethatacommonlawcourtisentitledtoassumethattheStatewillnotcallevidencefromawitnesswhoisnotcredible.

3.4 Commonwealth agencies’ awareness of concerns in 2011

Astheabovediscussionreveals,betweenlate2010andearly2011,theCommonwealthbecameawareofanincreasingamountofinformationthatraisedseriousquestionsabouttheappropriatenessofrelianceonwristx-rayanalysisforthepurposesofassessingwhetheranindividualwasundertheageof18years.Nonetheless,untillate2011,theCommonwealthcontinuedtorelyonwristx-rayevidenceintheprosecutionofIndonesianyoungpeoplewhoseagewasindispute.

(a) QuestionsraisedwithintheOfficeoftheCDPP

DocumentsprovidedtotheInquiryindicatethatseriousquestionsabouttherelianceonwristx-rayanalysisasevidenceofagewereraisedwithintheOfficeoftheCDPPinearly2011.Forexample,amemorandumdated13April2011fromtheSeniorAssistantDirectoroftheMelbourneOfficeoftheCDPPtotheSeniorAssistantDirectoroftheHeadOfficeoftheCDPP,outlinesconcernswiththeapproachtoagedeterminationthenbeingadoptedandwiththeevidencebeinggivenbyDrLowaboutage.86

TheauthorofthememorandumnotedthattheOfficeoftheCDPPwasoperatingin‘anenvironmentwheretheinformationwehaveavailabletousisincomplete,andthesciencethatisavailabletoassistus,isimperfect’.87Inafootnote,sherecordedthatin‘arecentDarwincasethewristboneswerefused,indicatingthattheaccusedwasanadult,butinthatmatter,agenuinebirthcertificatewasobtained,therebyprovingtheaccusedtobeajuvenile’.88Shenotedthat,togetherwithacolleague,shehadrealconcernsoverthedifferentwayinwhichconclusionsarebeingexpressedbytheexperts,andtheperiodicreferenceto18.5years.Thememorandumqueriedwhetherthereisanythingthattheexpertscanreallysaybeyond:

• observingthatthebonesareeitherfusedornotfusedasatthetimeofthex-rayand,wheretheyarefused,notingthattheonlyrelevantobservationthatmightbemadeisthatthereisa50%chancethatthepersonisunder19anda50%chancethattheyareover19

• advisingofaprobabilitythatthepersonisunder18–calculatedasamathematicalexercisewhichcommenceswithastandardfigureof22%andadding2%permonthforanydelaybetweenthedateoftheallegedoffenceandthedateonwhichthex-raywastaken

114


• advisingaprobability,basedontheGPAtlas,thatthepersonistheagetheyclaimtobe.89

Theauthorofthememorandumconcludesthattheseconcernsmightgiverisetobroaderimplicationsandquestioned:

DoestheAFP(togetherwiththeDPP)needtomeeturgentlywithDrLowtoclarifywithhimthatthereisa50/50likelihoodofsomeonewithfusedwristbonesbeingover/under19.Ifthisisthecase,thenthelinethathasbeendrawnwiththeAFParrestingpersonswhoareover19,anddeportingthosewhoareunder19maywellbeillusory,asthelikelihoodofeitherissimplythesame.90(underlininginoriginal)

(b) FurtherinformationrequestedfromDrLowbytheOfficeoftheCDPP

Inearly2011,defencelawyersbegantopresenttheCommonwealthwithexpertreportsthatchallengedtheuseofwristx-rayanalysisforthepurposeofassessingage.Inonematter,whereadefencereportwasreceivedinFebruary2011,theresponseoftheOfficeoftheCDPPwastorequestDrLowtorespond.DrLowwas,ashasalreadybeennoted,themedicalpractitionerwhoordinarilyappearedasanexpertwitnessfortheCDPPinagedeterminationhearings.Hedidso,andisreportedtohaveadvisedthat‘althoughthewristx-raytechnologyisnotanexactscience,hedisagreeswiththetenorofthedefencereportwhichrubbishesthetechnology’.91

InMay2011,theOfficeoftheCDPPsoughttosatisfyitselfthatitwasappropriatetocontinuetousewristx-rayanalysisasevidenceofage.Bythistime,DrLow’sopinionhadbeenindirectlyquestionedbythememorandumpreparedbytheSeniorAssistantDirectoroftheMelbourneOfficeoftheCDPP.Nonetheless,theOfficeoftheCDPPaskedDrLowtoprepareareportregardingthereliabilityofthepractice.Notsurprisingly,DrLowconfirmedthevalidityoftheapproachbeingadoptedbyhim.92

InlightofthecontroversialnatureoftheevidencebeinggivenbyDrLow,hisapparentlackofspecialistexpertiseinstatistics93andtheviewexpressedbysomeothersimilarlyqualifiedmedicalpractitionersthatchronologicalagecannotreliablybeassessedbyreferencetoawristx-ray,itwouldhavebeenappropriatefortheOfficeoftheCDPPtohavesoughtindependentverificationofthevalidityofDrLow’sapproach.

(c) ExpertmedicalopinionpresentedtotheCommonwealthbydefencecounsel

Inmid-2011,furtherdefencelawyerspresentedtheCommonwealthwithexpertreportsthatchallengedtheuseofwristx-rayanalysisforthepurposeofassessingage.On28June2011,abarristermadesubmissionstotheActingDeputyDirectoroftheBrisbaneOfficeoftheCDPPtotheeffectthatitwasnotlikelythatthecourtwouldfindhisclientwasovertheageof18yearsatthetimeoftheallegedoffenceandintheabsenceofaggravatingfactorstheprosecution


shouldbediscontinued.94Thebarristernotedthatthedefendant’sassertionthathewasunder18yearsofageatthetimeoftheoffencewassupportedbyhisstatementstoDIAC,afocusedageinterviewassessmentreportcompletedbyDIAC,anextractofhisbirthcertificateandaffidavitsfromhismotheranduncleattestingtohisage.TheCommonwealth’sonlyevidenceofagewasthewristx-rayreportfromDrLow.

Inhisletter,thebarristersubmittedthatDrLow’sconclusionsonchronologicalagewereunsustainable.HearguedthatthemethodsDrLowusedandthefigureshereliedontodrawstatisticalconclusionsaboutagewereimpreciseandunclear.HealsonotedanumberofinternalinconsistenciesinDrLow’sreports.Forexample,thebarristerwrote:

Firstlythereportstatesthatinmales,skeletalmaturityofthehandisreached“atapproximately19yearsofage”.Next,thereportstatesthat,“onaverage”,skeletalmaturityisreachedat19yearsofage.DrLowthenstatesthat“it[therefore]isareasonableinterpretationthat[thedefendant]is19yearsofageorolder”[myemphasis].Thisfirst20April2011reportdoesnotreconcilethecompetingassertionsthatskeletalmaturityisreached“atapproximately19yearsofage”and“onaverage”at19yearsofage.NordoesDrLowexplainhoweitherfactmightmeanthat[thedefendant]shouldbeconsideredtobe“19yearsofageorolder”.95

Thebarristerattachedtohislettertwoexpertreportsonageassessment;onepreparedbyProfessorSirAlAynsley-GreenandanotherbyProfessorTimCole.ThesubstanceoftheseexpertreportsisdiscussedindetailinChapter2.

On30June2011,theCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionspersonallysignedaminuteapprovingarecommendationthattheprosecutionagainstthreedefendantsbediscontinuedonthegroundsthat,onthebalanceofprobabilities,theywerejuveniles.96Theprosecutionwasdiscontinuedon1July2011.

Ataboutthistime,theOfficeoftheCDPPwasalsoawarethatsomemedicalpractitionerswereunwillingtoprovideanexpertopinionastochronologicalagebasedontheGPAtlas.On8July2011,aseniorlegalofficerofthePerthOfficeoftheCDPPwroteanemailtoacolleaguenotingthatthedoctorwhohadwrittentheinitialx-rayreportinthematterwasnotavailabletogiveevidenceatthatindividual’sagedeterminationhearing.Hewasunavailablebecauseof‘patientcommitments’andhadalso:

expressedhisreluctancetogiveevidenceashehasreservationsabouttheuseofG&Ptodetermineage(hesaysyoucan’ttellhowoldsomeoneisfromit).97

Thisemail,andspecificallytheobservationofthemedicalpractitionerthattheGPAtlascouldnotbeusedtodetermineage,wasapparentlynotbroughttotheattentionoftheDirectorpriortotheInquiryhearingforCommonwealthagenciesinApril2012.98NordidaseniorofficeroftheOfficeoftheCDPPwhohadparticularresponsibilityforpeoplesmugglingprosecutionshaveany

116


recollectionofthatviewbeingexpressedbythatparticularmedicalpractitioneratthetimetheemailwaswritten.99

On11August2011,anotherdefencelawyerwrotetotheOfficeoftheCDPParguingthattheprosecutionofhisclientshouldbediscontinued.ThedefencelawyersubmittedthatDrLow’sanalysisofthewristx-rayshouldnotbeadmittedasitwasincapableofsupportingafindingthattheaccusedpersonwasover18yearsofageatthetimeoftheallegedoffence.100Attachedtothosesubmissionswere:

• areportbyradiologistDrJamesChristieconcludingthatthereisnoscientificbasisforusingtheGPAtlasasithadbeenusedbyDrLowandthatitsuseinthatmannerisunreliable

• apaperbyProfessorCole,statingthatDrLow’suseoftheGPAtlastoestimatechronologicalagewasinappropriateandhisconclusionswrong

• severalscientificjournalarticlesdiscussingtheuseofwristx-raystodetermineage.

(d) ImpactoftheevidencepresentedtotheCommonwealthbydefencecounsel

Shortlyafterthistime,thesubmissionsmadebydefencelawyersregardingtheuseofwristx-rayanalysisforageassessmentpurposesidentifiedabovewerediscussedbytheCommonwealthagencieswithaninterestintheseissues.On12August2011,ataregularmeetingofthefourrelevantCommonwealthagenciesinvolvedinpeoplesmugglingissues,theOfficeoftheCDPPnotedthat:

ComprehensivesubmissionswerebeingpreparedbydefencelawyersquestioningwristX-rays,andthatitisnecessarytorevisitissuesassociatedwiththeevidentiarystrengthofX-rays.101

AttheInquiryhearing,theSeniorAssistantDirectoroftheHeadOfficeoftheCDPPreportedthat,inresponsetothisinformation,prosecutorsfromtheOfficeoftheCDPP,andinonecaseanindependentcounsel,heldconferenceswithDrLowandweresatisfiedwiththeexplanationsthathegavethem.102Again,noindependentadviceaboutwhetheritwasappropriatefortheOfficeoftheCDPPtocontinuetoplacerelianceonDrLow’sevidencewassought.ItappearsthattheOfficeoftheCDPPmaintaineditsconfidencethatDrLowwasanappropriateexpertwitnessfortheCDPPtocallinlegalproceedings.

Indeed,on16August2011,theOfficeoftheCDPPsentalettertoadefencecounselinwhich,inresponsetoaquestionaskedbyher,itadvisedthattheOfficeoftheCDPPwas‘notawareofanymattersinwhichDrVincentLow’sexpertevidencehadbeendiscredited’.103Whilethisresponse


mayhavebeentechnicallytrue,itwashardlyfrank;bythistimetheOfficeoftheCDPPwasacutelyawareofchallengestothecredibilityofDrLow’sevidence.

On18August2011,amemorandumfromtheSeniorAssistantDirectoroftheHeadOfficeoftheCDPPsettingoutsomeoftheissuessurroundingexpertevidenceconcerningchronologicalagewassenttotheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions.ThepurposeofthememorandumwastorecommendtotheDirectorthattheprosecutionagainstaparticularindividualbediscontinuedonthebasisthathewasajuvenile.ThememorandumdrewtotheDirector’sattentionthe‘considerabledebateabouttheuseofwristx-raysforthepurposesofdeterminingage’andreferredtoareportbyDrChristie.104ThememorandumsetsoutDrLow’sstandardevidenceandexplainedthatProfessorColehadarguedthatDrLow’sstatisticalanalysiswaswrong.Thememorandumstated:

IdonotehoweverthatDrLow’sevidencehasbeentestedandacceptedinasignificantnumberofcontestedcases.IassumethatDrLowisawareofthemattersthathavebeenraisedinDrChristie’sreport,notinginparticularthatDrChristiegaveevidenceinthematterofRv[PEN059]atwhichDrLow’sevidencewasaccepted.WhileweshouldbeawarethattheissuesonwhichDrLowisgivingevidencearenotwithoutdebate,IthinkthatitisappropriateforthisOfficetocontinuerelyinguponDrLow’sevidenceasanacceptedexpertinhisfield.

IamnotawareoftheweighttobegiventotheopinionsexpressedinthearticlesthathavebeenprovidedtothisOffice.Thatissomethingthatonlyanexpertinthefieldwouldhavethetrainingandexperiencetodetermine.Atpresenttheexpertthatwehavehasdeterminedthatonthebasisofhisexperienceandlearningtheopinionsheholdsarecorrect.

IdothinkhowevertheCommonwealthshouldtakestepstoseekadvicefromfurtherexpertsintherelevantfields.105

TheDirectorapprovedtherecommendationtodiscontinuetheprosecutionintheparticularcase.HishandwrittennotemakesnoreferencetotheexpressionofopinionthattheCommonwealthshouldtakestepstoseekadvicefromfurtherexperts;norisreferencemadeineitherthememorandumortheDirector’snotetotheprosecutor’sdutyofdisclosure.

AtthemeetingofCommonwealthagenciesonpeoplesmugglingcrewissuesheldon2September2011,theOfficeoftheCDPPreportedthatconcernsrelatingtotheefficacyofwristx-rayshad‘beenlessened’afterreviewingdocumentssubmittedbydefencelawyersandaftercrossexaminationofDrLowinagedeterminationhearings.TheOfficeoftheCDPPfurtherreportedthatitwasintheprocessoflocatinganalternativeexpert–thatis,otherthanDrLow–onagedetermination.Itadvisedthatthebenefitofthedoubtwasbeingappliedconsistentlyinagedeterminationcases.106TheissueofwhetherthebenefitofthedoubtwasinfactbeingappliedinagedeterminationcasesisdiscussedinChapter4.

118


On25October2011,theDistrictCourtofWesternAustraliadeliveredjudgmentinRvDaud,rejectingDrLow’sevidencewhereitwasinconflictwiththeevidenceofotherexperts.107Thisjudgmentisconsideredinmoredetailbelow.Inresponsetothisdecision,theOfficeoftheCDPPstartedasearchforexperts,bothmedicalstatisticiansandradiographers,whocouldcommentonthereportsbeingpreparedbyDrLow.108

Between16November2011and6December2011,officersfromtheAFPandtheOfficeoftheCDPPdiscussedtheinterpretationofwristx-rayanalysisforthepurposeofassessingagewithanumberofstatisticians.109On12December2011,theOfficeoftheCDPPadvisedtheAFPtopostponemakingfurtherenquirieswithstatisticians.110AnemailfromtheAFPtotheOfficeoftheCDPPconfirmedthatenquirieswouldbesuspended.Itstated:

Myunderstandingisthatinrelationtoidentifyingandcontactingstatisticians,youadvisedthatyouneededtoassesswhether[Professor]wasthecorrectpersontoapproachandtherewereconcernsoverthedisclosureissueofmaterialprovidedbystatisticiansonDrLowes(sic)reports.Iagreednottoundertakeanyfurtherenquirieswithidentifiedpersonsuntilwe[have]heardbackfromyouroffice....AppreciatedifyoucouldadvisewhenDPParehappyforAFPtoprogress,thenwewillmoveforwardwithapproachingstatisticiansandprovidingrelevantmaterialiftheycanassist.111

TheOfficeoftheCDPPsubsequentlyadvisedtheAFPthatfurtherenquirieswithexpertsshouldbepostponedinlightofboththeAustralianHumanRightsCommission’sInquiryandtheincreasedroleofDIACinassessingageundertheGovernment’snewpolicyinrelationtopeoplesmugglingcrewmemberswhoseagesareindoubt.112

(e) CorrespondencefrommedicalprofessionalassociationstotheMinisterforImmigrationandCitizenship

ApproximatelytwomonthsbeforetheOfficeoftheCDPPstartedtolookforexpertswhocouldcommentonthereportsbeingpreparedbyDrLow,representativesofanumberofprofessionalmedicalbodieswrotetotheMinisterforImmigrationandCitizenshiprequestingurgentreconsiderationoftheuseofwristx-raysasameansofdeterminingage.Thejointletter,dated19August2011,wassignedbythePresidentsoftheAustralasianPaediatricEndocrineGroup;theRoyalAustralianandNewZealandCollegeofRadiologists(RANZCR);theAustralianandNewZealandSocietyforPaediatricRadiology;theDivisionofPaediatrics,RoyalAustralasianCollegeofPhysicians;andtheConvenorofthePaediatricImagingReferenceGroup,RANZCR.

Theletterexpresseddisappointmentthatrepresentativesofthesignatories’professionalorganisationswerenotinvitedtocontributetothe‘recentdiscussionsyouorganisedtodeterminetheappropriatemeansofassessmentofageofrefugeesattemptingtogainentrytoAustraliaandthepeoplewhoareaccusedofprovidingthemeansofentryfortherefugees’.113Whilethe


signatoriesmisunderstoodthecontextinwhichtheAttorney-Generalhadestablishedtheworkinggrouptoexamineageassessmentprocesses,thelettergoesontodescribetheuseofx-raysas:

unreliableanduntrustworthywhenusedascriminalevidenceinaCourtofLawandunethicalwhenusedbymedicalpractitionersinsituationswhentheiruseisforadministrativepurposes.114

Theletteralsostates:

Weconsiderthatx-raysofteethandwriststoassessskeletalmaturityshouldbeusedonlywhenatherapeuticrelationshiphasbeenestablishedbetweenthedoctorandpatient.Weconsideritisunethicaltoexposeayoungpersontox-raysforpurelyadministrativereasons.X-raysofteethandwristsshouldnotbeusedasevidenceinacourtoflawbecausetheageassessmentsobtainedbythesemeansareveryinaccurate.115

TheletterdrewtotheMinister’sattentionthefactthattheGPAtlasmethodofageassessmentwasunreliableandnotvalidatedforthepurposeofassessingthechronologicalageofanindividualbyreferencetotheirskeletalage.

AlthoughaddressedtotheMinisterforImmigrationandCitizenship,theletterwasquicklydrawntotheattentionofothers.ItwasreceivedbyAGDofficerson25August2011.116OfficersoftheCDPPacknowledgedthattheyreceivedacopyoftheletteraroundAugust2011.ItisnotclearwhentheAFPfirstsawtheletter.117

ThethenAttorney-Generalrepliedtotheletterfromthemedicalexpertson18October2011.HisresponsewasdraftedbyofficersintheCriminalJusticeDivisionofAGD.118

ThethenAttorney-General’sletterreferredtohisDepartment’shavingrecentlyledaworkinggroupcomprisedoftheAFP,theOfficeoftheCDPPandDIACtoexaminewhatstepscouldbetakentoensurethatcourtshavethebestavailableevidencebeforethemwhenassessingage.ItadvisedthattheworkinggrouphadconsideredanumberofagedeterminationmethodsandrecommendedtheapproachoutlinedintheGuidelinesforAgeEstimationinLivingIndividualsinCriminalProceedingsdevelopedbytheStudyGroupofForensicAgeEstimationoftheGermanAssociationforForensicMedicine.119TheletterpointedoutthattheGuidelinesrecommendawristx-ray,dentalx-rayandpaediatricexamination,butthattheworkinggroupconcludedthatpaediatricexaminationswouldnotbeappropriateandthattheAFPwasexaminingtheuseoffocusedageinterviewstosupplementthex-rayprocedures.TheletterdidnotrefertothefactthattheGuidelinesweresomeyearsold,havingbeenadoptedinSeptember2000;nordiditrefertoothercriticalfeaturesoftheGuidelineswhicharediscussedinChapter2.ItisatleastpossiblethatthethenAttorney-GeneralwasnothimselfadvisedofthesefeaturesoftheGuidelines,oroflaterpublicationswhichreacheddifferentconclusionstotheGuidelines.120

120


Theletterwentontostate:

BasedonexpertadvicetheCommonwealthhassought,thewristX-rayprocedurecanonlydeterminewhetherapersonis19yearsorolderasmalewristskeletalmaturationoccursfromthatage.TheCDPPonlyreliesontheanalysisofawristX-raywheretheexpertradiologisthasconcludedthatthedefendantisprobably19yearsorolder.TheCDPPprovidesthedefendant’slegalrepresentativeswithcopiesoftheexpertradiologist’sreports,whichincludestheinformationconcerningtheaccuracyoftheprocedure.121

The‘expertadvice’referredtomustbeassumedtohavebeenderivedfromDrLow’sreports.ThecontinuedreliancebytheCommonwealth,aslateasOctober2011,onthecontentofthesereportsisdifficulttounderstand–particularlyhavingregardtojudicialdecisionssuchasTheQueenv[TRA029]inwhichDrChristie’sevidencewasacceptedandseriousproblemswereidentifiedwiththeapproachadoptedbyDrLow.122Moreover,itissurprisingthatthethenAttorney-GeneralshouldhavebeenprovidedwithaletterforsignaturewhichplacedrelianceontheopinionofDrLowwhenfacedwithanexpressionofdivergentopinionsharedbythePresidentofDrLow’sownprofessionalcollegeandseniorrepresentativesofotherprofessionalassociationsofmedicalpractitionerswithrelevantexpertise.

ThethenAttorney-General’sletterofresponsedismissedtheethicalconcernsraisedbytheprofessionalmedicalbodiesbyreferringtohisunderstanding,basedonadvice,thattherisksassociatedwithbothwristanddentalx-raysareminimal.TheletterclosedbyadvisingthatthethenAttorney-Generalwouldbehappytoreceiveadviceon‘alternativemethodsofagedeterminationthatshouldbeconsideredforuseinthecriminaljusticecontext’.123

(f) Expertevidencepresentedinlegalproceedings

Inthesecondhalfof2011,expertevidencechallengingtheuseofwristx-rayanalysisasevidenceofchronologicalagebegantobepresentedinlegalproceedings.

Asnotedabove,on8September2011,followinganagedeterminationhearing,thejudgmentoftheMagistratesCourtofWesternAustraliainTheQueenv[TRA029]washandeddown.ThecourtwasnotsatisfiedonthebalanceofprobabilitiesthatTRA029was18yearsofageorolderattherelevantdate.124

Inthiscase,theCommonwealthhadcalledDrLowtogiveexpertopinionevidenceonthelikelihoodofTRA029beingovertheageof18years.ThedefencehadcalledDrChristiewhochallengedDrLow’sstatisticalcalculations.ThemagistratepreferredDrChristie’sevidencetothatofDrLow.ShenotedthatitwasnotpossibletoequatethelegalburdenofproofonthebalanceofprobabilitieswithmathematicalprobabilitiesofthekindcalculatedbyDrLowandreferredtoastandardtextonthelawofevidence.125ThisissueisfurtherexaminedinAppendix5.


Additionally,themagistrateacceptedtheessenceofDrChristie’sevidencewhichquestionedtheappropriatenessofusingtheGPAtlastoassesschronologicalage.126

On23September2011,aSeniorAssistantDirectorattheBrisbaneOfficeoftheCDPPsentaminutetotheDirector.TheminutediscussestheresultoftheagedeterminationhearinginRv[TRA029].Theminutestates:

IamoftheopinionthatthisdecisionnowcastssignificantdoubtonwhetherDrLow’sevidencewillbeacceptedasreliableonthisissueintheabsenceofanyadditionalevidencetosupporttheprosecutioncontentionthatthedefendantis18orover.Thisbecomesanevengreaterissuewhenthedefendantadducesevidencesuchasabirthcertificate,baptismalcertificateoraffidavitfromafamilymember.127

Rv[TRA029]waspromptlyfollowedbytwocasesintheDistrictCourtofWesternAustralia,RvDaudandRvRMA.Ineachofthesecases,DrLow’sevidenceregardingwristx-rayanalysiswascriticisedandthejudgepreferredtheevidenceofdefenceexpertwitnesseswhochallengedDrLow’sopinion.

On25October2011,BowdenDCJhandeddownthedecisionofRvDaud.128HisHonourconsideredinsomedetailtheutilityoftheGPAtlasfordeterminingchronologicalage,aswellastheevidencegivenbybothDrLow(andtwootherradiologists)ontheonehand,andProfessorColeandDrChristieontheother.HisHonourultimatelyrejectedtheevidenceofageadducedbytheprosecution,givingthefollowingreasons:

ThemoreexperiencedpractitionerintheareaofpaediatricradiologyisDrChristieandwherehisevidenceconflictswithDrLow’s,IpreferDrChristie[’s]evidencebasedonhisexperienceandexpertise.

ProfessorColeisaprofessorofmedicalstatisticsatUniversityCollegewithqualificationsinstatisticsfromOxfordandCambridgeUniversitiesandontheeditorialboardsofjournalssuchastheBritishMedicalJournalandStatisticsinMedicineandhasauthoredmanypublications.Heisclearlyanexpertpaediatricianandstatistician.IaccepthiscriticismofDrLow’sanalysisoftheAtlasandwherehisevidenceconflictswiththatofDrLowIpreferProfessorCole’sevidencebasedonhisexperienceandexpertise.129

HisHonourcontinued:

IamnotpreparedtoacceptthefindingsofDrLow’sreportsrelatingtothestatisticalprobabilitiesoftheaccusedbeingofthechronologicalagehereportsfortworeasons.

Firstly,becauseIaccepttheevidenceofProfessorColeandDrChristie,thatthereisanabsenceofscientificdatatovalidatetheuseofthestandarddeviationprovidedbytheAtlasforanimmatureskeletontoassessthechronologicalageofapersonpossessingamatureskeleton.

SecondlybecauseDrsLow,LeeandChan’sbasicassumptionthatskeletalmaturityisachievedonaverageatage19isnotsupportedbytheAtlas.IacceptProfessorColeandDrChristie’sevidencethatthereisotherresearchwhichshowsthattheskeletalmaturityisachievedattheageof18orbefore.130

122


HisHonouralsoaccepted:

• thatwhilstamaleaged19willonaverageshowskeletalmaturity,thatdoesnotequatewithsayingtheaverageageofobtainingskeletalmaturityis19

• themeanageofskeletalmaturityformalesbasedoninformationinTW3[anotheratlas]is17.6yearswithastandarddeviationof16months.131

InRvRMA,theonlyevidenceofchronologicalagebeforethecourtwasawristx-rayandtheexpertevidencebasedonit.132Inadecisionhandeddownon11November2011,EatonDCJstated:

IacceptDrChristie’scriticismthat,firstly,themethodemployedbyDrLowisflawedand,secondly,thatanywell-foundedattempttoestimatechronologicalagewouldincludearangeofinvestigationsnotjustreferencetotheatlas.Inmyview,themethodemployedbyDrLowandtheassumptionsuponwhichitisbasedrenderhisopinionunreliable.133

On15November2011,aSeniorAssistantDirectorintheOfficeoftheCDPPdistributedaninternalemaildiscussingthecasesofRvRMAandRvDaud.Theemailsetoutanumberofstepstobetakeninagedeterminationmattersinlightof‘thedevelopingposition’inagedeterminationmatters.134Theemailstated:

Givenourcurrentlevelofinformationitisapparentthatweshouldnotberunninganymatters[where]thesoleprobativeevidenceshowingthatadefendantwasovertheageof18atthetimeoftheoffendingistheanalysisofthewristx-ray.EvenacceptingDrLow’sevidence,whichhasnotbeenfollowedintwoDistrictCourtdecision[s],thereisanotinsignificantprobabilitythatthedefendantmaybebelowtheageof18.Wethereforeshouldonlybecontestingthesemattersincircumstanceswherethereissomeotherprobativeevidencetosupportthepositionthatthedefendantwasanadultatthetimeofoffending....

IfwehaveanymattersstillbeforetheCourtswherethepersonhasbeenfoundtobeanadultorappearstohaveadmittedthattheywereanadultatthetimeoftheoffending,solelyonthebasisoftheanalysisofthewristx-ray,weneedtoidentifyandundertakeareviewofthosecases.Ifitisapparentthatthedefendantisstillcontestingtheirageortheremaybeadoubtabouttheirageweshouldconsiderraisingtheissueofbailwiththedefendant’srepresentativesandexploretheageissueafresh.135

TheimpactofthedecisionsinRvDaudandRvRMAcanbeseenintheJointCommonwealthsubmissionprovidedbyAGD,theCDPPandtheAFPtotheInquirywhichstatesthat:

theuseofx-raysforagedeterminationpurposesisnotconclusiveandthisisrecognisedbytheAFP,CDPP[and]thecourt....AssessmentsbycourtshaveinformedtheCDPP’sconsiderationofthesemattersandtheCDPPwillonlycontestpeoplesmugglingmatterswhereageisinissuewherethereisprobativeevidenceotherthantheanalysisofthewristx-rayevidencetosupportthepositionthatthedefendantwasanadultatthetimeoftheoffending.136


(g) PotentiallymisleadingmaterialpreparedbytheCommonwealththroughout2011

On30June2011,AGDcoordinatedthedraftingofasinglesetoftalkingpointsonagedeterminationtobeusedbyallCommonwealthagencies.AsinitiallydraftedbyanAGDofficer,thetalkingpointsincludedthefollowingtwopoints:

• todate,theCommonwealthhasnotproceededwithaprosecutionwhereanindividualhasbeenfoundtobeaminor

• AustraliancourtshaveacceptedtheaccuracyofthewristX-rayinagedeterminationproceedings.137

DIACrequestedthatthesepointsbedeletedbutindicatedthatitcouldacceptthesecondpointifamendedasfollows:

• Australiancourtshaveacceptedtheresultsofthewristx-rayinsomeagedeterminationproceedings.138

AGDacceptedtheamendmentsproposedbyDIAConthebasisthatthefollowingtalkingpointwouldbeamendedbydeletingthewords‘todeterminethelikelyageofclients’:

• DIACwillcontinuetousearangeofmethodstodeterminethemostlikelyageofclientstoassurethemostappropriateplacementandcarearrangementsforclients.139

DocumentsbeforetheCommissionshowthatthefirstofthetwopointsmentionedaboveremainedinsimilarformandthesecondinitsoriginalforminQuestionTimeBrieftalkingpointsaslateas22November2011;atimeafterthedecisionsinbothRvDaudandRvRMAhadbeenhandeddown.140

Asnotedabove,on8July2011,theGovernmentannouncedanewprocessforagedeterminationinpeoplesmugglingmatters.141Ataboutthesametime,adocumentheaded‘QuestionsandAnswers–AgeDetermination’waspreparedwithintheCriminalJusticeDivisionofAGD–presumablytoassisttheAttorney-Generaltorespondtoquestionsaboutthenewprocess.142Theopeningpointsofthedocumentarelistedundertheheading‘Whatisthecurrentprocessforagedetermination?Whatisthesequenceofeventsforsomeonewhoisclaimingtobeaminor?’.Theyinclude:

• thecurrentagedeterminationprocessrequiresawristx-raytobedoneonallindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhoclaimtobeaminor

124


• thismethodofagedeterminationwasputinplacein2002andhasbeensuccessfulbeforeAustraliancourts.143

TheaccuracyoftheassertionthattheCrimesActrequiresawristx-raytobedoneonallindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhoclaimtobeaminorisdiscussedinChapter4.Theaccuracyofthesuggestionthatthemethodofagedeterminationputinplacein2002followingtheamendmentoftheCrimesActhadbeensuccessfulbeforeAustraliancourtsisdiscussedinsection3.3(f)above.

Undertheheading‘Whataboutpeoplewhohavefound[sic]tobeadultsundertheoldagedeterminationprocedures?Willtheircasesbereopened?WilltheAFPretrospectivelyapplythenewmeasurestoIndonesiansalreadychargedwhereagewasdisputed?[Whatwillbehappeningtopeoplewhoarecurrentlyheldinadultjailsandclaimtobechildrene.g.caseinWA?Willthesecasesbere-examinedundernewprocess?]’,thedocumenttwiceincludesthefollowingpoint:

• Whileitwouldnotbeappropriateformetocommentonindividualcases,theGovernmentremainsconfidentthatatalltimestheAFPandCDPPhaveputallavailableinformationbeforethecourttoassistindeterminingaperson’sageincriminaljusticeproceedings.Ineachcase,thecourthasmadeitsownassessmentoftheperson’sage.144

EvidencegiventothisInquirybytheFirstAssistantSecretaryoftheCriminalJusticeDivisionofAGDmadeclearthatAGDdidnotmakeenquiriesastotheextentofdisclosureofscientificmaterialsbytheOfficeoftheCDPPortheAFPtodefencecounsel.ItalsorevealedthatAGDhadnoteverreceivedmorethansome‘generalassurancesthatwhatwasbeingputtothecourt…coveredbothDrLow’sviewsbutalsothelimitationsoftheapproachthatwasbeingpursued’.145TheFirstAssistantSecretary,togetherwithanotherAGDofficerfromtheCriminalJusticeDivision,additionallygaveevidencethattheAttorney-GeneralwasatnotimeprovidedwithevenaprécisofthescientificliteratureidentifiedbyAGD,DIAC,theAFPandtheOfficeoftheCDPPwhichconcernedtheuseofx-raysforageassessmentpurposes.146

Itisconcerningthataslateas22November2011,andfollowingthedecisionsinbothRvDaudandRvRMA,anupdatedQTBonpeoplesmugglingcrewandagedeterminationpreparedwithintheCriminalJusticeDivisionofAGDandprovidedtotheOfficesoftheAttorney-GeneralandtheMinisterforHomeAffairsandJustice,repeatedtheassertionsthat‘AustraliancourtshaveacceptedtheaccuracyofthewristX-rayinagedeterminationproceedings’and‘[i]neachcase,thecourthasmadeitsownassessmentoftheperson’sage’.147

However,theCommissionaccepts,astheActingSecretaryofAGDadvisedbyhisletterof6July2012,thatQuestionTimeBriefsandMinisters’OfficeBriefsprovidepointswhichare‘tailoredtoprovideaconcisesummaryoftheissueforthepurposeoftheGovernmentrespondingtoquestionsduringtheParliamentoffromthemedia,andwerenotintendedtoconstitute


comprehensiveadvicetoministersontheseissues’.TheCommissiondoesnotquestiontheaccuracyoftheadviceoftheActingSecretarythat‘thesedocumentsmakeuponlyasmallpartofthefulladviceprovidedbytheDepartmenttotheGovernmentonpeoplesmuggling[crew]issues’.148

(h) OpinionofAustralia’sChiefScientist

On11January2012,theDeputySecretaryoftheNationalSecurityandCriminalJusticeGroupofAGDreceivedawrittenbriefofadvicefromAustralia’sChiefScientistonscientificmethodsusedfordeterminingchronologicalageintheabsenceofrelevantdocumentaryevidence.149Thebriefnotedthatitisestimatedthatmorethan60%ofbirthsinSouthEastAsiaremainunregistered.Itadvisedthatskeletalmaturityiscurrentlythemostaccurateindicationofchronologicalageandthatdentalmaturityisanothercommonmethodtoestimatechronologicalage.Inthecontextoflimitationsconcerningwristx-rays,thebriefadvised:

Radiologicalbaseddeterminationofskeletalmaturitydoesnotallowforaprecisedeterminationofchronologicalage.Outcomesofradiographicassessmentsofbonesvarywithethnicityandsocio-economicconditions(nutritionalanddiseasestatus).Thereisobservedvariationinskeletalmaturityof2yearswithineachgender.Further,thereareethicalconcernsonexposinghealthychildrenandadolescentstoevenarelativelylowdoseofionisingradiationforthepurposeofagedetermination.(citationsomitted)

Inthecontextoflimitationsconcerningdentalageassessment,thebriefadvised:

Severalstudiesbasedondifferentpopulations,includinganAustralianstudy,havereportedthattherearewidevariationsinchronologicalagecorrespondingtothedifferentstagesofdentaldevelopment.Thedevelopmentofteethdependsonmultiplefactorsthatincludetheenvironment,nutrition,ethnicityandrace.150(citationsomitted)

ItisappropriatetonotethatalthoughtheJointCommonwealthsubmissionprovidedtotheCommissiononbehalfofAGD,theAFPandtheCDPPassertedthatthesubmissionhadbeenpreparedfollowingconsultationwithanumberofdepartmentsandagencies,includingtheOfficeoftheChiefScientist,itmakesnoreferencetotheaboveadvice.

3.5 The Commonwealth’s failure to heed advice concerning ethical considerations

AsdiscussedinChapter2,standardsissuedbyboththeInternationalAtomicEnergyAgencyandbytheAustralianRadiationProtectionandNuclearSafetyAgency(ARPANSA)requirethattheuseofradiationforanyspecificpurposeissubjecttotheinternationallyacceptedprinciplesofjustificationandoptimisation.ItisclearfromthedocumentsprovidedtotheCommissionthatthe

126


Commonwealthhasbeenadvisedoftheserequirementsbutitdoesnotappearthatactionhasbeentakentoensurethattheyaremet.

ConcernsaboutexposuretoradiationforthepurposesofageassessmentwereraisedwiththeCommonwealthintheletterof19August2011fromthePresidentsorConvenorsofanumberofprofessionalmedicalbodiesdiscussedaboveinsection3.4(e).151

However,theearliestdocumentseenbytheCommissioninwhichtheCommonwealthreceivedexplicitadviceontheethicalconsiderationsofexposingyoungpeopletoradiationforageassessmentpurposesisaletterdated7September2011fromtheParliamentarySecretaryforHealthandAgeing.Thisletter,whichrespondedtoaspecificrequestconcerningdentalx-rays,advisedtheMinisterforHomeAffairsandJusticethat:

Typically,thedosefromadentalX-rayoranX-rayofthewristisnotlikelytocauseanyadversehealtheffects.However,internationallyacceptedprinciplesofradiationprotectionincludetheprinciplesofjustificationandoptimisationwhichrequirethatanyexposuremust,overall,domoregoodthanharmandbetheleastdoseneededtoachievethenecessarygoal.Theseprincipleswouldneedtobeadequatelyaddressedintheproposedregulations.152

TheonlyotherrecentengagementAGDappearstohavehadwithARPANSAconcernedthecontentoftheJointCommonwealthsubmissionofAGD,theAFPandtheOfficeoftheCDPPtothisInquiry.153TheJointCommonwealthsubmissionincludesthefollowingparagraph:

ARPANSAhasalsoadvisedthattheuseofwristanddentalX-raysforagedeterminationpurposessatisfyinternationallyacceptedprinciplesofradiationprotection.Thisincludestheprinciplesofjustificationandoptimisationwhichrequirethatanyexposuremustdomoregoodthanharmoverall,andbetheleastdoseofradiationneededtoachievethenecessarygoal.154

TheaboveparagraphiswrongtotheextentthatitsuggeststhatARPANSA’sadvicewasthattheuseofwristanddentalx-raysforageassessmentpurposesmetinternationallyacceptedprinciplesofradiationprotection.FollowingthepublicationoftheJointCommonwealthsubmission,ARPANSAprovidedacorrectedversionoftheparagraphthatdocumentstheiradvice.Ascorrectedtheparagraphreads:

ARPANSAhasalsoadvisedthattheuseofwristanddentalX-raysforagedeterminationpurposesmustsatisfyinternationallyacceptedprinciplesofradiationprotection,inparticulartheprinciplesofjustificationandoptimisation.CurrentinternationalbestpracticewouldrequirethatanyuseofionisingradiationforthepurposeofdentalorwristX-raysforagedeterminationmustbesubjecttoaformalprocessofjustification,todemonstratethatthereisanetbenefitfromtheexposure.Anysuchradiationexposureshouldbeoptimisedtoensuretheleastdoseofradiationneededtoachievethenecessarygoalisused.155


TotheCommission’sknowledge,noformalprocessofjustificationoroptimisationhasbeenundertakenwithrespecttotheuseofeitherwristordentalx-raysforageassessmentpurposes.

3.6 The Commonwealth’s response to the concerns raised by the Australian Human Rights Commission

On17February2011,thePresidentoftheAustralianHumanRightsCommissionwrotetothethenAttorney-GeneraltodrawtohisattentionissuesofconcernthathadcometoherattentionregardingtheprocessesbeingusedfordeterminingtheagesofIndonesiannationalswhomayfacechargesofpeoplesmuggling.Herletterreferredtomedicalevidencethatthewristx-rayprocedurewassignificantlyunreliableasameasureofage.Itfurtherdrewattentiontothe2001recommendationsoftheSenateLegalandConstitutionalLegislationCommitteethatwristx-raysshould,ineffect,beaprocedureoflastresortandthatthebenefitofthedoubtshouldbegiventoanypersonwhoseagecannotbeaccuratelydetermined.Additionally,afterreferringtothepossibilitythatDIACwasassessingagebyamethodotherthanwristx-rays,thePresidentstated:

ShouldtheCommonwealthbeinpossessionofevidence,whetherobtainedbythisoranyothermethod,whichisinconsistentwithanywristx-rayevidenceobtainedbyit,itseemstomethatitwouldbeunderanobligationtodisclosethisevidencetotheindividualconcernedorhislegalrepresentative.Ihavereasontosuspectthatthismaynotbeoccurring.156

ThethenAttorney-GeneralrepliedtothePresidenton31March2011.HeexpressedsatisfactionwiththeagedeterminationproceduresbeingusedbytheAFPandtheconductoftheCommonwealthinagedeterminationhearings.Asnotedabove,itappearsthattheAttorney-Generalwasnotprovidedbyhisdepartmentatthistime,orindeedatanytime,withcomprehensiveadviceabouttheavailablescientificliteratureconcerningtheuseofwristx-raysforageassessmentpurposes.157Itappearsthattheadviceprovidedtohimdidnotgobeyondadvisinghimthattherewere‘differingviews’onthereliabilityofwristx-raysforthispurpose.158

TheAttorney-General’sletter,whileexpressingrespectfortheviewofthosesuchastheRoyalCollegeofPaediatricandChildHealthwhoobjectedtowristx-raysonethicalgrounds,notedtheimportancetotheintegrityofthecriminaljusticesystemthatthecourtbepresentedwiththebestavailableevidenceofaperson’sage.ThethenAttorney-GeneralindicatedthathehadaskedhisDepartmenttoleadaworkinggroupwiththeAFP,theOfficeoftheCDPPandDIACtoconsiderwhatstepscouldbetakentoensurethatagedeterminationproceduresprovidethebestevidenceforacourttodeterminetheageofpeoplesmugglingcrewwhoclaimtobeminors.159

128


Additionally,byhisletterof31March2011,thethenAttorney-GeneraladvisedthatrecordsofDIACinterviewswouldbeincludedintheprosecutiondisclosureprocessandthatStateandTerritorycorrectiveservices,andotherbodiesresponsiblefordetainingallegedpeoplesmugglers,wouldbeprovidedwithallrelevantmaterialrelatingtotheirage.

On30June2011,thethenAttorney-GeneralwroteagaintothePresidentoftheCommissiontoinformher‘aboutchangestotheagedeterminationprocessforcriminaljusticepurposesthatwillensurethecourtsareprovidedthebestevidencetodeterminetheageofpeoplesmugglingcrewwhoclaimtobeminors’.160Theletteradvisedthatthekeyinitiativesrecommendedbytheworkinggroupearlierestablishedbyhimwere:offeringdentalx-raystosupplementwristx-rays;reformstoAFP’sconsentformsforwristx-rays;offeringfocusedageinterviewsbytheAFP;andacommitmenttomoreexpeditiouslyobtainrelevantdocumentaryevidencefromIndonesia.ThethenAttorney-Generalfurtherproposedthat‘thebenefitofthedoubtprinciplebeappliedmoreproactivelywhereapersonisclaimingtobeaminor’.161

Somewhatsurprisingly,inthisletterthethenAttorney-Generalassertedthat‘ParliamenthasacceptedthatwristX-raysarecurrentlytheonlysuitablemethodofdeterminingageforcriminaljusticepurposes,andAustraliancourtshavenotcriticisedthewristX-rayprocedureinacriminaljusticecontext’.162ThisstatementisinconsistentwiththeReportoftheSenateCommitteeon,andtheExplanatoryMemorandumfor,theCrimesAmendment(AgeDetermination)Bill2001(Cth)163anditalsooverlooksthedecision,upheldonappeal,oftheChildren’sCourtofWesternAustraliainThePolicevMazela.164Further,itappearscarefullycraftedtoavoidreferencetothecivilcaseofApplicantVFAYvMinisterforImmigration165whichdirectlyconsideredthereliabilityofevidenceofagebasedonawristx-rayandfoundthatitwasnotconclusive.

On8July2011,thethenAttorney-GeneralandthethenMinisterforHomeAffairsandJusticeissuedamediareleasewhichannounced‘astrongerprocesstohelpdeterminetheageofindividualsdetainedinAustraliasuspectedofpeoplesmuggling’.Theelementsofthe‘improvedprocess’weresaidtobethattheAFPwould:

• offerdentalx-raystoallegedpeoplesmugglingcrewclaimingtobeminors,inadditiontotheexistingprocess,commencingassoonaspossible

• takestepsasearlyaspossibletoseekinformationfromtheindividual’scountryoforigin,includingbirthcertificates,whereageiscontested

• useadditionalinterviewtechniquestohelpdetermineage.166

On14July2011,thePresidentrespondedtothethenAttorney-General’sletterof8July2011expressinghercontinuingconcernwithaspectsoftheagedeterminationprocess.Sheurgedconsiderationoftheinvolvementofanindependentbodytoeliminatethepotentialforprejudicial


biasandtodemonstratethatthebestinterestofthechildhadbeenaprimaryconsideration.Sheadditionallyexpressedconcernattherelianceonradiographicprocedures,drawingattentiontothesignificantbodyofscientificandmedicalopinionthatquestionedtheirreliabilityandtheirethicalbasis.Finally,sheurgedtheimmediateconsideration,byanindependentpersonorbody,ofwhetheraproperandreliableassessmentofagehadbeenconductedforanyIndonesiannationalclaimingtobeaminorwhohadbeenchargedbutnotyettried,orwhohadbeenconvictedasanadult.Shesoughtaresponseby5August2011.167

On22August2011,thethenAttorney-GeneralrepliedtothePresident’sletterdated14July2011.ThethenAttorney-GeneralwrotethathewasnotconvincedoftheneedforindependentreviewofallagedeterminationmattersinvolvingIndonesiannationals,explaining:

Iholdthisviewbecausethecourtconsidersallavailableevidence,isfullyawareofthelimitationsofX-raysandthecrewhaveindependentlegalrepresentation.Further,bygivingthebenefitofthedoubtincasesinvolvingage,inparticularfromverifieddocumentationrelatingtoage,AFPandCDPPonlyproceedwithcaseswiththehighestprobabilitythatthepersonisanadult,andwhereinformationgatheredconsistentlyindicatesthatthisisthecase.168

AttheInquiryhearingforCommonwealthagencies,theFirstAssistantSecretaryoftheCriminalJusticeDivisionofAGDgaveevidencethatthisletterwasdraftedwithinhisareaofthedepartment.169HeagreedthattheaboveextractfromtheletterwaswrittenonthebasisofadviceprovidedbytheAFPandtheOfficeoftheCDPP,althoughhesaidthattheadvicewasprobablynotprovidedspecificallyforthepurposeoftheresponsetothePresident’sletter.Heindicatedthattheextractreflectedhisunderstandinghavingchairedtheworkinggroupandhavinghadregularinteractionswiththeagenciesconcerned.170ItisplainthatAGDdidnotseektoensurethatthethenAttorney-Generalreceivedadvicethatassessed,independentlyoftheAFPandtheOfficeoftheCDPP,theextenttowhichindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingoffenceswhoseagewasindisputehadreceivedfairhearings.

Notwithstandingtheexpressionofviewextractedabove,thethenAttorney-GeneralinhisletterofresponseaskedthePresidenttoinformhisdepartmentofanyspecificmattersaboutwhichsheheldconcerns.171TheFirstAssistantSecretaryoftheCriminalJusticeDivisionofAGDacceptedthatthisreflectedthefactthathewasnotpersonallypersuadedoftheneedforacomprehensivereviewofpastcasesbutacceptedthatitmightbeappropriatetolookataparticularcaseidentifiedbythePresident.172HeindicatedageneralawarenessatthetimethatreportschallengingDrLow’sevidencewerebeingputintoevidenceandthattherewerecaseswherethatevidencewasbeingpreferred.TheFirstAssistantSecretaryconcludedthatthiswasevidencethatthejudicialprocesswasworking,aspeoplewereabletodisputewristx-rays.173HeagreedthathedidnotmakeanyenquiriesoftheOfficeoftheCDPPortheAFPabouttheextentofdisclosureofscientificmaterialsinearliercases.174Healsoagreedthat,asatthedateofthisletter,thethenAttorney-Generalhadnotbeenprovidedwithevenaprécisofthescientific

130


materialwhichquestionedtheusefulnessofwristx-raysforagedeterminationpurposes.175Indeed,hisevidencewasthatneitherAttorney-GeneralMcClellandnorAttorney-GeneralRoxonhaseverbeenprovidedwithsuchaprécis.176

ThePresidentrespondedtotheinvitationtoidentifyspecificcasesofconcernbyadvisingthethenAttorney-General,byletterdated26September2011,thatshewouldbeforwardingdetailsof11individualstohisdepartment.TennotificationswereprovidedtoAGDon28Septemberandtwofurthernotificationswereprovidedon11October2011and8November2011respectively.

Byaletterdated8November2011,thePresidentexpressedconcernaboutthedelayinherreceivingaresponsetothenotifications.ShedrewattentiontothethenrecentWesternAustraliandecisioninRvDaudwhichhadbeenhighlycriticalofrelianceonwristx-raysasevidenceofageandwhichhadrevealedthataminorhadbeenheldinanadultfacilitysinceJune2010.ShealsodrewattentiontothediscontinuanceofprosecutionsinQueenslandfollowingtheproductionbydefencecounselofdocumentaryevidenceofageaswellasexpertreportscriticisingtheuseofwristx-raysforagedeterminationpurposes.TheletterreiteratedthePresident’scallfortheimmediateconsideration,byanindependentpersonorbody,ofwhetheraproperandreliableassessmentofagehadbeenconductedforeveryIndonesiannationalclaimingtobeaminorwhohadbeenconvictedasanadultandforeveryIndonesiannationalclaimingtobeaminorwhohadbeenchargedbutnotyettriedonpeoplesmugglingcharges.177

Havingreceivednoreplytoherletterof8November2011,thePresidentspoketothethenAttorney-Generalbytelephoneon17November2011,andon21November2011confirmedbyletterherearlierprovisionaldecisiontoconductthisInquiry.

4 The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of dental x-ray analysis for age assessment purposes

TheCommonwealthhasconsideredthepotentialuseofdentalx-rayanalysisforageassessmentpurposesforsometime.

DocumentsprovidedtotheCommissionindicatethattheAFPfirstsoughtinformationfromanexpertintheuseofdentalx-rayanalysisinlate2010.178AdvicewasprovidedbyaforensicodontologistinearlyJanuary2011whicharguedthat‘dentalradiographs[havebeenused]todeterminechronologicalage…widelythroughouttheworldforbothlivinganddeceasedindividuals’.179Theauthoroftheadvicesuggestedthattherewerethreerecentlydevelopeddatabaseswhichcould‘coveranindividualfromIndonesia’andthat‘acomparisonforanindividualfromIndonesiawouldbewithin0–12monthsvariationformostofthesedatabases’.180TheAFPforwardedthisadvicetotheOfficeoftheCDPPandsoughttheiradviceontheuseofdentalx-raystoassessage.181


TheAFPsubsequentlywrotetoAGDtorecommendthatdentalx-raysbeprescribedasanageassessmentprocedureforthepurposesoftheCrimesAct,attachingtheexpertadvicethattheyhadreceived.182

TherewasacleardivergenceofviewsamongstCommonwealthagenciesabouttheappropriatenessofrelyingondentalx-rayanalysisforageassessmentpurposes.Minutesfromaninteragencymeetingregardingthe‘[a]gedeterminationofpeoplesmugglingcrew’notedthat‘theCDPP’sresearchindicatedthattheuseofdentalX-raysmaybemorecontentious[thanwristx-rays]associoeconomicfactorssuchasdietandmalnutritioncanimpactontoothdevelopment’.183AnAGDofficerindicatedthathewouldbereluctanttoprescribedentalx-rayswithoutfurtherworktounderstandtheargumentsforandagainst.184

TheOfficeoftheCDPPconductedfurtherresearchregardingdentalx-rayswhichitprovidedtotheAFPandAGDon30May2011.185TheresearchoftheOfficeoftheCDPPissummarisedinabriefpaperwhichquotestheadviceprovidedbytheforensicodontologisttotheAFP.Thepapersuggeststhatthe‘[d]entalx-rayappearstobemoresusceptibletochangebyethnicorracialgroupandenvironmentalfactorssuchasdiet,malnutrition,andlifestylemayalsoimpactupondevelopment’.186Thepaperalsostatesthat‘onemustacceptthattherangeofvariablesindentalx-raytechniquesappearstobethesameasinthewristx-raytechniques’.187Thepaperconcludeswiththeviewthat‘dentalx-rayproceduresareanalternativeoradjuncttowristx-rayprocedures’.188

ThisresearchwascirculatedbyanAGDofficerwithinthatdepartment,withtheaccompanyingemailstating:

Giventheapparenthighdegreeofaccuracy,benefitinprovidingthecourtwiththeadditionalinformationandtargetedapplicationtominimiseexcessexposuretox-rays,itwouldappeartobeworthconsideringprescribingtheminadditiontowristx-raysinregulation6CoftheCrimesRegulations1990ratherthanhavingit[as]avoluntaryoption.189

However,whiletheOfficeoftheCDPPhadconcludedthatdentalx-raysprovideausefulageassessmenttool,ithadnotconcludedthattheyhaveahighdegreeofaccuracy,orthattheyaremoreaccuratethanwristx-rays.190

MinutesfromameetingofCommonwealthagenciesheldon10June2011showthatAGDintendedtorecommendtothethenMinisterforHomeAffairsandJusticethathespecifydentalx-raysasaprescribedprocedureforthepurposesoftheCrimesAct.191Atthistime,theAFPsoughttoimplementavoluntaryprocedurefordentalx-raysforcrewmembers.192

Asnotedabove,theJuly2011announcementofan‘improvedageassessmentprocess’includedtheannouncementthatdentalx-rayswouldbeofferedinpeoplesmugglingmatterswhereagewascontested.TalkingpointsforthethenMinisterforHomeAffairsandJustice

132


preparedtoaccompanytheannouncementasserttheusefulnessofdentalx-raysforageassessmentprocesses.ThetalkingpointsproposethattheMinistersaythatdentalx-rays:

• provideastatisticalprobabilityofaperson’slikelyage,whichincludesamarginoferrordependingonthecircumstancesoftheindividualcase

• provideinformationtoestimateifapersonisupto20yearsold.193

ThetalkingpointssuggestthatiftheMinisterispressedheshouldsay:‘Iamadvisedthatthemarginoferrorisupto12months’.194

TheJuly2011announcementindicatedthatdentalx-rayswouldbeoffered‘commencingassoonaspossible’.Itappearsthatthenecessaryarrangementstoallowdentalx-raystobetakenhadnotthenbeenputinplace.On15July2011,theOfficeoftheCDPPwrotetotheAFPtoinformthemthatithadreceivedanumberofrequestsfromdefencecounselseekingdentalx-raysfortheirclientsandtoexpressconcernthatthe‘AFPhavehaddifficultycontactingtherelevantexperttomakearrangementsfortheimplementationofthedentalx-rayprocess’.195TheAFPrepliedon22July2011,statingthattheyhadbeenliaisingwiththe‘PresidentoftheAustralianSocietyofForensicOdontology,inanendeavourtoidentifysuitablepersonstoassistwiththeinterpretationofdentalx-raysandprovideprofessionalopinionastoage’.196Thereplywentontostatethat‘relevantexpertshavenowbeenidentifiedinDarwinandtheAFPiscontinuingtoexpeditetheimplementationofdentalx-rays’.197

However,theAFPAssistantCommissioner,CrimeOperations,sentanemailtotheActingDeputyDirectoroftheLegalandPracticeManagementandPolicyBranchoftheOfficeoftheCDPPon3August2011,whichincludedthefollowing:

Wehaveonceagainencounteredanethicaldilemmawithrespecttotheadministrationof“nonessential”x-ray.DentistsconsultedbyAFPtodatehaveindicatedanunwillingnesstosubjectpatientstotheprocedureasitisnotrequiredforadentalpurpose.

Weattemptedanalternatesource,namelyRadiologists,howevertheyrequireareferralfromadentisttocarryoutsuchaprocedureandgiventhatdentistsdonotconsidertheprocedureisrequiredforadentalpurpose,theyareunwillingtoissueareferral.

Wethinkwemayhavefoundasolutiontothisimpassethroughtheodontologistswhowillassessthex-rays.Wearepursuingthisavenuefurtherandhopetohaveasolutionbyweeksend.198

On12August2011,theAFPreportedthattheprocessforprovidingdentalx-rayshadbeenfinalisedandthatthefirstoffershadbeenmadetoindividualstohavedentalx-raysundertaken.199

Atthistime,theCommonwealthcontinuedtogiveconsiderationtoproceedingwithaproposaltoamendtheCrimesRegulationstospecifydentalx-raysasaprescribedprocedureforage


determination.200Considerationwasalsobeinggivenatthesametimetoadditionallyspecifyingclaviclex-raysasaprescribedprocedure.201

5 Disclosure of all relevant material to the defence

5.1 The duty to disclose

Atcommonlaw,prosecutingcounselhaveadutytodisclosematerialintheirpossessionwhichwouldtendtoassistthedefencecase.202Thedutyhasbeenheldtoexistevenwheretheexistenceofthematerialisnotknowntoprosecutingcounsel.203

ThisdutyisrecognisedbytheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecution’s‘StatementonProsecutionDisclosure’whichconfirmsthattheprosecutionshould,assoonasreasonablypracticableafterthedefendanthasenteredapleaofnotguilty,disclosetothedefenceallmaterialthathasbeengatheredinthecourseoftheinvestigationandwhich:

eitherrunscountertotheprosecutioncase(i.e.pointsawayfromthedefendanthavingcommittedtheoffence)ormightreasonablybeexpectedtoassistthedefendantinadvancingadefence,includingmaterialwhichisinthepossessionofathirdparty(i.e.apersonorbodyotherthantheinvestigatingagencyortheprosecution).204

Thiswouldincludematerialwhichraises,orpossiblyraises,anewissue,theexistenceofwhichisnotapparentfromtheprosecutioncase;materialwhichholdsoutarealprospectofprovidingaleadtoevidencerelevanttoanissueinthecase;andmaterialwhichraisesanewissueinacase.205Itisnotconsistentwiththeprosecutor’sobligationtodisclosematerialrelevanttoanissueinthecase‘tosimplysaythattheinformationwasinthepublicdomainandthattheapplicantshouldhavemadeenquirieswhichwouldhaverevealedit’.206

Thenatureoftheprosecutor’sobligationtoconductacasewithfairnesstotheaccusedpersonandtoensurethatjusticeisdoneinaparticularcasewasdiscussedbyDeaneJinWhitehornvTheQueen.HisHonourobserved:

ProsecutingcounselinacriminaltrialrepresentstheState.Theaccused,thecourtandthecommunityareentitledtoexpectthat,inperforminghisfunctionofpresentingthecaseagainstanaccused,hewillactwithfairnessanddetachmentandalwayswiththeobjectivesofestablishingthewholetruthinaccordancewithproceduresandstandardswhichthelawrequirestobeobservedandofhelpingtoensurethattheaccused’strialisafairone.207

Theprosecutor’sobligationtodiscloseallrelevantmaterialalsogoessomewaytoamelioratinganyinequalityinresourcesbetweenthedefendantandtheState.Thisisparticularlyimportantinrelationtothevalidityofscientificevidencecalledbytheprosecution.208InRvWard,theCourtofAppealstated:

134


Webelievethatthesurestwayofpreventingthemisuseofforensicevidenceisbyensuringthatthereisaproperunderstandingofthenatureandscopeoftheprosecution’sdutyofdisclosure...inrespectofscientificevidence.Thatdutyexistsirrespectiveofanyrequestbythedefence.Itisalsonotlimitedtodocumentationonwhichtheopinionoffindingsofanexpertisbased.Itextendstoanythingwhichmayarguablyassistthedefence.Itisthereforewiderinscopethantherule.Moreover,itisapositiveduty,whichinthecontextofscientificevidenceobligestheprosecutiontomakefullandproperinquiriesfromforensicscientistsinordertoascertainwhetherthereisdiscoverablematerial.Giventheundoubtedinequalitybetweenprosecutionanddefenceinaccesstoforensicscientists,weregarditasofparamountimportancethatthecommonlawdutyofdisclosure,aswehaveexplainedit,shouldbeappreciatedbythosewhoprosecuteanddefendincriminalcases.209

Thedisclosureobligationisofparticularimportanceinoursystemofjusticebecauseitisnottheroleofacommonlawcourttoconductaninvestigationorexaminationofitsown.210Theroleofthejudgeunderthecommonlawsystemistoensureafairtrialaccordingtolaw;itisforthepartiestodecidethegroundsonwhichtheywillcontesttheissue,theevidencewhichtheywillcalland,subjecttothelawsofevidence,thequestionsthattheywillask.211Forthisreason,acommonlawcourtisdependentonthepartiestoassistitindeterminingtheextent,ifany,towhichexpertevidenceiscredibleandinformative.

TheprinciplesoutlinedabovewerenotdisputedbytheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions,anyofhisofficers,orbyanyAGDofficerortheAFPattheInquiryhearingforCommonwealthagencies.212

5.2 The Office of the CDPP failed to meet its disclosure obligations in cases where age was in doubt

Asnotedabove,theCommonwealthhasonanumberofoccasionsassertedthattheassessmentoftheaccuracyofevidence,includingmedicalevidenceofage,isamatterforthecourts.Further,theCommonwealthsubmitsthatithasassistedthecourtstomakedeterminationsofagebyplacingallavailableinformationbeforethecourt.213

InapaperpreparedbyaSeniorAssistantDirectorofthePeopleSmugglingBranchoftheOfficeoftheCDPP,thedisclosureobligationincasesinwhichageisindoubtisdescribedasextendingto‘asaminimum,anythingwhichrunscountertotheprosecutioncase;oranythingwhichmightassistthedefenceorleadtootheravenuesofinvestigationleadingtosomethingthatassiststhedefencecase’.214Theofficernotedtheimportanceofcomplyingwithdisclosureobligationstoensurethatanaccusedpersonreceivesafairtrial.Inhispaper,hecitedadviceaboutthedisclosureobligationgivenbySeniorCounsel.Thatadvicestated:

Thebottomlineisthatallparticipantsintheinvestigativeprocesssharetheobligationtoensurethatanaccusedpersonreceivesafairtrial.Ifexculpatorymaterialexistsinwhateversource,thenitshouldberevealedtotheprosecutionbythosewhohavecustodyofitforassessmentastowhetheritcanbe


disclosed,whetherpublicinterestimmunitypreventsitsdisclosure,andifsowhethertheproceedingsshouldcontinue.215

FromthedocumentsbeforetheCommission,itisapparentthatprosecutingcounselincaseswheretheageofanindividualsuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwasindisputedidnotmakefulldisclosureofscientificmaterialwhichcouldarguablyassistthedefence.

TheobservationsmadebyO’BrienJintheearlycaseofThePolicevMazeladrewattentiontothedrawbacksofusingwristx-rayanalysisforageassessmentpurposes.216Asdiscussedinsection3.2above,thecasesofThePolicevMazelaandRvSafrudinwereheardonlytwomonthsapart.InthesetwocasestheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionsledexpertevidencefirstfromDrLow(inThePolicevMazela)andthenfromDrThonnell(inRvSafrudin).ItisnotclearwhetheranypersonwithintheOfficeoftheCDPPnoticedtheconflictbetweentherespectiveexpertopinionsofDrThonnellandDrLowregardingtheageatwhichthehandandwristbonesofamalepersonareexpectedtohaveachievedmaturity,oriftheydid,thattheyunderstooditssignificance.DrThonnellidentifiedthatageasabout18years,whileDrLowexpressedtheopinionthatonly50%ofyoungmaleswouldshowamaturewristonx-rayattheageof19years.Theycouldnotbothbecorrect.Astheonlyissuetowhichtheirexpertopinionswererelevantwaswhetherparticularindividualswereunder,oralternativelyover,theageof18years,thedifferencebetweenthemwasofcriticalimportance.AcceptanceofDrLow’sopinion,asopposedtoDrThonnell’sopinion,wouldsignificantlyexpandthenumberofyoungpeoplelikelytobefoundtohavebeenanadultasatthedateoftheoffenceofwhichtheyweresuspected.

AttheInquiryhearingforCommonwealthagencies,theCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionssubmittedthatthedifferenceinexpertopinionbetweenDrLowandDrThonnellwasnotfundamentalandwassimplyadifferenceinamatterofdetail.TheDirectorsaid:

Iwouldbeassuredthat[disclosure]wasapproachedonthebasisthatwhatwehadherewasnomoreornolessthanadifferencebetweentwoexpertscalledbytheCrownintwodifferentcasesandadifferencethatwasnotfundamentalto,certainly,DrLow’sstandard.Andyouwillremember,ofcourse,thatbothwitnessesdidagreeupontheapplicabilityofGreulichandPyleAtlasinthesecases.IwouldhavetosayIwouldmakethesamecallin2000,andIemphasisein2000,knowingwhatoneknewthen;Iwouldhaveseenitasnomoreandnolessthansimplyadifferenceinamatterofdetail.217

Thereafter,astheabovediscussionreveals,increasingamountsofmaterialbecameavailabletotheOfficeoftheCDPPwhichwascapableofalertingtheDirectorandhisofficerstopotentialproblemswiththeopinionevidencebeingadducedfromDrLow.SomeofthatmaterialwasgeneratedwithintheOfficeoftheCDPP.218OthermaterialwasprovidedtotheOfficeoftheCDPPeitherbyDIAC,219orbydefencecounsel.220ItappearsthatnoneofthismaterialcausedtheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionsorhisofficerstolosefaithinDrLoworhisexpertise.Moreimportantlyforpresentpurposes,itappearsnottohavestimulatedtheOfficeoftheCDPPtogiveconsiderationtoitsdisclosureobligations.

136


AttheInquiryhearingforCommonwealthagencies,theCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionswasaskedwhetherheatanytimeissuedinstructionstoCommonwealthprosecutorsaboutwhattheyshoulddowherescientificevidencewasbeingreliedon.Thefollowingexchanges,whichareconsideredfurtherinthesectiononfindingsbelow,arerecordedinthetranscript:

MRCRAIGIE:CertainlynogeneralinstructionbutcounterscientificevidencewasrequiredbecauseofthestateofourjudgementastowhereDrLow’sevidencestoodatthattime.Weregarditasamatterforthecourtstotest.

MSBRANSON:Theycan’ttestwithouttheinformation,canthey,MrCraigie;that’sthepointI’mtryingtomake.Thecourtscan’tgooutandresearchforthemselves.They’redependentonthepartiestobringtheresearchtothem.AndheretheCommonwealthDPPhadtheresearch;thelegalaidlawyersweredefendingthem.

MRCRAIGIE:Withrespect,it’sanadversarialsystemwherebothsideshavecapacitytodeveloptheirownargumentsandcounter-argumentswhichisquitedifferenttoasituationwherethecreditofawitnesshasbeenunderminedsubstantially,underminedtotheextentthatitraisesadisclosureissue.Ithinkthat’sthepointofdeparturebetweenourtwoviews.221

AndaftertheDirector’sattentionwasdrawntotheobservationsoftheCourtofAppealinRvWardwhichareextractedabove:

MRCRAIGIE:Thefactthatthatresearchexistedandthefactthatitwas,incertaincontexts,criticalofwristX-rayswasnotdisclosedbut,inoursubmission,[it]wassomewhatbesidethepointastowhetheratthatstageDrLow’sevidencecouldproperlyberelieduponbyusaswesawitthen.

MSBRANSON:Whywouldthatbe,MrCraigie?

MRCRAIGIE:Well,itgoesbacktothelimitedprocessesfromwhichwristX-raysshouldberepresentedatcourt,aswasindicatedbackbeforetheParliamentaryCommitteein2001.Icertainlywasgenerallyawarethatitwasaprocessthatwasnotgenerallyaccepted.Infact,inanumberofcontexts,inothercountriesforcertainpurposes,it’scertainlynotaccepted.ButinthecontextofAustraliawheretherewasanActofParliamentthatprovideditandwhere,inaprosecutorialenvironment–acourtenvironment–whereitwasoftenpartofthefairlyscantevidenceavailableastoage.Wewereatthatstagecomfortabletouseit,atthatstage.222

TheissueofproperdisclosurebytheOfficeoftheCDPPofmaterialconcerningtheuseofwristx-raysforagedeterminationpurposeswasraisedbyadefencelawyerinJanuary2011.DuringadirectionshearingintheDistrictCourtofWesternAustralia,thelawyerforthedefendantreferredtoanarticlepublishedinTheAustraliannewspaperthatquestionedthereliabilityofwristx-raysasameansfordeterminingage.Thelawyerwasconcernedthatshemightwronglybeassumingthatwristx-raysallowedanauthoritativedeterminationofage.Specifically,shewasconcernedthattheCommonwealthmightbeinpossessionofmaterialthatwouldthrowsomedoubtonwristx-raysasareliablemethodofassessingage.Shesubmittedtothecourt:


Wellit’s,fromourperspective,orfrommyperspective,it’sadisclosureissue.IftheCrownareinpossessionofinformationwhichsuggeststhatthereissomecontroversyaboutthereliabilityofthiskindofevidencethenthatoughttobedisclosedtoussothatwecanmakeadecisionaboutwhetherornottotakethepointaboutjurisdiction.223

ItappearsthattheprosecutorinthiscasereferredthedefencelawyertoDrLowand,aftershespokewithhim,theissueofherclient’sagewasnolongerdisputedandtheprosecutionoftheindividualcontinued.224

AttheInquiryhearingforCommonwealthagencies,aseniorCDPPofficerconfirmedthatinFebruary2011issuessurroundingagedeterminationwerediscussedbyalargenumberofveryexperiencedprosecutorsandthatdisclosurerequirementswerenotconsideredatthattime.225Thisissurprising,giventherequestmadeintheDistrictCourtonlyamonthearlierthatdocumentstendingtoquestionthereliabilityofwristx-rayevidencebedisclosed.

InJune2011,theBrisbaneOfficeoftheCDPPreceivedanexpertreportfromProfessorCole.ThisreportwasfurtherscientificevidenceinthepossessionoftheOfficeoftheCDPPthatsuggestedthattheevidencebeinggivenbyDrLowabouttheusefulnessofwristx-raysasameansofdeterminingagewasunreliable,andperhapswrong.AttheInquiryhearing,itwasagreedthatnogeneraldirectionwasissuedbyoronbehalfoftheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionsthatthispaperbedisclosedtothedefenceinallcasesinwhichagewasindisputeand,indeed,thisreportwasnotdisclosedbyprosecutingcounsel.226

Itisofconcernthataslateas16August2011,anofficeroftheCDPPsentalettertoadefencecounselinwhich,inresponsetoaquestionaskedbyher,headvisedthattheOfficeoftheCDPP‘isnotawareofanymattersinwhichDrLow’sexpertevidencehasbeendiscredited’.227Asnotedabove,whilethisresponsemayhavebeentechnicallytrue,itwashardlyfrank.BythistimetheOfficeoftheCDPPwasacutelyawareofseriouschallengestoDrLow’sevidence.ThequestionaskedbydefencecounseldoesnotseemtohavetriggeredanyconsiderationbyofficersoftheCDPPofthedutyofdisclosureofprosecutingcounsel.

ThereisnomaterialbeforetheInquirywhichsuggeststhattheOfficeoftheCDPPeverdisclosedtodefencecounselanymaterialinitspossessionwhichraisedquestionsaboutthereliabilityoftheexpertevidencebeingadducedfromDrLowontheissueoftheagesofyoungindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingoffences.

LegalAidNSWraisedtheissueofdisclosureinitssubmissiontotheInquiry.ThesubmissionsuggeststhatinLegalAidNSW’sexperience,theOfficeoftheCDPPhasnotalwaysadoptedabalancedapproachtoscientificevidenceaboutage.Thesubmissionstates:

Despitetherebeingwelldocumentedandpublishedevidencetothecontrary,itistheexperienceofLegalAidNSWthattheCDPPwillpresentthewristx-rayevidenceofassessmentofageasamedicalfact.

138


ItistheexperienceofLegalAidNSWthattheCDPPrarelypresentsopposingevidence.Nordoes…itmakeconcessionswhenpresentedbythedefencewithevidenceoftheunreliabilityofx-rayfromradiologists,paediatricradiologistsormedicalstatisticians.228

6 Findings

6.1 Findings regarding the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecution’s understanding of the usefulness of wrist x-ray analysis for age assessment purposes

(a) ConfidenceintheevidenceofDrLowshouldnothavebeenmaintained

Prosecutingcounseloughtnottocallanexpertwitnessinwhoseevidencetheycannothaveconfidence.Prosecutingcounsel,andotherofficersintheserviceoftheState,haveadutytoactwithfairnessandalwayswiththeobjectiveofestablishingthetruthandensuringthattheaccusedperson’strialisafairone.229

ItisnotclearwhentheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionsandhisofficersfirstbecameawarethatseriousquestionshadbeenidentifiedaboutthereliabilityoftheevidencebeingadducedfromDrLow.Thereisnodoubtthatthetruepictureiseasiertoseewiththebenefitofhindsight.However,thepossibilitythatDrLow’sevidencemightbeflawedwascapableofbeingseenasearlyasFebruary2002.230

Bymid-2011therewassignificantmaterialavailabletosupporttheinferencethatDrLow’sevidencewasatbestproblematic:

• InSeptember2010,DIAChadsharedwiththeOfficeoftheCDPPtheviewsofauthoritativeinternationalbodiesconcerningwristx-rayevidencegenerally.231

• ByMarch2011,evidenceofagebasedonwristx-rayshadbecomesufficientlycontroversialforthethenAttorney-GeneraltoaskhisdepartmenttoleadaworkinggroupwiththeAFP,theOfficeoftheCDPPandDIACtoconsiderwhatstepscouldbetakentoensurethatagedeterminationproceduresprovidethebestevidenceforacourttodeterminetheageofpeoplesmugglingcrewwhoclaimtobeminors.232

• InApril2011,aseniorofficeroftheCDPPhadnotedtheflawsoflogicinherentintheevidencebeinggivenbyDrLow.233

• ByapproximatelytheendofJune2011,theattentionoftheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionsandhisofficershadbeendrawntoreportsbyProfessorAynsley-Green


andProfessorCole.Thesereports,preparedbyleadingexpertsintheirrespectivefields,weretrenchantlycriticaloftheevidencebeingadducedfromDrLow.ProfessorCole,aninternationallyrecognisedexpertinbio-statisticsandhumangrowth,hadcharacterisedDrLow’sstatisticalapproachas‘wrong’.234

• ByapproximatelyAugust2011theOfficeoftheCDPPwasinpossessionoftheletterdated19August2011signedbythePresidentsofanumberofmedicalcolleges,includingtheRoyalAustralianandNewZealandCollegeofRadiologists,whichstatedthat‘[x]-raysofteethandwristsshouldnotbeusedasevidenceinacourtoflawbecausetheageassessmentsobtainedbythesemeansareveryinaccurate’.235

Eventakingintoaccountthebenefitofhindsight,itisreasonabletoconcludethat,bynolaterthanmid-2011,theCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionsandhisseniorofficersoughttohavebeenawarethat,unlessindependentconfirmationcouldbeobtainedfromanauthoritativesourcethattheevidencebeingadducedfromDrLowwassoundlybased,theycouldnotmaintainconfidenceinDrLowasanexpertwitness.ReassurancesofferedbyDrLowdidnotamounttoindependentconfirmation.236

Bylate2011,theOfficeoftheCDPPwasawarethatotherradiologistsofapparentlyhighreputedidnotbelievethatagecouldbereliablyassessedfromwristx-rays.237InviewofthedutyoftheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionstoensurefairnesstotheaccusedandtoavoidthemisuseofforensicevidence,theOfficeoftheCDPPoughttohavesoughtauthoritativeadviceonthisissue.

ItwouldalsohavebeenappropriatefortheOfficeoftheCDPPtogivemorecarefulattentionthanitapparentlydidtothelimitsofthespecialisedknowledgeofDrLow.

DrLow’sevidenceconcerningtheageofindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwasadducedinrelianceontheauthorityofs79oftheEvidenceAct1995(Cth).Thissectionexceptsexpertopinionevidencefromthegeneralrulethatawitnessmaynotgiveevidenceofhisorheropinion.Section79(1)provides:

Ifapersonhasspecialisedknowledgebasedontheperson’straining,studyorexperience,theopinionruledoesnotapplytoevidenceofanopinionofthatpersonthatiswhollyorsubstantiallybasedonthatknowledge.

DrLowisaspecialistradiologist.Hisopinionsastotheskeletalageoftheindividualswhosewristx-raysheexaminedmaybeassumedtohavebeenbasedwhollyorsubstantiallyonhisspecialisedknowledgeofradiologybasedonhistraining,studyandexperience.However,itisstronglyarguablethatthesamecannotbesaidofhisopinionastothechronologicalageofthoseindividuals.

140


DrLow’sopinionsastothechronologicalageoftheindividualswhosewristx-raysheexaminedweredependentonanassumptionmadebyhimastotheaverageageatwhichmalesachieveskeletalmaturity.CounselfortheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionsdidnotcallevidencefromanyoneotherthanDrLowtoestablishtheaccuracyofhisassumption.Yet,itdoesnotappearthatDrLowhasthespecialisedknowledgebasedonhistraining,studyorexperiencenecessarytoqualifyhimtoexpressanopiniononthisissue.Asnotedabove,hisareaofspecialisedknowledgeisradiology.Histraining,studyandexperienceintheareaofstatistics,andspecificallybiostatistics,arerelativelylimited.238This,ascannowbeseen,underminedhiscapacitytocalculatefromavailableresearchstudiestheaverageageatwhichmalesattainskeletalmaturity.Yet,theopinionofDrLowwhichwasbeingadducedinevidencebycounselfortheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionswasanopinionthatwassubstantiallybasedonhisunderstandingofthatage.ThisindicatesthatDrLow’sopinionaboutthechronologicalageoftheyoungindividualswhosewristx-raysheexaminedwasalmostcertainlynotanopinionwhollybasedonhisspecialisedknowledgeofradiology.Itisarguablethatitwasnotevenanopinionsubstantiallybasedonhisspecialisedknowledgeofradiology.ThematerialbeforetheCommissiondoesnotsuggestthattheOfficeoftheCDPP,orindeedAGD,everundertookananalysisofthiskind.

FortheOfficeoftheCDPPtohavemaintainedconfidenceinDrLowasawitnessbeyondJune2011,andthereafterbeyondAugust2011,seemsinexplicable.Anyexplanationmust,itseems,befound,atleastinpart,inthestrongdesireofthatOffice,andofotherCommonwealthagencies,foranageassessmenttechniquewhichwouldallowthemtocallevidencetoshowwithahighdegreeofcertaintywho,fromamongthosesuspectedofpeoplesmuggling,wereadults.Therealityisthatthenaturalgeneticdiversitywithinthehumanpopulationmeansthereisnoknownmedicaltechniquewhichcanmeasureanindividual’schronologicalagewithsufficientprecisionforittobeusedtodetermineageinthecontextofacriminalproceeding.239TheexplanationmayalsolieinpartinthehighlevelofscepticismwhichdevelopedconcerningtheclaimsofyoungIndonesianstobeminors,whichisconsideredinChapter4.

(b) Disclosureofmaterialtendingtosupportthedefencecase

Most,ifnotall,ofthematerialidentifiedaboveasmaterialwhichshouldhavealertedtheOfficeoftheCDPPtotheriskthatDrLow’sevidencewasnotreliablewasmaterialwhichwouldalsohavetendedtoassistthedefencecaseinanymatterinwhichevidencewasadducedfromDrLowbycounselfortheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions.Yet,theOfficeoftheCDPPdidnotdiscloseanyofthatmaterialtodefencecounsel.Indeed,asnotedabove,aslateasmid-August2011anofficeroftheCDPPdeflectedarequestbyadefencecounselforinformationconcerningthereliabilityofDrLow’sevidencebyofferingatechnicallyaccuratebutpotentiallymisleadingresponse.240


TheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionsdefendedthefailureofhisofficetomakedisclosureofmaterialtendingtosupportthedefencecaseonthreebases.HeidentifiedthefirstbasisinthecontextofthedifferentviewsofDrLowandDrThonnellontheaverageageatwhichamalewillachieveskeletalmaturity.Asnotedabove,theDirectordescribedthisasa‘differenceinamatterofdetail’.241AsChapter2makesclear,thisdifferencedidnotrelatetoamatterofdetail.Anaccurateunderstandingoftheaverageageatwhichmalesachieveskeletalmaturityisfundamentaltotheuseofawristx-rayasthebasisforanopiniononwhetheraparticularmaleisunderorovertheageof18years.Further,theidentificationofthatageisnotsomethingaboutwhichappropriatelyqualifiedexpertsmaylegitimatelyholdwidelydifferentopinions.Rather,itisanagecapableofbeingscientificallycalculatedwithrelativeprecisionfromresearchstudies.Wheretheopinionofanyexpertisbasedonanerroneousassumptionaboutthatage,thatopinionisopentoseriouschallenge.

Inshort,differencesofviewbetweenexpertsontheissueoftheageatwhich,onaverage,malesattainskeletalmaturityisnotamatterofdetail.Theopinionofanyexpertthataparticularmaleisovertheageof18years,wherebasedonawristx-ray,isunderpinnedbythatexpert’sassumptionoftheageatwhichmales,onaverage,attainskeletalmaturity.EvidencetendingtoshowthatDrLow’sassumptioninthisrespectwasinaccuratewasclearlymaterialtendingtosupportthedefencecase.

ThesecondbasisonwhichtheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionsdefendedthefailureofhisofficetomakedisclosureofmaterialtendingtosupportthedefencecasewasthat,underouradversarialsystemofjustice,thereliabilityofDrLow’sevidencewasamatterforthecourttotest.242Theproperroleofacommonlawcourtisdiscussedinsection5.1above.Underoursystemofjustice,acourtmaynotconductitsowninvestigation.Infact,itispartlythelimitedrolethatacommonlawjudgecanappropriatelyplaythatmakesthedutyofdisclosureofprosecutingcounselsoimportant.AstheCourtofAppealrecognisedinRvWard,adherencetotheprosecutor’sdutyofdisclosureisanimportantsafeguardagainstthemisuseofforensicevidence.243Withoutproperdisclosurebeingmadetothedefence,thecapacityofthecourttotestthereliabilityofforensicevidenceadducedbytheStatecanbeseverelycompromised.Further,asRoberts-SmithJAnotedinCooleyvWesternAustralia,‘[t]hedefence[is]entitledtoassumethataprofessionalexpertwitnesscalledbytheState[is]awitnessofintegrityandcredibilityandthatiftherewasanymaterialshowingotherwise,theStatewoulddiscloseit’.244

ThethirdbasisonwhichtheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionsdefendedthefailureofhisofficetomakedisclosureofmaterialtendingtosupportthedefencecasewasthat,althoughtheprocessofassessingagebyreferencetowristx-rayswasnotgenerallyaccepted,Parliamenthadprovidedforit.Whilethespecificationofwristx-raysasaprescribedprocessforthedeterminationofaperson’sagemightruleoutargumentstotheeffectthattheprocessoughtnotbeused,ithaslimited,ifany,relevancetoprosecutingcounsel’sdutyofdisclosure

142


concerningforensicevidencecalledbytheStatebasedonaparticularwristx-ray.WhencounselfortheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionsadducedopinionevidencebasedonaparticularwristx-ray,itwascriticaltoafairtrialthatsuchevidencebeopentopropertesting.Appropriatedisclosurebyprosecutingcounselisanimportantmeansofensuringpropertesting.

MaterialofwhichtheOfficeoftheCDPPwasawarethatpresentedacountervailingpointofviewregardingtheusefulnessofwristx-rayanalysisforthepurposesofassessingageshouldhavebeendisclosedtodefencecounselinmatterswheretheprosecutionintendedtocallDrLowasanexpertwitness.

Inhisresponsetothedraftreport,theCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionscontinuedtoreject‘anyimplicationthattheCDPPbreacheditsdutyofdisclosure’.Hestatedthat:

TheCDPPconsideredthattheappropriatecoursewasforthedifferingviewsofexpertsinrelationtowristx-rays,whichwereknownandusedbydefencelawyersandprovidedtotheCDPPbythem,tobeconsideredanddecidedbythecourts.245

6.2 Findings regarding the AFP’s understanding of the usefulness of wrist x-ray analysis for age assessment purposes

MuchoftheabovediscussionconcerningtheOfficeoftheCDPPappliesalsototheAFP.Theywereinpossessionofvirtuallythesamematerialconcerningwristx-rayanalysisasanageassessmenttechniqueandconcerningthereliabilityofDrLow’sevidenceastheOfficeoftheCDPP.TheyalsodidnotseekindependentverificationofthereliabilityoftheevidencebeinggivenbyDrLow.

ItseemsthattheAFP,andindeedtheOfficeoftheCDPP,fellintotheverytrapthathadbeenidentifiedbytheauthorsoftheGPAtlas;thatis,toattributetotheGPAtlas‘agreaterdegreeofprecisionthanwasintendedbythosewhodeviseditor,indeed,thanispermittedbythenatureofthechangeswhichitisdesignedtomeasure’.246DrLow’sreportswhich,asnotedinChapter2,oftencalculatedtheprobabilityofanindividualbeingundertheageof18yearstotwodecimalpoints,nodoubtfedthebeliefoftheAFPandtheOfficeoftheCDPPthat,byreferencetotheGPAtlas,agecouldbepreciselyassessedfromawristx-ray.

ItmaybethattheAFPfellintothefurthertrapoffailingtorecognisetheriskofafrequentlyusedwitnesslosingobjectivityandcomingtoseehisroleasbeingtohelpthepolice.247

Whatevertheexplanationmaybe,itisclearthattheAFPandtheOfficeoftheCDPPnotonlycametouseDrLowastheirexpertofchoice,theychosetoaccepthisassessmentsofagewhenfacedwithconflictingexpertopinions.248Initsresponsetothedraftreport,theAFPrejectedthisfindingpointingoutthattheAFPusesradiologistsatlocationswheredetaineesareconveyed


byDIACforthepurposeofhavingtheprescribedwristx-rayprocedureundertaken.TheAFPacknowledged,however,thatthe‘CDPPhascontinuedtorequestAFPcaseofficerstohavesecondaryopinionsoffurtheranalysisundertakenonwristx-raysbyDrLowwhichtheAFPfacilitated’.249TheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionsalsoacceptedthatthesecondmoredetailedreportobtainedforthepurposeofprovidingevidenceinanagedeterminationhearingwasusuallyobtainedfromDrLow.250

6.3 Findings regarding the Attorney-General’s Department’s understanding of the usefulness of wrist x-ray analysis for age assessment purposes

TheAGDAnnualReportexplainswhatthedepartmentdoesinthefollowingway:

TheAttorney-General’sDepartmentservesthepeopleofAustraliabyupholdingtheruleoflawandprovidingexpertsupporttotheAustralianGovernmenttomaintainandimproveAustralia’ssystemoflawandjustice….251

TheAttorney-GeneralistheFirstLawOfficeroftheCommonwealth.MaintainingtheintegrityofAustralia’scriminaljusticesystemisanimportantaspectoftheruleoflawandthusanimportantresponsibilityoftheAttorney-General.Astheabovestatementmakesclear,theAttorney-GeneralrequiresthesupportofAGDtofulfilthisresponsibility.

TheAttorney-GeneralalsohasimportantresponsibilitieswithrespecttoAustralia’shumanrightsobligations.WhilehumanrightsarenotaspecificresponsibilityoftheCriminalJusticeDivisionofAGD,theFirstAssistantSecretaryofthatDivisionacknowledgedthat,whenhisdivisionprovidesadvicetotheAttorney-Generaloncriminaljusticeissues,itisimportantthat‘holisticadvice’beprovidedtoensurethatAustralia’shumanrightsobligationsarenotoverlooked.252DuringmuchoftheperiodoftimewithwhichthisInquiryisconcernedhumanrightswereahighpriorityforthethenAttorney-General.Heannouncedanationalconsultationonhumanrightsinlate2008andahumanrightsframeworkforAustraliainApril2010.

NotwithstandingtheresponsibilitiesoftheAttorney-GeneralasFirstLawOfficeroftheCommonwealthandthefunctionofAGDtosupporttheAttorney-Generalinthisrole,thedocumentsbeforethisInquirysuggestthattheprincipalconcernsoftheAGDofficerswhoprovidedadvicetotheAttorney-GeneralweretoensurethatthemessagewasconveyedthattheAustralianGovernmenttakespeoplesmugglingseriously,andtomaintainsupportforwristx-raysastheprimarymeansofassessingtheagesofindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhosaidthattheywerechildren.Ensuringthatsuchindividualsreceivedafairtrial,andthatanyamongthemwhomightbechildrenwereidentifiedandtheirhumanrightsrespected,appeartohavebeen,atbest,secondaryconsiderations.

144


AconsiderablenumberofdocumentspreparedbyAGDincludedstatementstotheeffectthattheAustralianGovernmenttakestheprosecutionofpeoplesmugglingmattersveryseriouslyorotherwisedemonstratedconcernthattheGovernmentmightbeseentobe‘soft’onpeoplesmuggling.253ItseemslikelythattheperceivedneedtoconveythismessageinfluencedAGDtoadoptadegreeofscepticismtowardscriticismsoftheuseofwristx-raysforageassessmentpurposesinthecontextofpeoplesmugglingtrials.ItmayalsohavelimitedthepolicyoptionswhichtheydrewtotheattentionofthethenAttorney-General.

ItisworryingthatAGDofficersincludedinbriefingpapersandtalkingpointsthepotentiallymisleadinganddisingenuousstatementsidentifiedearlierinthischapter.

TheinclusionintheJointCommonwealthsubmissiontotheInquirydraftedbyAGDofaninaccuratestatementastothecontentofadvicereceivedfromARPANSAisevenmoreworrying.TheActingSecretaryofAGD,inhisletterof6July2012inresponsetothedraftofthisreport,describedtheinaccuratestatementas‘relatedtoatypographicalerrorbytheDepartmenttotheAHRC’andonewhich‘hasbeencorrectedformally’.Inlightofthisresponse,itisappropriatetonotethatacomparisonofthestatementincludedintheJointCommonwealthsubmissionwiththecorrectedstatementsuggestsasubstantial‘typographicalerror’;anerrorwhichonemighthaveexpectedtohavebeenpicked-upbyanofficerreviewingthefinaldocument.ItisalsoappropriatetonotethattheformalcorrectionofthestatementfollowedarequestfromtheCommissionthatitbeprovidedwithacopyoftheadvicereceivedbyAGDfromARPANSA.

ItisalsoworryingthattheJointCommonwealthsubmissioncontainedtheassertionthatithadbeenpreparedinconsultationwiththeChiefScientistwhenthesubmissionincludednoreferencetohisadviceandaspectsofitwereinconsistentwithhisadvice.AnimportantextractfromthebriefprovidedbytheChiefScientistissetoutinChapter2,section2.2(d).Thebriefrefersbothtoobservedvariationsinskeletalmaturityoftwoyearsinbothgendersandtoethicalconcernsonexposingchildrentoevenrelativelylowdosesofionisingradiation.EvenifDrLow’sopinionthatonaveragemalesachieveskeletalmaturityat19yearsofagewereaccepted,normalvariationsinskeletalmaturityoftwoyearsaresufficientseriouslytounderminetheutilityofskeletalmaturityasameansofassessingwhetherayoungmalepersonisovertheageof18years.

Asnotedabove,atnotimedidAGDprovideeitherAttorney-GeneralMcClellandorAttorney-GeneralRoxonwithevenaprécisofthescientificmaterialcriticaloftheuseofwristx-rayanalysisforageassessmentpurposes.Aproperunderstandingofthelimitationsinherentintheuseofwristx-raystoassesswhetherayoungmaleisovertheageof18yearswasnecessarytoallowtheAttorney-Generaltomakethepolicyjudgmentsnecessarytoensuretheintegrityofthecriminaljusticeprocessasitimpactedonindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingoffenceswhosaidthattheywerechildren.


ItisconcerningthattheAttorney-GeneralwasnotadvisedbyAGDoftheseriousreservationsexpressedincontemporaryscientificliteratureconcerningtheuseofwristx-rayanalysisforageassessmentpurposes,andofthefailureofprosecutorstodisclosethatmaterialtodefencecounsel,followingtherequestbythePresidentoftheAustralianHumanRightsCommissionforanindependentreviewofageassessmentproceduresthathadbeenundertaken.254

ItseemslikelythatnoAGDofficersoughttogainanunderstandingofthecontemporaryscientificliteratureforthepurposeofadvisingthethenAttorney-GeneralastotheappropriateresponsetothePresident’sletters,orevenforthepurposeofchairingtheworkingpartywhichultimatelyrecommendedthe‘improvedageassessmentprocess’discussedinsection2above.Itmightbeforthisreasonthatthe‘improvedageassessmentprocess’placedheavyrelianceonapublicationthatwasmorethanadecadeold,andadditionallydidnotincorporateimportantaspectsoftheprocessrecommendedbythatpublication.Whatevertheexplanationfortheproblemswhichbesetthe‘improvedageassessmentprocess’,AGDwasseriouslyhandicappedinprovidingadvicetotheAttorney-Generalastopotentialpolicyoptionsbyitsfailuretopaycloseattentiontocontemporaryliteratureconcerningmethodsofageassessment.

TheevidenceoftheFirstAssistantSecretaryoftheCriminalJusticeDivisionofAGDconcerningthefailuretoprovidetheAttorney-Generalwithevenaprécisofthescientificmaterialwasasfollows:

Whatthedepartmentprovidedhimwasadviceastothefactthattherearedifferingviewsonthereliabilityonwristx-raysandweprovidedhimarangeofcommentaryaboutthataspectinparticular.Healso,ofcourse,hadtheoptionofcallingforadditionalinformationifhesochose,andthat’soneoftheoptionsthatwasputtohiminthesubmission.255

Thischapterrevealsthat,asatthedateofthePresident’srequest,thescientificmaterialavailabletotheCommonwealthdidconsiderablymorethansuggestthatthereweredifferingviewsonthereliabilityofwristx-raysasatechniquetodeterminewhetherayoungmalewasovertheageof18years.Rather,thematerialwassufficienttofoundareasonablebeliefthatthetechniquewasinsufficientlyinformativetobeusedforthispurpose.ItalsoraisedquestionsconcerningtheadmissibilityoftheevidencebeingadducedfromDrLow.256

ItappearsthatneithertheFirstAssistantSecretarynoranyofficeroftheCriminalJusticeDivisioneverreadthetextoftheGPAtlas,althoughthevolumewasinthepossessionofboththeOfficeoftheCDPPandtheAFP.ThebeliefoftheFirstAssistantSecretaryisthatAGDmayhavehadregardtoextractsfromitoradviceabouttheeffectofitandhowitshouldbeinterpreted.257TheGPAtlasisacriticalelementintheuseofwristx-raysforageassessmentpurposes.Itstextisreadilyunderstoodbyanon-scientist.Asnotedelsewhereinthisreport,itdrawsattentiontothestrikingvariabilityintherateofdevelopmentofdifferentindividuals,258andcautionsagainstthetendencytoattributetoassessmentsmadebyreferencetotheatlas‘agreaterdegreeof

146


precisionthanispermittedbythenatureofthechangesitwasdesignedtomeasure’.259Littlereflectionisnecessaryforareadertoconcludethatnomore,andalmostcertainlyless,precisionwouldbepermittedwhentheGPAtlasisusedforthereversepurposefromthatforwhichitwasdesigned.

DuringtheInquiryhearingforCommonwealthagencies,anAGDofficer,inresponsetoaquestionfromthePresidentoftheCommissionconcerningthedepartment’sawarenessofthecontentofcertainscientificpublicationsatthetimethatitdraftedaletterfortheAttorney-Generaltosendtoanumberofmedicalcolleges,responded:

Ithinkit’sfairtosay,MadamPresident,theAttorney-General’sDepartmentdoesn’tholditselfoutasascientificbodyevaluatingqualityofthestudies.Weseekadvicefromotheragenciestohelpuswiththosesortsofjudgments.260

WhileitwasplainlyappropriateforAGDtoseekinformationfromtheOfficeoftheCDPPandtheAFP,inthecircumstancestheprovisionofsoundpolicyadvicetotheAttorney-Generalrequiredindependentassessmentofwhetherthatinformationwasreliable.Thisdidnotcall,atleastinthefirstinstance,forscientificadvice.Itcalledforthebringingofanindependentmindtotheissuesanda‘lawyerly’analysisofrelevantmaterials.Theskillsrequiredincludethecapacitiestoidentifyrelevantpublicationsandthenanalysethem;toidentifycriticalissuesandpointsofdifferenceconcerningthem;toaskappropriatequestionsandtotestresponsesagainstknownrulesoflawandlogic.ItwouldbedeeplyconcerningifAGDdoesnothaveofficerswiththeseskills.

Ifscientificadvicehadthenbeenjudgedtobenecessary,AGDcouldhavesoughtitfromoneofanumberofsources.TheOfficeoftheChiefScientistwasonepossiblesourceofindependentscientificadvicebutitappearsthatnoapproachwasmadetohisofficebyAGDuntilafterthisInquirywascalled.

TheabovefindingsdonotinvolvethesuggestionthatAGDshouldhavebecomeinvolveddirectlyinAFPandCDPPoperationalmatters.261NordotheyinvolveasuggestionthattheAGDshouldconduct,‘asamatterofcourse,itsowninvestigationsintothecredibilityofexpertwitnessesandtheirmethodologywhenevercontestedinCommonwealthproceedings’.262EachoftheAFPandtheCDPPisanindependentagency.TheCommissionacceptsthattheirindependence‘isunderpinnedbythefundamentalprinciplethatcriminalinvestigationsandprosecutionsshouldbeindependentofanyactualorperceivedinterferencefrompolicydepartments’.263However,astheleadpolicyagencyonpeoplesmugglingcrewissues,itwasappropriateforAGDtoplayamoreactiverolethansimplyrelyingoninformationprovidedtoitbytheAFPandtheOfficeoftheCDPPwhensignificantissuesofpolicyarose.SuchissuesclearlyarosewhenAGD,forexample,chairedtheinterdepartmentalworkinggrouponagedeterminationandledthedevelopmentoftheGovernment’simprovedpolicyframeworkonagedeterminationforcriminaljusticepurposes.264


6.4 Findings regarding DIAC’s understanding of the usefulness of wrist x-rays for the purposes of age assessment

Asnotedabove,DIACcamerelativelyearlytotherealisationthatwristx-rayswereanunreliablewayofassessingwhetherayoungpersonwasovertheageof18years.Havingidentifiedasignificantamountofscientificliteraturewhichthrewdoubtonthewristx-raytechniqueofageassessment,DIACsharedthatliteraturewithotherCommonwealthagencies.MaterialslateridentifiedconfirmtheappropriatenessoftheapproachadoptedbyDIACinthisregard.

6.5 Findings regarding the Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of other biomedical markers for age assessment purposes

Theonlybiomedicalmarkerotherthanskeletaldevelopmentasshownbyawristx-raytowhichtheCommonwealthseemstohavegivenseriousconsiderationistheassessmentoftoothdevelopmentasshownbyadentalx-ray.Somelimitedconsiderationseemstohavebeengiventotheuseofaclaviclex-rayforageassessmentpurposes.

TheJuly2011announcementofan‘improvedageassessmentprocess’includedtheannouncementthatdentalx-rayswouldbeofferedinpeoplesmugglingmatterswhereagewascontested.TheCommonwealthwasnotinfactinapositiontoofferdentalx-raysuntilAugust2011.On12August2011,theAFPreportedthattheprocessforprovidingdentalx-rayshadbeenfinalisedandthatthefirstoffershadbeenmadetoindividualstohavedentalx-raysundertaken.265TheCommissionisnotawareofanyyoungIndonesiantakinguptheofferofadentalx-ray.

Asdiscussedinsection4above,someconsiderationwasgivenbyeachoftheOfficeoftheCDPP,theAFPandAGDtothepossibilityofdentalx-raysbeingspecifiedbyregulationsasaprescribedprocedurefordeterminingageforthepurposesoftheCrimesAct.Differingviewswereexpressedabouttheirusefulnessforageassessmentpurposes.SofarastheCommissionisaware,noformalstepshavebeentakentowardsmakingdentalx-raysaprescribedprocedureforthepurposesoftheCrimesAct.

Theextenttowhichadentalx-rayisinformativeofwhetheranindividualisovertheageof18yearsisconsideredinChapter2.Insummary,itappearsthatdentalx-rayssufferfrommost,ifnotall,ofthesamedifficultiesaswristx-rayswhensoughttobeusedasanageassessmenttechnique.TheChiefScientisthasadvisedthat:

Severalstudiesbasedondifferentpopulations,includinganAustralianstudy,havereportedthattherearewidevariationsinchronologicalagecorrespondingtothedifferentstagesofdentaldevelopment.Thedevelopmentofteethdependonmultiplefactorsthatincludetheenvironment,nutrition,ethnicityandrace.266(Citationsomitted)

148


Moreover,beforedentalx-rayscouldbemadeaprescribedprocedureforthepurposesoftheCrimesAct,itwouldbeappropriatefortheCommonwealthtoensurethattheadviceofARPANSAconcerningtheuseofhumanimagingforagedeterminationiscompliedwith.267

Itmayadditionallybenotedthatthereislittleevidencethattheuseofbothawristx-rayandadentalx-rayimprovestheprecisionofanyageassessment,althoughitnaturallyincreasesthedoseofradiationtowhichtheindividualissubjected.268

ThematerialbeforetheCommissionsuggeststhatfurtherresearchisrequiredinrespectofallotherbiomedicalmarkers,includingclaviclex-rays,beforeitwouldbeappropriatefortheCommonwealthtoplacerelianceonthemforagedeterminationpurposes.269

__________________________________________________________________________________

1CrimesAmendmentRegulations2001(No2)(Cth).2HonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,Australian

HumanRightsCommission,30June2011.SeealsoHonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,andHonBO’ConnorMP,MinisterforHomeAffairsandJustice,‘Improvedprocessforagedeterminationinpeoplesmugglingmatters’(Mediarelease,8July2011)(Improvedprocessforagedetermination–Mediarelease).Athttp://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22media%2Fpressrel%2F906838%22(viewed9July2012).

3SeeHonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,CorrespondencetoHonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,17February2011.

4Asat9May2012,24allegedcrewmembershadbeenofferedvoluntarydentalx-raysbytheAFP.Noneofthese24individualsacceptedtheoffer:AssistantCommissioner,NationalManagerCrimeOperations,AFP,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,29May2012.

5AssistantCommissioner,NationalManagerCrimeOperations,AFP,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,29May2012;AFP,Responsetodraftreport,6July2012.

6AssistantCommissioner,NationalManagerCrimeOperations,AFP,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,29May2012.

7CrimesAmendment(AgeDetermination)Act2001(Cth).8CrimesAct1914(Cth),Division4A,ss3ZQA–3ZQK;CrimesRegulations1990(Cth),reg6C.9CrimesRegulations1990(Cth),reg6C(2).10RvHatim,KadirandOthers[2000]NTSC53.11EvidencetotheCommonwealthSenateLegalandConstitutionalLegislationCommittee,‘Inquiryintothe

ProvisionsoftheCrimesAmendment(AgeDetermination)Bill2001’,23March2001,p2.12CommonwealthSenateLegalandConstitutionalLegislationCommittee,ParliamentofAustralia,Reportof

theInquiryintotheProvisionsoftheCrimesAmendment(AgeDetermination)Bill2001(March2001)(ReportofSenateCommittee2001),para3.62.

13ReportofSenateCommittee2001,above,para3.18.


14AssistantCommissioner,AFP,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(19April2012),pp36–37.

15AFP,Responsetodraftreport,6July2012,p5.16ReportofSenateCommittee2001,note12,para4.1.17ReportofSenateCommittee2001,above,recommendation6.18ReportofSenateCommittee2001,above,recommendation8.19ReportofSenateCommittee2001,above,recommendation10.20Commonwealth,ParliamentaryDebates,HouseofRepresentatives,2April2001,p26186(HonMr

WilliamsMP,Attorney-General).21Commonwealth,ParliamentaryDebates,Senate,4April2001,p23619(SenatorAbetz,SpecialMinister

ofState);RevisedExplanatoryMemorandum,CrimesAmendment(AgeDetermination)Bill2001(Cth)(RevisedExplanatoryMemorandum2001).

22RevisedExplanatoryMemorandum2001,above,para9.23DeputyCommissioner,AFP,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(19April

2012),p41.24AFP,Responsetodraftreport,6July2012,pp3–5.25WhitehornvTheQueen(1983)152CLR657,663–664(DeaneJ).26TranscriptofProceedings,TheQueenandAstarUdinandSaniaAman(DistrictCourtofWesternAustralia,

H.H.JacksonDCJ,3October2000)(Transcript–TheQueenvUdinandAman);WWGreulichandSIPyle,RadiographicAtlasofSkeletalDevelopmentofHandandWrist(2nded,1959)(GPAtlas).TheuseoftheGPAtlasisdiscussedinChapter2.

27Transcript–TheQueenvUdinandAman,above,p19.28Transcript–TheQueenvUdinandAman,above,p21.29Transcript–TheQueenvUdinandAman,above,p29.30Transcript–TheQueenvUdinandAman,above,pp51–53.31TranscriptofProceedings,ThePolicevHenryMazela(Children’sCourtofWesternAustralia,O’BrienJ,12

February2002)(Transcript–ThePolicevMazela).32Transcript–ThePolicevMazela,above,p5.33Transcript–ThePolicevMazela,above,p6.34Transcript–ThePolicevMazela,above,p6.35Transcript–ThePolicevMazela,above,p7.36Transcript–ThePolicevMazela,above,p7.37StoykovskivMazela[2002]WASCA193.38TranscriptofProceedings,TheQueenvHermanSafrudinandLukmanMuhamad(SupremeCourtofthe

NorthernTerritory,RileyJ,10April2002)(Transcript–TheQueenvSafrudinandMuhamad).39Transcript–TheQueenvSafrudinandMuhamad,above,p3.40Transcript–ThePolicevMazela,note31,p6.41Transcript–TheQueenvSafrudinandMuhamad,note38,pp6–7.42ApplicantVFAYvMinisterforImmigration[2003]FMCA289.43ApplicantVFAYvMinisterforImmigration[2003]FMCA289,[25](PhippsFM).

150


44AssistantSecretary,GovernanceandAuditBranch,DIAC,EmailtoInquiryinresponsetofollow-upquestions,18April2012.

45PrincipalAdvisor,Citizenship,SettlementandMulticulturalAffairs,DIAC,SubmissiononAssessmentofDisputedMinorClaimstoMinisterforImmigrationandCitizenship,11June2010(DIACdocument)(DIACSubmissiontoMinisterforImmigration).

46DIACSubmissiontoMinisterforImmigration,above,AttachmentC.47DIACSubmissiontoMinisterforImmigration,above.48RoyalCollegeofPaediatricsandChildHealth,TheHealthofRefugeeChildren–Guidelinesfor

Paediatricians,November1999,p13.49DIACSubmissiontoMinisterforImmigration,note45,AttachmentC.50PrincipalAdvisor,Citizenship,SettlementandMulticulturalAffairs,DIAC,EmailtoSeniorAssistantDirector,

PeopleSmugglingBranch,CDPP,3September2010(AFPdocumentprovided29May2012).51CommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealth

agencies(19April2012),p62.52CommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealth


agencies(19April2012),p62.54ActingAssistantSecretary,ImmigrationIntelligenceBranch,DIAC,EmailtoNationalManagerCrime

Operations,AFP,3September2010(AFPdocumentprovided29May2012).55AssistantCommissioner,AFP,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(19April

2012),p60.56FederalAgent,AFP,EmailtoActingPrincipalAdvisor,Citizenship,SettlementandMulticulturalAffairs

Division,DIAC,5October2010(DIACdocumentmail39642129).57ActingPrincipalAdvisor,Citizenship,SettlementandMulticulturalAffairsDivision,DIAC,EmailtoFederal

Agent,AFP,14October2010(DIACdocumentmail39646162).58ActingPrincipalAdvisor,Citizenship,SettlementandMulticulturalAffairsDivision,DIAC,EmailtoFederal

Agent,AFP,14October2010,(DIACdocumentmail39642144).59President,RoyalCollegeofRadiologists,CorrespondencetoUnaccompaniedAsylumSeekingChildren

ReformProgramme,UKHomeOffice,23May2007,Attachment–EmailfromActingPrincipalAdvisor,Citizenship,SettlementandMulticulturalAffairsDivision,DIAC,toFederalAgent,AFP,14October2010(DIACdocumentmail39642144).

60SeniorAssistantDirector,CDPP,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(19April2012),p74.

61PeopleSmugglingMeetingBriefManagementMeeting,AFPTrainingCollege,FileNote,26October2010(AGDdocumentPROS-1).

62ActingDirector,PrincipalAdvisor’sUnit,Citizenship,SettlementandMulticulturalAffairsDivision,DIAC,EmailtoOfficer,FinancialCrimeandBorderManagementSection,AGD,10January2011(AGDdocumentPROS-4).

63AssistantDirector,StrategicPolicyandProjectsTerritoriesWest,DepartmentofRegionalAustralia,RegionalDevelopmentandLocalGovernment,EmailtoPrincipalLegalOfficer,PeopleSmugglingFinancialCrimeandBorderManagementSection,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,29November2010(AGDdocumentPROS-2).


64SeniorAssistantDirector,PeopleSmugglingBranch,CDPP,PeopleSmugglingProsecutionsAgeDeterminationIssues,15December2010(CDPPdocumentAttachmentDdocument4)(CDPPPeopleSmugglingProsecutions–Paper).

65SeniorAssistantDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,EmailtoActingAssistantSecretary,ImmigrationIntelligenceBranch,DIAC,25November2010(DIACdocumentmail39646086).

66CDPPPeopleSmugglingProsecutions–Paper,note64,p7.67ReportofSenateCommittee2001,note12,para3.18.Seesection3.1above.68CDPPPeopleSmugglingProsecutions–Paper,note64,p7.69CDPPPeopleSmugglingProsecutions–Paper,above,footnote14,p7.70CDPPPeopleSmugglingProsecutions–Paper,above,p18.71PMaley,‘ChildreninWAjailsonsmugglercharges’,TheAustralian,11November2010.Athttp://www.

theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/children-in-jail-on-smuggler-charges/story-e6frg6nf-1225951374315(viewed9July2012).

72AGD,Responsetodraftreport,6July2012,p2.73Questiontimebrief,Asylumseekers–childpeoplesmugglers(QTB10-470),Attachment–Emailfrom

PrincipalLegalOfficer,PeopleSmugglingFinancialCrimeandBorderManagementSection,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,toOfficer,DepartmentofPrimeMinisterandCabinet,17November2010(DIACdocumentmail39646062).

74PrincipalLegalOfficer,PeopleSmugglingFinancialCrimeandBorderManagementSection,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,EmailtoOfficer,DepartmentofPrimeMinisterandCabinet,17November2010(DIACdocumentmail39646062).

75DIACdocumentmail39646062,above.76PrincipalLegalOfficer,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,Transcriptofhearing,Publichearingfor

Commonwealthagencies(19April2012),p93.77PrincipalLegalOfficer,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,Transcriptofhearing,Publichearingfor

Commonwealthagencies(19April2012),p93.78ActingDirector,PrincipalAdvisor’sUnit,Citizenship,SettlementandMulticulturalAffairsDivision,DIAC,

EmailtoOfficer,DIAC,13December2010(DIACdocumentmail39646113).79DIACdocumentmail39646113,above.80Ministers’OfficeBrief–Attorney-General/MinisterforHomeAffairs,Peoplesmuggling–childreningaols,

6January2011(AGDdocumentBRIEF-3).81Seeforexample,Transcript–TheQueenvSafrudinandMuhamad,note38;Transcript–TheQueenv

UdinandAman,note26.82Ministers’OfficeBrief–Attorney-General/MinisterforHomeAffairs,Peoplesmuggling–childreningaols,

6January2011(AGDdocumentBRIEF-3),p4.83DeputyCommissioner,AFP,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(19April

2012),p114.84Ministers’OfficeBrief–Attorney-General/MinisterforHomeAffairs,Peoplesmuggling–childreningaols,

6January2011(AGDdocumentBRIEF-3),p5.85FirstAssistantSecretary,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,Transcriptofhearing,Publichearingfor

Commonwealthagencies(19April2012),pp115–116.

152


86SeniorAssistantDirector,CDPPMelbourneOffice,MemotoSeniorAssistantDirector,CDPPHeadOffice,13April2011(BOM062–CDPPdocument115.0029).

87BOM062–CDPPdocument115.0029,above,p1.88BOM062–CDPPdocument115.0029,above,footnote2,p1.89BOM062–CDPPdocument115.0029,above.90BOM062–CDPPdocument115.0029,above,p4.91SeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,EmailtoOfficers,CDPP,10March2011(PEN059–CDPP

document238.0194).92DrLow,Opinionregardingtheuseofskeletalagedeterminationtechniquetoestimatechronologicalage,

May2011,Attachment–Submission15.93TranscriptofProceedings,TheQueenand[TRA029](MagistratesCourtofWesternAustralia,Magistrate

Hogan,17August2011)(TRA029–CDPPdocument030.0166),pp39–40.DrLowacknowledgedthatheisnotaprofessionalstatisticianormathematicianalthoughhelearnedbasicstatisticsinhighschoolandhadsomeexposuretostatisticsinyear1ofhismedicalstudies.

94Barrister-at-Law,Counselfordefence,LettertoActingDeputyDirector,CDPPBrisbaneOffice,28June2011(WIL024–CDPPdocument125.0016).

95WIL024–CDPPdocument125.0016,above,p4.96ActingSeniorAssistantDirector,LegalPracticeManagementandPolicyBranch,CDPP,MinutetoDirector,

CDPP,30June2011(WIL024–CDPPdocument126.0010);SeniorLegalOfficer,PeopleSmugglingBranch,CDPP,MinutetoDirector,CDPP,29June2011(WIL024–CDPPdocument323.0713).SeealsoActingSeniorAssistantDirector,LegalPracticeManagementandPolicyBranch,CDPP,EmailtoOfficers,CDPP,30June2011(WILO024–CDPPdocument126.0008).

97SeniorLegalOfficer,PeopleSmugglingBranch,CDPPPerthOffice,EmailtoLegalOfficer,CDPP,8July2011(VMT011–CDPPdocument155.0207).

98CommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(20April2012),pp164–165.

99DeputyDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(20April2012),p165.

100Solicitor,LettertoDirector,CDPP,11August2011(OFD030–CDPPdocument293.0659).101CommonwealthagenciesmeetingonpeoplesmugglingcrewissuessupportingtheSeniorOfficials’

Committeeteleconference,Outcomes,12August2011(AGDdocumentPROS-62).102SeniorAssistantDirector,CDPP,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(19

April2012),pp140–141,and(20April2012),pp171–172.103CDPPOfficerforDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,LettertoCounselfordefence,16August2011(TIW044

–CDPPdocument232.0006),p2.104SeniorAssistantDirector,CDPPHeadOffice,MinutetotheDirector,CDPP,18August2011(OFD030

–CDPPdocument293.0049),p1.105OFD030–CDPPdocument293.0049,above,pp2–3.106CommonwealthagenciesmeetingonpeoplesmugglingcrewissuessupportingtheSeniorOfficials’

Committeeteleconference,Outcomes,2September2011(AGDdocumentPROS-64).107RvDaud[2011]WADC175.


108SeniorAssistantDirector,CDPP,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(20April2012),pp136–137.

109AssistantCommissioner,NationalManagerCrimeOperations,AFP,EmailtoFederalAgents,AFP,17November2011(AFPdocument).SeealsoPrincipalConsultantStatistician,ManagingDirector,DataAnalysisAustraliaPtyLtd,EmailtoFederalAgents,AFP,1December2011(AFPdocumentprovided29May2012);SeniorLegalOfficer,PeopleSmugglingBranch,CDPP,EmailtoAFPandCDPPofficers,6December2011(AFPdocumentprovided29May2012);Research–Expert–Statistics–TableofResults,7November2011(CDPPdocumentprovided3April2012).

110InformationprovidedbyCDPPtotheCommission’srequestforfurtherdocuments,3April2012(CDPPdocument).SeealsoLawyer,Legal,PracticeManagementandPolicyBranch,CDPP,EmailtoFederalAgent,AFP,12December2011(AFPdocumentprovided29May2012).

111FederalAgent,AFP,EmailtoLawyer,Legal,PracticeManagementandPolicyBranch,CDPP,7December2011(AFPdocumentprovided29May2012).

112Lawyer,Legal,PracticeManagementandPolicyBranch,CDPP,EmailtoFederalAgent,AFP,12December2011(AFPdocumentprovided29May2012).

113PresidentoftheAustralasianPaediatricEndocrineGroupetal,CorrespondencetoHonCBowenMP,MinisterforImmigrationandCitizenship,19August2011,p1.



116FirstAssistantSecretary,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(20April2012),p178.

117SeniorAssistantDirector,CDPP,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(20April2012),p177;DeputyCommissioner,AFP,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(20April2012),p177.


119HonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,CorrespondencetoPresident,AustralianPaediatricEndocrineGroup,18October2011(AGDdocumentCORRO-5).

120FirstAssistantSecretary,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(20April2012),pp184–185.

121HonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,CorrespondencetoPresident,AustralianPaediatricEndocrineGroup,18October2011(AGDdocumentCORRO-5)p3.

122TranscriptofProceedings,TheQueenv[TRA029](MagistratesCourtofWesternAustralia,MagistrateHogan,8September2011)(Transcript–TheQueenv[TRA029]),p7.

123HonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,CorrespondencetoPresident,AustralianPaediatricEndocrineGroup,18October2011(AGDdocumentCORRO-5),p10.

124Transcript–TheQueenv[TRA029],note122.125JDHeydon,LexisNexisAustralia,CrossonEvidence(atJune2012)[9090]–[9095].126Transcript–TheQueenv[TRA029],note122,p7.127SeniorAssistantDirector,CDPPBrisbaneOffice,MinutetoDirector,CDPP,23September2011(OXL002

–CDPPdocument267.0035),p2.

154


128RvDaud[2011]WADC175.129RvDaud[2011]WADC175,251–252.130RvDaud[2011]WADC175,260–262.131RvDaud[2011]WADC175,263–265.132RvRMA[2011]WADC198.133RvRMA[2011]WADC198,81(EatonDCJ).134SeniorAssistantDirector,LegalandPracticeManagementandPolicyBranch,CDPP,EmailtoLegal

Officers,CDPP,15November2011(CDPPdocumentAttachmentDdocument14).135CDPPdocumentAttachmentDdocument14,above.136AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,p11.137FirstAssistantSecretary,AGD,EmailtoFirstAssistantSecretary,CommunityProgramsandChildren,

DIAC,30June2011(AGDdocumentBRIEF-22).138FirstAssistantSecretary,CommunityProgramsandChildren,DIAC,EmailtoFirstAssistantSecretary,

AGD,30June2011(AGDdocumentBRIEF-22).139FirstAssistantSecretary,AGD,EmailtoFirstAssistantSecretary,CommunityProgramsandChildren,

DIAC,30June2011(AGDdocumentBRIEF-22).140QuestionTimeBrief,PeopleSmuggling–CrewProsecutionandAgeDeterminationIssues,Attachment

–EmailfromAGDOfficer,BorderManagementandCrimePreventionBranch,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,toQTBOfficer,22November2011(AGDdocumentBRIEF-70).

141Improvedprocessforagedetermination–Mediarelease,note2.142ActingPrincipalLegalOfficer,PeopleSmugglingandTraffickingSection,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,

EmailtoAttorney-General’sOffice,7July2011(AGDdocumentBRIEF-24).143QuestionsandAnswers–AgeDetermination,7July2011(AGDdocumentBRIEF-23),p1.144AGDdocumentBRIEF-23,above,p2.145FirstAssistantSecretary,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,Transcriptofhearing,Publichearingfor

Commonwealthagencies(20April2012),p189.146FirstAssistantSecretary,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,Transcriptofhearing,Publichearingfor

Commonwealthagencies(20April2012),pp184–185,189.147QuestionTimeBrief,PeopleSmuggling–CrewProsecutionandAgeDeterminationIssues,Attachment

–EmailfromOfficer,BorderManagementandCrimePreventionBranch,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,toQTBOfficer,22November2011(AGDdocumentBRIEF-70),pp10,13.

148AGD,Responsetodraftreport,6July2012,p4.149ProfessorIanChubbAC,Australia’sChiefScientist,CorrespondencetoDeputySecretary,National

Security&CriminalJusticeGroup,AGD,11January2012.150ProfessorIanChubbAC,Australia’sChiefScientist,CorrespondencetoDeputySecretary,National

Security&CriminalJusticeGroup,AGD,11January2012.151PresidentoftheAustralasianPaediatricEndocrineGroupetal,CorrespondencetoHonCBowenMP,

MinisterforImmigrationandCitizenship,19August2011.152HonCKingMP,ParliamentarySecretaryforHealthandAgeing,CorrespondencetoHonBO’ConnorMP,

MinisterforHomeAffairsandJustice,7September2011(AGDdocumentIMP-13).153AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,p14.


154AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,p14.155ARPANSA,ResponsetoAGDre:humanimagingforagedetermination,Attachment–Emailfrom

PrincipalLegalOfficer,PeopleSmuggling,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,toAustralianHumanRightsCommission,6March2012.

156HonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,CorrespondencetoHonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,17February2011.



159HonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,31March2011.

160HonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,30June2011,p1.



163RevisedExplanatoryMemorandum2001,note21;ReportofSenateCommittee2001),note12.164Transcript–ThePolicevMazela,note31;StoykovskivMazela[2002]WASCA193.165ApplicantVFAYvMinisterforImmigration[2003]FMCA289.166Improvedprocessforagedetermination–Mediarelease,note2.167HonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,CorrespondencetoHonR

McClellandMP,Attorney-General,14July2011.168HonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,CorrespondencetoHonCatherineBransonQC,President,

AustralianHumanRightsCommission,22August2011,p4.169FirstAssistantSecretary,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,Transcriptofhearing,Publichearingfor


Commonwealthagencies(20April2012),p188.171HonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,Australian

HumanRightsCommission,22August2011.172FirstAssistantSecretary,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,Transcriptofhearing,Publichearingfor


Commonwealthagencies(20April2012),pp188–189.174FirstAssistantSecretary,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,Transcriptofhearing,Publichearingfor



Commonwealthagencies(20April2012),p189.

156


177HonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,CorrespondencetoHonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,8November2011.

178AssistantCommissioner,NationalManagerCrimeOperations,AFP,LettertoDr[NAME]OAM,ForensicOdontologist,PathWestLaboratoryMedicine,30December2010(AFPdocument).

179ForensicOdontologist,PathWestLaboratoryMedicine,LettertoAssistantCommissioner,NationalManagerCrimeOperations,AFP,6January2011(AFPdocument),p2.

180ForensicOdontologist,PathWestLaboratoryMedicine,LettertoAssistantCommissioner,NationalManagerCrimeOperations,AFP,6January2011(AFPdocument).

181AssistantCommissioner,NationalManagerCrimeOperations,AFP,EmailtoSeniorAssistantDirector,CDPP,7January2011(AFPdocument).

182AssistantCommissioner,NationalManagerCrimeOperations,AFP,LettertoFirstAssistantSecretary,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,17February2011,Attachment–EmailfromPrincipalLegalOfficer,PeopleSmuggling,FinancialCrimeandBorderManagementSection,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,toFederalAgent,AFP,28February2011(AGDdocumentIMP-1).

183Minutes,Agedeterminationofpeoplesmugglingcrew,1March2011,Attachment–EmailfromPrincipalLegalOfficer,PeopleSmuggling,FinancialCrimeandBorderManagementSection,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,toCDPP,AFPandDIACOfficers,3March2011(AGDdocumentENG-AHRC-2),p4.

184AGDdocumentENG-AHRC-2,above.185SeniorAssistantDirector,LegalandPracticeManagementandPolicyBranch,CDPP,EmailtoAGDand

AFPOfficers,30May2011(AGDdocumentIMP-3).186DeputyDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,‘AgeDetermination–DentalX-RayProcedures’,25May2011,

Attachment–EmailfromPrincipalLegalOfficer,AGD,toOfficers,AGD,30May2011(AGDdocumentIMP-3),pp1–2.

187AGDdocumentIMP-3,above,p2.188AGDdocumentIMP-3,above,p4.189PrincipalLegalOfficer,PeopleSmuggling,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,EmailtoOfficers,AGD,30May

2011(AGDdocumentIMP-3).190DeputyDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,‘AgeDetermination–DentalX-RayProcedures’,25May2011,

Attachment–EmailfromPrincipalLegalOfficer,AGD,toOfficers,AGD,30May2011(AGDdocumentIMP-3).

191CommonwealthagenciesmeetingonpeoplesmugglingagedeterminationandcrewissuessupportingtheSeniorOfficials’Committeeteleconference,MinutesandOutcomes,10June2011(AGDdocumentPROS-41).

192AssistantCommissioner,NationalManagerCrimeOperations,AFP,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,29May2012,p6.

193‘QuestionsandAnswers–AgeDetermination’,Attachment–EmailfromActingPrincipalLegalOfficer,PeopleSmugglingandTraffickingSection,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,toOfficeoftheMinisterforHomeAffairsandJustice,7July2011(AGDdocumentBRIEF-24).

194Attachment–AGDdocumentBRIEF-24,above,p5.195DeputyDirector,CDPP,LettertoAssistantCommissioner,NationalManagerCrimeOperations,AFP,15

July2011(CDPPdocumentAttachmentDdocument12),p2.


196AssistantCommissioner,NationalManagerCrimeOperations,AFP,LettertoDeputyDirector,CDPP,22July2011,Attachment–EmailfromManagerOperations,AFP,toPrincipalLegalOfficer,PeopleSmugglingandTraffickingSection,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,22July2011(AGDdocumentIMP-10),p1.

197Attachment–AGDdocumentIMP-10,above,p1.198AssistantCommissioner,NationalManagerCrimeOperations,AFP,EmailtoActingDeputyDirector,Legal

andPracticeManagementandPolicyBranch,CDPP,3August2011(AGDdocumentIMP-11).199CommonwealthagenciesmeetingonpeoplesmugglingcrewissuessupportingtheSeniorOfficials’

Committeeteleconference,Outcomes,12August2011(AGDdocumentPROS-62).200‘CrimesActRegulations–prescribingdentalandclavicalx-raysasadditionalagedetermination

procedures’,AGD,FileNote,15November2011(AGDdocumentIMP-18).201AGDdocumentIMP-18,above.202Seeforexample,BartonvTheQueen(2001)147CLR75;CartervHayes(1994)61SASR451;Mallardv

TheQueen(2005)224CLR125;CooleyvWesternAustralia(2005)155ACrimR528.203CooleyvWesternAustralia(2005)155ACrimR528.204CommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions,StatementonProsecutionDisclosure,para4.1.At

http://www.cdpp.gov.au/Publications/DisclosurePolicy/HTML/Default.htm(viewed9July2012).205RvKeane[1994]1WLR746.206CooleyvWesternAustralia(2005)155ACrimR528,543(Roberts-SmithJA).207WhitehornvTheQueen(1983)152CLR657,663–664(DeaneJ).208Seeforexample,RvWard[1993]1WLR619,674.209RvWard[1993]1WLR619,676.210Seeforexample,JonesvNationalCoalBoard[1957]2QB55,63(DenningLJ).211RattenvTheQueen(1974)131CLR510,517(BarwickCJ).212CommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions,FirstAssistantSecretary,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,

andDeputyCommissioner,AFP,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(19April2012),pp48–49.

213Seeforexample,Ministers’OfficeBrief–MinisterforHomeAffairsandJustice,Peoplesmuggling–agedetermination,30November2011,Attachment–EmailfromSeniorLegalOfficer,PeopleSmugglingandTraffickingSection,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,toOfficer,AGD,1December2011(AGDdocumentBRIEF-75),p5.SeealsoCriminalJusticeDivisioninputintobriefforSecretarymeetingwithPresidentoftheAustralianHumanRightsCommission,27September2011(AGDdocumentBRIEF-35);QuestionsandAnswers–AgeDetermination,7July2011(AGDdocumentBRIEF-23).

214CDPPPeopleSmugglingProsecutions–Paper,note64,p11.215AdviceofMrPeterHastingsQCtotheSolicitor-General,10July2009,citedinCDPPPeopleSmuggling

Prosecutions–Paper,above,p11.216TranscriptofProceedings,ThePolicevHenryMazela(Children’sCourtofWesternAustralia,O’BrienJ,

12February2002).Seediscussionatsection3.2(b).217CommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealth

agencies(19April2012),p69.218SeniorAssistantDirector,CDPPMelbourneOffice,MinutetoLegalOfficer,CDPPHeadOffice,13April

2011(BOM062–CDPPdocument115.0029).

158


219Seediscussioninsection3.3above.SeealsoPrincipalAdvisor,Citizenship,SettlementandMulticulturalAffairs,DIAC,EmailtoDeputyDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,3September2010(AFPdocumentprovided29May2012).

220Barrister-at-Law,LettertoActingDeputyDirector,CDPPBrisbaneOffice,28June2011(WIL024–CDPPdocument125.0016).

221Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies,19April2012,p98.222Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies,19April2012,p97.223TranscriptofProceedings,TheQueenvWAK087andWAK089(DistrictCourtofWesternAustralia,

GoetzeDCJ,31January2011)(WAK087–CDPPdocument078.0037),p65.224WAK087–CDPPdocument078.0037,above,p2.225SeniorAssistantDirector,CDPP,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies,19

April2012,p120.226SeniorAssistantDirector,CDPP,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies,19

April2012,p141.227OfficerforDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,LettertoCounselfordefence,16August2011(TIW044–CDPP

document232.0006),p2.228LegalAidNSW,Submission35,p8.229WhitehornvTheQueen(1983)152CLR657,663–664(DeaneJ);RvLucas[1973]VR693,705.230Transcript–TheQueenvUdinandAman,note26;Transcript–ThePolicevMazela,note31.See

discussioninsections3.2(a)and3.2(b)above.231PrincipalAdvisor,Citizenship,SettlementandMulticulturalAffairs,DIAC,EmailtoDeputyDirector,CDPP

PerthOffice,3September2010(AFPdocumentprovided29May2012).232HonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,Australian

HumanRightsCommission,31March2011.233SeniorAssistantDirector,CDPPMelbourneOffice,MemotoSeniorAssistantDirector,CDPPHeadOffice,

13April2011(BOM062–CDPPdocument115.0029).234Asdiscussedinsection3.4(c)above.235PresidentoftheAustralasianPaediatricEndocrineGroupetal,CorrespondencetoHonCBowenMP,

MinisterforImmigrationandCitizenship,19August2011.236Asdiscussedinsection3.4(b)above.237Asdiscussedinsection3.4(c)above.238DrLow,ConsultantRadiologist,LettertoSeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,23July2011(TRA029

–CDDPdocument063.0250).239ProfessorAlAynsley-Green,Submission38,p15.240OfficerforDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,LettertoCounselfordefence,16August2011(TIW044–CDPP

document232.0006).241CommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealth

agencies(19April2012),p69.242Asdiscussedinsection5.2above.243RvWard[1993]1WLR619.244CooleyvWesternAustralia(2005)155ACrimR528,543(Roberts-SmithJA).245CommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions,Responsetodraftreport,6July2012,p3.


246GPAtlas,note26,p44.247ThisriskisidentifiedinRvWard[1993]1WLR619,674.248AsdiscussedinChapter4,section5.249AFP,Responsetodraftreport,6July2012,p21.250CDPP,Responsetodraftreport,6July2012,p2.251Attorney-General’sDepartment,AnnualReport2010–11(2011),p6.Athttp://www.ag.gov.au/

Documents/Annual+Report+2010-11+full.pdf(viewed9July2012).252FirstAssistantSecretary,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,Transcriptofhearing,Publichearingfor

Commonwealthagencies(19April2011),p11.253Seeforexample,QuestionTimeBrief,AsylumSeekers–ChildPeopleSmugglers,Attachment–Email

fromPrincipalLegalOfficer,PeopleSmugglingFinancialCrimeandBorderManagementSection,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,toOfficer,DepartmentofPrimeMinisterandCabinet,17November2010(DIACdocumentmail39646062);Ministers’OfficeBrief–Attorney-General/MinisterforHomeAffairs,Peoplesmuggling–childreningaols,Attachment–EmailfromAGDOfficer,FinancialCrimeandBorderManagement,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,toMinisters’Office,6January2011(AGDdocumentBRIEF-3);‘QuestionsandAnswers–AgeDetermination’,7July2011(AGDdocumentBRIEF-23);Improvedprocessforagedetermination–Mediarelease,note2.;QuestionTimeBrief,Peoplesmuggling–crewprosecutionandagedeterminationissues,Attachment–EmailfromOfficer,AGD,toOfficers,AGD,22November2011(AGDdocumentBRIEF-67).

254HonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,CorrespondencetoHonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,14July2011.


256Asdiscussedinsection6.1(a)above.257FirstAssistantSecretary,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,Transcriptofhearing,Publichearingfor

Commonwealthagencies(19April2012),p18.258GPAtlas,note26,p40.259GPAtlas,above,p44.260PrincipalLegalOfficer,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,Transcriptofhearing,Publichearingfor

Commonwealthagencies(20April2012),p184.261AGD,Responsetodraftreport,6July2012,p3.262AGD,Responsetodraftreport,6July2012,p4.263AGD,Responsetodraftreport,6July2012,p2.264AGD,Responsetodraftreport,6July2012,p1.265CommonwealthagenciesmeetingonpeoplesmugglingcrewissuessupportingtheSeniorOfficials’

Committeeteleconference,Outcomes,12August2011(AGDdocumentPROS-62).266ProfessorIanChubbAC,Australia’sChiefScientist,CorrespondencetoDeputySecretary,National

Security&CriminalJusticeGroup,AGD,11January2012.267Asdiscussedinsection3.5above.268SeeChapter2.269SeeChapter2.


Chapter 4:

The use of wrist x-ray analysis

162

Chapter 4: The use of wrist x-ray analysis

Chapter contents

1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 164

2 Benefitofthedoubt......................................................................................................... 165

2.1 Thebenefitofthedoubtwasnotaffordedinasignificantnumberofcases............. 167

2.2 Issuesofproof........................................................................................................ 169

2.3 Ahighlevelofscepticism........................................................................................ 172

3 Someindividualswhosewristx-rayanalysisplacedthemasbeingunder18remainedindetentionforlongperiodsoftime................................................................................. 176

4 UntilJuly2011,wristx-rayswereoftenusedasafirstandonlymeansofageassessment..................................................................................................................... 177

4.1 Wristx-rayswereusedasafirstresortbecausetheywereaprescribedprocedure............................................................................................................... 177

4.2 Inmanycases,apersonwaschargedasanadultonthebasisofwristx-rayevidencealone........................................................................................................ 180

4.3 Insomecases,apersonwasconvictedasanadultonthebasisofwristx-rayevidencealone........................................................................................................ 183

4.4 Wristx-rayprocedureswereusedevenwheredocumentaryevidenceofageexisted.................................................................................................................... 183

4.5 Wristx-rayevidencewaspreferredtotheresultsofageassessmentinterviews...... 184

4.6 Manycaseswereultimatelydiscontinuedastherewasnoprobativeevidenceotherthanwristx-rayanalysis................................................................................. 186

5 Individualswerechargedandconvictedasadultsonthebasisofwristx-raysthatwereinconclusive............................................................................................................ 187

5.1 Someindividualswerechargedasadultsonthebasisofwristx-raysthatdidnotshowskeletalmaturity....................................................................................... 188

5.2 Someindividualswereconvictedasadultsonthebasisofwristx-rayevidencethatwasinconclusive.............................................................................................. 192

6 Someindividualsconcededagewhenpresentedwithwristx-rayevidence..................... 193

7 Consentforawristx-raytobetakenwasfrequentlynotvalidlyobtained......................... 199


7.1 Consentrequirementsfortheconductofmedicalproceduresgenerally.................. 200

7.2 ConsentrequirementsforprescribedproceduresconductedundertheCrimesAct.............................................................................................................. 201

7.3 ConsentrequirementsforforensicproceduresconductedundertheCrimesAct.............................................................................................................. 202

7.4 Howconsentwasobtainedfrompeoplesmugglingsuspectswhoseageindoubt...................................................................................................................... 204

(a) Theconsentoftheindividual............................................................................. 204

(b) Theconsentofanindependentadult................................................................ 204

(c) Recordingconsent............................................................................................ 205

7.5 Consentforawristx-raytobetakenwasfrequentlynotvalidlyobtained................. 205

(a) Informationprovidedtoindividualsfromwhomconsentwassoughtwasmisleading......................................................................................................... 205

(b) Theindependentadultdidnotactintheinterestsofindividualswhoseagewasuncertain.................................................................................................... 206

(c) IndependentadultsmaynothavebeenprovidedwiththeinformationrequiredbytheCrimesAct............................................................................................. 208

(d) Insomecases,theconsentofanindependentadultwasnotobtained............. 209

(e) Insomecases,consentwasinvalidlyobtainedbecauseinaccurateinformationaboutthepossibilityofobtainingacourtorderwasprovided.......... 210

(f) Insomecasesarecordingofconsentdoesnotappeartohavebeenmade..... 212

8 TheCommonwealth’sapproachtoreviewofcases......................................................... 212

9 Findings........................................................................................................................... 217

9.1 Findingsregardingtheapplicationoftheprincipleofthebenefitofthedoubt.......... 217

9.2 Findingsregardingtherelianceonwristx-rayanalysisasabasisforchargingandprosecutingindividualsasadults...................................................................... 218

9.3 Findingsregardingtheobtainingofconsentforwristx-rayprocedurestobeconducted............................................................................................................... 220

9.4 Findingsregardingthereviewofcasesinwhichsubstantialreliancehadbeenplacedonwristx-rayanalysis.................................................................................. 220

164


1 Introduction

ThischapterconsiderssomeoftheCommonwealth’spracticesregardingtheuseofwristx-rayanalysisasameansofassessingchronologicalageforthepurposesofcriminalprosecution.Ithighlightssituationswheretherelianceonwristx-raysasevidenceofagewascontrarytostatedAustralianGovernmentpolicy;orwhereitcontributedtoindividualswhowereinfactchildren,orwhoarelikelytohavebeenchildren,spendinglongperiodsoftimeindetention,includinginadultcorrectionalfacilities.

DocumentsbeforetheCommissionindicatethatwristx-rayanalysiswaswidelyusedasamethodofassessingageforyoungIndonesianssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhosaidthattheywerechildren.TheJointCommonwealthsubmissiontotheInquiryreportsthat:

IntheperiodfromSeptember2008to27January2012,208peoplesmugglingcrewhaveclaimedtobeaminor.Ofthese,123hadwristX-raysundertaken.ThesewristX-raysindicatedthat86ofthesepersonswereskeletallymature,whiletherearethreeawaitingawristX-rayorchargingdecision.1

TheCommissionhasconsideredtherecordsofyoungIndonesianssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhoarrivedinAustraliabetween29September2008and22November2011.TherecordsprovidedtotheCommissionforthepurposesoftheInquiryindicatethat180individualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhoarrivedinAustraliaduringthistimesaidthattheywerechildren.2

Ofthose180individuals,118hadwristx-raystaken.Theoutcomesforthese118wereasfollows:

• 33wereremovedfromAustraliawithoutcharge

• 48werechargedwithpeoplesmugglingoffencesandultimatelyhadtheprosecutionagainstthemdiscontinued

• 29werechargedandconvictedwithpeoplesmugglingoffences

• 6werechargedandfoundnotguilty

• 2arecurrentlybeforethecourts.

Theoutcomesforthe62whodidnothavetheirwristsx-rayedwereasfollows:

• 51wereremovedwithoutcharge

• 7werechargedwithpeoplesmugglingoffencesandultimatelyhadtheprosecutionagainstthemdiscontinued


• 2arecurrentlybeforethecourts

• 2werechargedwithpeoplesmugglingoffencesandwereconvicted.

ThischapteropenswithaconsiderationoftheissueofwhetherthebenefitofthedoubtwasappropriatelyaffordedtotheyoungIndonesianswhosewristswerex-rayed.Itthenconsidersissuesrelatingtothepracticesadoptedwhenobtainingwristx-raysandtothewaysinwhichwristx-rayanalyseswerereliedonforthepurposeofageassessment.Itdrawsthefollowingconclusions:

• someindividualswhowereassessedbywristx-rayanalysisasbeingunder18yearsofagenonethelessremainedindetentionforlongperiodsoftime

• wristx-rayswereoftenusedasafirstandonlymeansofageassessment

• someindividualswerechargedandconvictedasadultsonthebasisofwristx-raysthatwereanalysedasbeinginconclusiveastotheirchronologicalage

• someindividualsdidnotcontesttheiragewhenpresentedwithananalysisoftheirwristx-ray

• consentforawristx-raytobetakenwasfrequentlynotvalidlyobtained.

Issuesrelatingtoindividualswhosewristswerenotx-rayedandwhowereremovedfromAustraliaarediscussedinChapter7.

2 Benefit of the doubt

AsnotedinChapter3,theCrimesAmendment(AgeDetermination)Act2001(Cth)authorisedthespecificationofaprocedureasaprescribedprocedureforthedeterminationofageforthepurposesoftheCrimesAct1914(Cth).Wristx-rayswerespecifiedbyregulationasaprescribedprocedureforthepurposesoftheCrimesActin2001.3

Asalsonotedearlierinthisreport,thereportofthe2001SenateLegalandConstitutionalLegislationCommitteeInquiryintotheCrimesAmendment(AgeDetermination)Bill,observedthattheAustralianFederalPolice(AFP)‘advisedthatitwaspreparedtotreatallpersonswhowerenotclearlyadultsasiftheywerejuvenile’.4

Initsreport,theCommitteerecommendedthattheExplanatoryMemorandumfortheBillbeamendedtoincludeaspecificreferencetoanindividualbeinggiventhebenefitofthedoubtincaseswheredoubtaboutthatindividual’sagemayexist.5TheRevisedExplanatoryMemorandumincorporatesinparttheSenateCommittee’srecommendationbyconfirmingthattheprosecution

166


bearstheonusofestablishingonthebalanceofprobabilitiesthattheindividualisanadult.TheRevisedExplanatoryMemorandumreads:

Inthoseinstanceswheretheageofasuspectordefendantcannotbeaccuratelydeterminedthecurrentlegalpositionwillprevail.Unlesstheprosecutioncandischargetheburdenofestablishingonthebalanceofprobabilitiesthatadefendantisanadult,thedefendantwillbetreatedasajuvenile.Thisensuresthatnoinjusticewilloccurifadefendant’sageisstillindoubtatthetimeoftrial.6

FromatleastApril2011,theOfficeoftheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions(OfficeoftheCDPP)wasawarethattheAFPhadadvisedthe2001SenateCommitteethatthatitwaspreparedtotreatallpersonswhowerenotclearlyadultsasiftheywerejuvenile.Inanemaildated12April2011,theDeputyDirectorofthePerthOfficeoftheCDPPexpressedhisconcernthatprosecutionswerebeingcontinuedagainstindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingincircumstancesinwhichthebenefitofthedoubtshouldhavebeenapplied.TheDeputyDirectorreferredspecificallytotheAFPadvicetothe2001SenateCommitteeInquirysayingthat‘[i]tappearsthatbeforetheintroductionoftheBill,theAFPmayhavegivenanundertaking,oratleasttheequivalent,togivethebenefitofthedoubttoanybodywhosewristx-raytestedbelow19’.7

On2May2011,theCriminalJusticeDivisionoftheAttorney-General’sDepartment(AGD)receivedformallegaladvicefromthedepartment’sOfficeofInternationalLaw(OIL)inrelationtoAustralia’sobligationsundertheConventionontheRightsoftheChild(CRC)towardsindividualsapprehended,detained,chargedandprosecutedforpeoplesmugglingoffences.TheadvicemadeclearthatAustralia’sobligationsundertheCRCrequirethattheprincipleofthebenefitofthedoubtbeapplied.8

Throughout2011,theCommonwealthassertedthatAustralianGovernmentpolicywastoapplythebenefitofthedoubttoanyindividualwhoseagewasindoubt.Forexample,talkingpointspreparedfortheAustralia-IndonesiaConsularConsultationsheldon30June2011statethatthebenefitofthedoubtwouldbeappliedtoindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhoseagewasindoubt.Specifically,thetalkingpointsstate:

Commonwealthagencieshaveandwillcontinuetotakeaconservativeapproachtoensurethatonlythestrongestagedeterminationcasesproceedtochargeandprosecution....

• Whereinformationfrom[agedetermination]proceduresorverifieddocumentaryevidencesuggestsapersonisaminor,thebenefitofthedoubtwouldbegiventothepersonandtheywouldbetreatedasaminor.

• Formatterspriortocharge,iftheAFPinvestigationsrevealthatthereareconflictingresultsbetweentheproceduresordocumentverifiedbytheIndonesianGovernmentindicatesthatindividualisaminor,theindividualwillnotbechargedandwillberemovedfromAustralia.


• Shouldmattersariseduringtheprosecutionprocess,aftersomebodyhasbeencharged,theCDPPwilltakeintoaccounttheAFPapproachinconsideringwhetheraprosecutionwillcontinueinaccordancewiththeProsecutionPolicyoftheCommonwealth.9

On30June2011,thethenAttorney-GeneralwrotetothePresidentoftheCommissionwithregardtotheagedeterminationprocessforpeoplesmugglingcrewwhosaythattheyareminors.ThethenAttorney-Generalproposedthattheprincipleofthebenefitofthedoubtbeapplied‘moreproactively’whereapersonsaysthatheisaminor.Morespecifically,theAttorney-Generalstated:

Formatterspriortocharge,iftheAFPinvestigationsrevealthatthereareconflictingresultsbetweentheproceduresordocumentverifiedbytheIndonesianGovernmentindicatesthatindividualisaminor,theindividualwillnotbechargedandwillberemovedfromAustralia.Shouldmattersariseduringtheprosecutionprocess,aftersomebodyhasbeencharged,theCDPPwillcontinueinaccordancewiththeProsecutionPolicyoftheCommonwealth.Considerationwillcontinuetobegiventochargingorcontinuingaprosecutionagainstapersonasaminorinexceptionalcircumstancesonthebasisoftheirsignificantinvolvementinapeoplesmugglingventureormultipleventures.10

On22August2011,thethenAttorney-GeneralwrotetothePresidentagain.InresponsetoconcernsaboutagedeterminationproceduresraisedbythePresident,thethenAttorney-Generaladvisedthathewasnotconvincedthattherewasaneedforanindependentreviewofallpeoplesmugglingmattersinwhichagewasindispute.Onereasonhegaveforthiswasthatheconsideredthattheprincipleofthebenefitofthedoubthadbeenappliedtocasesinwhichtherewassomedoubtaboutanindividual’sage.Theletterasserted:

bygivingthebenefitofthedoubtincasesinvolvingage,inparticularfromverifieddocumentationrelatingtoage,AFPandCDPPonlyproceedwithcaseswiththehighestprobabilitythatthepersonisanadult,andwhereinformationgatheredconsistentlyindicatesthatthisisthecase.11

TheJointCommonwealthsubmissiontotheInquirymaintainsthattheCommonwealthcontinuestogiveindividualsthebenefitofthedoubtandreturnthemtoIndonesiawhereallmaterialavailablesupportstheindividual’sclaimtobeaminor.12ItfurtherassertsthattheCommonwealthrecognisesthat,giventhelimitationsofcurrentlyavailableprocessesforassessingage,‘thebestapproachistoadoptacombinationofagedeterminationproceduresandtogivedefendantsthebenefitofthedoubt’.13

2.1 The benefit of the doubt was not afforded in a significant number of cases

ItisclearfromthedocumentsbeforetheCommissionthat,inpractice,thebenefitofthedoubtwasnotaffordedtoasignificantnumberofyoungIndonesianssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhosaidthattheywerechildren.Sections3–7ofthischapterdiscusssomeofthecasesinwhichthiswasnotdone.

168


InNovember2010,theDepartmentofImmigrationandCitizenship(DIAC)questionedwhethertheprincipleofthebenefitofthedoubtwasbeingappliedtoyoungIndonesiansinthecriminaljusticesystem.Itdidsowhenrespondingtoarequesttocommenton‘whole-of-governmenttalkingpoints’thathadbeenpreparedbyAGDaboutagedeterminationprocedures.DIACcommentedthat,intheirexperience,thetalkingpointswerenotreflectiveofactualpracticeatthetime.TheDIACofficerrecordedthat:

I’vejustseenthe[questiontimebrief]fromAGDandamcuriousaboutoneofthe[talkingpoints],i.e.:Whereanindividualclaimstobeajuvenile,theyaretreatedasajuvenileinthecriminaljusticesystemunlessacourtdeterminesthepersontobeanadultbasedontherelevantagedeterminationprocess.

Rethealleged14yearoldonremandinPerth,hasacourtdeterminedheisanadult?Ifnot,thenthe[talkingpoint]isnotaccurate.14

ShortlyaftertheCriminalJusticeDivisionofAGDreceivedthelegaladvicefromOILdated2May2011referredtoabove,aMinisters’OfficeBriefwaspreparedwithinthatdivisionfortheOfficeofthethenAttorney-GeneralandthethenMinisterforHomeAffairsandJustice.OneofthetalkingpointsintheBriefconcernsthecircumstancesinwhichacriminalchargewouldbebroughtagainstanindividualsuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhoseageisindoubt.Thetalkingpointnotedthat‘[w]hereallavailableinformationindicatesthepersonisunlikelytobeaminor,thepersonischargedandbroughtbeforethecourtasanadult’.15

AttheInquiryhearingforCommonwealthagencies,theCommissionPresidentobservedthatthisstatementreflectedareversaloftheusualruleandsuggestedafailuretogivethebenefitofthedoubttotheyoungperson.AnofficerfromAGDagreedthatitwaspossibletointerpretthestatementinthatway.16

TheAGDofficerexplainedtheprocedureatthattimeinthefollowingway:

theprocedureasweunderstooditwasthattheAFPandDPPwouldhaveregardtoallavailableinformationtodecidewhetherinfactapersonwasaminorornot.Iftheybelievedthepersonwasnotaminorthentheywouldproceedwithchargingthem.17

Itisdoubtfulthatthisprocedurewouldhaveresultedinindividualsbeinggiventhebenefitofthedoubt.ThedescribedprocedureassumesthatitisappropriatefortheAFPandtheOfficeoftheCDPPtoconsideronlytwooptions–whethertheyweresatisfiedthatthepersonwasaminor,oralternatively,notaminor.Forthebenefitofthedoubttobeaffordedtoayoungperson,adecisionmakermustbepreparedtorecognisethree,nottwo,options;first,thattheycanbesatisfiedthepersonisaminor,second,thattheycanbesatisfiedthepersonisnotaminor,andthird,thatthepersonissomeoneaboutwhoseagethereisreasonabledoubt.


Itappearsthatinanumberofcasesthepracticethatwasfollowedrequiredanindividualaboutwhoseagetherewasreasonabledoubttoprovetotheprosecutingauthoritiesthathewas,infact,undertheageof18years.

2.2 Issues of proof

Therehasbeenaninconsistentunderstandingofwhethertheprosecutionorthedefence,ifeither,bearstheonusofproofinaproceedingtodeterminewhetheranindividualsuspectedofpeoplesmugglingisaminor.

Asnotedabove,the2001SenateLegalandConstitutionalLegislationCommitteeReportmadearecommendationthattheExplanatoryMemorandumfortheBillbeamendedtoincludeastatementthatpersonswhoseagecannotbepreciselydeterminedwillbegiventhebenefitofthedoubtandtreatedasjuveniles.18DuringhisSecondReadingSpeechintheHouseofRepresentatives,thethenAttorney-Generalacknowledgedthisconcernandstatedthatitwouldbeaddressed‘byreferringtothecurrentlegalpositionthattheprosecutionbearstheonusofestablishingonthebalanceofprobabilitiesthatthedefendantisanadult’.19

Asisalsonotedabove,intheSecondReadingSpeechintheSenate,theSpecialMinisterofStateexplainedthattheprosecutionwouldbeartheonusofprovingthatanindividualwasanadultatthetimeoftheoffence.20

Thequestionofwhichparty,ifeither,bearstheonusofproofisimportantforanumberofreasons.Theageofanaccusedpersoncanbecriticaltoacourt’sjurisdiction.Somestatecourtshaveexclusivejurisdictiontohearanddetermineachargeallegedtohavebeencommittedbyachild.21Thisreportdoesnotaddresstheissueofonusofproofofagewhentheageoftheaccusedaffectsthecourt’sjurisdiction.However,documentsbeforetheCommissionrevealthat,onoccasions,thejurisdictionofacourttohearapeoplesmugglingprosecutionhasbeenchallengedonthebasisoftheageoftheaccusedperson.22

TheissueofonusofproofofageisimportantforthepurposesofprovisionsoftheCrimesActwhichattributesignificancetoage.Section19BoftheCrimesActcontainsageneralpowerauthorisingacourttodismissachargeofafederaloffencewithoutrecordingaconviction.23However,s236AoftheMigrationActlimitsthispower.Itprovides:

Thecourtmaymakeanorderundersection19BoftheCrimesAct1914inrespectofachargeforanoffenceagainstsection233B,233Cor234Aonlyifitisestablishedonthebalanceofprobabilitiesthatthepersonchargedwasagedunder18yearswhentheoffencewasallegedtohavebeencommitted.

170


Further,themandatorysentencesprovidedinrespectofsomepeoplesmugglingandrelatedoffencesbys236oftheMigrationActdonotapplywheretheoffenderwasunder18atthetimeoftheoffence.Section236B(2)oftheMigrationActprovidesthat‘[t]hissectiondoesnotapplyifitisestablishedonthebalanceofprobabilitiesthatthepersonwasagedunder18yearswhentheoffencewascommitted’.

Neithers236Anors236B(2)oftheMigrationActmakesclearwhichparty,ifeither,bearstheburdenofprooftoestablishtheageoftheindividualchargedorconvicted.

Mostcourtshaveheldthattheprosecutionmustprovethatanindividualwasnotundertheageof18attherelevanttime.24However,insomecases,courtshavefoundthatthedefendantbearstheonusofestablishingthathewasundertheageof18atthetimeoftheallegedoffence.25Inotherdecisions,thecourthasheldthatnoburdenrestsoneitherparty.26ItiscurrentpracticefortheOfficeoftheCDPPtoaccepttheonusofprovingthatanindividualisnotundertheageof18years.27

AnumberofsubmissionsmadebyStateandTerritoryLegalAidCommissionstotheInquiryexpressedconcernabouttheinconsistentapproachofcourtstotheonusofproof.

LegalAidQueensland’ssubmissiontotheInquiryarguesthattherehasbeenan‘informalreversal’oftheonusofproofwhereaperson’sstatusasajuvenileisinissue.Itstates:

Theprosecutingauthoritysimplychargestheindividualasanadultandthenthedefenceisforcedintoapositionwheretheyarerequiredtoconductenquiriesandgatherevidencetoprovethattheindividualisinfactachild.28

Thissubmissionarguesthatamoreappropriateapproachwouldbeforthe‘prosecutingauthoritiestobeinpossessionofmaterialthatissufficienttodetermineagetotherequisitestandardbeforechargesarelaid’.29

Similarly,theNorthernTerritoryLegalAidCommissionsubmittedthat:

Theuseofwristx-raysasdefinitiveplacestheonusbackontheindividualandtheirrepresentative,whichislikelytobelegalaid,toestablishproofofage.30

TheJointCommonwealthsubmissiontotheInquirynotedtheinconsistentapproachtotheonusofproofinagedeterminationmattersandadvisedthattheCommonwealthisconsideringtakingstepstoensureamoreuniformapproach.Itstates:

Toencourageconsistencybetweenthecourtsineachjurisdiction,theCommonwealthisconsideringpossibleamendmentstotheMigrationActtoexpresslyprovidethat,whereadefendantraisestheissueofageduringproceedings,theprosecutionbearsthelegalburdentoestablishthedefendantwasanadultatthetimetheoffencewascommitted.31


ThisisnotthefirsttimetheCommonwealthhasconsideredamendingtheMigrationActtoreflectconcernabouttheinconsistentapplicationoftheonusofproofbetweenjurisdictions.

Inearly2010,theCommonwealthconsideredamendingtheMigrationActtoprovideexplicitlythatdefendantsbearthelegalburdenofprovingthattheywereunder18yearsofageforthepurposesofanoffenceagainsttheMigrationAct.32OILprovidedadvicethatalegislativeprovisionthatexplicitlyrequiresapersonclaimingtobeachildtoprovethattheyareachildmightresultinasituationwhereAustraliamaybeinbreachofobligationsundertheCRC.33OILfurtheradvisedthatthegovernmentwouldbeopentocriticismwereapersonwhowasinfactachildnotgiventheprotectionsprovidedforundertheCRCbecausetheywerenotabletoprovethattheywereachild.34

Inasubsequentemail,anofficerfromOILstatesherunderstandingthat,inpractice,thedefenceisrequiredtoproveageeventhoughthisisnotexpresslyrequiredbylaw.Shenotesthatanyamendmenttoexplicitlyprovidethatthedefendantbearthelegalburdentoprovehewasunder18maydrawadverseattentiontothatpractice.35

NostepsweretakentoamendtheMigrationActatthattime.

InFebruary2011,AGDwasaskedtodevelopanoptionspaperonpossiblechangestothedomesticlegalframeworkcriminalisingpeoplesmuggling.36ThediscussionpapercirculatedtotheCommonwealthagenciesinconnectionwiththatMinisterialrequestnotedthattherequirementintheMigrationActforthedefendanttoprovehisorherage‘maybeinbreachofAustralia’sinternationalobligations’.37ThepaperrecommendedthattheMigrationActbeamendedtoensurethatAustraliameetitsinternationalobligationsto‘expresslyprovidethatthedefendantbearstheevidentiaryburdenandtheprosecutionbearsthelegalburdenofhavingtodisprovetheageofthedefendant’duringsentencing.38

ItwaseventuallyagreedbytheCommonwealthagenciesthatitwouldbeappropriatetoredrafttherelevantprovisionsoftheMigrationActtoensurethatduringsentencingthedefendantdidnotbeartheburdenofprovingthathewasunder18yearsofage.However,theCommissionisnotawareofanypolicypositionadoptedbythegovernmentwithrespectthisproposedamendmenttotheMigrationAct.

InNovember2011,SenatorHanson-YoungintroducedtheCrimesAmendment(FairnessforMinors)Bill2011(Cth)intotheSenate.TheBillwasreferredtotheSenateLegalandConstitutionalAffairsLegislationCommitteeforinquiryandreport.TheSenateCommitteereportrecommendedthat:

theAustralianGovernmentintroducelegislationtoexpresslyprovidethat,whereapersonraisestheissueofageduringcriminalproceedings,theprosecutionbearstheburdenofprooftoestablishthatthepersonwasanadultatthetimeoftherelevantoffence.39

172


2.3 A high level of scepticism

ItappearsthatoneexplanationforthebenefitofthedoubtnotalwaysbeinggiventoyoungIndonesiansmaybethedevelopmentofahighlevelofscepticismconcerningtheirclaimstobeundertheageof18years.

In2001,whentheCrimesAmendment(AgeDetermination)Bill(Cth)wasintroduced,theSpecialMinisterofState,inhissecondreadingspeech,stated:

Determiningtheageofasuspectisparticularlyimportantinrelationtopeoplesmugglingoffences,whereforeignnationals(suchasthecrewonavesselcontainingsuspectedunlawfulnon-citizens)refusetoprovidedetailsoftheirage,ormakefalseclaimsthattheyareunder18yearsold,andthereisnodocumentationormeanstoproveotherwise.40

Thisspeechfurtherasserted:

TheagedeterminationpowerscontainedintheBillwillsendastrongmessagetothoseengagedinpeoplesmugglingthattheycannotcircumventorabusetheAustralianlegalsystembydeceptivelyclaimingtheyareunder18yearsold.Itwillalsoavoidtheundesirablesituationofplacingadultsuspectsinjuveniledetentionfacilitiesorviceversa.41

DocumentsbeforetheCommissionsuggestthatitwasoftenassumedthatanydifferencebetweenanindividual’sclaimedageandhisageasassessedonthebasisofawristx-raycouldbeattributedtotheindividual’slyingabouthisage.

Forexample,inanemailexchangebetweentheAFPandtheOfficeoftheCDPPaboutthepreparationofthematerialfactsforsentencinginthecaseofULT055,anAFPofficerstated:

Ithinkitwouldbegoodtomakementionofthefactthathemisledusbystatinghewasajuvenileandafteracostlyandtimeconsumingprocedurewasfoundnottobe.42

InthecaseofVMT011,theAFPstatementoffactssuggestedtheyoungIndonesianwasdeliberatelylyingabouthisage.Thestatementasserted:

Defendant1wasgiveneveryopportunitytoadmithisguiltandtellthecorrectversionofeventsbutchosetohindertheinvestigation,beginningwiththeallegationthathewas15yearsold.43

Inanothercase,theAFPwroteanemailtotheOfficeoftheCDPPconcerningtheageofINN012whomaintainedthathewasunder18althoughhehadbeenchargedasanadult.TheemailnotesthatinhisinterviewwiththeAFPhegaveinconsistentevidenceabouthisageandthensaidthathedidnotknowhisdateofbirth.TheAFPofficerexplainedtotheOfficeoftheCDPPofficerthatindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingoftenfalsifytheirage,noting:


ThisisagainconsistentwiththemajorityofSIEVcaseswherebyatthetimeofinterceptionbothfalsenamesanddatesofbirthareprovidedtoauthoritiesinordertominimisethechanceofprosecution.44

InthematterofQUE053,theprosecutor’ssubmissionsonsentencestatedthathehadliedabouthisage.Theprosecutorsubmitted:

TheageofMr[name]andMr[name]shouldbetakenintoaccount.Theywereclearlyyoungwhentheoffendingtookplace,asfromtheirappearancewhenphotographedafterinterceptionandtheevidenceofpassengers.TheyliedabouttheiragetotheAFPhowever,intheirinterviews.ThisisapparentfromtheevidenceofthereportsofDrLow,butthecourtdoesnotyetknowtheirtrueage.45

DocumentsbeforetheCommissionindicatethatCommonwealthauthoritiesnotonlylinkedtheissuesofageandcredibility,theybegantoconsiderthatindividualsonlyclaimedtobeminorstoavoidprosecutionandimprisonmentinAustralia.

Forexample,inoneemailfromtheAFPtoanofficeroftheOfficeoftheCDPP,theAFPofficerdescribesageasa‘bitofachestnutthatdefenceareusingaroundthecountryoncrewthat‘look’likekids’.46

Inanothermatter,thatofOFD030,thedefencelawyermadesubmissionstotheOfficeoftheCDPPthattheprosecutionshouldbediscontinuedonthegroundsthattheaccusedwasajuvenile.InanemailprovidinghisopiniontotheOfficeoftheCDPPonthedefencesubmissionstodiscontinue,theAFPofficerstated:

Ihavereadthesubmissionsfrom[OFD030]’slawyer.Itisvirtuallyastockstandardthingthatwehavebeengettingoverhereinalotofagedeterminationchallenges.

Inthesubmissionitstatesthat[OFD030]hasgiventheconsistentdobof1April1993.ThatisnothingnewandcontrarytowhatthelawyersayspeoplesmugglersarefullyawareoftheAustralianGovernmentpoliciesandthatjuvenilecrewmemberswillnotbeprosecuted....Theletterfrom[OFD030]’slawyersisjustanotherattempttocuttheprosecutionearlyjumpingonthebackoffalsereportinginthemediaonthisissue.47

Inanothercase,anAFPofficertoldDER024,whohewasinterviewingandwhosaidthathewasachild,thataccordingtotheresultofthewristx-rayanalysis,hewaslyingabouthisage.Thetranscriptoftheinterviewrecordsthefollowingexchange:

Q240Areyouovertheageofeighteen?

A240 THEINTERPRETER:No.

Q241Yesterdayafternoon,youweretakentotheRoyalDarwinHospital,andhadawristXray?

A241 THEINTERPRETER:Yes.

174


Q242Thatprocedurewasdone,todetermineyourage?


Q243DoyouunderstandthattwodoctorswholookedatyourXray,statedthatyouhaveattainedtheageofnineteenyears?

A243 THEINTERPRETER:Yeah,becausemyageisfrommymother.Mymothertoldmethatmyagewasthat.

Q244Whatageisthat?

A244 THEINTERPRETER:Nearly,nearlyfifteenyearsold,twentytwoDecember,nineteenninetyfour.That’swhatmymothertoldme.

Q245Whendidshetellyouthat?

A245 THEINTERPRETER:SinceIwaslittle.WhenIwaslittle,mymum,mymumtoldme.SoIkeepusingthatnow,Iusethatage.

Q246Doyouhaveanyofficialdocumentation,thatprovesyouhavethatdateofbirth?

A246 THEINTERPRETER:No,Idon’tbringitwithme.

Q247Iwillputittoyou,[DER024],thatyoustatedyouwerefifteenyearsold?


Q248BecauseyouthoughtthatifyouwerecaughtbyAustralianauthorities,theywouldsendyouhome.

A248 THEINTERPRETER:Idon’tknow,becauseIneverbeenhere.SoIdon’tknow,becauseInever–Ineverbeenherebefore.

Q249WereyouawarethatAustralianauthoritieswouldsendchildrenhome,whowereundereighteenyears?


Q250Whenyouwereontheboat,didyoudiscussthiswithanyofthecrew?

A250 THEINTERPRETER:Abouttheageandallthat,yep.DidI?No.

Q251Pardon?

A251 THEINTERPRETER:No,theydidn’ttalkabout–Isaidabouttheage,talkingabouttheage.Idon’teven–Ididn’tknowthatIwasgoingtocometo,andthengetcaughthere,inAustralia.…

Q252[DER024],theothermembersofthecrewhavetoldusthattheyliedabouttheirage,becausetheyknowtheywillgetsenthome.

A252 THEINTERPRETER:Idon’tknowthat.

Q253Ibelievethatyouarelying.



Q254TheXraysshowthatyouarelying.

A254 THEINTERPRETER:IftheXrayssaythat,thatmeansmaybe,accordingtotheXray,that.ButIbelievethatmymothertoldmethatI’m–thatmy–fifteenyearsold.SoI’mjustfollowmymum,whatmymumsaid.Butthis–ifit’s–theysayit’snineteen,wellit’suptoyou.48

TherealityappearstobethatmanyyoungIndonesiansdonotknowtheirage.InMay2012,theAFPreceivedadvicefromanacademicaboutdocumentsprovingidentityandageinIndonesia.TheadviceconfirmsthatmanyIndonesiansdonotknowtheirdateofbirth.Inparticular,itstatesthat:

manyruralpoorcommunitiesdonotplacemuchemphasisonpreciseknowledgeofageaccordingtotheGregoriancalendarandthatmanyoftheruralpoorhaveonlylimitedliteracyandrarelykeepformalrecordsofbirths.Asaresultmanyadoptnominalbirthdaysforconvenience,choosingaconvenientdateandyearthatmayhavelittleornoconnectionwiththeirtrueage.49

ThebriefofadviceprovidedtoAGDbytheChiefScientistundercoverofaletterdated11January2012alsoadvised:

Whilebirthregistrationisastandardpracticeamongdevelopednations,therealityindevelopingnationsisverydifferent.Itisestimatedthatonlyhalfofthechildrenunder5yearsofagehavetheirbirthsregistered.…itisestimatedthatmorethan60%ofbirthsinSouthEastAsia…remainunregistered’.(citationsomitted)50

ItisnotsuggestedthatnoyoungIndonesiansliedtoAustralianauthoritiesabouttheirage;itseemshighlylikelythatsomeofthemdid.However,itisapparentfromthedocumentsprovidedtotheCommissionthatoftenanapparentlyunfoundedassumptionwasmade,particularlybyinvestigatingofficers,thatindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwerelyingwhentheysaidthattheywerechildren.Thiswasparticularlylikelytohappenwhenawristx-raywasinterpretedasshowingthattheindividualwasanadult.

Ofcourse,thefactthatsomeindividuals,asseemslikely,falselyclaimedtobeunderageprovidesnojustificationforconductthatfailedtorespecttherightsofotherswhomighthavebeenchildren.

TheAFP,inresponsetothisdraftreportnotedthatitis‘opentotheInquirytoinferthatanumberofAFPofficersmayhaveheldviewsthatpeoplesmugglersroutinelyliedabouttheirage’.HowevertheAFPobjectedtoaconclusionthattherewasawidespread‘cultureofdisbelief’amongstAFPofficers.Theresponsestated:

IndeeditistheroleofAFPinvestigatorstoquestionandtochallengestatementsinordertoillicitthebestavailableevidenceastotheageofthepersonbeinginterviewed.Thereportnotesthatintervieweesat

176


timesprovidedinconsistentanswerswhichgivesrisetothesuspicionabouttheirclaimedage.TheAFPisalsoinreceiptofconfidentialintelligencethatclearlyindicatesthatorganisersandfacilitatorsofpeoplesmugglingventureshaveinstructedSIEVcrewstolieabouttheirage.51

Inhisresponsetothedraftreport,theCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionsalsorejectedanyconclusionthathisOfficehada‘cultureofdisbelief’.Hestated:

TheCDPP’sexperienceinprosecutingpeoplesmugglingoffencesinvolvingcrewfromIndonesiaisthatthesematterscaninvolvecomplexsituationsanduncertaintyastoprecisedatesofbirthandaccordinglytheageofdefendants.Therehavebeeninstancesofmultipledatesofbirthbeingprovidedandcaseswheredifferentageshavebeenclaimedbytheclaimantindividualatdifferentstages.Theseaspects,combinedwithotherdifficultiesthathaveariseninrelationtopotentialevidenceastoageincludingissuesrelatinginparticulartoIndonesiandocumentarymaterial,hasmeantthatagedeterminationcanbeextremelydifficult,whichhasbeenreflectedintheCDPP’sconductofthesematters.52

3 Some individuals whose wrist x-ray analysis placed them as being under 18 remained in detention for long periods of time

TheCommissionrecognisesthatalmostallindividualswhosewristx-rayanalysisresultedinareportthattheywereunder18yearsofagewerereturnedtoIndonesia.TheJointCommonwealthsubmissiontotheInquiryreportsthatof123peoplewhowerex-rayedbetweenSeptember2008and27January2012,37werefoundtobeskeletallyimmature.ThesubmissionreportsthatalloftheseyoungpeoplewerereturnedtoIndonesia.53

FromtheinformationanddocumentsprovidedtotheCommissionitappearsthat,ofthe118peoplewhowerex-rayedbetween29September2008and22November2011,29werefoundtobeskeletallyimmatureandsubsequentlyreturnedtoIndonesia.

However,itappearsthatinsomecases,despitewristx-rayanalysisthatindicatedskeletalimmaturity,individualsremainedindetentionforalongtimebeforebeingreturnedtoIndonesia.

Forexample,HAM046wasapprehendedinFebruary2010andhiswristwasx-rayedinApril2010.Itwasnotuntil3August2010thatadecisionwasmadenottoprosecutehimashewasajuvenile.54InviewoftheAustralianGovernment’spolicynottoprosecuteminorsexceptinexceptionalcircumstances,thisdelaywasregrettable.ItisadditionallyregrettablethattheAFPdidnotrequestthewithdrawalofhisCriminalJusticeStayCertificate(CJSC)until20October2010.55HAM046spentatotalof261daysinimmigrationdetention.Hewasheldinimmigrationdetentionforfourmonthsfollowinghiswristx-raypriortoadecisionbeingmadenottoprosecutehimandforanadditionaltwomonthsbeforehisCJSCwascancelled.

Anotherindividual,GEE080,wasapprehendedinApril2010andhiswristwasx-rayedthatmonth.AnAFPcasenotedated14May2010recordsthat,aspercurrentAFPpolicy,hewill


notbeprosecutedand‘canbedeported’.56However,norequestwasmadeforhisCJSCtobewithdrawnuntil19October2010.57HewasnotremovedfromAustraliauntilNovember2010.Hespent218daysinimmigrationdetentioninAustralia.Again,itisconcerningthatfollowingadecisionnottoprosecute,ittookfivemonthstocancelhisCJSCandsixmonthstoremovehimfromAustralia.

4 Until July 2011, wrist x-rays were often used as a first and only means of age assessment

DocumentsbeforetheCommissionindicatethattheAFProutinelyconductedwristx-raysinsituationswhereyoungIndonesianscontestedtheirageandthatthisprocesswasoftenusedastheAFP’sfirstandonlymeansofassessingage.Asaconsequence,counselfortheCDPPadducedexpertevidencebasedonwristx-raysastheprimary,andsometimestheonly,evidencetochallengeaclaimmadebyanindividualsuspectedofpeoplesmugglingthathewasachildatthedateoftheallegedoffence.

4.1 Wrist x-rays were used as a first resort because they were a prescribed procedure

Itappearsthatthefactthatwristx-rayswereaprescribedprocedurehadasignificantimpactontheapproachtakenbyboththeAFPandtheOfficeoftheCDPPtotheuseofwristx-rayanalysisasameansofassessingage.ItfurtherappearsthatitinfluencedthewayinwhichAGDofficersunderstoodtheprovisionsoftheCrimesActforwhichwristx-raysareaprescribedprocedure.

AtthehearingforCommonwealthagencies,theCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionsspokeoftheGPAtlasasa:

legacywithwhichweworkasaresultofbeinggivenbytheParliamentaccesstowristX-rays;itwouldn’tmakesenseotherthananextremelylimitedandprobablyuselessmechanismotherwise.58

TheDirectorsawtheconcernsofthemedicalprofessionaboutthereliabilityofwristx-rayanalysisasrepresenting‘acommentaryonuse–afundamentaldifferenceofviewintheParliamentcreatingthismechanismand,ineffect,overridingthatconcern’.59

TheDirectoralsospokeofwristx-rayanalysisashaving‘limitations...asseemedtobequiteapparent,evenbackin2001whenbeforetheSenate’butexpressedtheviewthat‘thosewere…amongstthelimitedrangeoftoolsthatweweregiven’.60

SupportfortheconclusionthattheOfficeoftheCDPPheldtheviewthatwristx-raysshouldbetakenbecausetheyhadbeenauthorisedbyParliamentiscontainedinminutesofameetingof

178


Commonwealthagenciesregarding‘Agedeterminationofpeoplesmugglingcrew’.TheminutesofthemeetingrecordthataseniorCDPPofficerstatedthat‘thecurrentwristX-rayprocedurewasconsideredbyParliamentandtheAFPandCDPPareobligatedtocomplywiththatprocedure’.61

Theviewthatwristx-rayswereroutinelytakenbecausetheywereaprescribedprocedureisalsocontainedintalkingpointspreparedforthePrimeMinisterinNovember2010.Thetalkingpointsincludedthefollowingassertion:

WherethereisdoubtaboutwhetherapersonarrivinginAustraliaasanirregularmaritimearrivalisagedoverorunder18yearsofage,andthepersonissuspectedofcommittingaCommonwealthoffence,theAustralianFederalPoliceconductsanagedeterminationprocessinaccordancewiththeCrimesAct1914.62

InresponsetoquestioningattheInquiryhearingforCommonwealthagenciesaboutwhetherthisstatementwasconsistentwiththeSecondReadingSpeechfortheCrimesAmendment(AgeDetermination)Bill2001,theFirstAssistantSecretary,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGDsaid:

Theagedeterminationprocessthat’sundertakenhasoneprescribedprocedure;theAFPisrequiredtofollowthatprocedureandthat’swhatthetalkingpointsaredrawingout.Thetalkingpointsarenotforciblyputtingforwardeverypieceofevidencethatmayberelevanttoage;it’saprocedurethat’srequiredtobefollowedinthelegislation.63

TheDeputyCommissionerforOperationsoftheAFP,whengivingevidencetothesameInquiryhearing,agreedthattherewasevidencethat,asaresultofwristx-rayshavingbecomeaprescribedprocedure,theauthorities’thinkinghadbeguntoshifttoseewristx-raysasamandatedprocedureratherthanaprocedureoflastresort.64Initsresponsetothedraftreport,theAFPstatedthatit‘givesnogreaterweighttothefactthatwristx-raysareaprescribedprocedurewhenconsideringtousetheprocedureoverothermethods’.65However,theevidencebeforetheInquirydoesnotsupportthisconclusion.

Thisevidenceincludes,forexample,anemailsentbyanAFPofficertotheOfficeoftheCDPPwhichdiscussestheprogressoftheinvestigationandprosecutionofanumberofyoungIndonesianssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhosaidtheywereundertheageof18years.TheAFPofficerexpresseddisappointmentthatDIACintendedtoremovethemstraighttoIndonesiaandsaidthat‘someonedidn’tdotheirjobcorrectlyand[to]tellDIACweneededtodowristx-raysbeforeadecisionwasbeingmade’.66

TheNSWLegalAidsubmissiontothisInquiryobservedthatbecausewristx-raysaretheonlyprescribedprocedureforageassessment,prosecutorsandmagistrateshavegivenx-rayevidenceundueweightinassessingage,evenincircumstancesinwhichtheyareawarethatitisanunreliablemethodofassessingage.67


Nothingsuggeststhatitwastheintentionofthelegislaturethatthespecifyingofwristx-raysasaprescribedprocedurewouldmeanthattheAFPwasobligedtousethem.Asmentionedabove,theRevisedExplanatoryMemorandumfortheCrimesAmendment(AgeDetermination)Bill2001includedthefollowingstatement:

TheBilldoesnotcontainanexpressrequirementtoexhaustallotheravenuesbeforeseekingaperson’sconsentto,ormagisterialauthorisationfor,aprescribedprocedure.However,inpractice,investigatingofficialswillseektodetermineaperson’sagebyallreasonablemeansbeforeexercisingthepowerscontainedintheBill.Forexample,ifreliabledocumentaryevidenceofaperson’sageisavailablethenthismaysuffice.68

Thereis,therefore,noreasontothinkthatitwasintendedthatthex-rayprocedureshouldbethefirstandonlymethodusedbyinvestigatingofficialsfordeterminingage.Thepreferableviewisthatawristx-raywasintendedtobenomorethananoptionavailablewhereothermeansofassessingagewereeithernotpracticableornotsufficientlyinformative.Indeed,anyotherviewofthelegislationwouldbedifficulttoreconcilewiththefactthattheAFP,asthematerialbeforetheCommissionindicates,effectivelyceasedusingwristx-raystodeterminetheageofindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingoffenceswhosaidthattheywerechildreninaboutJuly2011.

Italsoappearsthatitwastheintentionofthelegislaturethattheresultsofanywristx-rayprocedurewouldbeconsideredaspartofarangeofinformationcollectedaboutaperson’sage.TheSenateLegalandConstitutionalLegislationCommittee,initsreportonthe2001Bill,statedthat‘[t]heCommitteebelievesthattheBillmayassistinclarifyingtheageofsomepersonssuspectedof,orchargedwith,Commonwealthoffences’.69Thequalifiednatureofitsbeliefmaybeassumedtobebased,atleastinpart,onitsearlierobservationthat:

Althoughthewristx-rayisintendedtodemonstratetheextentoffusionoftwobones,thereisnorealcorrelationbetweenboneageandchronologicalage.Variationscanbeasmuchasmorethanayearhigherthanchronologicalage,andupto18monthsyoungerthanchronologicalage.70

However,thedocumentsbeforetheCommissionrevealthatuntilJuly2011thewristx-rayprocedurewasusedbytheAFPinmanycasesastheonlymeansofassessingage.

Moreover,itappearsthatunwarrantedassumptionsabouttheextenttowhichawristx-raycouldprovidedefinitiveevidenceofageweredrawnbyofficersoftheCommonwealth.Forexample,inthetalkingpointsforthePrimeMinisterreferredtoabove,thefollowingpointappearsinrespectofthewristx-rayagedeterminationprocess:‘ThisinvolvesawristX-rayconductedbyanindependentmedicalexpertwhotheninterpretstheX-raytodeterminetheageoftheperson’.71

Asearliernoted,thepracticeoftheAFPappearstohavechangedfromJuly2011.DocumentsprovidedtotheCommissionindicatethatonlyonewristx-raywasconductedinorafterJuly2011.Asdiscussedabove,the‘improvedageassessmentprocess’wasannouncedinJuly

180


2011.WhiletheOfficeoftheCDPPcontinuedtorelyonwristx-rayanalysisasevidenceofagewhereprosecutionshadcommenced,itappearsthatthepracticeofhavingwristx-raystakenhadessentiallystoppedatthistime.

Eventhoughitappearsthatwristx-rayswerenolongerbeingtakenatthetime,theCommissionhasreceiveddocumentsfromaslateasNovember2011thatshowthattheAFPmayhaveconsideredthatevidenceofageadducedfromtheanalysisofawristx-raywasnecessarybecauseitwasaprescribedprocedure.InanemailtotheOfficeoftheCDPP,anAFPofficerdescribedthematerialreliedonduringanagedeterminationhearingandincludedthefollowingstatement:

G&Pmethodwasimprecisebutthattherewasnoprecisemethodavailable.ThewristX-rayisthemethodprescribedbythelegislationandshouldbefollowed.72

TheCommissionhasbeeninformedthatnowristx-rayshavebeentakensinceDecember2011,whenthenewprocedurecommencedwherebyDIACconductsageassessmentinterviewsandonlyreferstotheAFPyounIndonesiansthattheyassessaslikelytobeadults.73

4.2 In many cases, a person was charged as an adult on the basis of wrist x-ray evidence alone

Inasignificantnumberofcases,anindividualwhoseagewasindoubtwasarrestedandchargedasanadultwheretheonlyevidenceofhisagewasbasedonhiswristx-ray.FromdocumentsprovidedtotheCommission,itappearsthateveryindividualwho,followingawristx-ray,wasassessedasbeingskeletallymaturewaschargedasanadult–evenifhecontinuedtoassertthathewasundertheageof18yearsandtherewasnootherevidencesuggestingthathewasanadult.

ItisclearfromsometranscriptsofinterviewsbetweenAFPofficersandyoungIndonesiansthatmanyindividualsweretreatedbytheAFPasadultsassoonasanx-rayreportwasreceivedsuggestingthattheywereskeletallymature.

Forexample,NTN032,whomaintainedhewasachild,wasinterviewedwithoutanadultorguardianpresent(althoughthepresenceofsuchapersonisrequiredundertheCrimesActforjuvenilesuspects)becausetheresultofanx-rayindicatedthathewas19yearsold.Thetranscriptoftheinterviewincludedthefollowingexchange:

Q1F/A[FederalAgent][name]:...What’syourdateofbirth,[NTN032]?

A1THEINTERPRETER:22ndofSeptember1994.


Q2Okay,So[how]oldareyou?

A2THEINTERPRETER:Sixteen.

Q3DoyourememberhavinganX-rayonyourwrist?

A3THEINTERPRETER:Idonotremember.

Q4Allright.TheX-rayonyourwristsaysyou’re19.

A4THEINTERPRETER:Idon’tknow.Idon’tknow.

Q5Areyou19yearsold?

A5THEINTERPRETER:AsfarasIknow,Iam16.

Q6Andwhy-whyisitasfarasyouknow,you’re16?

A6THEINTERPRETER:Frommyfamily.

Q7F/A[name]:Thisdateofbirthmakeshim15.

A7THEINTERPRETER:Ionlyknowfrommymother.

Q8F/A[name]:Just-Justtellhim.

F/A[name]:No,Iwon’t.Okay.[NTN032],our-ourmedicalrecordsormedicalexaminationofyourwristindicatesthatyou’re19yearsold.Asaresultofthat,youwillbetreatedasanadultandyou’llbeinterviewedasanadult.Doyouunderstandthat?

A8THEINTERPRETER:AllIknowisfrommymother.MymotherhastoldmeI’m16.

Q9SoasIsaid,ourrecords[indicate]you’reatleast19.You’llbetreatedasanadult.

Andthenlaterinthatsameinterview:

Q34Areyouover18?

A34THEINTERPRETER:AsfarasIknow,I’m16.Andthat’swhatI’vebeenadvisedfrom-whilstmymotherwasalive,she’s-she’spassedaway,butwhilstshewasalive,sheadvisedmethatmyagewas16....

Q37F/A[name]:Allright.AsI’veexplainedearlier,themedicalresultswe’vegotbackindicatethatyou’reover18yearsofage.Soasaresult,youwillbetreatedandinterviewedasanadultandchargedasanadult,ifappropriate.Doyouunderstandwhatwe’resaying?

A37THEINTERPRETER:AllIknowisthatI’m16andIgotthatfrommymother.74

AsimilarconversationtookplacewithMAL011whosaidthathewas15yearsold:

Q42Canyoutellmeyourageplease?

A42THEINTERPRETER:Fifteen.

Q43Andyourdateofbirth?

A43THEINTERPRETER:26-26,.2.199-1999.One-1995,sorry.

182


Q44PreviouslydidyougowithpeopleandhaveanX-raytakenofyourwrist?

A44THEINTERPRETER:Yes.

Q45Soforthepurposesofthisinterview,thewristX-rayItalkofsuggestedthat[MAL011]wasgreaterthan19yearsofageand,assuch,willbeinterviewedasanadultandnotasajuvenile.75

Inanothermatter,anofficerfromtheOfficeoftheCDPPinformedUPW031’sdefencelawyerthattheonlyevidenceofagetheCommonwealthintendedtocallathisagedeterminationhearingwasthatofDrLow.76ThedefencelawyertheninformedtheCDPPofficerthatheintendedtomakesubmissionsthattheonlyinvestigationofageconductedbytheCommonwealthwasawristx-ray.Headvised:

Iamintendingtomakeasubmissiontotheeffectthattherewasnootherinvestigationundertakenbytheprosecutionconcerningtheageoftheaccused.Theredoesn’tneedtobeevidencetoconfirmthat.Thefactthatnootherevidenceisoffered[bytheState]issufficienttosupportthatsubmission.77

Manyofthosewhowerearrestedandchargedasadultsbasedsolelyonwristx-rayanalysisultimatelyhadtheirprosecutionsdiscontinued.Insomeofthesecases,individualsspentverylongperiodsoftimeindetention,includinginadultcorrectionalfacilities.

Forexample,JDT046hadawristx-raytakeninApril2010.Hewaschargedasanadultninemonthslaterbasedonananalysisofthatwristx-rayalone.TheprosecutionwasdiscontinuedafurtherninemonthslateraftertheOfficeoftheCDPPobtainedexpertevidencefromananthropologistwhoprovidedsupportforhisoriginalclaimofbeingachild.78

Inanothercase,NTN031hadawristx-raytakeninJanuary2010.Hewaschargedasanadultninemonthslater,inOctober2010,basedonawristx-rayanalysiswhichstatedhewas‘approximately18.5years’.79BythetimehisprosecutionwasdiscontinuedinNovember2011,hehadspent690daysindetention,412ofwhichwerespentinanadultcorrectionalfacility.

Inanothermatter,thatofTIW044,therewasnoevidenceotherthanawristx-raytosupportthecontentionthathewasanadultatthetimehewascharged.ADIACfocusedageassessmentinterviewfoundhimtobeunder18yearsold.InanemailtotheOfficeoftheCDPP,theAFPexpressedtheirviewthat‘theevidenceavailableexceedsthebalanceofprobabilities’and‘theredoesnotappeartobeanylogicalreasonwhytheCDPPwoulddropthismatter’.Theystated:

ifthismatterwasdroppedbytheCDPPitwouldcreateanextremelybadprecedence(sic)forallcurrentandfutureageissuemattersandvirtuallyindicatethattheCommonwealthhasnottrustintheprescribedprocedure(wristx-ray)andthatitisflawed.80

Bythetimethedecisionwasmadetodiscontinuetheprosecution,TIW044hadspent486daysindetention,309ofwhichwerespentinanadultcorrectionalfacility.


4.3 In some cases, a person was convicted as an adult on the basis of wrist x-ray evidence alone

Someindividualshavebeenconvictedasadultsincircumstanceswheretheprosecutionreliedwhollyorsubstantiallyonwristx-rayanalyses.

Itappearsthatthiswasthecaseinrespectofatleasttenofthe15individualswhotheAttorney-Generalreleasedonlicence.81Further,fortwooftheindividualswhowerereleasedearlyonlicenceitappearsthattheonlyevidenceofageadducedbytheprosecutionduringtheiragedeterminationhearingswaswristx-rayanalyses.82

Oneoftheseindividuals,whowassentencedtofiveyearsimprisonment(withathreeyearnon-paroleperiod),maintainedinApril2012whenspeakingwithCommissionstaffthathewasundertheageof18whenhewasapprehended.83FromthedocumentsbeforetheCommissionitappearsthattheonlyevidenceavailabletotheCommonwealthtosupporttheassessmentthatheandhisco-accusedwereadultswasbasedontheirwristx-rays.Aftertheissueoftheirrespectiveageshadbeenraisedbydefencecounsel,aseniorCDPPofficerinstructedtheresponsibleOfficeoftheCDPPlawyerto‘relyonx-raystoproveage’andnotoninformationgivenbytheindividualstotheAFPduringinterviews.84Inthesecases,whicharediscussedinChapter3,section5.2,thequestionofage,havingbeenraisedbydefencecounsel,wasnotthereafterpursued.TheAttorney-GeneralreleasedbothoftheseindividualsearlyonlicenceinJune2012.85

AnotherexampleisDRU001whowasconvictedasanadultofapeoplesmugglingoffenceandsentencedtofiveyearsimprisonment.ItisnotclearthattheCommonwealthhadanyevidenceofhisageotherthanevidencebasedonhiswristx-ray.TheAFPnotedthattheindividual’sdateofbirthwasunknownandthattheyreliedontheevidenceofDrLowwithrespecttohisage.86

4.4 Wrist x-ray procedures were used even where documentary evidence of age existed

Inothercases,evenwheredocumentaryevidenceoftheindividual’sagewasavailable,theAFParrangedforawristx-raytobetaken.

Forexample,BOM064,whowasapprehendedinJune2010,hadinhispossessionaphotographidentificationdocumentfromIndonesia.Thisdocumentgavehisdateofbirthas12March1995,indicatingthathewas15yearsoldatthetimeofhisapprehension.87InSeptember2010,theAFPrecordeda‘criticaldecision’nottoprosecutehim.88However,inOctober2010aFederalAgentaskedforawristx-raytobeperformedas‘juvenilesundergowristx-raysasamatterofcourse’.89AnAFPcasenoterecordedthattheyarewaitingontheoutcomeofthewristx-ray

184


beforeadecisionismadewhethertowithdrawBOM064’sCJSCandremovehimtoIndonesia.90HewasremovedtoIndonesiaonlyafterthewristx-rayresultswerereceived.Hespent185daysinimmigrationdetentioninAustralia.

Itappearsthatinsomecases,theCommonwealthpreferredevidenceofagebasedonwristx-raystodocumentaryevidenceofage.Forexample,aseniorofficerofOfficeoftheCDPPrequestedallevidenceofageinoneparticularmatter.Thecaseofficersaidthattherewasdocumentaryevidenceofage,butthatitwasaforgedbirthcertificate.TheseniorofficeroftheCDPPrepliedtotheeffectthatwristx-rayevidenceisordinarilymorereliablethandocumentaryevidenceofage,advising:

WedonotrelyuponIndonesianbirthcertificate[s],eveniftheyaregenuine,theprovenanceofthedataandtimeofprovidingitissolateastobeunreliable.Iammoreinterestedinwhatourx-raymaterialandexpertwitnessessayastoage.91

TheseissuesarediscussedfurtherinChapter6.

4.5 Wrist x-ray evidence was preferred to the results of age assessment interviews

AsdiscussedindetailinChapter5,inOctober2010,DIACconductedfocusedageassessmentinterviewswith27individualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhoseageswereindoubtandconcludedthat23ofthemwerelikelytohavebeenundertheageof18atthetimeoftheirallegedoffence.

AninternalDIACcommunicationfromSeptember2010recordsthattheAFPhadindicatedthattheywouldnotchargeanindividualwhomDIACassessedtobeunder18yearsofagebutwouldratherrequesthisremovaltoIndonesia.92ThedocumentsprovidedtotheInquiryindicatethatthisisnotwhathappenedinpractice.

Ofthe23individualsassessedbyDIACaslikelytohavebeenundertheageof18atthetimeoftheirallegedoffences,11hadalreadyhadwristx-raystakenpriortoparticipatingintheDIACinterview.Intwoofthesecasesthewristx-rayanalysisshowedthattheindividualwasnotskeletallymature.TheywerebothremovedfromAustraliawithoutchargeaftertheDIACinterview.However,intheotherninecasesthewristx-rayanalysissuggestedthattheindividualwaseitherover19yearsofage,orbetween18and19yearsofage.EveryoneofthesenineindividualswaschargedasanadultdespiteDIAC’sfindingthattheywerelikelytohavebeenunder18yearsofageatthetimeoftheirallegedoffences.Ineachcase,theprosecutionwasultimatelydiscontinued.

Theremaining12individualseachhadawristx-raytaken,notwithstandingthatDIAC’sage


assessmentinterviewhadresultedinaconclusionthathewaslikelytohavebeenundertheageof18atthetimeofhisallegedoffence.Ofthese12individuals,fivewerefoundtobeskeletallyimmatureandremovedfromAustraliawithoutcharge.Wristx-rayanalysessuggestedthattheremainingsevenwereeitherover19yearsofage,orbetween18and19yearsofage.EachofthesesevenindividualswaschargedasanadultdespiteDIAC’sfindingthathewaslikelytohavebeenunder18yearsofageatthetimeofhisallegedoffence.Ineachcasetheprosecutionwasultimatelydiscontinued.

Clearly,despitetheundertakingtoremovefromAustraliathoseindividualsassessedbyDIACaslikelytobeundertheageof18years,theAFPwasnot,inpractice,preparedtorelyonDIAC’sassessmentofanindividual’sage,preferringwristx-rayanalysisasevidenceofage.Asaconsequence,whentheCommonwealthwasfacedwithconflictingopinionsontheageofanindividual,hewasnotgiventhebenefitofthedoubt.

SomeoftheseyoungIndonesiansspentlongperiodsoftimeindetentioninAustralia,asisshowninthefollowingcases.

WhenJDT046wasapprehendedinFebruary2010,hetoldauthoritiesthathewasborninAugust1995.InApril2010,heunderwentawristx-ray.Whenanexpertreportwaspreparedayearlater,itstatedthathewas‘probably19yearsorolderat8April2010whenthex-raywastaken’.93ADIACageassessmentwasconductedinOctober2010(withaformalreportcompletedinFebruary2011)whichconcludedthathewasunder18yearsofageatthattime.94HewaschargedasanadultinDecember2010andwasremandedincustodyfromthatdate.TheprosecutionwasdiscontinuedinAugust2011whentheOfficeoftheCDPPcametotheviewthattherewassomedoubtaboutwhetherhewasovertheageof18yearsatthedateoftheoffence.95Hespent537daysindetentioninAustralia,239oftheminanadultcorrectionalfacility.

Anotherindividual,BOM062,wasassessedbyDIACtobeunder18yearsofageinOctober2010(withaformalreportcompletedinFebruary2011).96Hehadawristx-raytakeninDecember2010,sixmonthsafterhearrivedinAustralia.Thewristx-rayanalysisshowedthathewasskeletallymature.97HewaschargedasanadultinMarch2011.98TheprosecutionwasdiscontinuedaboutsixweekslaterwhentheOfficeoftheCDPPcametotheviewthattheinformationavailablesuggestedthathewasyoungerthan18yearswhenapprehended.99Hespent332daysindetentioninAustralia,43oftheminanadultcorrectionalfacility.

Inanothercase,DIACassessedTOW043tobeunder18yearsofageinOctober2010(withaformalreportcompletedinFebruary2011).100Hiswristwasx-rayedinDecember2010.Thewristx-rayanalysisshowedhimtobeskeletallymature.InMarch2011,theAFPrequestedacopyoftheDIACAgeAssessmentReportbeforelayingcharges.101InApril2011,afterreceivingtheDIACreport,theAFPchargedandarrestedhimasanadult.102Asecondopiniononthewristx-raywas

186


thensoughtfromDrLowwhostatedthatitwas‘areasonableinterpretationthat[TOW043]is19yearsofageorolder’.103AnagedeterminationhearingwasconductedintheVictorianMagistrate’sCourtinDecember2011.Themagistratewasnotsatisfiedonthebalanceoftheprobabilitiesthathewasover18atthetimeoftheoffenceandtheprosecutionwasdiscontinued.104Hespent510daysindetentioninAustralia,64oftheminanadultcorrectionalfacility.

InthecaseofJAM074,inOctober2010anemailfromaDIACinvestigatorsecondedtotheAFPstatedthat‘theAFParekeentoseekanagedeterminationon[JAM074],soadecisioncanbemadewhetherornottoproceedwithaprosecutionagainsthim’.105HewasassessedbyDIACinOctober2010tobeunder18yearsofage(withaformalreportcompletedinJanuary2011).106Despitethisassessment,hiswristwasx-rayedinDecember2010,withanalysisfindingthathewasatleast19yearsofage.107TheAFPchargedhimasanadultinMarch2011.108InApril2011,boththeOfficeoftheCDPPandtheAFPwereundertheimpressionthatnoDIACagedeterminationassessmenthadbeencompletedforhim.109ThiswasdespitethefactthatinOctober2010,aDIACofficerhadconfirmedwiththeAFPthatanagedeterminationinterviewtookplacebuttheywerestillawaitingtheoutcomeofthereport.110TheprosecutionwasdiscontinuedinNovember2011astheOfficeoftheCDPPhadcometotheviewthattheycouldnotbeconfidentthathewasanadultatthetimeofcommittingtheoffence.111Hespent516daysindetentioninAustralia.

4.6 Many cases were ultimately discontinued as there was no probative evidence other than wrist x-ray analysis

DocumentsbeforetheCommissionindicatethatultimatelytheOfficeoftheCDPPcametotheviewthatincaseswheretherewasnoprobativeevidenceofageotherthanthewristx-rayanalysis,prosecutionsshouldbediscontinued.

TheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionshasinformedtheCommissionthatthischangeinpositionwasaresponsetothedecisionsinRvDaudandRvRMA.Hereportedthat:

TheCDPP’schangedpositionwasthatnopeoplesmugglingmatterinwhichagewascontestedshouldbeprosecutedwherethesoleprobativeevidencethatthedefendantwasover18yearsatthetimeoftheoffendingwastheanalysisofthewristx-ray.112

DuringanInquiryhearing,aSeniorAssistantDirectoroftheOfficeoftheCDPPsaid:

IthinkpriortoOctober[2011],wehaddiscontinued14matterswherewehadmadeassessmentsontheevidenceavailable.AfterOctober,wediscontinuedafurther21mattersandtheywerematterswhichweidentifiedwherethewristX-raywasevidenceandthattherewasn’tprobativeevidenceotherwise.Sowedidreactinthatwayofreviewingallthemattersandmakingcertainthatwediscontinuedanymatterwhichwehadbeforethecourt.113


FromtheinformationthattheCommissionhasreceivedregardingindividualcases,itisevidentthatatleastninecaseswerediscontinuedinNovember2011andanother11inDecember2011.TheCDPPhasinformedtheCommissionthat55ofthemattersconsideredbythisInquirywerediscontinued,including22mattersthatwerediscontinuedpriortoOctober2011withoutanagedeterminationhearinghavingbeenconductedandafurther20matterswhichwerediscontinuedbetweenOctoberandDecember2011withoutanagedeterminationhearinghavingbeenconducted.114

However,itmustbenotedthatbythetimetheirprosecutionwasdiscontinued,someoftheseindividualshadspentaverylongperiodoftimeindetention,includinginadultcorrectionalfacilities,whentheonlyevidenceoftheirageheldbytheCommonwealthwasbasedonawristx-ray.Inaddition,itshouldbenotedthattheuseofwristx-rayanalysisasevidenceofagehadbeenquestionedbyacourtasearlyas2002.115

5 Individuals were charged and convicted as adults on the basis of wrist x-rays that were inconclusive

ItappearsfromthedocumentsbeforetheCommissionthatindividualswerechargedasadults,andsomewerelaterconvicted,incircumstanceswherethewristx-rayanalysiswasinconclusive.Inmanyofthosecases,asecondanalysisofthewristx-raywassoughtandtheCommonwealthreliedonthesecondopiniontocontinuetheprosecutionagainsttheindividual.

Asdiscussedinsection2above,thereportofthe2001SenateLegalandConstitutionalLegislationCommitteeinquiryintotheCrimesAmendment(AgeDetermination)Bill(Cth),observedthattheAustralianFederalPolice(AFP)‘advisedthatitwaspreparedtotreatallpersonswhowerenotclearlyadultsasiftheywerejuvenile’.116TheJointCommonwealthsubmissiontothiscurrentInquirymaintainedthattheCommonwealthcontinuestogiveindividualsthebenefitofthedoubt.117

ThiswouldrequiretheCommonwealthtotreatasaminoranyindividualaboutwhomconflictingcredibleevidenceofageexists.Theprincipleofthebenefitofthedoubtmeansthatwhereveraninitialx-rayreportwasinconclusiveontheissueofwhethertheindividualhadreachedskeletalmaturity,unlesstherewasgoodreasontoquestionthatreport,theCommonwealthshouldhavetreatedthatindividualasaminor.Asecondopinionshouldnothavebeensought.

However,thedocumentsbeforetheCommissionsuggestthat,insomecases,officersoftheAFPortheOfficeoftheCDPPquestionedthereliabilityofwristx-rayanalysisthatdidnotconclusivelyreportthatanindividualwas19yearsofageoroverandsoughtasecondopinionfromanotherradiologist,mostoftenDrLow.118

188


Asthecasesdescribedbelowdemonstrate,theCommonwealthhaschargedasadultsindividualswhosewristx-rayanalyseswereinconclusiveastowhethertheyhadattainedskeletalmaturity.Thispracticeisdirectlycontrarytothe2001assurancegivenbytheAFP,whichisreferredtoabove,thatthebenefitofthedoubtwouldbegiventoindividualswherewristx-rayanalysisdidnotshowskeletalmaturity.

5.1 Some individuals were charged as adults on the basis of wrist x-rays that did not show skeletal maturity

TheCommissionisawareofanumberofcasesinwhichindividualswerechargedasadultsonthebasisofwristx-raysthatdidnotshowskeletalmaturity.Inmanyofthesecasessecondopinionsweresought,usuallyafteranindividualhadbeencharged.

Forexample,TRA029wasapprehendedinJanuary2010.Hetoldauthoritiesthathewasbornin1995,makinghimalmost15yearsoldatthetimeoftheallegedoffence.119Hiswristx-raywastakenashorttimelaterandthemedicalpractitionerexpressedtheopinionthat,onthebasisofthewristx-ray,he‘isthought[tobe]intheorderof18to19years’.120TheOfficeoftheCDPPofficerrequestedthattheAFPseekasecondopinionstating:

IhaveencounteredthissituationanumberoftimesbeforewhereDoctorshaveincorrectly(onmyassessment,butalsoonthesecondopinionofDrLow)appliedthePyleandGreulichtest,inthesensethattheiropinionhasnotbeenopenatall(typicallybecausetheradialepiphysisstillshowsalinethathasnotcompletelyfadedandthisincorrectlyleadstoaconclusionthepersonisatleast18–19,ratherthanatleast19,asprescribedinthetext).

Couldyoupleaseobtainthex-rayandasecondopinion,ideallyfromDrLow.

Myviewisthatwewouldnothavesufficientevidencetoproceedagainst[TRA029]asanadult(onthebalanceofprobabilities)basedontheopinionof[medicalpractitioner]irrespectiveofthequestionofpublicinterest.As[medicalpractitioner]hasapparentlyexpressedanopinionthatisentirelyconsistentwiththepossibilitytheaccusedwasunderageatthetimeofoffending,couldyoupleaseattendtothisassoonasreasonablypracticable.121

Asecondradiologistreportwasprovided(byadoctorotherthanDrLow)andthatreportstatedthatitwasareasonableinterpretationthathewasabovetheageof19years.122Somemonthslater,whenpreparingforanagedeterminationhearing,theOfficeoftheCDPPsoughtanexpertopinionfromDrLow.DrLowprovidedareportexpressingtheopinionthathewasprobably19yearsorolderwhenthex-raywastaken.123ThematterproceededtoanagedeterminationhearingintheMagistrate’sCourtofWesternAustralia.Themagistratefoundthatitwas‘moreprobablethannotthatTRA029wasnotaged18yearsorolder’atthetimeoftheallegedoffence.124Theprosecutionwassubsequentlydiscontinued.125Hespent621daysindetentioninAustralia,341oftheminanadultcorrectionalfacility.


Inanotherexample,UPW031waschargedasanadultonthebasisofawristx-rayreportwhichexpressedtheopinionthathisskeletalagewasbetween18and19years.126WhentheOfficeoftheCDPPreceivedthebrieffromtheAFP,theyquestionedhowtheycouldprovehewas18atthetimeoftheoffenceonthebasisofawristx-raytakentwomonthsaftertheoffencethatstatedthathewasbetween18and19yearsold.127TheOfficeoftheCDPPsoughtasecondopinionfromDrLow,whostatedthatheshowedaskeletalageof19yearsorgreater.128Onreceiptofthesecondreport,theCDPPofficernotedtheconflictingopinionsandfavouredthatgivenbyDrLow.InanemailtoanAFPofficerhemadethecomment:‘Iknewmyinterpretationwasbetterthan[medicalpractitioner]’s’,129andtheninanemailtoacolleaguefromtheOfficeoftheCDPP:

Onthefaceofthereportof[medicalpractitioner],hisopinionisinconsistentwithGreulichandPyle,andshouldbedisregardedinfavourofDrLow’sopinion.130

Thematterproceededtoanagedeterminationhearing,followingwhichtheJudgewasnotsatisfiedthatUPW031wasover18atthetimeoftheallegedoffence.131TheprosecutionwasdiscontinuedandhewasremovedtoIndonesia.Hespent731daysindetentioninAustralia,641oftheminanadultcorrectionalfacility.

Inanothercase,NTN031challengedthereliabilityofwristx-rayanalysis.Themannerinwhichhewasquestionedsuggestsnotonlythattheinterviewerwaswillingtobelessthanfrankwithhim,butalsothattheinterviewerheldadegreeofconfidenceintheprecisionofthetechniquethatwasinconsistentwithanyneedtoapplythebenefitofthedoubt.Thetranscriptoftheinterviewincludesthefollowingexchange:

F/A[FederalAgent]…:Doyourememberhaving[an]X-rayonyourwrist?

THEINTERPRETER:Yes,IwasX-rayed.

F/A…:Yeah.Theytellusyou’re19,over19.

THEINTERPRETER:No,Iwasnottoldthat.AtthetimeIhadmyX-ray,Iwastoldthatmyagewasbetween18and19,butI’mnotover19.

F/A…:So–okay.Soyouweretoldbetween18and19?

THEINTERPRETER:Yes

F/A…:Andyoustillsayyou’re16,eventhoughmedicalproofshowsyou’reover?

INTERPRETER:AssoonasIfoundthatout,Iaskedtobemovedhere.

F/A:Soyouaskedtobemovedtowhere?

INTERPRETER:Movedtotheplacewiththeadults.

F/A…:Allright.Soit’spossiblethatyou’reover18?

190


THEINTERPRETER:No.Mydateofbirthiscorrect.

F/A…:Canyouexplainwhythere’sadifferencebetweenwhatyousayyourageisandwhatmedicalevidencesaysyourageis?

THEINTERPRETER:Ifthatequipmentthatyou’retalkingabout,howcanthatknowmydateofbirth?Ifit’sgoingtoknowmydateofbirth,tellmethen,doesitalsoknowmydateofdeath?

F/A…:Itworksonbonedevelopment.Soitcantellhowoldapersonisbasedonthedevelopmentofbones.

THEINTERPRETER:Thereforethatequipmentorthatitemthatyou’retalkingaboutshouldtellmewhenI’mgoingtodie.

F/A…:No.Differentthingsaffecthowyoulive:howmuchyoueat,whatyoueat,whetheryouexercise,don’texercise.Sothatwilltell–thosewillinfluencewhenyoudie,notamachine.Themachine…

THEINTERPRETER:Yeah,buthowcanitknowthatI’mbetween18and19?

F/A…:AdoctorexaminestheX-rayandwithhisspecialistknowledgeofbonedevelopmentinthewrist,thedoctordetermineshowoldyouareasaresultofreviewingyourX-rays.Itisthedoctorwhohassaidthatyouareover19yearsofage.

THEINTERPRETER:Canthatdoctortellmemydateofbirth?Myyearofbirth?Canhedothat?

F/A…:ThedoctoronlylooksattheX-ray.HeexaminestheX-rayanddeterminesyourageaccordingtothatX-ray.

THEINTERPRETER:Theproblemisifthisso-calleddoctor,hecandetermine,buthedoesn’tknowforsure.Now,he’ssayingforexample,thatI’mbetween18and19.Hestilldoesn’tknowforsure.132

Followingthisinterview,NTN031waschargedasanadult.InApril2011aninternalemailoftheOfficeoftheCDPPrecordsthattheinitialx-rayanalysisshowedthathewas18.5yearsoldandconsideredthatthebenefitofthedoubtmayneedtobegivenandthatconsiderationshouldbegiventodiscontinuingtheprosecution.133Instead,asecondmedicalexpertopinionwassoughtthatreportedthatthex-rayshowedskeletalmaturity.134TheprosecutionwasfinallydiscontinuedinNovember2011whentheOfficeoftheCDPPcametotheviewthattheywouldnotbeabletoprovethathewasovertheageof18yearsatthetimeoftheallegedoffence,largelybecausethetworadiologistswhohadinterpretedhiswristx-raycametodifferentconclusions.135Hespent690daysindetentioninAustralia,412oftheminanadultcorrectionalfacility.

Inafurthermatter,VMT011waschargedasanadultonthebasisofawristx-rayreportthatwasinconclusiveaboutwhetherhehadachievedskeletalmaturity.Theinitialx-rayreport,obtainedon15January2010,expressedtheopinionthathewasatleastbetween18and19yearsold.136AlegalofficerfromtheOfficeoftheCDPPnotedthatthebenefitofthedoubtwouldneedtobegivenbasedonthatreportaloneandaskedtheAFPtoseekasecondreportfromDrLow.Thelegalofficerstatedthat‘itseemspossiblethat[theinitialdoctor]isbeingconservative,anda


findingthat[VMT011]is19oroverismoreapplicable’.137However,beforethesecondreportwasreceived,hewaschargedasanadult.

InApril2011,overayearafterVMT011hadbeenchargedasanadult,asecondreportwasreceivedfromDrLow.Thereportstatesthatthex-rayrevealsskeletalmaturityandthatitisareasonableinterpretationthatheis19yearsofageorolder.138Hethenconcededageandwaschargedandconvictedasanadult.139Hewassentencedtoamandatoryminimumsentenceoffiveyearsimprisonment,withanon-paroleperiodofthreeyears.TheAttorney-GeneralreleasedhimearlyonlicenceinJune2012.

Inafinalexample,PEN060toldDIACandAFPofficers,whenhewasapprehendedon31December2009,thathewasbornin1997andwas12yearsold.140Helatertoldpolicethathewasbornin1992andwasactually17yearsoldatthetimeofhisallegedoffence.141Hesubsequentlyunderwentawristx-ray,thereportofwhichconcludedthathisskeletalagewas18.5years.142Hewasthenchargedasanadult.Hemaintainedthathewasajuvenile.TheOfficeoftheCDPPsoughtasecondopinionabouthisagefromDrLowinMarch2011.DrLow’sreportstated:

Examinationofthebonesofthehandof[name]asderivedfromtheradiographtakenrevealsastatusclosetomaturity.Asegmentofgrowthplateremainsunfusedalongonemarginoftheradius.Theprocessoffusionatthissiteoccursduringtheageof18years.Sincetheprocessisquitewelladvanced,butnotyetcomplete,itis[a]reasonableinterpretationthat[name]isabout18½yearsofage.143

TheprosecutionofPEN060wasdiscontinuedaboutthreeweeksaftertheOfficeoftheCDPPreceivedthereportfromDrLowandoverayearaftertheinitialx-rayreporthadbeenobtained.Inaninternalemaildiscussingthereasonsfordiscontinuingtheprosecution,theOfficeoftheCDPPnotesthattheAFPpolicyisnottochargeanindividualwhoseskeletalageisnotatleast19yearsand,accordingly,thebenefitofthedoubtshouldbegiventotheindividual.Theemailstates:

Thereasonsfordiscontinuancearethattheaccusedhasraisedtheissueofhisageandclaimstobeajuvenile,thatisapersonundertheageof18yearsofage.TheAustralianFederalpoliceawareoftheclaimhadundertakenaprescribedprocedureastoage,beingawristx-rayprocedureinaccordancewiththeCrimesAct1914(Cwth)andtheCrimesRegulations(Cwlth).Theexpertevidenceontheissueplacedtheageofthepersonat18.5years.TheAFPpolicyisthattheywillnotreferforprosecutionspersonsundertheageof19yearsofage,wheretheageisdeterminedbywristx-rayprocedurealone.TheAFPhaspreviouslyassuredParliament(TheSenateConstitutionalandLegalCommittee)thatwheretheagewasanissuethatanyoneunder19yearsofagewouldbegiventhebenefitofthedoubt.IhaveconsideredtheevidenceinthisparticularmatterandtheProsecutionPolicyoftheCommonwealth.WhilstIcannotdetermineontheevidencethattheaccusedisapersonundertheageof18yearsandcannotthereforeconsiderhimtobeajuvenile,Iamsatisfiedthatinthiscasetheaccusedisentitledtothebenefitofthedoubtastohisbeingbetween18yearsand19yearsofage,andaccordinglytheprosecutionoughttobediscontinued.144

192


SinceAFPpolicywasnottoproceedtochargewhereawristx-raydidnotshowskeletalmaturity,thenitisofconcernthatPEN060waseverchargedandthatasecondopinionastohisagewassought15monthsafterhisapprehension.Hespent479daysindetentioninAustralia,201oftheminanadultcorrectionalfacility.

5.2 Some individuals were convicted as adults on the basis of wrist x-ray evidence that was inconclusive

TheCommissionisawareofatleasttwocaseswherethewristx-rayofayoungIndonesiandidnotshowskeletalmaturitybuthewasnonethelesschargedandultimatelyconvictedasanadult.

ThefirstexampleisWAK089who,whenapprehendedinSeptember2009,toldauthoritieshewas17yearsold.145Hesubsequentlyunderwentawristx-rayforthepurposeofdetermininghisage.Thewristx-rayreportstatedthat:

Examinationofthebonesofthehandof[WAK089]asderivedfromtheradiographtakenrevealsastatusclosetomaturity.Averyshortsegmentofgrowthplateremainsunfusedalongtheoutsidemarginoftheradius.Theprocessoffusionatthissiteoccursduringtheageof18years.Sincetheprocessisquitewelladvanced,butnotyetcomplete,itisareasonableinterpretationthat[WAK089]isabout18½yearsofage.146

Hewasarrestedandchargedonthesamedaythatthereportwaswrittenandremandedinadultcustody.147Inabrieftocounsel,theCDPPofficernotes:

X-raysperformedpriortotheirarrestindicatethat…[WAK089]…is18½.Inotethatneitheraccusedhasraisedissueofagetodateintheproceedings.Therefore,forthepurposesofcriminalproceedingsagainstthem,[WAK089]and[WAK087]aretobetreatedasadults.148

NootherevidenceofagewasobtainedbytheCommonwealth.Hewasconvictedasanadultandsentencedtoamandatoryminimumsentenceoffiveyearsimprisonment,withanon-paroleperiodofthreeyears.TheAttorney-GeneralreleasedhimearlyonlicenceinJune2012.

ThesecondexampleisEAS054whotoldtheAFPthathewasbornin1996;thiswouldhavemadehim13yearsoldatthetimeofhisallegedoffence.149Heunderwentawristx-rayandthex-rayreportexpressedtheopinionthathewasatleastbetween18and19yearsofageatthetimeofthex-raybeingtaken.150TheCDPPofficerwrotetotheAFPandaskedthattheAFPseekasecondopinionsaying:

Ialsonotethatthewristx-rayfor[name]statesthatheisatleastbetween18to19.ie40daysearlieratthetimeoftheoffencehecouldbe17.[Medicalpractitioner]seemstoconsistentlyobserveboneformationthatshouldcorrespondtoafindingofatleast19yearsold.Couldyoupleaseobtainthex-raysandgetasecondopinionfromDrLowhereinPerth.151


ThedocumentsbeforetheCommissiondonotmakeclearwhetherDrLowprovidedaformalsecondopinion.TheAFPemailedtheOfficeoftheCDPPtosay:

[DrLow]statesclearlythatthereportiswhatitis:meaningthattheDrinDarwinisreportingthat(quote)‘atthetimeofthexray,thepersonisatleast18yearsold’.Hefurtherexplainedthatthatisallanx-raycanprovidefor.Thatis,theycannotthensayhowmucholderthan18anyoneactuallyis....Inanycase,thex-raystatesthathe’sover18.AFPthoughtsarethatthisprosecutionshouldgoahead.152

Heenteredapleaofguiltyandwassentencedasanadulttoamandatoryminimumtermofimprisonmentoffiveyears.EAS054wasoneofthosewhoseconvictionwasreviewedbytheAttorney-GeneralinMay2012.On18May2012,hewasreleasedearlyonlicenceandhewasreturnedtoIndonesiashortlythereafter.153Hespent891daysindetentioninAustralia,806oftheminanadultcorrectionalfacility.

6 Some individuals conceded age when presented with wrist x-ray evidence

FromthedocumentsbeforetheCommission,itappearsthatinsomecasesindividualsmayhaveconcededtheissueoftheiragewhenpresentedwithwristx-rayanalysisbytheCommonwealth.Asdiscussedinsection2above,andinChapter6,inmanycasesyoungIndonesiansdonotknowtheiractualage.

DocumentsbeforetheCommissionindicatethatAFPofficersfrequentlytoldindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingthatwristx-rayanalysisisanaccuratemeansofassessingageandthattheirstatedagewasincorrect.Insomecases,anindividualwhohadpreviouslysaidthathewasachildacceptedtheresultofthewristx-rayanalysis.Forexample,inoneinterviewwiththeAFP,EAS056,whohadpreviouslytoldtheAFPthathewas16yearsold,wasaskedwhetherhewasover18yearsofage.Hereplied‘Yeah,itisaccordingtothex-ray’.154Theissueofagewasraisedagainlaterinthatsameinterview.Thetranscriptoftheinterviewreads:

Q121Okay.Wereyoutoldtosaythatyouwereundertheageofeighteenbyanyone?

A121THEINTERPRETER:No.

[EAS056]:No

THEINTERPRETER:(Speakingonbehalfoftheinterviewee)Oh,canIaskaquestion?Isaidmyagebutaccordingtoyou,whatismyage?

Q122Allthex-raycantellusisthatyouovertheageofnineteen.

A122[EAS056]:Yeah.

194


Helaterpleadedguilty.Duringsentencingsubmissionshisdefencelawyersaidthattheindividualwas‘notinapositiontotell...hisexactage,butweestimateroughlybetweenearly20sandmid-20s’.155

ItappearsthatinsomecasesayoungIndonesiancontinuedtobelievethathewasagedunder18,butmayhavebeenconfusedbythedifferencebetweenhisstatedageandtheageprovidedinthewristx-rayreport.Forexample,onetranscriptofinterviewrecordsthefollowingexchange:

Q57Allright.Areyouovertheageofeighteen?

A57Sorry,ifthatisthesituationIacceptthat,butmyrealageisgiventomebymyparents.

Q58Mm,andwhatage—

A58MyparentstoldmeIamsuchandsuchanage,soIwillgoalongwiththatage.

Q59Andhowolddidyourparentssay?

A59Idon’tknowwhatageIam,whatever,butmyparentsgavemetheageIhave.

Q60Andwhatagedoyouthinkyouare?

A60Idon’tknow.So,Idon’tknowwhatageIambecausemyparentstoldmemyage,myparentsgavebirthtomesoIfollowedthroughwiththeagethattheytoldme.

Q61Mm,andwhatagedidyourparentssaythatyouare?

A61Fifteen.

Q62Fifteen,okay.AnddoyouagreethatyesterdayyouwentandhadsomeX-raysdoneofyourwrist?

A62Yes.

Q63Okay,andthatasaresultofthoseX-rays,wehavenowinformedyou,thedoctorhaslookedattheX-rays?

A63(Noaudiblereply)

Q64Okay,andthoseX-raysindicatethatyouareovertheageofeighteen.

A64Iunderstandthat.So,that’s-Idon’tknowwhatageIambutthatistheagethatwasgiventomebymyparents.

Q65Yes,that’sfine.That’sokay.

A65ButnowIfeelasthoughIhavesinnedbecausemyparentsgaveme–so,youknow,theyhavesaidtomethatmyageis–andIfollowedwiththat.

Q66Yes,youareonlydoingwhatyoubelieve,itisnotasin.156


InthetranscriptofaninterviewbetweenanotheryoungIndonesianandtheAFP,againwithnoindependentadultpresent,DRL038isapparentlysurprisedthathehasbeenchargedasanadult.Thetranscriptrecordsthefollowingexchange:

Q3.Youpreviouslystatedtomethatyouaretheageofsixteen.Isthatcorrect?

A.That’sright.

Q4.AndIexplainedtoyouthatsinceyouunderwentthe[wrist]x-ray,wehavereasontobelievethatyouareovertheageofeighteen....Iamnowplacingyouunderarrestforthisoffence....

Q8.Canyoutellmeinyourownwordsyourunderstandingofthiscaution?

A.THEINTERPRETER(Answeringonbehalfofinterviewee):Myunderstanding–I’mstillsurprisedaboutmy,myage....

Q21.Areyouovertheageofeighteen?

A.No.157

Inanothermatter,DER026continuedtoassertthathiscorrectdateofbirthwasthatgivenbyhisparentsandnotthewristx-rayanalysis.Thetranscriptofhisinterviewincludesthefollowingexchange:

Q98 Areyouovertheageofeighteen?

A98 THEINTERPRETER:BecauseyesterdayIwasinthehospitalandthentheycheckedmyage.Soit’suptothem.AccordingtomyparentsIwasagedthattime,thatageIwastold.

Q99 Areyouovereighteenyearsold?

A99 THEINTERPRETER:It’suptoyou,ifyouwanttosayIamovereighteen,yes.Soit’suptoyou.

Q100Howolddoyouthinkyouare?

A100 THEINTERPRETER:Idon’tthinkofanythingbecausemyparentsgivemeIwassixteenyearsold.

Q101Okay.DoyouagreethatyesterdayyouweretakentothehospitalinDarwinforawristx-ray?


Q102Theresultsofthatwristx-rayindicatethatyouhaveattainedtheageofnineteenyears.

A102 THEINTERPRETER:That’sokay,whatever.

Q103Youunderstandthat,whathappenedyesterday?

A103 THEINTERPRETER:Yes,Idounderstand.

Q113Whatisyourdateofbirth?

196


A113 THEINTERPRETER:Idon’tknow.

Q114YesterdayyoustatedyourdateofbirthwasthethirdofMarch,nineteenninety-three.Isthattrue?

A114 THEINTERPRETER:That’scorrect.

Q115Isthatyourtruedateofbirth?

A115 THEINTERPRETER:That’smytruedateofbirth.

Q116Doyouhaveanydocumentationwhichcanprovethat’syourdateofbirth?

A116 THEINTERPRETER:Yeah,Ihavemybirthcertificate,butthat’snothere,it’sinIndonesia.

Q117Doyouunderstandthatthedateofbirthyouhavegivenme,makesyousixteenyearsold?


Q118Doyoualsounderstandthattwodoctorsyesterdaystatedthatyouwereatleastnineteenyearsold?

A118 THEINTERPRETER:Yeah,Idounderstand.

Q119Canyouexplainthediscrepancybetweenyourstateddateofbirth,andyourapparentrealage?

A119 THEINTERPRETER:Iknowthat’smy,mydateofbirth.Butyesterdaytheytestme,soiftheythinkI’meighteen,it’suptothem,whattheywanttosay.

Q120Whatdoyousay,[name]?

A120 THEINTERPRETER:It’suptoyou.158

Inyetanothercase,thatofINN012,apsychologicalassessmentreportshisdescribingwhatitwasliketobetoldthatthewristx-rayhaddeterminedhewasover19yearsofagewhenhedidnotbelievethattobetrue.Thereportoftheassessmentrecords:

[INN012]statedthathewasafraidduringtheinterviewwiththePolice.Whenaskedwhyheinitiallysaidhewas15yearsoldandlatersaidhewas19yearsold,[INN012]reportedthat“theyaskedmesomanyquestions...Iwasconfused...theytoldmeaccordingtoawristX-Raymyageshouldbe19andI’mafraidtogoagainstthat…buttheladywhoraisedmesaidmyagewas15andhowcouldInotbelieveher...IamconfusedabouttheX-Ray”.Headdedthat“inthatinterviewIsaidthewrongthinginmyheart”.Itseemsthat[INN012]agreedwiththesuggestionthathewas19yearsold,becausehedidnotwanttocontradictthePoliceOfficerandgethimselfinmoretrouble.Herepeatedseveraltimesthathewastoldthathewas15lastyear,byhisaunt,andseemedconfusedastowhyshewouldtellhimincorrectinformation.159

TheCommissionisalsoawareofcaseswhereindividualswereadvisedtopleadguiltybydefencelawyersfollowingtheirconsiderationoftheresultsofwristx-rayanalysis.


Forexample,apersonnamedSyamwasconvictedandsentencedforpeoplesmugglingon9June2011intheQueenslandDistrictCourt.160Hecontinuestomaintainthathewasunder18yearsofageatthetimeoftheoffence.161Syamsaysthathewasadvisedbyhislawyertopleadguiltytotheoffencewithwhichhewascharged.Hehassignedanaffidavitwhichincludesthefollowingparagraphs:

28.On12April2010atDarwinAustralia,apersonunknowntometookanx-rayofmywristwithoutmeunderstandingwhatwasgoingonorwhy.

29.On1July2010atDarwinDetentionCentre,IwasquestionedbytheAustralianFederalPolice.Inanswertotheirquestions,ItoldthemthatIwasnotovertheageof18years.Irepeatedmydateofbirthas1March1995.

30.On1October2010IwaschargedandtransportedtoamaximumsecurityprisonattheArthurGorrieCorrectionalCentreBrisbane,Queensland,Australiaandheldwithadultprisoners....

35.Itold[my]lawyerthatIwasunder18yearsofage.Igavethelawyerthetelephonenumberofmyolderbrother,[nameredacted]whohasacelltelephone,andaskedthelawyertocall[nameredacted]toconfirmmyageasbeingunder18years.Thelawyerwrotedownthetelephonenumberinthefile.

36.AfterIwassentencedIwasabletospeakto[nameredacted]onthetelephone,whosaidhehadnotreceivedanytelephonecallfrom[mylawyer]oranyoneelseconcerningmyageorthismatter.Thereisnothingin[mylawyer’s]filetoshowthattheyhadtriedtocontact[nameredacted]asinstructed.

37.NoonefromtheAustralianGovernment,Customs,theDepartmentofImmigrationandCitizenship,theAustralianFederalPolice,theCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions,or[mylawyer]:

a) contactedmymotheroranyothermemberofmyfamilytotellthemIwasunderdetention,hadbeencharged,ordetainedinAustraliaonaveryseriouscriminaloffencefacingmandatoryimprisonment;

b) triedtoobtainindependentevidenceofmybirthfromIndonesiaorabirthcertificate....

39.[Mylawyer]advisedmethat:

a) medicalevidencefromawristx-rayshowedthatIwas19yearsofage;

b) Iwaslyingaboutmyageandknowledgeoftheoffence;

c) thewristx-rayshowedIwas19yearsandthatifitshowedthatIliedinCourt,Iwouldbesentencedto7yearsactualimprisonment;

d) ifIpleadedguilty,Iwouldonlyreceive3yearsimprisonmentandwouldavoidtheriskofa5yearsentence....

44.On9June2011,Ipleadedguilty,andmyagewasgiventothejudgeas“approximately19yearsofage”,because...

(h)IknewIwasunder18yearofagebutwasbeingtoldthatIwas19yearsofage;

198


(i) Ididnotunderstandthemeaningofthex-ray,orhowitcouldproveIwaslyingaboutmyage;

(j) thelegalissueswereverycomplexandbeyondmyunderstanding;

(k)Ididnotwanttogotoajuvenilegaol,whereIwouldnotbewithmyfellowIndonesianprisonerswhoweremyfriendsandwhereIamunabletosmokecigarettes;

(l) Iwasadvisedby[mylawyer]topleadguilty.162

TheAttorney-GeneralreleasedSyamearlyonlicenceinJune2012.

Inanotherexample,thatofQUE051,thedefencelawyerraisedageduringhissubmissionsonsentencingintheDistrictCourtofWesternAustralia.Hesaidthatthedefendanthadconcededageoncepresentedwiththewristx-rayevidenceandstated:

WeknowfromthemedicalreportpreparedbyDrLow,Ithinkitwas,thatthismanisofanageofsomewherealittlebitmorethan19years.TheCrownsubmitsintheirsubmissionthatI’vequicklylookedatthat[he]liedinhisvideoaboutthismatter,butthepositionisandI’vediscussedthiswithhim,hehasaferventbeliefthatthatwashisdateofbirth,the14thofApril1994.

It’snotsurprising,hecomesfromaverysmallvillageandthatisthedateofbirththathebelievedittobeandthatiswhathesaid.However,havingputthemedicalreporttohimduringthecourseofthistrial[he]hasconcededthatthemedicalreportisthemedicalreportanddoesnotchallengeit.Butit’snotsomuchthathelied.It’sasituation,fromtheinstructionthatIhavefromhim,thathehadaferventbeliefthatwashisdateofbirth.

WISBEYDCJ:It’sunusualisn’tit?YoucangetpeoplesuchasIndigenouspeopleintheNorthofthisStatewhodon’tknowhowoldtheyare.

[DEFENCELAWYER]:Youdo.

WISBEYDCJ:Butitisunusualtohavesomeonewhostipulatesaprecisedateofbirththathappenstobewrong.

[DEFENCELAWYER]:Look,Iaccept,Idoacceptthat,butImerelyputitthatIdiddiscussthatmatterwithhimandthat’swhatheinstructedme.163

TheseexamplessuggestthatinsomecircumstancestheCommonwealthpresentedwristx-rayanalysisasdeterminativeoftheissueofagetoyoungIndonesianswhoseagewasindoubt;andinsomecasesindividuals’legalrepresentativesacceptedthemedicalevidenceasdeterminativeandaccordinglyadvisedtheirclientstopleadguilty.Itappearslikelythatinsomecasestheindividualdidnotraisetheissueoftheirageagain,orpleadedguilty,therebyconcedingtheirage,afterreceivingtheresultsofthewristx-raybecausetheywereunderthemistakenbeliefthatthoseresultswereaccurateandconclusive.


7 Consent for a wrist x-ray to be taken was frequently not validly obtained

Therequirementthatconsentbegivenpriortoamedicalprocedurebeingcarriedoutisunderpinnedbytheprincipleofbodilyintegrity.164Anindividualhasarighttochoosewhathappenstohisorherownbody.165Itisafundamentalruleofdomesticlaw,aninternationalhumanrightsprincipleandarequirementforthoseworkinginthemedicalprofessionthatinformedconsentmustbeobtainedbeforethereisanyinterferencewithaperson’sbodilyintegrity.

Whereachildisunabletoconsenttomedicaltreatment,forexamplebecauseofimmaturityorillness,aparentorguardianisgenerallyabletoconsentonbehalfofthechild.166Whenaparentdoesprovideconsenttoamedicalprocedurefortheirchild,theymustdosointhebestinterestsoftheirchild.TheHighCourtofAustraliahasobserved:

Ordinarilyaparentofachildwhoisnotcapableofgivinginformedconsentisinthebestpositiontoactinthebestinterestsofthechild.Implicitinparentalconsentisunderstoodtobethedeterminationofwhatisbestforthewelfareofthechild.167

Informedconsentwasanimportantelementofthe2001amendmentstotheCrimesActwhichintroducedtherequirementsgoverningtheconductofprescribedproceduresforageassessmentpurposes.TheSecondReadingSpeechfortheCrimesAmendment(AgeDetermination)Bill2001states:

TheBillispredicatedoninformedconsent–useoftheprescribedequipmentforinvestigationandrelatedpurposeswillonlybepermittedwheretheinformedwrittenconsentofboththedetainedpersonandanappropriateindependentadulthasbeenobtained;orbyorderofamagistrate.168

Inthissectionconsiderationisgiven,first,tothelawandtoacceptedpracticeconcerningtheobtainingofconsentwhereamedicalprocedure,whetherconductedforforensicortherapeuticpurposes,istobecarriedoutonachild.Itconsiders:

• consentrequirementsfortheconductofmedicalproceduresgenerally

• consentrequirementsforprescribedproceduresconductedundertheCrimesAct

• consentrequirementsforotherforensicproceduresconductedundertheCrimesAct

• howconsentwasobtainedinrelianceontheCrimesActtoconductwristx-raysofyoungIndonesians.

200


Second,thissectionconsiderstheextenttowhichtherequirementsforinformedconsentundertheCrimesActwerecompliedwithinrelationtoagedeterminationproceduresforyoungIndonesians.Inparticular,itexamines:

• whethertheindependentadultunderstoodthattheywererequiredtoactinthebestinterestsoftheyoungIndonesian

• whethertheindependentadultwasprovidedwiththeinformationrequiredbytheCrimesAct

• whethertheconsentofanindependentadultwasobtainedinallcases

• whetherarecordingoftheconsentwasmadeinallcasesasrequiredbytheCrimesAct.

Thissectionconcludesthatinmanycases,consentforawristx-raytobetakenwasnotvalidlyobtained.

7.1 Consent requirements for the conduct of medical procedures generally

Informedconsentisafundamentalprincipleofsoundmedicalpractice.TheNationalHealthandMedicalResearchCouncil(NHMRC)GeneralGuidelinesforMedicalPractitionersonProvidingInformationtoPatientscontainguidelinestoensuregoodmedicalpracticeconcerningdoctor-patientcommunicationandtoreflecttheprinciplethatpatientsareabletomaketheirowndecisionsaboutmedicaltreatment,includingwhethertograntorwithholdconsenttotreatment.169Furthermore,consentisrequiredinordertoavoidamedicalprocedureconstitutinganassault.170

TheNHMRCguidelinesemphasisetheimportanceofconsenttomedicaltreatmentbeingfullyinformed,stating:

patientsareentitledtomaketheirowndecisionsaboutmedicaltreatmentsorproceduresandshouldbegivenadequateinformationonwhichtobasethosedecisions.Informationshouldbeprovidedinaformandmannerwhichhelpspatientsunderstandtheproblemandtreatmentoptionsavailable,andwhichareappropriatetothepatient’scircumstances,personality,expectations,fears,beliefs,valuesandculturalbackground.171

Theguidelinesalsosetoutthekindsofinformationandadviceadoctorshouldnormallygivetoapatientwhoisaskedtoconsenttotreatment.Theyindicatethatthetopicsdoctorsshouldnormallydiscusswiththeirpatientsinclude:

• whethertheproposedapproachisconventionalorexperimental

• thedegreeofuncertaintyaboutanydiagnosisarrivedat

• theexpectedbenefitsoftheproposedtreatment.172


Theyfurtherindicatethatinterventionswherethepatienthasnoillnessrequireadoctortoprovidemoreinformation.173

ThemedicalexpertswhoparticipatedintheInquiryhearingagreedthatifamedicalprocedurewerebeingcarriedoutforresearchpurposesorinaclinicalsituation,itwouldbeimportanttoexplaintothepatientthedegreeofuncertaintyofanydiagnosisreachedandthedifferencesinmedicalopinionabouthowusefultheinformationobtainedis.174

TwooftheAustralianmedicalexpertswhoparticipatedintheInquiryhearingwereoftheopinionthatsoundmedicalpracticerequirestheretobeanengagedadultofsomekindwhocanbringajudgmenttobearindependentlyofthechildwithrespecttothereasonsfor,andtherisksandbenefitsof,aparticularmedicalprocedure.175Itwassuggestedthatconsenttomedicaltreatmentcouldonlyvalidlybegivenbyachild’sparentorlegalguardianandcouldnotbegivenby‘anybodywhohappenstobewiththechildonthatday’.176

7.2 Consent requirements for prescribed procedures conducted under the Crimes Act

TheCrimesActprovidesthataninvestigatingofficialmayonlyarrangetocarryoutaprescribedagedeterminationprocedureiftheappropriateconsentshavebeenobtainedor,alternatively,byorderofamagistrate.177

Section3ZQCoftheCrimesActrequiresthewrittenconsentoftwoindividuals;thepersonwhoseageneedstobedeterminedandeithertheirparentorguardianoranacceptableindependentadultpersonwhoiscapableofrepresentingtheirinterests.178TheExplanatoryMemorandumtotheBillintroducingtherequirementsgoverningtheconductofprescribedproceduresmakesclearthatitwasenvisagedthattheindependentadultcouldbeaseniorgovernmentofficialwhoisnotconnectedwiththeinvestigation.179

TheCrimesActsetsoutanumberofotherrequirementsthatmustbemetforconsenttobevalidlyobtainedundertheAct.

First,theconsentofboththepersonwhoseageneedstobedeterminedandtheindependentadultmustbeinformedconsent.180TheCrimesActrequiresthataninvestigatingofficermustinformthembothofanumberofthings,including:

• thepurposeof,andreasonsfor,theprocedure

• thenatureoftheprocedureandtheequipmentinvolved

• knownhealthrisksassociatedwiththeprocedure

202


• thattheinformationobtainedfromcarryingouttheprocedurecouldaffectthemannerofdealingwiththeperson

• thatthepersonundergoingtheproceduremayhave,sofarasisreasonablypracticable,apersonoftheirchoicepresentwhileitiscarriedout.181

Thisinformationmustbeprovidedinalanguageinwhichthepersonwhoseageneedstobedeterminedisabletocommunicatewithreasonablefluency.

Theinvestigatingofficialmust,ifpracticable,ensurethatthegivingoftheinformationabouttheprescribedprocedureandtheresponses(ifany)ofthepersonstowhomtheinformationisgivenarerecordedbyaudiotape,videotapeorotherelectronicmeans.Acopyofthatrecordmustbegiventothepersononwhomtheprocedureistobecarriedout.182Ifitisnotpracticabletomakeanelectronicrecord,theinvestigatingofficialmustmakeawrittenrecordofthegivingofinformationandoftheresponses,andacopyofthatrecordmustbegiventotheperson.183

7.3 Consent requirements for forensic procedures conducted under the Crimes Act

TheconsentrequirementsforagedeterminationproceduresarelessstringentthanthoseforotherforensicproceduresundertheCrimesAct.ThiswasdrawntotheattentionoftheSenateCommitteein2001.TheSenateCommitteereportobservedthattherewasnoobviousreasonfortheprotectionsaffordedinrelationtootherforensicproceduresnottobeaffordedwhenagedeterminationproceduresareundertaken.184

Forexample,achildcannotconsenttoanyotherforensicprocedureundertheCrimesAct.185Generally,aforensicproceduremayonlybecarriedoutonachildbyorderofamagistrate.186Theexceptiontothatruleisthataparentorguardianmayvolunteeronthechild’sbehalfthatthechildundergoesaforensicprocedure.187Whereaparentorguardiandoesvolunteerthattheirchildundergoesaforensicprocedure,theparentorguardianmustbeinformed:

• ofthedetailsoftheprocedure188

• thattheyarenotobligedtoconsenttotheprocedure189

• thattheproceduremayproduceevidencetobeusedinacourtoflaw190

• oftheirrighttocontactalegalpractitioner191

• oftheirrighttowithdrawconsentatanytime.192


Additionally,thechildmustbeinformedthattheprocedurewillnotbecarriedoutovertheirobjection.193

TheconsentofaparentorguardiantoaforensicprocedureundertheCrimesActmaybewithdrawnatanytime,includingaftertheprocedurehasbeencarriedout.194Ifaparentorguardianwithdrawsconsentaftertheprocedurehasbeencompleted,theforensicmaterialobtainedfromtheproceduremustbedestroyedassoonaspracticable.195

Wheretheconsentofaparentorguardiancannotreasonablybeobtained,amagistratemayorderthecarryingoutofaforensicprocedureonachild.196Amagistratemustconsiderarangeoffactorsindecidingwhethertoorderaforensicprocedurebecarriedoutonachild,including:

• theseriousnessofthecircumstancessurroundingthecommissionoftheoffence

• thebestinterestsofthechild

• anywishesexpressedbytheparentorguardianofthechild

• whethertheprocedureisjustified

• thewishesofthechild.197

ThedifferencesbetweentheconsentrequirementsforagedeterminationproceduresandthoserequiredforforensicproceduresundertheCrimesActmaybesummarisedasfollows:

• Theprovisionsrelatingtoforensicproceduresplaceagreateremphasisonfullyinformingchildsuspectsandtheirparentsorguardiansoftheirrightsbeforeobtainingconsentthantheprovisionsrelatingtoagedeterminationprocedures.

• Onlyaparentorguardian,andnotanyotherindependentadult,mayconsenttothecarryingoutofanotherforensicprocedure.Wheretheparentorguardianisnotreasonablyavailable,anapplicationmustbemadetoamagistratetoorderthecarryingoutoftheforensicprocedure.

• Amagistratemusthaveregardtoamoreextensivelistofenumeratedmatterswhenmakinganordertocarryoutanotherforensicprocedureonachildsuspectthanwhenmakinganordertocarryoutanagedeterminationprocedure.

• Theparentorguardianofachildsuspectmaywithdrawtheirconsenttoanotherforensicprocedureatanytime,includingaftertheprocedureiscompleted,atwhichtimetheforensicmaterialmustbedestroyed.Thereisnosuchprovisionforagedeterminationmaterials.

204


7.4 How consent was obtained from people smuggling suspects whose age in doubt

(a) Theconsentoftheindividual

DocumentsprovidedtotheCommissionshowthatconsentfortheconductofawristx-rayhasgenerallybeenobtainedfromyoungIndonesiansataninterviewconductedbyAFPofficers.ThisinterviewisgenerallyattendedbytwoAFPofficers,anindependentadultandaninterpreter.

Peoplesmugglingsuspectswhohavebeenaskedtoconsenttoawristx-raybeingtakenhavegenerallybeenofferedaccesstolegalassistancepriortoaformalrequestforconsentbeingmade.DocumentsprovidedtotheCommissionindicatethatthisassistanceisusuallyobtained,ifatall,bytelephonefromthelocallegalaidoffice.InmostcasesayoungIndonesianwhohasspokentoalawyeragreestogiveconsenttotheprocedurebeingundertaken.

TheAFPhasprovidedtheCommissionwithastandardstatementofinformationprovidedtoindividualspriortoconsentforthewristx-rayprocedurebeingobtained.Asdiscussedbelow,thisstatementofinformationwasalteredinmid-2011.

DocumentsprovidedtotheCommissionindicatethatitwascommonfortheyoungIndonesiantobeprovidedwithacopyofthestandardstatementofinformationtranslatedintoBahasaIndonesiaandaskedwhethertheyunderstoodit.

WhenayoungIndonesianagreedtogiveconsent,hesignedaformwhichwaswitnessedandretainedbytheAFP.

(b) Theconsentofanindependentadult

AsdiscussedinChapter7,theindividualswhosetreatmentisthesubjectofthisInquiryordinarilydonothavealegalguardianinAustralia.

Consentofanindependentadultfortheconductofawristx-ray,asrequiredbytheCrimesAct,hasgenerallybeengivenbyanindependentobserverengagedbyDIAC.ItisDIACpolicythatanindependentobserverbepresentwheneverDIAC,oranotherAustralianGovernmentagency,interviewsanunaccompaniedminorinimmigrationdetention.198

Thenon-governmentorganisation,LifeWithoutBarriers,199iscontractedbyDIACtoprovideindependentobserverservicesforunaccompaniedminorsinimmigrationdetention.Inmostcases,arepresentativefromthisorganisationactsastheindependentadultforthepurposesofproviding‘consent’toaprescribedprocedureconductedundertheCrimesAct.200Thelimited


responsibilitiesofanindividualengagedbyLifeWithoutBarriersunderitscontractwithDIACarediscussedinsection7.5(b)below.

(c) Recordingconsent

Asmentionedabove,theCrimesActrequiresthat,wherepracticable,anelectronicrecordofthegivingofconsentmustbemade.FromthematerialprovidedtotheInquiryitappearsthatelectronicrecordingsoftheinterviewsinwhichconsentwasgivenweremadeinasignificantnumberofcasesbutnotinallcases.

7.5 Consent for a wrist x-ray to be taken was frequently not validly obtained

TheCommissionhasconcernsabouttheextenttowhichtherequirementsforinformedconsentundertheCrimesActwerecompliedwithinrelationtoagedeterminationproceduresforyoungIndonesians.

(a) Informationprovidedtoindividualsfromwhomconsentwassoughtwasmisleading

Untilmid-2011,misleadinginformationwasprovidedtoindividualsfromwhomconsentwassought.

Asnotedabove,theAFPprovidedtheInquirywithacopyofastandardstatementofinformationprovidedtoindividualspriortoconsentforthewristx-rayprocedure.Untilmid-2011,thatstatementincludedthefollowinginformation:

Thepurposeandreasonsforcarryingoutthisprocedureistoaccuratelydetermineyouragebasedontheexpertexaminationofanx-rayofyourwrist.201

InFebruary2011,theCommissionPresidentwrotetothethenAttorney-Generaladvisingthat,inheropinion,consenttocarryoutawristx-raycannotbecharacterisedasinformedconsentunlessthepersonisawareoftheunreliabilityofthewristx-rayprocedureforthepurposeforwhichitisused.202

Subsequently,aSeniorAssistantDirectoroftheOfficeoftheCDPPwrotetotheAFPadvisingthatthestandardstatementofinformationshouldberevisedtomakeclearthatthewristx-raycanonlyprovideaprobableestimationofaperson’sage.TheSeniorAssistantDirectorexpressedconcernthattheconsentstatementalsoappearedtoindicatethatthewristx-raywouldbedeterminativeofage,whentheofficialpolicywastotakeanumberoffactors,includingtheresultofthewristx-ray,intoaccountwhendeterminingage.203

206


On19August2011theAFPissuedanAideMemoirewithanupdatedversionofthestatementofinformationtobeprovidedtoindividualsbeforeobtainingconsentforthewristx-rayprocedure.Theupdatedstatementincludesthefollowinginformation:

Thepurposeandreasonforcarryingoutthisprocedureistoassistindeterminingyouragebasedontheexpertexaminationofanx-rayofyourwrist....Thewristx-raymayonlyprovideaprobableestimationofaperson’sage.Multiplefactorsmaybeconsideredinseekingtodetermineyourage.204

AttheInquiryhearingforCommonwealthagencies,theAFPgaveevidencethatwhiletheprocesstochangetheformhadbegunearlier,thechangeswerenotformalisedinwritinguntil19August2011.205

(b) Theindependentadultdidnotactintheinterestsofindividualswhoseagewasuncertain

Section3ZQCoftheCrimesActrequiresthattheindependentpersonwhoprovidesconsentisapersonwhoiscapableofrepresentingtheinterestsofthepersoninrespectofwhomitissoughttocarryouttheprocedure.Thiswouldordinarilybeunderstoodtomeanthattheindependentpersonshouldbeapersonwhounderstandsthattheyshouldturntheirmindtowhethertheprocedureisintheinterestsofthepersononwhomitisproposedtobecarriedout.Thiswouldrequiretheprovisionofadequateinformationtothemtoenablethemtomakethatassessment.

Suchareadingofs3ZQCwouldbeconsistentwiththerequirementthatlegislativeprovisionsbeinterpretedinamannerthatensures,asfaraspossible,thattheyareconsistentwithAustralia’sinternationalhumanrightsobligations.206ItwouldalsobeconsistentwiththelanguageoftheSenateSecondReadingSpeechfortheCrimesAmendment(AgeDetermination)Bill2001duringwhichtheSpecialMinisterofStatesaid:

ThisBillispredicatedoninformedconsent–useoftheprescribedequipment…willonlybepermittedwheretheinformedwrittenconsentofboththedetainedpersonandanappropriateindependentadulthasbeenobtained;orbyorderofamagistrate.207

TheroleassignedbyDIACtoanindependentobserverretainedbyLifeWithoutBarriersis:

toactinthebestinterestsofunaccompaniedminorsandensurethattheDepartment’sandotheragencies’treatmentofunaccompaniedminorsduringcertainimmigrationdetentionprocessesisfair,appropriateandreasonable.208

DIACmaterialsshowthattheindependentobserverprovidesaservice‘toensure[theminor’s]physicalandemotionalwellbeing’.209Theindependentobserverhasnocasework,legaladvocacyorinvestigativeresponsibilities.210DuringprocessessuchasinterviewswiththeAFP,anindependentobserverisrequiredtoprovidepastoralorphysicalcareofthechildthroughout


theinterviewprocess.Morespecifically,thecontractualroleoftheindependentobserverduringinterviewsis:

• Toobservetheinteractionbetweentheinterpreterandthechildoryoungperson,andadvisetheinterviewerofanyconcerns.

• Toobservetheconductoftheinterview/examination/assessmentandthedemeanourandpresentationofthechildoryoungperson;andtodrawtotheattentionoftheintervieweranyconcernsabouttheemotionalandphysicalstateofthechildoryoungperson.

• Toprovideareassuringandfriendlypresenceforthechildoryoungperson.

• Toensureeachprocessisadequatelyexplainedandunderstoodbythechildoryoungperson.

• Tobeattentivetonon-verbalcuesoftheyoungpersonthatindicatesaneedtotakeabreak.

• TobeattentivetosignsthattheyoungpersonmaybenefitfromtraumacounsellingandprovidethisadvicetoDIAC.211

On11March2011,DIACprovidedclearadvicetoAGDaboutthelimitedrolepersonsengagedbyLifeWithoutBarrierswereobligedtoperform.TheDIACofficerstatedinanemail:

Thepolicydocumentsalsomakeclearthatindependentobserversarenotrequiredtoactivelyengageinimmigrationandotherprocesses,andthattheyareinsteadpassiveobserverswithintheprocess.212

TheemailgoesontoadvisethatthereisnocontractualobligationfortheLifeWithoutBarriersindependentobservertotakeanactiveroleinAFPprocessesandnotesthattheidentificationofanappropriateindependentadultinthecontextofagedeterminationisamatterthatshouldbediscussedandconsideredfurther.

Oneweeklater,AGDreceivedadvicefromtheAFPthattheCrimesActrequiresLifeWithoutBarrierstoplayanactiveroleineithersigningtheconsentformorinrefusingtogiveconsent.TheAFPofficerinformedanAGDofficerthatsheunderstoodthattheLifeWithoutBarriersrepresentativestooktheirroleseriously.213Thecriticalissueofcourse,iswhattheyunderstoodtheirroletobe,notwhethertheytooktheirroleseriously.

ThedocumentsbeforetheCommissionsuggestthatindividualAFPofficersmaynothavehadaclearunderstandingoftherealrolethelegislationrequiredtheindependentadulttoplay.Duringinterviewsinwhichtheindependentadultwasaskedtoconsenttothex-ray,AFPofficersvariouslystatedthattheindependentperson‘istheretomakesureeverything’sconductedfairlyandthatwetreatyouwell’and‘istheretoensurethatwetreatyouokayduringtheinterviewandforyoursupport’.214

208


InoneinterviewwhereanIndonesianconsularofficerwasactingastheindependentadult,theconsularofficerexpressedreluctanceaboutsigningtheconsentform.TheAFPofficerreplied,‘O’kay,allIamtryingtodoisacknowledgethefactthatyouwerehere’.215

ItisnotclearfromthematerialbeforetheCommissionwhattheindividualsengagedbyLifeWithoutBarriersunderstoodtheirroletobe.AnumberoftranscriptsofinterviewsbetweenyoungIndonesiansandtheAFPrecordtheindependentadultgivingtheirconsentfortheyoungIndonesiantoundergothex-rayprocedure.Inmanycases,theindependentadultaskstheindividualwhoseageisindoubttoexplain,inhisownwords,whatheunderstandsheisbeingaskedtoconsenttoandthepurposeoftheprocedure.Ingeneral,theindependentadultthenexplainswhyheorsheisagreeingtoconsenttothex-rayprocedure,ordinarilyinthefollowingterms:

Sinceyouhaveindicatedthatyouareundertheageof18andyoudon’thaveanadultguardianpresent,I’mgoingtosignthisconsentformasanindependentobserveronyourbehalf.216

TheCommissionhasnotbeenprovidedwithanymaterialwhichsuggeststhatthoseengagedbyLifeWithoutBarrierseverreceivedanexplanationoftheroleoftheindependentadultundertheCrimesAct.Asnotedabove,theircontractualobligationwastoactasanobserverandtoprovidepastoralsupporttoensurethephysicalandemotionalwellbeingofthechild.Bycontrast,theroleoftheindependentadultundertheCrimesActistorepresenttheyoungperson’sinterestsandtoprovideinformedconsenttothex-rayprocedure.

(c) IndependentadultsmaynothavebeenprovidedwiththeinformationrequiredbytheCrimesAct

FromthedocumentsbeforetheCommission,itappearsthat,evenwheretheindependentadultsignedtheconsentform(andinsomecasesnosuchsignaturewasobtained),theymaynothavebeengiventheinformationthattheCrimesActrequiresanindependentadulttobegiven.

Section3ZQC(2)oftheCrimesActrequiresthatthespecifiedinformationaboutthex-rayprocedurebeprovidedto‘eachofthepersonsfromwhom...consentisbeingsought’.Clearly,thisrequirestherelevantinformationtobeprovidedtoboththepersonwhoseageisindisputeandhisparent,guardianortheindependentadult.

Itwasnotuncommonforthestandardstatementofinformationconcerningwristx-raystohavebeenprovidedbywayofawrittenstatementinBahasaIndonesiawhichtheinterpreterreadtotheyoungIndonesian.WheretheyoungpersonwasabletoreadBahasaIndonesia,theAFPsometimesprovidedthestatementdirectlytotheyoungpersonandinvitedhimtoreadittohimself.TheyoungIndonesianwasthenaskedtoconsenttothex-rayprocedure.Insomecases,theindependentadultwasthenimmediatelyaskedtoconsenttotheprocedurewithoutbeing


providedwiththestandardstatementofinformationinEnglish.217ThereisnothingtosuggestthattheindependentadultsspokeorreadBahasaIndonesia.

(d) Insomecases,theconsentofanindependentadultwasnotobtained

In[ULT055]vtheQueen,218theCommonwealthacceptedthattheconsentofaparent,guardianorindependentadulthadnotbeenobtained.219

TheJudgeobserved:

ThefederalagentagreedthatwhenapersonistransportedfromChristmasIslandtoPerthasajuvenileasamatter‘ofcourse’theAustralianFederalPolice(AFP)arrangeforawristx-raytobetakentoascertainthatperson’sage.TherewasnoevidenceestablishingwhetherwrittenconsentsormagistrateorderswereobtainedonthoseotheroccasionsandIamnotabletosaywhethertheprocedureadoptedonthisoccasionistheroutineprocedureadoptedbytheAFP.Ifitistheremustbeachangeofprocedure.

OnewouldhaveexpectedtheAFPwouldhaveproceduresinplacetocheckthattheyhadobtainedthewrittenconsentofthepersonandhisparentandguardianbeforetheytookthepersonfromtheImmigrationDepartment’sCustody.Ifthoseprocedureswereinplacetheyfailedonthisoccasion.220

ThereareanumberofcaseswherethedocumentsprovidedtotheCommissiondonotincludeaformsignedbyanindependentadult.221Initsresponsetothedraftreport,theAFPstatedthat‘itwasestablishedthattheInterpreterwasutilisedastheindependentpersonundertheprovisionsoftheCrimesAct1914atthistime’.TheAFPalsostatesthatthepracticewasdiscontinuedsometimeago.222Itisimportanttonotethatrepresentingtheinterestsofapersonforwhomheorsheisprovidinginterpretationservicesinnotpartoftheconventionalroleofaprofessionalinterpreter.Aprofessionalinterpreterisordinarilyrequiredtobeindependentoftheirclient.

Thedecisionin[ULT055]raisesthepossibilitythatataboutthattime,theCommonwealthwastreatingDIAC’swrittenacknowledgementthatanindividualwasbeingtakenintoAFPcustodyforthepurposeofthex-rayaswrittenconsentbyaguardiantothatprocedurebeingperformed.

DocumentsprovidedtotheCommissionsupportsuchaconclusion.

Intheweekbeforetheagedeterminationhearingin[ULT055],theAFPcontactedDIACseekingurgentadviceastowhether‘therewasaninformedconsentofanappropriateadultinrelationtoULT055andwhetheranysuchadultwasnotconnectedwiththeinvestigation’.223DIACrespondedtotheeffectthattheMinisterwasnotULT055’sguardianandthatitwouldnotbeaccuratetoadvisethecourtthatanyDIACofficerwasthedelegatedguardianofULT055orsignedanyformsinthatcapacity.224SubsequentinternalDIACemailsdiscusstheissueofconsentandvariouslystate:

210


• [AFP]appeartobelookingtohingesubstantiationofconsenttowristexaminationissueson[DIACofficer’s]testimony,whenherinvolvementrelatedtotransferofimmigrationcustody.MyunderstandingofprocessesatthetimeisthatAFPcameandcollectedsuchclientsunderanimmigrationtransferofcustodyarrangementtointerviewandthatwristXraysorscanssometimestookplacebutgenerallywithnoadvicetoDIACastotheirintentionsineachinstance.225

• [AFPofficer]alsoindicatedthattheCDPPmaytrytoarguethatconsentwasgivenasan‘independentperson’ratherthanasaguardian.IamcertainlynoexpertontheCrimesActbutthereisarealproblemhere–therequirementisthatthereiswrittenconsentfortheprocedurefromaparent/guardian/independentpersonaswellastheindividualconcerned(oracourtorder)–thefactistheydonothavethewrittenconsentinthiscase.Inmydiscussionswithboth[AFPofficers],theyareveryconcernedabouttheimpactofthiscaseonthebroadercaseload.226

• TheviewoftheCDPPisthatwithoutevidenceofconsentthecasewouldfail....Hewasledtobelieveweprovidedconsentbysigningatransferofcustodydocument,howeverwhenIexplainedthatissimplyaninternaldocumentsowecanprovecontinuityofimmigrationdetention,heacknowledgeditdidnotmeetwhathewasseeking.As[DIACofficer]hasacknowledged,proofofwrittenconsentisrequiredanditseemsAFPholdneitherwrittenorevidencedconsentfromanyparty,whichinmyviewisanissueforthemtoaddressastheyweretheonesseekingtoexerciseapowerundertheCrimesAct.ThiscasemayhavesignificantimpactiftheAFPhavebeenx-rayingallegedminorswithoutconsentfromeitherthepersonorsomeonewhoisanindependentresponsibleadult,aspeoplesmugglingprosecutionsmayfallover.227

InDecember2010,theSeniorAssistantDirector,PeopleSmugglingBranchoftheOfficeoftheCDPPwroteapaperentitled‘PeopleSmugglingProsecutionsAgeDeterminationIssues’.Inhispaper,theSeniorAssistantDirectordiscussestherequirementundertheCrimesActforinformedconsenttothex-rayprocedure.Henotes:

IamadvisedbytheAFPthatinthepastofficersofDIAChaveactedastheindependentpersonsandconsentedtotheprescribedprocedurewhereanaccusedpeoplesmugglerhasclaimedtobeajuvenile....ItmaybethatinthesecasesDIACdidnotgiveinformedconsentbutmerelymadeavailableasuspecttotheAFP.ThatisthepositionDIACtake,andtheAFPatleastatanoperationallevelappeartoacceptthiswasthecase.228

(e) Insomecases,consentwasinvalidlyobtainedbecauseinaccurateinformationaboutthepossibilityofobtainingacourtorderwasprovided

ThedocumentsbeforetheCommissionshowthatinsomecasestheAFPofficerconveyedtotheindividualthatifhedidnotconsenttothex-rayprocedureanorderwouldautomaticallybe


grantedbyacourtauthorisingthex-raytobetaken.

Thisissuealsoaroseinthecaseof[ULT055]vTheQueendiscussedabove.Thedecisionconcernedwhetherconsenttothecarryingoutofawristx-rayprocedurehadbeenproperlyobtainedundertheCrimesAct.BowdenDCJfoundthatithadnot,stating:

Theevidenceestablishes[ULT055]initiallyrefusedtogivehisconsentandafterheenquiredwhatwouldhappenifhedidnotconsentwastoldhewouldbetakentocourtandconsentwouldbe‘granted’byajudgeor‘given’bytheCourt.229

TheJudgefoundthatithadbeenconveyedtoULT055thathehadnochoicebuttoconsent.Forthisreason,hisHonourheldthattheconsentgivenbyULT055wasnotconsentasrequiredunders3ZQCandthex-raywasthereforeimproperlyobtained.

TheCommissionisconcernedthatinothercases,whiletheyoungpersonwasnottoldthatconsentwouldbegivenbyajudge,thepossibilityofacourtauthorisingthewristx-raywasputtotheminawaylikelytoputpressureonthemtogivetheirconsent.Forexample,theInquiryhasbeenprovidedwithatranscriptofarecordofinterviewinwhichtheAFPaskedQUE053forhisconsenttothex-rayprocedure.Theinterviewproceededasfollows:

Justonemorething.Wouldyoubepreparedtogiveusyourconsenttocarryoutanagedeterminationprocedure?THEINTERPRETER:He’sthinking.

Okay.I’lljustexplainforthepurposeofthetape,thattheproceduretodetermineyourageisnotpainful,allitis,isadoctorwilltakeanx-ray,whichisaphotographofthebonesinyourwrist.Ittakes,ittakesabouttwentyseconds,andyoujustputyourwristdownandtheytakeapictureofitandwhatthatwilltellusiswhetheryouarenineteenorolderoryoungerthannineteen.Andthatallowsustotreatyoucorrectlyandfairly,aseitherajuvenilepersonoranadultperson.THEINTERPRETER:Oh,yes,Iwillnotgivethisconsent.

Okay.Justtoadvisethatthewayyou’vesaidyou’renotwillingtogiveyourconsent,wecanactuallyapplytoamagistrateandgetacourtorderforthemtoletustakeyourwristx-raywithoutyourconsent.I’mjustadvisingyouthatthatmightbeapossibilitythatwemightapplytothemagistratetoobtainyourwristx-raywithoutyourconsent.THEINTERPRETER:Yes

Canyoutellmeisthereanyreasonwhyyoudon’twantustodothisprocedure?THEINTERPRETER:Ijustdon’tfeelliketohaveit.

That’sfine,that’syourchoicebutI’mjustadvisingyouthatwemay,inthefuture,beapplyingforamagistratetotakeyourwristx-raywithoutyourwantingustodoit.230

AsubsequentemailbetweenAFPofficers,andcopiedtoanofficeroftheOfficeoftheCDPP,statesthatconsentwasultimatelygivenbytheindividual:

212


[QUE053]DIDNOTconsentontapebutafterwardswhenwefurtherexplainedwewerenotcuttinghisarmofftoundertakethisprocedurehesaidhe’dchangedhismind.231

Inanothercase,thatofFLE048,theinterviewproceededasfollows:

[FLE048]:IfIdon’twanttobex-rayeditdoesn’tmatter?

WellIamaskingyouforyourconsentandyoucangivemeyourconsentandIcangetthex-raydone.IfIaskyouforconsentandyoudon’tgivemeyourconsentIcan’tgetthex-raydonebyconsent.Ican’tgetitdoneifyoudon’tgivemeyourpermission.Howeverifyoudon’tgivemeyourpermissionIwillgotoaJudgeandhopefullygetanordertohaveyourwristx-rayed.

[FLE048]:It’sbesttogiveyouconsent.232

Hethengavehisconsenttoanx-rayofhiswrist.

(f) Insomecasesarecordingofconsentdoesnotappeartohavebeenmade

TheCommissionreceivedsomeelectronicrecordingsofinterviewsinwhichconsentwasgiventothetakingofawristx-ray,sometranscriptsapparentlytakenfromrecordingsofthischaracter,andsomenotesapparentlymadeduringinterviewsthatwerenotelectronicallyrecorded.However,itwasnotprovidedwitharecordingortranscriptforeachindividualwhohadawristx-raytaken.233

InviewofthebreadthoftheCommission’srequestfordocuments,itseemsreasonabletoinferthatnotallinterviewswererecordedasrequiredbytheCrimesAct.

8 The Commonwealth’s approach to review of cases

AsnotedinChapter3,on14July2011,thePresidentoftheAustralianHumanRightsCommissionwrotetothethenAttorney-Generalandexpressedconcernthattheremayhavebeencaseswhererelianceonwristx-rayanalysisforthepurposesofassessingagehadresultedinerroneousconclusionsaboutaperson’sage.ThiswasthefirstoccasiononwhichthePresidentexplicitlyrequestedthatanindependentreviewbeconductedofcasesinvolvingpeoplesmugglingcrewwhosaidthattheywerechildren.Inparticular,thePresidenturgedthatanindependentbodyorpersonreviewwhetheraproperandreliableassessmentofagehasbeenconductedforanyIndonesiannationalclaimingtobeaminor:

• whohadbeenchargedbutnotyettriedonpeoplesmugglingcharges

• whohadbeenconvictedasanadult,includingwhereawristx-raywasrelieduponforthepurposesofagedetermination.234


ThePresidentaskedthatthethenAttorney-Generalinformherby5August2011whetherhewouldarrangesuchanindependentreview.

ThethenAttorney-Generalrepliedon22August2011.HeadvisedthePresidentthathewasnotconvincedoftheneedforanindependentreviewofallagedeterminationmattersinvolvingIndonesiannationals.Hestated:

Iholdthisviewbecausethecourtconsidersallavailableevidence,isfullyawareofthelimitationsofx-rays,andthecrewhaveindependentlegalrepresentation.Further,bygivingthebenefitofthedoubtincasesinvolvingage,inparticularfromverifieddocumentationrelatingtoage,AFPandCDPPonlyproceedwithcaseswiththehighestprobabilitythatthepersonisanadult,andwhereinformationgatheredconsistentlyindicatesthatthisisthecase.235

Nonetheless,thethenAttorney-GeneralinvitedthePresidenttoforwardtohisDepartmentanyconcernsabouttheagedeterminationprocessundertakeninanyspecificmatters.On28September2011,theCommissionsentthethenAttorney-General10notificationstheCommissionhadreceivedfromIndonesiancrewconvictedofpeoplesmugglingoffenceswhomaintainedthattheywereminors,withnotificationsregardingtwofurtherindividualsbeingsenton11Octoberand8November2011.236

On8November2011,thePresidentagainwrotetothethenAttorney-GeneralexpressingherconcernaboutthedelayithadtakenforhisDepartmenttorespondtothenotificationsregardingtheseindividuals.ThePresidentreiteratedhercallforareviewbyanindependentpersonorbodyofwhether‘aproperandreliableassessmentofagehasbeenconductedforeveryIndonesiannationalclaimingtobeaminorwhohasbeenconvictedasanadult’.237On21November2011,thisInquirywascalled.On30November2011,thethenAttorney-GeneralwrotetothePresidenttoprovide‘factualevaluation’ofthe12cases.238Itappearsthatnofurtherevaluationofthesecaseswasundertakenatthistime.TheAGDandAFPsubmissiontothe2012SenateLegalandConstitutionalAffairsReferencesCommitteeinquiryintodetentionofIndonesianminorsinAustralia,notesthatAGD‘didnotmakeanyformalrecommendationsabouttheirmanagementastheAHRCsubsequentlyannounceditsinquiryon21November2011’.239TheCommissiondoesnotviewthecallingofthisInquiryasanadequatereasontostopthereviewofthesecases.

On16March2012,aftertheInquiryhearingformedicalexperts,thePresidentwrotetothepresentAttorney-Generalurginghertoconductanindependentassessmentofageinallcaseswhereconvictionswereobtainedforpeoplesmugglingoffencesandtherewassubstantialrelianceontheuseofwristx-rayanalysistodetermineage.ThePresidentincludedthenamesof17individualswhohadbeenconvictedofpeoplesmugglingoffenceswhere:

• anagedeterminationhadbeenmadewhollyorsubstantiallyonthebasisofwristx-rayevidence

214


• afterinitiallysayinghewasachild,theaccusedeitheradmittedtobeingovertheageof18,ordidnotcontestage,oncepresentedwithwristx-rayevidence.240

On1May2012,thePresidentwrotetotheAttorney-GeneralaboutanadditionalfivesimilarcasesthathadbeenbroughttoherattentionafterofficersoftheCommissionvisitedindividualsinAlbanyRegionalPrisonandPardelupPrisonFarm.ThePresidenturgedthatareviewofthesecasesbeundertakentoenabletheAttorney-Generaltosatisfyherselfthatachildhadnotbeenprosecutedasanadultinanycase.241

Inherletter,thePresidentemphasisedthattheCommissionisnotthemostappropriateagencytoidentifycasesinwhicherrorsofageassessmentmayhavebeenmade.Forthisreason,thePresidenturgedtheAttorney-Generaltoensurethattheagenciesinvolvedininvestigatingandprosecutingpeoplesmugglingoffencesconductedareviewofallcaseswhereindividualswhoremainedinadultcustodialfacilitiesandhadatanytimedisputedtheirage.242

On2May2012,theAttorney-GeneralcommunicatedtothePresidentthatshewouldconductanassessmentofthecasesofindividualsconvictedofpeoplesmugglingoffenceswheresubstantialreliancehadbeenplacedonwristx-rayanalysisasevidenceofage.Herreviewwastoincludethecasesofthe22individualsidentifiedbytheCommissionaswellasafurthertwocrewwhohadsaidthattheywereminorsandwhohadbeenidentifiedbytheIndonesianEmbassy.TheAttorney-Generalnotedthat,whileeffortswouldbemadetoobtaindocumentaryevidenceofagefromIndonesia,itmaynotbepossibletodosoinallcases.TheAttorney-Generalstatedthatthebenefitofthedoubtwouldbegivenwhereevidencesuggestedanindividualmayhavebeenachildattherelevanttime.Theletteradvised:

IfverifieddocumentationfromIndonesiaorDIACageassessmentssuggeststhatthebenefitofthedoubtshouldbegiventothesecrewonthebasisthattheymayhavebeenminorsatthetimeoftheoffence,Iwillconsiderwhetherearlyreleaseonlicenceisanappropriateoutcomeforthesecrew.243

On3May2012,thePresidentrepliedtotheAttorney-General.SheurgedtheAttorney-Generaltoactasquicklyaspossibleoncaseswherematerialwasavailabletosuggestthatthecrewshouldbegiventhebenefitofthedoubt.ThePresidentdrewtotheattentionoftheAttorney-Generalthreeparticularcasesinwhichtherelevantagencieshad,duringtheInquiryhearingforCommonwealthagencies,244beenmadeawareoftheexistenceofmaterialestablishingsomedoubtabouttheageofindividualswhohadbeenconvictedofpeoplesmugglingoffences.Duringthehearing,certainadmissionsweremadebytheagenciesabouttheconductofthosethreematters.Inparticular:

• Inonematter,245theOfficeoftheCDPPhadacknowledgedthattheyhaddisputedtheadmissionofabirthcertificatethatsuggestedanindividualwas14yearsoldatthetimeoftheoffence.


• Inonematter,246theAFPacknowledgedthattheprosecutionhadcontinuedeventhoughthemedicalexpertreportobservedthatthebonesofthewristwerenotfullyfused.

• Inonematter,247theOfficeoftheCDPPacknowledgedthattheinitialmedicalexpertreportregardingthewristx-raywasnotdefinitiveandasecondopinionwassoughtandtheprosecutioncontinued.248

ThePresidentalsonotedthatattheInquiryhearingforCommonwealthagencies,officersfromDIAChadadvisedthattheyhadcompletedfocusedageassessmentinterviewswiththeindividualsidentifiedintheCommission’sletterof16March2012andon18April2012hadprovidedareporttoAGDontheresultsofthoseinterviews.

On17May2012,theAttorney-GeneralwrotetothePresidenttoadviseheroftheinitialoutcomeofthereviewofthecasesofindividualsconvictedofpeoplesmuggling.SheadvisedthatDIAChadfinaliseditsageassessmentofthefirst19crewsubjecttoreview.OfthefourindividualsDIAChadassessedaslikelytohavebeenminorsatthedateoftheoffence,theAttorney-Generalhaddecidedtoreleasethreeonlicence.TheAttorney-GeneralexplainedthattheIndonesianNationalPolicehadprovideddocumentaryevidenceaboutthefourthindividualwhichindicatedthathewasanadultatthetimeoftheoffenceandthatfurtherinquiriesconcerninghimwerebeingpursuedinIndonesia.TheAttorney-Generalsubsequentlyadvisedon7June2012thatshewouldreleasethisindividualonlicence.

TheAttorney-GeneralfurtherstatedthattheOfficeoftheCDPPhadadvisedthattherewereanadditionalfourcrewwhohadbeenconvictedofapeoplesmugglingoffenceandwhohadraisedageatsomepointduringinvestigationorprosecutionandthattheseindividualswouldbeincludedinthereview.AnotherthreeindividualshadcompletedtheirsentencesandbeenreturnedtoIndonesia.

ThePresidentrepliedon18May2012urgingthatthereviewbecompletedassoonaspracticablegiventhatitwaspossiblethatindividualswhohadbeenconvictedofpeoplesmugglingoffencesanddetainedinadultcorrectionalfacilitieswereminorsatthetimeoftheirapprehension.249

On28May2012,theAttorney-GeneralwrotetothePresidenttoassureherthatthereviewofthecasesofindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwasproceedingasquicklyaspossible.ShefurtheradvisedthatAGDhadaskedtheAFPtooffervoluntarydentalx-raystothoseindividualswhosecasesremainedunderreview.250

On6June2012,thePresidentrepliedandexpressedherconcernthatdentalx-rayswouldbeofferedtotheremainingindividuals:

216


First,itisuncleartomehowadentalx-rayconductednow,inmanycasesovertwoyearsfromthedateofapprehension,willgiveanindicationoftheindividual’sageatthattime.

Second,evidenceandresearchbeforetheInquiryindicatethatdentalx-rayanalysisisnotsufficientlyinformativeofwhetheranindividualhasattainedtheageof18yearstobeusedwithconfidencefordeterminingageinacriminaljusticeproceeding.IwilldrawthisconclusionintheInquiryreport.

Third,internationallyacceptedprinciplesregardingtheuseofradiographyrequirethataprocessofjustificationbeundertakenbeforeradiationisusedforapurposeotherthanformedicaldiagnosisormedicaltreatment.TheAustralianRadiationProtectionandNuclearSafetyAgencyhasprovidedthisadvicetoyourDepartment.Iamnotawareofanysuchprocessofjustificationhavingbeenundertakenwithregardtotheuseofeitherwristx-rayanalysisordentalx-rayanalysisforthepurposeofageassessment.251

Thenextday,theAttorney-GeneralwrotetothePresidenttoupdateherontheprogressofthereviewofindividualsconvictedofpeoplesmugglingoffences.Sheadvisedthatshehadgrantedearlyreleaseonlicencetoafurthertwoindividualsinwhosecasestherewasdoubtaboutwhethertheywereadultsatthetimeoftheoffence.Shehadalsodecidedtoreleasetwoindividualsonparole,30daysbeforetheirnon-paroleperiodswereduetoexpire,althoughshedidnotholdanydoubtthattheywereovertheageof18whentheywereapprehendedinAustralianwaters.252

TheAttorney-Generalprovidedprogressiveupdatesofthereview.On12June2012,sheadvisedthatthreeindividualswouldbegrantedearlyreleaseonlicence;253andon26June2012,sheadvisedthatthreefurtherindividualswouldbegrantedearlyreleaseonlicence.254

TheAttorney-GeneralwrotetothePresidenton29June2012toadvisethatthereviewwascompleteandthatthefinalfourindividualswouldbereleasedearlyonlicence.Sheconfirmedthat,ofthe28crewexaminedaspartofthereview:

• 15werereleasedearlyonlicenceonthebasisthattheymayhavebeenminorsonarrivalinAustralia

• twocrewwerereleasedearlyonparole

• threecompletedtheirnon-paroleperiodspriortothecommencementofthereview,and

• eightwereassessedaslikelytobeadultsonarrival.255

TheCommissionistroubledbytheCommonwealth’sdelayincallingthereviewofthecasesofindividualsconvictedofpeoplesmugglingwhohadatsomepointintimesaidthattheywerelessthan18yearsofageatthetimeoftheirapprehension.TheCommissionfirstraisedconcernsaboutrelianceonwristx-rayanalysisforageassessmentpurposesinFebruary2011and


explicitlycalledonthethenAttorney-GeneraltoreviewcaseswhereagewasindoubtinJuly2011.ItwasnotuntilMay2012thatitwasannouncedthatareviewwouldbeconducted.

Adelayofthislengthisdisturbingwhentherightsofindividualswhomightbechildrenareinvolved,especiallywhentheyareindetention.Thereviewhasconcludedthatthereissomedoubtastowhether15individualswereagedover18yearsofageatthetimeoftheirapprehension.Allofthese15individualsspentlongperiodsoftimeinadultcorrectionalfacilitiespriortotheirrelease.

9 Findings

9.1 Findings regarding the application of the principle of the benefit of the doubt

DespiteundertakingsgivenbytheAustralianGovernmentin2001thatthebenefitofthedoubtwouldbeappliedincaseswhereindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwerenotclearlyadults,256anddespitetherepeatedassertionsbytheAustralianGovernmentthroughout2011thatthebenefitofthedoubtwasbeingaffordedtoindividualsinthiscircumstance,itisclearthatinmanycasesthisdidnotoccur.

TheprocedureadoptedbytheAFPfordecidingwhethertochargeapersonasanadult,notwithstandinghisclaimtobeachild,demonstratesthatthebenefitofthedoubtwasnotafforded.Inmanycases,theonlyavailableinformationwhichthrewdoubtontheperson’sclaimtobeaminorwaswristx-rayanalysisthatshowedskeletalmaturity.Uniformly,apersonassessedtobeskeletallymaturewouldbechargedasanadultevenwhenhesaidthathewasachild.Thiswasnotapracticethataffordedthebenefitofthedoubttotheindividual.Itwouldonlyhavedonesohadwristx-rayanalysisbeencapableofdeterminingagewithsomeprecision.Itisplainthatitcouldnotandthatthishadbeenwidelyrecognisedsinceatleast2001.

Itisclearthatchargingapersonasanadultonthebasisthathehasachievedskeletalmaturity,asshownbyawristx-ray,hasledtoaninformalreversaloftheonusofproofconcerningage.TherelevantprovisionsintheMigrationActdonotmakeitclearwhichpartybearstheonusofprovingthatthedefendantisunder,oralternativelyover,theageof18yearsandcourtshavecometodifferingconclusionsaboutwhetherthedefendantortheprosecutionbearsthatonus.Placingtheonusonthedefendantunderminestheapplicationoftheprincipleofthebenefitofthedoubt.Consequently,althoughitiscurrentpracticeforcounselfortheCDPPtoaccepttheonusofprovingthatanindividualisanadult,thisshouldbeformalisedbyamendmentoftherelevantprovisionsoftheMigrationAct.

218


9.2 Findings regarding the reliance on wrist x-ray analysis as a basis for charging and prosecuting individuals as adults

Itappearsthatthespecifyingofawristx-rayasaprescribedprocedureforthepurposesofagedeterminationincriminalproceedingshasinfluencedattitudestowardstheevidentiaryvalueofassessmentsofagebasedonwristx-raysandtotheneedforwristx-raystobetaken.TheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionsgaveevidencethat,butforthefactthatthewristx-rayprocedurewasprescribed,itwasan‘extremelylimitedandprobablyuselessmechanism’.257Inhisresponsetothedraftreport,theCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionsstressedthat:

theuniquecircumstancesleadingtothecreationoftheGPAtlasleftalegacywithwhichwewereabletowork.ThisissolelyasaresultofbeinggivenrecoursetoitbyParliament’sprovidingaccessthroughlegislationtowristx-raysastheoneprescribedaidtoagedetermination.Thisreflectedthatwithoutbeingprescribedtheprocedurewouldnotbeabletobethesubjectofanorderfacilitatingitsuseinaidofagerelateddeterminations.258

TheAFPdevelopedthepracticeofnearlyalwayshavingawristx-raytakenwhereanindividualdisputedhisage,andaseniorofficerfromAGDdescribedtheprocedureasonethat‘theAFPisrequiredtofollow’.259However,astheExplanatoryMemoranduminrespectofthe2001amendinglegislationmakesclear,wristx-rayswereintendedbytheParliamenttobeaprocedureavailableforusewheninvestigatingofficialshadusedallotherreasonablemeanstomakeanassessmentofanindividual’sage.

Whereanalysisofanindividual’swristx-rayresultedinafindingthattheindividualwasskeletallymature,hewasimmediatelytreatedbytheAFPasanadult,includingforthepurposeofthelayingofchargesagainsthim–eveniftherewasnootherevidenceofhisageandevenifhecontinuedtoassertthathewasundertheageof18years.Manyofthosewhowerearrestedandchargedasadults,basedsolelyonwristx-rayevidence,ultimatelyhadtheirprosecutionsdiscontinued.Insomeofthesecases,theindividualspentaverylongperiodoftimeindetention,includinginanadultcorrectionalfacility.Someindividualswereultimatelyconvictedasadultsincircumstanceswheretheonlyevidenceofageprovidedtothecourtwaswristx-rayevidence.Insomecaseswristx-raysweretakenevenwheredocumentaryevidenceofageexisted.Finally,inlate2011,theOfficeoftheCDPPdecidedthatincaseswheretherewasnoprobativeevidenceofageotherthanthewristx-rayanalysis,theprosecutionsshouldbediscontinued.Thelengthoftimethatsomeoftheindividualsaffectedbythisdecisionhadspentindetentionpriortotheircasesbeingdiscontinuedisdisturbing.

Particulardisregardfortherightsofchildrenisdemonstratedbytheongoingdetentionofsomeindividualswhosewristx-rayanalysesindicatedthattheywerenotskeletallymature.Thereappeartohavebeensignificantdelaysbothbetweentheobtainingofawristx-rayanalysisthatfoundanindividualtobeskeletallyimmatureandthemakingofadecisionnottoprosecute;


andbetweenthemakingofadecisionnottoprosecuteandthemakingofarequesttocancelaCJSCandultimateremovalfromAustralia.Thesedelayshaveresultedintheunjustifiedandprolongeddetentionofminors.

Also,indirectcontraventionofAustralianGovernmentpolicy,someindividualswerechargedasadultsdespitetheanalysisoftheirwristx-raybeinginconclusiveastowhethertheywereanadult.Inseveralofthesecases,theAFP,eitheroftheirowninitiative,orattherequestoftheOfficeoftheCDPP,soughtasecondopiniononwhetherthewristx-rayshowedskeletalmaturity.Whentheysoughtasecondopinion,itappearsthattheynearlyalwaysdidsofromDrLow,theCommonwealth’sexpertwitnessofchoice.Itisofconcernthat,ratherthantheseindividualsbeinggiventhebenefitofthedoubtandtheirprosecutionsdiscontinuedbecausethewristx-rayanalysiswasinconclusive,theywerechargedasadultsandthenasecondopinionwassoughtinordertojustifycontinuingtheprosecution.TheCommissionisawareofatleasttwocaseswhereindividualswhosewristx-rayanalyseswereinconclusivewereconvictedandsentencedtotermsoffiveyearsimprisonment(withnon-paroleperiodsofthreeyears).Bothwerereleasedonlicence,oneinMay2012andoneinJune2012,aftertheCommonwealthconcededthattherewasdoubtabouthisageatthetimeofhisapprehension.

Itappearsthatwristx-rayanalysiswasrelieduponasevidenceofagedespitealternativeageassessmentprocedures,forexampleDIACfocusedageassessmentinterviews,whichfounditlikelythattheindividualwasundertheageof18.TheAFPgaveacommitmentthattheywouldnotchargeanyindividualassessedbyDIACtobeundertheageof18followingthefocussedageassessmentinterviewsconductedinOctober2010.Despitethiscommitment,inatleast12caseswhereDIAC’sassessmentwasthattheindividualwaslikelytobeaminor,theAFPsubsequentlyarrangedforwristx-raystobeobtained.Insevenofthesecasesthex-rayshowedskeletalmaturity.Alloftheseindividualswerecharged,withtheprosecutionultimatelybeingdiscontinuedineverycase–butnotuntiltheindividualhadspentaprolongedperiodoftimeindetention.

ItalsoappearsthatinsomecircumstancestheCommonwealthledyoungIndonesianstobelievethatwristx-rayevidencewasdeterminativeofage.Insomecases,individuals’legalrepresentativesacceptedthemedicalevidencebasedonwristx-raysasdeterminativeandaccordinglyadvisedtheirclientstopleadguilty.Itappearslikelythatinsomecasestheindividualdidnotraisetheissueoftheirageagain,orpleadedguiltytherebyconcedingtheirage,afterreceivingtheresultsofthewristx-raybecausetheywereunderthemistakenbeliefthatthoseresultswereaccurateandconclusive.

Itcanonlybeconcludedthatthepracticeofrelyingonwristx-rayanalysisforageassessmentpurposeshasresultedintheinvestigation,prosecutionandprolongeddetentionofasignificantnumberofyoungIndonesianswhoarelikelytohavebeenchildrenatthetimeofthepeoplesmugglingoffenceofwhichtheyweresuspected.

220


9.3 Findings regarding the obtaining of consent for wrist x-ray procedures to be conducted

Inmany,indeedpossiblyall,casesitappearsthattherequiredconsentsforawristx-raytobetakenwerenotproperlyobtained.

First,untilJuly2011,theinformationthatwasprovidedtotheyoungIndonesiansfromwhomconsentwassoughtwasmisleadingasitimpliedthatthewristx-rayprocedurewouldaccuratelydeterminehisage.InMarch2011,theOfficeoftheCDPPadvisedtheAFPthatthestandardstatementofinformationshouldbeamendedtomakeitclearthatawristx-raycanonlygiveaprobableestimationofaperson’sage.TheformalamendmentoftheinformationwasonlymadeinAugust2011,althoughtheAFPhasadvisedthattheinformationwasinpracticechangedearlier.Thereseems,nonetheless,tohavebeenaconsiderabledelayinrectifyingthisproblem.

Secondly,itmaybethatnosecondinformedconsentwaseverobtained.Itseemsthatinearlycasestherequirementforasecondconsentwasoftenoverlooked.Thereafterreliancewasordinarilyplacedonaconsentprovidedbyan‘independentobserver’whoseresponsibilitiesdidnotinvolverepresentingthebestinterestsofthechild.Theresponsibilitiesoftheindependentobserverweresignificantlymorelimitedandfocusedonmonitoringtheminor’sphysicalandemotionalwellbeing.Additionally,itdoesnotappearthattheindependentobserverswerealwaysprovidedtheinformationrequiredbytheCrimesActtobegiventotheindependentadult.

Thirdly,inatleastonecase,theyoungperson’sconsentwasnotvalidlyobtainedastheAFPofficerconveyedtotheindividualthat,ifhedidnotconsenttothex-rayprocedure,anorderwouldautomaticallybegrantedbyacourtauthorisingthex-raytobetaken.

Fourthly,itappearsthatinsomecasesarecordingoftheobtainingofconsent,asrequiredbytheCrimesAct,wasprobablynotmade.

TheAFPistheCommonwealth’sprincipallawenforcementagency;itsowncompliancewiththelawiscriticaltoitsintegrity.ItisthereforeparticularlyregrettablethattheAFPshouldhavefailedtocomplywiththerequirementsoftheCrimesActintheaboveways.Itisthemoreregrettablethatitdidsoinitsdealingswithagroupofyoungpeoplewhowereespeciallyvulnerablebyreasonofbeingawayfromtheirfamiliesandoutsidetheircountryofnationality.

9.4 Findings regarding the review of cases in which substantial reliance had been placed on wrist x-ray analysis

Itisconcerningthatinmid-2011,thethenAttorney-GeneralwasadvisedtodeclinetherequestmadebythePresidentoftheAustralianHumanRightsCommissionforareviewofcasesinwhich


substantialreliancehadbeenplacedonwristx-rayanalysis.TherewasatthattimesubstantialevidenceavailabletotheCommonwealththatcalledintoquestiontheutilityofwristx-rayanalysisasevidencethatapersonwasovertheageof18years.Theneedforthisreviewisdemonstratedinthefactthatultimatelyin15casesitwasfoundthattherewasadoubtaboutwhetherindividualshadbeenadultsatthetimeoftheiroffence.Theseindividualsallspentlongperiodsoftimedetainedinadultcorrectionalfacilities.

__________________________________________________________________________________

1AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,p8.2ThedifferencebetweenthesefiguresandthoseprovidedintheJointCommonwealthsubmissionmaybe

explainedinpartbythedifferencesintimeperiods.However,theCommissionbelievesthatsomeofthe208peopleidentifiedbytheJointCommonwealthsubmissionashavingclaimedtobeaminoratthetimeoftheirapprehensionmaynotinfacthavemadethisclaim.

3CrimesAmendmentRegulations2001(No2)(Cth).4CommonwealthSenateLegalandConstitutionalLegislationCommittee,ParliamentofAustralia,Reportof

theInquiryintotheProvisionsoftheCrimesAmendment(AgeDetermination)Bill2001(March2001)(ReportofSenateCommittee2001),para3.18.

5ReportofSenateCommittee2001,above,para4.9,recommendation8.6RevisedExplanatoryMemorandum,CrimesAmendment(AgeDetermination)Bill2001(Cth)(Revised

ExplanatoryMemorandum2001),p2.7DeputyDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,EmailtoAssistantCommissioner,NationalManagerCrimeOperations,

AFP,12April2011(AGDdocumentPROS-17).8SeniorLegalOfficer,OfficeofInternationalLaw,AGD,LettertoPrincipalLegalOfficer,PeopleSmuggling

andBorderProtectionSection,AGD,2May2011,Attachment–EmailfromAGDOfficer,BorderManagementandCrimePreventionBranch,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,4May2011(AGDdocumentPROS-27),p8.

9TalkingpointsontheworkinggrouponagedeterminationtobediscussedattheAustralia-IndonesiaConsularConsultations–Perth,30June2011(AGDdocumentBRIEF-19),p2.

10HonRMcClellandMP,AttorneyGeneral,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,30June2011,pp1–2.

11HonRMcClellandMP,AttorneyGeneral,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,22August2011,p4.

12AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,p16.13AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,p29.14ActingAssistantSecretary,ImmigrationIntelligenceBranch,DIAC,EmailtoDeputyProjectLeader,

CommunityDetentionandImplementation,DIAC,11November2010(DIACdocumentmail39646006).15Ministers’OfficeBrief–Attorney-General/MinisterforHomeAffairs,Peoplesmuggling–childreningaols,

27May2011,Attachment–EmailfromAGDOfficer,BorderManagementandCrimePreventionBranch,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,2June2011(AGDdocumentBRIEF-12),p2.


222



18ReportofSenateCommittee2001,note4,recommendation8.19Commonwealth,ParliamentaryDebates,HouseofRepresentatives,2April2001,p26186(TheHonDarryl

WilliamsMP,Attorney-General).20Commonwealth,ParliamentaryDebates,Senate,4April2001,p23619(TheHonSenatorAbetz,Special

MinisterofState).21Seeforexample,Children’sCourtofWesternAustraliaAct1988(WA).22Seeforexample,TranscriptofProceedings,ThePolicevHenryMazela(Children’sCourtofWestern

Australia,O’BrienJ,12February2002)(Transcript–ThePolicevMazela).23CrimesAct1914(Cth),s19B.24TranscriptofProceedings,AustralianFederalPolicev[TOW043](MagistratesCourtofVictoria,Magistrate

Collins,1December2011)(TOW043–CDPPdocument179.0857),p2.25Rv[OSB051][2011]WADC95.26RvUdinandAman(unreported,DistrictCourtofWesternAustralia,8November2000);RvKaspoa

[2002]WACC,para7(O’BrienJ);RvJunus[2002]WACC2.27CommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealth

agencies(19April2012),p44.28LegalAidQueensland,Submission6,p2.29LegalAidQueensland,Submission6,p3.30NorthernTerritoryLegalAidCommission,Submission32,p5.31AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,pp6–7.32SeniorLegalOfficer,FinancialCrime&BorderManagementSection,AGD,EmailtoOfficer,AGD,2

February2010(AGDdocumentLEG-1).33SeniorLegalOfficer,OfficeofInternationalLaw,AGD,EmailtoSeniorLegalOfficer,FinancialCrime&

BorderManagementSection,AGD,3February2010(AGDdocumentLEG-1).34AGDdocumentLEG-1,above.35SeniorLegalOfficer,OfficeofInternationalLaw,AGD,EmailtoSeniorLegalOfficer,FinancialCrime&

BorderManagementSection,AGD,4February2010(AGDdocumentLEG-1).36Officer,FinancialCrime&BorderManagementSection,AGD,EmailtoDIAC,CDPPandAFPOfficers,22

February2011(AGDdocumentLEG-6).37Optionsfordealingwithminorsinrelationtopeoplesmugglingoffences,AttachmentA–Emailfrom

Officer,LegalPolicySection,DIAC,toOfficer,FinancialCrimeandBorderManagement,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,24February2011(AGDdocumentLEG-5).

38AGDdocumentLEG-5,above.39ReportofSenateCommittee2001,note4,recommendation2,para2.76.40Commonwealth,Parliamentarydebates,Senate,4April2001p23619(HonSenatorAbetz,Special

MinisterofState).41Commonwealth,Parliamentarydebates,Senate,4April2001p23619(HonSenatorAbetz,Special

MinisterofState).


42Investigator,Border&International,AFP,EmailtoLegalOfficer,CDPP,30November2009(ULT055–CDPPdocument047.0316).NotethatinNovember2010,adocumentwasreceivedfromIndonesiabytheAFPthatsuggestedthatULT055wasover18yearsofage.Theprosecutionagainstthisindividualwasultimatelydiscontinued.

43Statementofmaterialfacts,AFP,undated(VMT011–CDPPdocument153.0048).TheAFPreceiveddocumentaryevidenceafterVMT011thatmayhaveindicatedthathewasanadult,however,itwasforapersonwithadifferentnamewhomayhaveusedanaliasthatcorrespondedwithVMT011’sname.InJune2012,thisindividualwasreleasedearlyonlicenceasitwasacceptedthattherewasdoubtaboutwhetherhewasanadultatthetimeofhisapprehension.

44FederalAgent,PeopleSmugglingStrikeTeam,CrimeOperations,AFP,EmailtoOfficers,CDPP,29March2011(INN012–CDPPdocument240.0301).

45Crown’ssubmissionsonsentence,DistrictCourtofWesternAustralia,undated(QUE053–AFPdocument21),para54.

46FederalAgentCrimeOperations,AFPAdelaideOffice,EmailtoPrincipalLegalOfficer,CDPPAdelaideOffice,4October2011(LAW085–CDPPdocument367.0037).

47FederalAgent,TeamLeaderPeopleSmugglingTeam,CrimeOperations,AFP,EmailtoTeamLeader,PeopleSmugglingStrikeTeam,AFPBrisbaneOffice,12August2011(OFD030–CDPPdocument293.0651).

48Transcriptoftapedrecordofinterview,AFP,10December2009(DER024–AFPdocument9),p24.49Statementof[academicexpert]re:Indonesianidentityandproofofage,FederationFellow,Director,Asian

LawCentre,FacultyofLaw,TheUniversityofMelbourne,24May2012,p6(AFPdocumentprovided29May2012).

50ChiefScientist,OfficeoftheChiefScientist,LettertoDeputySecretary,NationalSecurity&CriminalJusticeGroup,AGD,11January2012,p2.

51AFP,Responsetodraftreport,6July2012,p21.52CommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions,Responsetodraftreport,6July2012,p3.53AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,p8.54FederalAgent,AFPBrisbaneOffice,CaseNote,3August2010(HAM046–AFPdocument8).55FederalAgent,PeopleSmugglingOperationsSupportCrimeOperations,AFP,EmailtoAGDOfficer,20

October2010(HAM046–AFPdocument10).56FederalAgent,AFP,CaseNote14May2010(GEE080–AFPdocument9).57FederalAgent,PeopleSmugglingOperationsSupport,CrimeOperations,AFP,EmailtoAGDOfficer,19

October2010(GEE080–AFPdocument10).58CommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealth



agencies(19April2012),p64.61Minutes,Agedeterminationofpeoplesmugglingcrew,1March2011,Attachment–EmailfromPrincipal

LegalOfficer,AGD,toCommonwealthagencies,3March2011(AGDdocumentENG-AHRC-2).

224


62Questiontimebrief,Asylumseekers–childpeoplesmugglers(QTB10-470),Attachment–EmailfromPrincipalLegalOfficer,PeopleSmugglingFinancialCrimeandBorderManagementSection,CriminalJusticeDivision,toOfficer,DepartmentofPrimeMinisterandCabinet,17November2010(DIACdocumentmail39646062).


64DeputyCommissioner,AFP,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(19April2012),p114.

65AFP,Responsetodraftreport,6July2102,p12.66FederalAgent,BorderandInternational,AFP,EmailtoPrincipalLegalOfficer,CDPP,10August2009

(QUE053–CDPPdocument211.0133).67NSWLegalAid,Submission35,pp8–9.68RevisedExplanatoryMemorandum2001,note6,pp4–5,para9.69ReportofSenateCommittee2001,note4,Chapter4,para4.1.70ReportofSenateCommittee2001,above,para3.62.71Questiontimebrief,Asylumseekers–childpeoplesmugglers(QTB10-470),Attachment–Emailfrom

PrincipalLegalOfficer,PeopleSmugglingFinancialCrimeandBorderManagementSection,CriminalJusticeDivision,toOfficer,DepartmentofPrimeMinisterandCabinet,17November2010(DIACdocumentmail39646062).

72FederalAgent,AFP,EmailtoActingPrincipalLegalOfficer,CounterTerrorismandPeopleSmuggling,CDPPSydneyOffice,29November2011(TYE059–CDPPdocument053.0004).

73DeputyCommissioner,AFP,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(20April2012),p198.

74Transcriptoftapedrecordofinterview,AFP,7July2010(NTN032–CDPPdocument173.0297),pp17–20.

75Transcriptoftapedrecordofinterview,AFP,5May2010(MAL011–CDPPdocument150.0398),p5.76PrincipalLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,EmailtoCounselfordefence,12November2010(UPW031

–CDPPdocument004.0415).77DefenceBarrister&Solicitor,EmailtoPrincipalLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,12November2010

(UPW031–CDPPdocument004.0415).78ActingSeniorAssistantDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,EmailtoDeputyDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,5

August2011(JDT046–CDPPdocument111.0084).79Brieftocounsel,Agedeterminationhearing,26August2011(NTN031–CDPPdocument316.0246).80FederalAgent,TeamLeader,PeopleSmugglingTeam,CrimeOperations,AFP,EmailtoOfficers,CDPP,3

October2011(TIW044–AFPdocument24).81OSB051;YRE052;WAK090;PEN061;KAD059;ALE058;WAK089;OFD029;EAS054;WAK087.82OSB051;KAD059.83InterviewwithWAK087,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,27April2012.84Officer,CDPPPerthOffice,FileNote,21June2010(WAK087–CDPPdocument079.0148).This

documentalsoreferstoWAK089.85WAK087;WAK089.


86Investigator,Border&International,AFP,EmailtoLegalOfficer,CDPP,30April2009(DRU001–CDPPdocument341.0324).

87Transcriptoftapedrecordofinterview,AFP,29November2010(BOM064–AFPdocument8).88FederalAgent,AFPMelbourneOffice,CaseNote,20September2010(BOM064–AFPdocument1).89FederalAgent,AFP,TaskResultDetails,20October2010(BOM064–AFPdocument2).90FederalAgent,AFPMelbourneOffice,CaseNote,12November2010(BOM064–AFPdocument3).91DeputyDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,EmailtoSeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,11April2011

(TIW043–CDPPdocument249.0354).92PrincipalAdvisor,Citizenship,SettlementandMulticulturalAffairs,DIAC,EmailtoSecretary,DIAC,3

September2010(DIACdocumentmail39642123).93DrLow,Medicalopinion,2April2011(JDT046–DIACdocumentmail39645747_att1).94Ageassessmentinterviewreport,DIAC,27February2011(JDT046–CDPPdocument110.0521).95DeputyDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,EmailtoActingSeniorAssistantDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,8

August2011(JDT046–CDPPdocument111.0084);ProsecutionReport,CDPPPerthOffice,18August2011(JDT046–CDPPdocument111.0009).

96Ageassessmentinterviewreport,DIAC,21February2011(BOM062–CDPPdocument115.0136).97Medicalopinion,21December2010(BOM062–CDPPdocument115.0236).98FederalAgent,AFPMelbourneOffice,CaseNote,9March2011(BOM062–AFPdocument16).99CDPPOfficer,MinutetoSeniorAssistantDirector,CDPP,12April2011(BOM062–CDPPdocument

115.0033).100Ageassessmentinterviewreport,DIAC,21February2011(TOW043–CDPPdocument179.0729).101FederalAgent,OperationsTeam,AFPAdelaideOffice,EmailtoIMAOperations,Communityand

DetentionServicesDivision,DIAC,18March2011(TOW043–DIACdocumentmail39642183).102TeamLeader,AFPAdelaideOffice,CaseNote,20April2011(TOW043–AFPdocument13).103DrLow,Medicalopinion,27April2011(TOW043–CDPPdocument179.0802).104TranscriptofProceedings,AustralianFederalPolicev[TOW043](MagistratesCourtofVictoria,Magistrate

Collins,1December2011)(TOW043–CDPPdocument179.0857).105TeamLeader,PeopleSmugglingStrikeTeam&InternationalInvestigationsCapacityTraining,RiskFraud

andIntegrityDivision,DIAC,EmailtoChristmasIslandDetentionOperationsTeamLeader,DIAC,20October2010(JAM074–DIACdocumentmail39646050).

106Ageassessmentinterviewreport,DIAC,28January2011(JAM074–AFPdocument11).107LegalOfficer,CDPPDarwinOffice,MemotoDirector,CDPP,26October2011(JAM074–CDPP

document287.0007).108‘Arrest/Summons/Caution(National)Details(SummaryView)’,AFP,24March2011(JAM074–AFP

document13).109FederalAgent,AFPDarwinOffice,EmailtoLegalOfficer,CDPPDarwinOffice,13April2011(JAM074

–CDPPdocument304.0056).110ChristmasIslandDetentionOperationsTeamLeader,DIAC,EmailtoTeamLeader,PeopleSmuggling

StrikeTeam&InternationalInvestigationsCapacityTraining,RiskFraudandIntegrityDivision,DIAC,20October2010(JAM074–AFPdocument2).

111LegalOfficer,CDPP,MinutetoDirector,CDPP,28October2011(JAM074–CDPPdocument288.0622).

226


112CommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions,Responsetodraftreport,6July2012.113SeniorAssistantDirector,CDPP,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(20

April2012),p199.114CommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions,Responsetodraftreport,6July2012.115Transcript–ThePolicevMazela,note22,p7.116ReportofSenateCommittee2001,note4,para3.18.117AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,p16.118Inhisresponsetothedraftreport,theCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionsreportedthatthe

OfficeoftheCDPPhasbeenprovidedwithexpertevidencefrom22medicalpractitionersotherthanDrLow.Heacknowledged,however,thattheCDPPwasusuallyprovidedwithtwoexpertreports,aninitialreportandasecondmoredetailedreport,andthatthemoredetailedreportwas‘usuallybyDrLow’.SeeCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions,Responsetodraftreport,6July2012,p2.

119Biodataform,DIAC,11January2010(TRA029–DIACdocument).120LegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,LettertoCounselfordefence,17November2010(TRA029CDPP

document063.0536).121LegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,EmailtoFederalAgent,AFPPerthOffice,17November2010(TRA029

–CDPPdocument063.0497).122Medicalopinion,20January2011(TRA029–CDPPdocument065.0206).123DrLow,Medicalopinion,CDPP,3May2011(TRA029–CDPPdocument063.0401).124Officer,CDPP,FileNote,8September2011(TRA029–CDPPdocument267.0159);125ProsecutionReport,CDPPPerthOffice,20September2011(TRA029–CDPPdocument064.0004).126Medicalopinion,AFP,15January2010(UPW031–AFPdocument1).127LegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,EmailtoFederalAgent,AFP,12February2010(CDPPdocument

038.0454).128DrLow,Medicalopinion,4March2010(UPW031–CDPPdocument031.0121).129LegalOfficer,CDPP,EmailtoFederalAgentBorder&International,AFP,3March2010(UPW031–CDPP

document038.0408).130LegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,EmailtoOfficer,CDPP,5March2010(UPW031–CDPPdocument

038.0396).131TranscriptofProceedings,TheQueenvRMA(DistrictCourtofWesternAustralia,EatonDCJ,11

November2011)(UPW031–CDPPdocument037.0003).132Transcriptoftapedrecordofinterview,AFP,7July2010(NTN031–AFPdocument7),pp5–6.133DeputyDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,EmailtoOfficers,CDPP,12April2011(NTN031–CDPPdocument

315.0275).134DrLow,Medicalopinion,6August2011(NTN031–CDPPdocument031.0008).135SeniorAssistantDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,MemotoDirector,CDPPHeadOffice,18November2011

(NTN031–CDPPdocument323.0943).136Medicalopinion,15January2010(VMT011–CDPPdocument153.0088).Seealso,SeniorLegalOfficer,

CDPPPerthOffice,EmailtoCDPPOfficer,4July2011(VMT011–CDPPdocument154.0036).137LegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,EmailtoFederalAgent,AFP,26February2010(VMT011–CDPP

document153.0342).


138DrLow,Medicalopinion,26April2011(VMT011–CDPPdocument154.0273).139SeniorLegalOfficer,PeopleSmugglingBranch,CDPPPerthOffice,EmailtoDeputyDirector,CDPPPerth

Office,28April2011(VMT011–CDPPdocument154.0269).140Entryinterview,DIAC,21January2010(PEN060–CDPPdocument134.1642).141Transcriptoftapedrecordofinterview,AFP,9July2010(PEN060–CDPPdocument134.0191).142Counselfordefence,EmailtoLegalOfficer,CDPP,12March2011(PEN060–CDPPdocument).143DrLow,Medicalopinion,20March2011(PEN060–CDPPdocument135.0125).144DeputyDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,EmailtoLegalOfficer,CDPP,14April2011(PEN060–CDPP

document186.0002).145Entryinterview,DIAC,29September2009(WAK089–CDPPdocument076.0214),p3;Transcriptof

tapedrecordofinterview,AFP,12October2009(WAK089–CDPPdocument070.0086).146DrLow,Medicalopinion,AFP,15October2009(WAK089–CDPPdocument070.0040).147Prosecutionnotice,MagistratesCourtofWesternAustralia,AFP,15October2009(WAK089–AFP

document5).148SeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,Brieftocounsel,18October2010(WAK089–CDPPdocument

046.0178).149Transcriptoftapedrecordofinterview,AFP,4March2010(EAS054–AFPdocument5).150LegalOfficer,CDPP,EmailtoLegalAidOfficer,LegalAidWA,11May2010(EAS054–CDPPdocument

050.0179).151LegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,EmailtoFederalAgent,AFP,11May2010(EAS054–CDPPdocument

051.0208).152FederalAgent,AFP,EmailtoLegalOfficer,CDPP,14May2010(EAS054–CDPPdocument051.0173).It

isinterestingtonotethatDrLow’sobservation,asreportedinthisemail,isinconsistentwithhisusualobservationthatforayoungmaleskeletalmaturityisachieved,onaverageatage19years.

153HonNRoxonMP,Attorney-General,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,17May2012.

154Transcriptoftapedrecordofinterview,AFP,4March2010(EAS056–AFPdocument6),p4.155TranscriptofProceedings,TheQueenand[EAS054]andMadinaMarwanand[EAS056](DistrictCourtof

WesternAustralia,StaudeDCJ,17September2010)(EAS056–CDPPdocument050.0109).156Transcriptoftapedrecordofinterview,AFP,22December2009(LAL041–AFPdocument3),p7.157Transcriptoftapedrecordofinterview,AFP,1June2011(DRL038–AFPdocument12),pp2–3.158Transcriptoftapedrecordofinterview,AFP,9December2009(DER026–AFPdocument8),pp13–14.159PsychologicalAssessmentReport,Defence,28June2011(INN012–CDPPdocument240.0238),p6.160Syam’slegalrepresentativegavetheCommissionpermissiontoquotefromhisstatement.161StatutoryDeclaration,Syam,16May2012(DocumentprovidedtoCommission20May2012).162StatutoryDeclaration,Syam,16May2012(DocumentprovidedtoCommission20May2012).163TranscriptofProceedings,TheQueenvLorensLapikanaand[QUE053]andAnwarAbdullahand

[QUE051](DistrictCourtofWesternAustralia,WisbeyDCJ,23September2010)(QUE051–CDPPdocument208.0315),p670.

164Secretary,DepartmentofHealthandCommunityServices(NT)vJWBandSMB(Marion’sCase)(1992)175CLR218.

228


165BMatthews,‘Children’sConsenttoMedicalTreatment’inBWhite,FMcDonaldandLWillmott(eds),HealthLawinAustralia(2010)113,116.

166GillickvWestNorfolkandWisbechAreaHealthAuthority[1986]AC112.167Secretary,DepartmentofHealthandCommunityServices(NT)vJWBandSMB(Marion’sCase)(1992)

175CLR218,239–240(MasonCJ,Dawson,TooheyandGaudronJJ).168Commonwealth,ParliamentaryDebates,Senate,4April2001,p23619(TheHonSenatorAbetz,Special

MinisterofState).169NationalHealthandMedicalResearchCouncil,GeneralGuidelinesforMedicalPractitionersonProviding

InformationtoPatients(2004)(GeneralGuidelinesforMedicalPractitioners2004),p7.Athttp://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/e57.pdf(viewed9July2012).

170SeeSchloendorffvSocietyofNewYorkHospital(1914)105NE92,93(CardozoJ)citedinSecretary,DepartmentofHealthandCommunityServices(NT)vJWBandSMB(Marion’sCase)(1992)175CLR218,234(MasonCJ,Dawson,TooheyandGaudronJJ).

171GeneralGuidelinesforMedicalPractitioners2004,note169,p9.172GeneralGuidelinesforMedicalPractitioners2004,above,p11.173GeneralGuidelinesforMedicalPractitioners2004,above,p11.174Transcriptofhearing,Publichearingforkeymedicalexperts(9March2012),pp56–57.175DrEllaOnikul,DrPaulHofman,Transcriptofhearing,Publichearingforkeymedicalexperts(9March

2012),pp59–60.176DrEllaOnikul,Transcriptofhearing,Publichearingforkeymedicalexperts(9March2012),p59.177CrimesAct1914(Cth),s3ZQB.178CrimesAct1914(Cth),s3ZQC(1).179ExplanatoryMemorandum,CrimesAmendment(AgeDetermination)Bill2001(Cth)(Explanatory

Memorandum2001),para12.180ExplanatoryMemorandum2001,above,para13.181CrimesAct1914(Cth),s3ZQC(2).182CrimesAct1914(Cth),s3ZQE.183CrimesAct1914(Cth),s3ZQE(2).184ReportofSenateCommittee2001,note4,para4.10.185CrimesAct1914(Cth),s23WE(1).186CrimesAct1914(Cth),s23WR.187CrimesAct1914(Cth),s23XWQ.188CrimesAct1914(Cth),s23XWR(1)(a).189CrimesAct1914(Cth),s23XWR(1)(b).190CrimesAct1914(Cth),s23XWR(1)(c).191CrimesAct1914(Cth),s23XWR(1)(e).192CrimesAct1914(Cth),s23XWR(1)(f).193CrimesAct1914(Cth),s23XWQ(2)(b)(ia).194Consentmaybewithdrawnexpressly,oritmaybeinferredfromtheconductoftheparentorguardian.

SeeCrimesAct1914(Cth),s23XWT(1).


195CrimesAct1914(Cth),s23XWT(2).Thisrequiresconsenttobeexpresslywithdrawnandissubjecttoanordermadeunders23XWVoftheCrimesAct.

196CrimesAct1914(Cth),s23XWU(1)(a).197CrimesAct1914(Cth),ss23XWU(2)(a)–(e).198‘DSM:Chapter2–Clientplacement–MinorsinDetention’,DIAC(DIACdocumentPAM3),para22.1.199LifeWithoutBarriers.Athttp://www.lwb.org.au/About-Us/Pages/default.aspx(viewed9July2012).200AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,p28.201‘Informationtobeprovidedtopersonspriortoconsentforwristx-raybeingobtained’,AFP,undated

(TYE059–CDPPdocument053.0224).202HonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,CorrespondencetoHonR

McClellandMP,Attorney-General,17February2011.203SeniorAssistantDirector,LegalPolicyandPracticeManagement,CDPP,LettertoNationalManager

CrimeOperations,AFP,3March2011(CDPPdocumentAttachmentDDocument5).204‘Section3ZQC(2)PartIAADivision4ACrimesAct1914’,AFP,AideMemoire,19August2011(Document

providedinhardcopy21December2011).Seealso,AssistantCommissioner,NationalManagerCrimeOperations,AFP,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,3September2011(AFPdocument20110903).

205AssistantCommissioner,AFP,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(19April2012),p124.

206MinisterforImmigrationandEthnicAffairsvTeoh(1995)183CLR273,287.207Commonwealth,ParliamentaryDebates,Senate,4April2001,p23619(TheHonSenatorAbetz,Special

MinisterofState).208‘DSM:Chapter2–Clientplacement–MinorsinDetention’,DIAC(DIACdocumentPAM3),para22.3.209DIACdocumentPAM3,above,para22.2.210‘ContractofServices,Schedule2C,ItemB.Services’,DIAC(DIACdocumentprovidedtoCommission19

January2012).211‘ContractofServices,Schedule2C,ItemB.Services’,DIAC(DIACdocumentprovidedtoCommission19

January2012).212DeputyProjectLeader–CommunityDetentionImplementation,PrincipalAdvisor’sUnit,DIAC,Emailto

PrincipalLegalOfficer,AGD,11March2011(DIACdocumentmail39642174).213CoordinatorLegislationProgram,PolicyandGovernance,AFP,EmailtoOfficer,AGD,18March2011

(AGDdocumentDAA-2).214Transcriptoftapedrecordofinterview,AFP,30July2009(QUE053–CDPPdocument198.0596),p4;

Transcriptoftapedrecordofinterview,AFP,1July2010(OFD030–AFPdocument14),p6.215Transcriptoftapedrecordofinterview,AFP,15June2009(FLE048–CDPPdocument091.0040),p3.216Transcriptoftapedrecordofinterview,AFP,21January2010(PEN060–CDPPdocument135.0098).

Seealso,Transcriptoftapedrecordofinterview,AFP,21January2010(NTN031–CDPPdocument173.0458);Transcriptoftapedrecordofinterview,AFP,20January2010(AliJasmin–CDPPdocument026.0300).

217SeeAliJasmin;NTN031;MAL011.218[ULT055]vTheQueen[No2][2010]WADC169.219[ULT055]vTheQueen[No2][2010]WADC169,[66].

230


220[ULT055]vTheQueen[No2][2010]WADC169,[69]–[70].221Seeforexample,WAK087;WAK089;DRU011;WAK090;QUE051;DRU003;DRU002.222AFP,Responsetodraftreport,6July2012,p18.223FederalAgent,BorderandInternational,AFP,EmailtoDirectorDetentionOperationsWest,Community

andDetentionServicesDivision,DIAC,2November2010(ULT055–DIACdocumentmail39645970).224Director,PrincipalAdvisor’sUnit,DIAC,EmailtoFederalAgent,BorderandInternational,AFP,4

November2010(ULT055–DIACdocumentmail39645970).225RegionalManagerDetention,DIACPerthOffice,EmailtoDirectorPrincipalAdvisor’sUnit,DIAC,5

November2010(ULT055–DIACdocumentmail39645970).226Director,PrincipalAdvisor’sUnit,DIAC,EmailtoRegionalManagerDetention,DIACPerthOffice,5

November2010(ULT055–DIACdocumentmail39646024).227RegionalManagerCurtinOperations,DIAC,EmailtoDirectorPrincipalAdvisor’sUnit,DIAC,5November

2010(ULT055–DIACdocumentmail39646024).228SeniorAssistantDirector,PeopleSmugglingBranch,CDPP,PeopleSmugglingProsecutionsAge

DeterminationIssues,15December2010(CDPPdocument4–AttachmentD),p6.229[ULT055]vTheQueen[No2][2010]WADC169,[36].230Tapedrecordofinterview,AFP,30July2009(QUE053–AFPdocument1),pp19–20.231FederalAgent,AFP,EmailtoFederalAgent,AFP,30July2009(QUE053–CDPPdocument211.0133).232Transcriptoftapedrecordofinterview,AFP,15June2009(FLE048–CDPPdocument091.0040).233Seeforexample,LAL041;PRK056.Insomecaseswherearecordingwasnotprovidedtothe

Commission,theAFPhasinformedtheCommissionthatarecordingwasmade:QUE051;QUE053.Itappearsthatinatleastonecase,consentwasnotrecordedbecauseasignedconsentfromwasreceivedfromtheaccused’ssolicitor:HWD059.

234HonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,CorrespondencetoHonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,14July2011,p4.

235HonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,22August2011.

236HonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,CorrespondencetoHonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,26September2011.

237HonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,CorrespondencetoHonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,8November2011,p2.

238HonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,30November2011.

239SubmissionbytheAttorney-General’sDepartmentandAustralianFederalPolicetotheCommonwealthSenateLegalandConstitutionalAffairsReferencesCommittee,‘InquiryintodetentionofIndonesianminorsinAustralia’,June2012,pp26–27.

240HonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,CorrespondencetoHonNRoxonMP,Attorney-General,16March2012.

241HonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,CorrespondencetoHonNRoxonMP,Attorney-General,1May2012.

242HonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,CorrespondencetoHonNRoxonMP,Attorney-General,1May2012.


243HonNRoxonMP,Attorney-General,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,2May2012.

244Heldon19and20April2012.245KAD059.SeeTranscriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(20April2012),p194.246WAK089.SeeTranscriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(20April2012),pp

202–209.247VMT011.SeeTranscriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(20April2012),pp

215–221.248HonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,CorrespondencetoHonNRoxon

MP,Attorney-General,3May2012.249HonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,CorrespondencetoHonNRoxon

MP.Attorney-General,18May2012.250HonNRoxonMP,Attorney-General,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,Australian

HumanRightsCommission,28May2012.251HonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,CorrespondencetoHonNRoxon

MP,Attorney-General,6June2012,p1.252HonNRoxonMP,Attorney-General,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,Australian

HumanRightsCommission,7June2012.253HonNRoxonMP,Attorney-General,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,Australian



HumanRightsCommission,29June2012.256RevisedExplanatoryMemorandum2001,note6,p2.Seediscussioninsection2above.257CommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealth

agencies(20April2012),p179.258CommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions,Responsetodraftreport,6July2012,pp5–6.259FirstAssistantSecretary,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,Transcriptofhearing,Publichearingfor

Commonwealthagencies(19April2012),p90.


Chapter 5:

Focused age assessment interviews

234

Chapter 5: Focused age assessment interviews

Chapter contents

1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 235

2 Thebenefitsandlimitationsofconductingfocusedageassessmentinterviews............... 236

3 TheCommonwealth’sapproachtoconductingfocusedageassessmentinterviews........ 238

3.1 DIACconductatrialoffocusedageinterviewsin2010........................................... 238

3.2 DIACageassessmentinterviewswereconductedwith27individualsinOctober2010.......................................................................................................... 239

3.3 AFPageassessmentinterviewswereconductedwith12individualsinNovember2010...................................................................................................... 240

3.4 InJanuary2011,DIACwasaskedtostopconductingageassessmentinterviewswithindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmuggling...................................... 241

3.5 TheJuly2011improvedageassessmentprocessistoincludefocusedageinterviews................................................................................................................ 243

3.6 DIACcommencedconductingfocusedageinterviewswithallcrewwhoseageisindoubtfromDecember2011...................................................................... 244

4 ConcernsabouttheCommonwealth’sapproachtofocusedageassessmentinterviews........................................................................................................................ 245

4.1 TheresultsoftheDIACageassessmentinterviewsconductedinOctober2010werelargelydisregardedbytheAFP................................................. 245

4.2 TheAFPageassessmentinterviewsconductedinNovember2010didnotproducereliableinformationaboutage.................................................................... 248

4.3 LegaladviceisnotprovidedpriortotheconductofDIACageassessmentinterviews................................................................................................................ 249

5 DisclosureofDIACageassessmentinterviewstothedefence......................................... 249

6 OutcomesofDIACageassessmentinterviewsconductedsinceDecember2011........... 251

7 Findings........................................................................................................................... 252


1 Introduction

Focusedageassessmentinterviewscanbeausefultechniqueforassessingage.InterviewsofthiskindhavebeenusedinAustraliainarangeofdifferentwayssincelate2010.

Inlate2010,boththeDepartmentofImmigrationandCitizenship(DIAC)andtheAustralianFederalPolice(AFP)conductedfocusedageinterviewsforthepurposesofassessingtheagesofyoungIndonesianssuspectedofpeoplesmuggling.Itappearsthatnofurtherinterviewsofthiskindwereconducteduntillatein2011,although,inmid-2011,theGovernmentannouncedthattheAFPwouldagainoffervoluntaryfocusedageinterviews,thistimetobeconductedundercaution.Foranumberofreasons,theAFPdidnotoffertheseinterviews.

Inlate2011,anewageassessmentprocedurewasintroducedwherebyDIACconductedfocusedageinterviewswithindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhoseagewasindoubt,andonlyreferredtotheAFPthosewhotheybelievedlikelytobeadults.

TheCommissionrecognisesthatfocusedageinterviewshavesomelimitationsthatmayaffecttheirreliabilityandcredibilityasevidenceofage.Forthatreason,focusedageinterviewsmustbeconductedwithcareandmustaffordawidemarginofbenefitofthedoubttoanyindividualinterviewedwhoseageisindoubt.ItappearsthattheDIACfocusedageassessmentinterviewprocessgenerallymeetsthesecriteria.

FromthematerialbeforetheCommissionitappearsthattheresultsoffocusedageinterviewsconductedwithyoungIndonesiansbyDIACin2010werelargelydisregardedbytheAFP,withtheconsequencethatmanyindividualsassessedtobeminorsbyDIACwerechargedasadultsandspentlongperiodsoftimeinimmigrationdetentionandadultcorrectionalfacilities.Inthevastmajorityofthesecases,theprosecutionswereultimatelydiscontinued.

Thischapterofthereportdiscusses:

• thebenefitsandlimitationsofconductingfocusedageassessmentinterviews

• theCommonwealth’sapproachtoconductingfocusedageassessmentinterviews

• concernsabouttheCommonwealth’sapproachtofocusedageassessmentinterviews

• disclosureofDIACageassessmentinterviewstothedefence

• outcomesofDIACageassessmentinterviewsconductedsinceDecember2011.

236


2 The benefits and limitations of conducting focused age assessment interviews

Afocusedageassessmentinterviewcanbeausefulsourceofinformationabouttheinterviewee’sage,especiallyincircumstanceswheredocumentaryevidenceofageisunavailable.Suchaninterviewinvolvestrainedinterviewersaskingapersonwhoseageisindoubtaseriesofquestionsabouthisorherlifeinordertoestablishachronologysoastomakeanassessmentofthelikelihoodofthepersonbeingachild.

Interviewsofthiskindofferanimportantopportunitytoheardirectlyfromindividualswhosaythattheyarechildren.TheVictoriaLegalAidsubmissiontotheInquirynotestheimportanceoflisteningtotheexperienceofpeoplewhosaythattheyarechildreninthecontextofchildasylum-seekers.Thesubmissionstates:

Giventheimportanceofageindeterminingwhetheryoungrefugeescanreunitewiththeirfamilies,andthedifficultiesinrelyingoneitherwrittenrecordsorx-raydata,itwilloftenbeappropriatetotreattheevidenceofayoungrefugeeastheprimarysourceofevidenceabouttheirage.Wherethereisothercredibleevidenceastoage,thiswillalsoneedtobetakenintoaccount.Intheabsenceofsuchevidence,theyoungperson’stestimonyshouldbetreatedassufficientevidenceofage,sothatsuchvulnerablechildrefugeescanseektobereunitedwiththeirfamilyinAustralia.1

Focusedageassessmentinterviewsarewidelyusedinothercountriesasoneofavarietyoftechniquesfordeterminingage.However,theyaregenerallyusedinthecontextofunaccompaniedminorsintheimmigrationsystemasdistinctfrominacriminaljusticecontext.2InhissubmissiontotheInquiry,ProfessorSirAlAynsley-Green,formerChildren’sCommissionerforEngland,notesthatfocusedageassessmentinterviewsareuseduniversally.3However,heobservessomechallengestoachievingreliableresultsfromfocusedageassessmentinterviews.AccordingtoProfessorAynsley-Green,researchdemonstratesthatinterviewresultscanbeaffectedbythe‘oftenintimidating’environmentinwhichtheyoccurandthatthequalityofinterpreterswhoarepresentiskey.4Healsonotedthattherecanbechallengesintheanalysisofthematerialprovidedduringtheinterview.Heobserved:

Analysisofthenarrativegivenbythesubjectisfundamentallyimportant.Tobeperformedproperly,however,thisdemandstime,ofteninvolvingseveralseparateinterviews,andexpertiseintheinterviewersinunderstandingthelives,educationandcultureofchildreninthecountriesfromwhichtheyhavecome.5

Itisapparentthatfocusedageinterviewshavelimitationswhichmayaffecttheirreliabilityandcredibilityasevidenceofage.Theseincludepotentialproblemswithinterpretation,andtheriskthattheinterviewerhasaninadequateunderstandingofthesocialandculturalcircumstancesoftheinterviewee.


ThesubmissiontotheInquiryfromtheAustralianChildren’sCommissionersandGuardiansnotestheimportanceofthoseconductingorrelyingonfocusedageassessmentinterviewsbeingawarethattheexperienceofchildhoodvariesacrosscultures.Theysaid:

Itiscrucialthatanyinterviews(suchasthefocusedageinterviewsconductedbytheAFP)toassesstheageofanindividualareundertakenwithregardtotheculturalcontextofchildhoodintheindividual’scountryoforiginsothatanydifferencesintypicalexperiencescomparedtoanAustralianchildcanbetakenintoconsideration.6

OthersubmissionstotheInquiryraisequestionsaboutthereliabilityofageassessmentinterviews.Forexample,theNorthernTerritoryLegalAidCommissionarguesthat:

Theyareverysubjective,bothinrequiringtheintervieweetobeabletoprovideanaccuratehistoryandintheopinionformingbytheinterviewer.Thereissignificantscopeforincorrectresultswhereindividualswithlimitededucationfailtoprovideanaccuratehistory.Thereisalsotheriskofmisunderstandingsduetolanguageandculturalbarriers,asdespitetheprovisionofinterpreters,manypeoplespeakdialectandhavelimitededucation.7

LegalAidNSWemphasisestheimpactoftheuseofinappropriateinterpretersininterviewprocessesespeciallyasmanyoftheindividualsbeinginterviewedspeakregionaldialectsandmaynotbefluentinBahasaIndonesia,theofficiallanguageofIndonesia.8

Importantly,theUNHCRGuidelinesonPoliciesandProceduresinDealingwithUnaccompaniedChildrenSeekingAsylumconcludethatagefocusedinterviewsmustbeage-appropriateandculturallysensitive.9

Inordertomitigatethelimitationsoffocusedageinterviews,ProfessorAynsley-Greenrecommendsthatindocumentinganindividual’snarrativethereshouldbeawrittenprotocolandchecklistsofthedataneededfortherecordandthateffectiveandconsistenttrainingmustbegiventothoseperforminginterviews.10Inaddition,heargues,animpartialapproachbytheinterviewerneedstobeadopted,soastoavoidtheinfluenceofanycultureofdisbelief.

Althoughtheremaybeadegreeofimprecisionassociatedwithelicitingnarrativeevidencethroughinterview,internationalexperiencesuggeststhat,ifsuchinterviewsareconductedinaconsciouslyage-appropriateandculturallysensitivemanner,issuesconcerningreliabilitycanbemitigated.Nonetheless,conclusionsdrawnfromfocusedageinterviewsshouldfactorinawidemarginoferrortoaccountfortheinevitableimprecision.

238


3 The Commonwealth’s approach to conducting focused age assessment interviews

Asnotedabove,ageassessmentinterviewswithyoungIndonesianssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingoffenceshavebeenconductedperiodicallyinAustraliasincelate2010.

PriortoDecember2011,focusedageinterviewswereonlyconductedduringtwoperiodsoftime,bothinlate2010,when:

• DIACconductedatrialofageassessmentinterviewswith27individualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingoffences

• theAFPconductedageassessmentinterviewswith12individualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingoffences.

AlthoughtheAustralianGovernmentannouncedon8July2011thatthe‘improvedageassessmentprocess’wouldincludefocusedageassessmentinterviewsconductedundercautionbytheAFP,nosuchinterviewshavebeenconductedbytheAFPsincethatdate.11

ThecurrentapproachtoageassessmentinterviewsbyDIACcommencedinDecember2011.ThecurrentpracticewheretheageofayoungIndonesiansuspectedofpeoplesmugglingisindoubtisforDIACofficerstoconductanageassessmentinterviewandonlyrefertheindividualtotheAFPforinvestigationwheretheyhavefoundthathewaslikelytohavebeenanadultatthetimeofhisallegedoffence.

ThedifferentapproachestoageassessmentinterviewsofDIACandtheAFPwillbediscussedbelow.

3.1 DIAC conduct a trial of focused age interviews in 2010

DIAC’sapproachtofocusedageassessmentinterviewswithindividualswhoseageswereindoubtwasdevelopedinthecontextofasylumseekerswhosaidthattheywereminors.Inmid-2010DIACfoundthatanincreasingnumberofirregularmaritimearrivalsweresayingthattheywereminorswhenDIACofficersbelievedthattheymayhavebeenadults.

Inresponse,DIACdevelopedafocusedageassessmentinterviewprocesswhereclientswereinterviewedbytwoexperiencedandtrainedDIACofficersinthepresenceofanindependentobserverengagedbyDIAC.

TheprimarypurposeoftheDIACageassessmentinterviewsistomakeanappropriatedetentionplacementandtocomplywithAustralianGovernmentpolicythatminorswillnotbedetained


inimmigrationdetentioncentresbutratherinalternativeplacesofdetentionorincommunitydetention.12DIAChasmadecleartotheCommissionthatit‘didnotdevelopitsageassessmentprocessforthepurposeofcriminaljusticeadministrationandhasnoteverpurportedtocarryitouttothestandardthatmightberequiredinthatcontext’.13

IncorrespondencewiththeInquiry,DIACdescribestheprocessasfollows:

Theapproach[used]…isthroughinterviewing,askingaseriesofquestions,notnecessarilyoneaftertheotherbutinterspersed,whichgotochronologyaroundschooling,agesofsiblings,birthdates,whencertaineventsoccurredandsoon.Anychronologicalinconsistencieswhichemergeareputtotheclient.Interviewershaveaccessto,andconsidered,otherdocumentationbeforeconductingtheseinterviewse.g.recordsofentryinterview,anyidentitydocumentsand/orrecordsofdiscussionswithDIACstaffinrelationtotheirchangeofdateofbirthclaims.14

DIACalsoinformedtheCommissionthatofficerstakea‘low-key,commonsenseapproachtotheinterviewrecognisingthattheclientmayinfactbeaminor’,andthat‘theinterviewerensuresthatinformationtakenintoaccountinformingthatviewisputtotheclientforcomment’andthisoccurs‘beforecomingtoaviewaboutwhethertheclientisaminororadult’.15

TheareasofinquirycoveredduringaDIACfocusedageassessmentinterviewinclude:physicalappearanceanddemeanour;behaviour;familyhistory;educationandemployment;andsocialhistoryandindependence.16

Ifthetwointerviewerscometodifferentconclusionsaboutanindividual’sagefollowinganinterview,theprincipleofthebenefitofthedoubtapplies.DIAChasadvised:

Theinterviewassessmentisconductedbytwoexperiencedofficerswhoeachseparatelyformtheirownviewandonlysharethatviewtowardstheendoftheprocess.Whentheirviewsconcuronthebasisofrelevant,availableinformation,thisformstheofficialDIACviewofwhetherthepersonisaminororanadult.Wheretheydifferthepersonisgiventhebenefitofthedoubtandcontinuestobetreatedasaminor.17

3.2 DIAC age assessment interviews were conducted with 27 individuals in October 2010

DocumentsprovidedtotheCommissionindicatethat,atameetingon3September2010,DIACandtheAFPagreedthat‘DIACwouldassisttheAFPinagedeterminationofagroupofminors[suspectedofpeoplesmuggling]whoseagehadbeendeterminedtobeover18onthebasisofawristx-rayalone’.18Thisgroupconsistedof32youngIndonesianswhowereinimmigrationdetentionandfourwhowereatthattimebeforethecourts.19ItappearsthattheAFPagreedthat,ifDIACdeterminedthatanymemberofthisgroupwasaminor,theAFPwoulddropchargesandDIACwouldarrangefortheindividualtoreturntoIndonesia.20

240


Ultimately,DIACageassessmentinterviewswereconductedwith27crewmemberseitheronChristmasIslandorinDarwin.DocumentsprovidedtotheCommissionshowthattheresultoftheseageassessmentinterviewswerethatoneindividualwasfoundtobelikelytobeover18,threeindividualswereconsideredtobeborderline,andtheremaining23individualswerefoundtobelikelytobeunder18.21TheoutcomeoftheassessmentisdescribedbyaseniorDIACofficerinanemailtotheAFP:

Ofthisgroup,wehaveassessedoneclientasbeingover18(andarecurrentlygivinghimtheopportunitytocommentonthatfinding).Theotherswereeitherborderline(butforourpurposeswewillcontinuetotreatthemasminors)orwearesatisfiedtheyareminors.22

FromthedocumentsbeforetheCommission,itappearsthatmostoftheindividualswhowereassessedbyDIACaslikelytobeundertheageof18wereneverthelesschargedasadultsandspentlongperiodsoftimeindetentionbeforehavingtheprosecutionagainstthemdiscontinuedandbeingremovedtoIndonesia.Theoutcomesoftheseinterviewsarediscussedfurtherinsection4.1below.

3.3 AFP age assessment interviews were conducted with 12 individuals in November 2010

FocussedageinterviewshaveneverbeenadoptedbytheAFPasstandardoperatingpractice.23However,inNovember2010theAFPconductedanumberoffocusedageinterviews.IncorrespondencewiththeCommissiontheAFPdescribedthegenesisoftheseinterviewsinthefollowingway:

InNovember2010,duetoalargenumberofcrewindetentiononChristmasIsland,theAFPdecidedtoapproachcrewoutsidetheformalinterviewprocessinanendeavourtoascertaintheirapproximateage.ThesediscussionswerevoluntaryinnatureandnotconductedunderPart1CoftheCrimesAct1914.Followingtheinitialconversationswiththecrew,theAFPmadedecisionsonwhethertoproceedfurtherwiththeinvestigationalprocessorreferindividualsbacktoDIACfordeportation.24

Itappearsthat12individualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingoffencesparticipatedintheseinterviews.TheAFPreportedatthetimethat:‘[t]heseconversationswerenotrecordedandtheclientswereadvisedthattheywereforintelligencepurposesonly’.25AnAFPofficerdescribeshowtheinterviewswereconducted:

Generalquestionswereaskedandmorespecificonestargeted…[at]gainingagreaterunderstandingoftheirtrueage,levelofintelligenceandroleontheboat.Theyincluded:

• WherewereyouwhenPresidentSuhartosteppeddown?

• Whatwereyoudoingatthistime?

• Howoldwereyouthen?


• DoyouremembertheAmbonriotsanddidthisaffectyourfamily?26

Initsresponsetothedraftreport,theAFPreportedthatthe‘purposeoftheinterviewswastoprovideassessmentsonthelikelihoodoftheintervieweebeingajuvenileandtoreducethetimeindetentionofsuspectedpeoplesmugglingcrew’.Theresponsealsonotedthat‘thedevelopmentoftheinterviewquestionswasinformedthroughdiscussionswithaqualifiedIndonesianinterpreterwithknowledgeofIndonesia’.27

AlthoughthesequestionsarefocusedoneventsinIndonesia,theymaynothavebeenappropriateforthisgroupofindividuals.First,Ambonissomedistancefromtheareafromwhichmanycrewmembersoriginate.Second,manyoftheseindividualshavelimitededucationandarefromimpoverishedareaswithpoorinfrastructureandlimitedtelecommunications.ItcannotbeassumedthattheywouldknowwhenPresidentSuhartosteppeddown.

DocumentsprovidedtotheCommissioncontaininformationabouttheoutcomeoftheseinterviews.Ofthe12individualsinterviewed,theAFPcametotheconclusionthattwoweredefinitelyminorsandthattheyshouldbereturnedtoIndonesia,andthattenothers‘willneedwristx-rays’.28

TheAFPhasinformedtheInquirythatnofurtherinterviewsofthistypewereconductedbytheAFPafterNovember2010.Theyexplained:

Giventhatageisasignificantproofoftheoffence,theAFPconsidersthatagedeterminationquestionsshouldbeconductedinaccordancewithPart1C[oftheCrimesAct1914]toformpartoftheadmissiblebriefofevidenceavailabletothecourt.29

ThedevelopmentofafocusedageinterviewprocessthatmettherequirementsoftheCrimesActwasconsideredfurtherinthedevelopmentofthe‘improvedageassessmentprocess’thatwasannouncedinJuly2011.

3.4 In January 2011, DIAC was asked to stop conducting age assessment interviews with individuals suspected of people smuggling

ItisclearfromdocumentsprovidedtotheCommissionthattherewasconcernwithintheAFPandtheOfficeoftheCDPPabouttheimpactontheprosecutionofpeoplesmugglingoffenceswhereaDIACfocusedageassessmentinterviewcametoadifferentconclusionaboutanindividual’sagefromthatexpressedinawristx-rayreport.

ThisconcernisevidentinemailcorrespondencebetweentheAFPandOfficeoftheCDPPinNovember2010inwhichitisstated:

242


NowthatwehaveaDIACreportthatfrommyperspectivethereliabilityofitisquestionableastoitsconclusions,itappearsthisisnowjeopardisingprosecutions.…Theoutcomesnowpotentiallymeanthatanytestof19(anyadult)throughthex-rayprocesstheprosecutioncanbecrippledbytheDIACpilotassessmentthathaslittleacademicrigourorfoundationfortheconclusionsmade.30

InDecember2010,theOfficeoftheCDPPconductedananalysisoftheDIACageassessmentinterviewprocessandconcludedthatthecurrentDIACageassessmentprocessandreportpresentssignificantproblemsforprosecutingauthorities.Theseincludethat:

• interviewsarenotconductedundercaution

• DIACofficersarenotinvestigatingofficialsforthepurposesoftheCrimesAct1914

• DIACageassessmentreportswouldneedtobedisclosedtodefencecounsel;

• CDPPwouldlikelychallengethequalificationsandexpertiseoftheageassessmentofficer,themethodologyused,thecriteriaofagedetermination,thestatementsoftheaccusedperson,andthescientificbasisofthequestionsifrelieduponbydefencecounsel.31

InlateJanuary2011,theAttorney-General’sDepartment(AGD)andtheOfficeoftheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions(OfficeoftheCDPP)askedDIACtostopconductingagedeterminationinterviewswithcrew.On27January2011,theOfficeoftheCDPPhostedameetingwithAGDandDIACtodiscussagedeterminationofcrewinpeoplesmugglingprosecutions.Atthatmeeting,DIACwasrequestednottoundertakeanyageassessmentsofcrew,asa‘highlyundesirablesituationofDIACbeingcalledbythedefencetocountertheprosecution’swristx-raybasedevidence’wasforeseen.32

AninternalDIACemaildiscussingaspecificcase(inwhich,infact,aDIACfocusedageassessmentinterviewhadnotbeenconducted),outlinesanunderstandingofthereasonsforDIACbeingrequestedtostopconductingagefocusedinterviewsinthefollowingway:

TheCDPPandAGDareveryconcernedtoavoidthissituation,whereanagedeterminationisundertakenbytheAFPusingonemethodandaseparateanddifferentprocessisusedbyDIAC,withdifferentconclusionsreached.Twospecificissuesarose…theyexpecttheDIACageassessmentreport(whichtheybelievesignalsheisaminor)willbedisclosabletothedefence,consciousthatitdoesnotsupporttheAFP’s(wristxraymethod)evidencethatheisaged19.…[T]heywantDIACtonotundertakeanyageassessmentsofcrew,foreseeingahighlyundesirablesituationofDIACbeingcalledbythedefencetocountertheprosecution’swristx-raybasedevidence,particularlyafterthedisclosureofthecontradictoryDIACreport.33

ItisimportanttonotethatDIACageassessmentprocesseshavecontinuedatalltimesforunaccompaniedasylumseekerswhosaythattheyarechildren,irrespectiveofwhethertheywerebeingdoneforIndonesiancrew.34


3.5 The July 2011 improved age assessment process is to include focused age interviews

AsdescribedinChapter3,on8July2011,thethenAttorney-GeneralandthethenMinisterforHomeAffairsandJusticeannouncedan‘improvedprocessforagedeterminationinpeoplesmugglingmatters’35thatwastoincludefocusedageinterviewsconductedbytheAFPundercaution.36

Atthetimeoftheannouncement,thethenAttorney-GeneralinformedtheCommissionthat:

TheAFPwillcommenceofferingfocusedageinterviewswhereageisindisputeaspartoftheordinaryinterviewofirregularmaritimearrivalssuspectedofcommittingpeoplesmugglingoffences.FocusedinterviewswilloccurundercautionandwillbeconductedbyAFPofficers.37

ThethenAttorney-Generalwentontonote:

TheAFPisseekingtoengageanexternalconsultantwithappropriateanthropological,culturalandlinguisticexpertisetodevelopguidancematerialforinvestigatorsconductingfocussedageinterviews.ItisanticipatedthatthisguidancematerialwouldsetoutrelevantlinesofquestioningforinterviewerstoputtoIndonesiannationals.38

However,withinamonthoftheannouncement,itbecameclearthatitwouldnotbepossibletodevelopasetofgenericquestionsthatcouldbeaskedofayoungpersonfromIndonesiawhoseagewasindoubt.On3August2011,theAFPmetananthropologistwithexpertiseinIndonesianculturetodiscusstheviabilityofdevelopingfocusedageassessmentinterviewsthatcouldbeusedforcriminaljusticepurposes.39TheAFPreportedonthisdiscussionatameetingofCommonwealthagenciesheldon12August2011.Anoteofthemeetingrecordsthat:

ithasmetwithanthropologist[nameredacted]todiscussthedevelopmentofquestionsforinterviewingpeoplesmugglingcrewonageissues.[Nameredacted]highlightedthatitwouldnotbepossibletodevelopasetofgenericquestionsforagedetermination.40

TheAFPexplainedtotheCommissionitsunderstandingofthereasonswhytheexpertcametothisviewinthefollowingway:

Firstly,thesheerdiversityofIndonesianlanguageandcultureduetothegeographyofthenation(asituationexacerbatedbytheinherentdifficultyinestablishingtheidentityandthereforeoriginoftheintervieweeinquestion).Thisdiversitymeansthatquestionswouldneedtobetailoredspecificallytoportsorvillagesoforigintohaveanychanceofbeingusefultotheinvestigatorindeterminingtheageoftheinterviewee.Thisdiversityraisesadditionaldifficulties,notleastbeingthefactthatthemaritimeworkforceinIndonesiahasahighdegreeofmobilitybetweenregionsofIndonesiaasaresultoftheseasonalnatureofmaritimework.

244


Secondly,thesignificantlackofparticipationinformalschoolingamongstalargeproportionofIndonesianmales,particularlythosefromfamiliesinvolvedinmaritimelife,suchasfishingandcoastalshipping.Thisfactresultsinproblemssuchaseliminatingakeysourceofmaterialwhichcouldbeusedtohelpdetermineaninterviewee’sage(ie.Howlongwereyouatschoolfor?)inadditiontotheobviousdifficultiesassociatedwithinterviewinganuneducatedperson.41

Basedonthisadvice,andtheopinionoftheOfficeoftheCDPP,theAFPhasnotreliedonageassessmentinterviewsforevidentiarypurposes.42

AccordingtotheJointCommonwealthsubmissiontotheInquiry,ratherthanconductspecificageassessmentinterviews,theAFPincludesquestionsthatgotoageininterviewsconductedforinvestigativepurposes.Thesubmissionstates:

TheAFPoffersanyonesuspectedofcommittingaCommonwealthoffenceanopportunitytoparticipateinaninterviewaspartofthenormalcourseofaninvestigation.TheAFPasksquestionsaboutageasanordinarypartofthisinterviewincaseswhereageisindispute,includingabouttheperson’sbackground,education,familyandworkexperienceamongotherthings.InterviewswiththeAFPareconductedinaccordancewithPart1CoftheCrimesAct,whichimposesobligationsoninvestigatingofficialsthatprotecttherightsofpeopleunderarrest.43

TheJointCommonwealthsubmissionalsonotesthat:

TocomplywiththerequirementsofPart1C,participationinaninterviewwiththeAFPisvoluntaryandpeoplesmugglingcrewcannotbecompelled.Accordingly,theuseofinterviewswiththeAFPforagedeterminationpurposesislimitedtocircumstanceswherethecrewmemberconsents.Typically,crewdeclinetobeinterviewedasitisvoluntaryunderPart1C.44

TheCommissionunderstandsthatitisforthereasonsnotedabovethattheAFPhasnotconductedanyfocusedageinterviewsundercautionnotwithstandingthattheyconstitutedanelementofthe‘improvedageassessmentprocess’announcedinJuly2011.

3.6 DIAC commenced conducting focused age interviews with all crew whose age is in doubt from December 2011

Inlate2011,theCommonwealthagenciesinvolvedinissuesofageassessmentinthecontextofpeoplesmugglingagreedthatanewprocesswouldcommencewherebyDIACwouldconductfocusedageassessmentinterviewswithallindividualswhoseageisindoubt,anditwouldonlyrefertotheAFPthoseindividualswhoitfoundwerelikelytobeadults.ItisimportanttoagainnotethatDIAChasatalltimessince2010conductedageassessmentinterviewsforunaccompaniedasylumseekerswhosaythattheyarechildren.45

TheJointCommonwealthsubmissiondescribesthisnewprocessasfollows:


ShortlyafterarrivalatChristmasIsland,DIACconductsanageassessmentofallcrewclaimingtobeminors.DIACassessestheageofthepersonbasedonanydocumentsavailableatthetimeoftheassessmentandafocusedageinterview.IfacrewmemberisassessedbyDIACtobeanadulttheyarereferredtotheAFPforconsiderationofcriminalinvestigationandforagedeterminationprocessestobeconducted.…CrewassessedbyDIACtobeminorsareremovedtotheircountryoforiginunlessexceptionalcircumstancesapply.46

TheCommissionhasbeeninformedthatthisprocesscommencedon21December2011.47TheoutcomesofDIACfocusedageassessmentinterviewsconductedsinceDecember2011arediscussedfurtherinsection4.1below.

4 Concerns about the Commonwealth’s approach to focused age assessment interviews

ThedocumentsbeforetheCommissionsuggestthatthereareanumberofissuesofconcernwiththewaytheCommonwealthhasapproachedfocusedinterviewsasamethodofassessingtheageofyoungIndonesianswhoseageisindoubt.Theseincludethat:

• theresultsofDIACfocusedageassessmentinterviewsconductedinOctober2010werelargelydisregardedbytheAFP

• theAFPageassessmentinterviewsconductedinNovember2010didnotproducereliableinformationaboutage

• legaladviceisnotprovidedpriortotheconductofDIACageassessmentinterviews.

4.1 The results of the DIAC age assessment interviews conducted in October 2010 were largely disregarded by the AFP

ItappearsthattheresultsoftheOctober2010DIACageassessmentinterviewswerelargelydisregardedbytheAFP.

Asnotedabove,theresultsoftheseageassessmentinterviewswerethatoneindividualwasfoundtobelikelytobeover18yearsofage,threeindividualswereconsideredtobeborderline,andtheremaining23individualswerefoundtobelikelytobelessthan18yearsofage.

TheCommissionacknowledgesthateightindividualswhoparticipatedinthistrialwereultimatelyfoundtobelessthan18yearsofageandremovedfromAustraliawithoutbeingcharged.However,theAFPhadgivenanundertakingthattheywouldnotchargeanyindividualassessedbyDIACtobelessthan18yearsofageandwouldratherrequesthisremovaltoIndonesia.48ItappearsthattheAFPdidnotremovethoseindividualstoIndonesiauntilawristx-rayhadalsobeenconducted.

246


Allofthe27youngIndonesianswhoparticipatedinfocusedageassessmentinterviewsultimatelyhadwristx-raysconducted.DocumentsprovidedtotheCommissionindicatethat15ofthesex-raysweretakenaftertheDIACfocusedageassessmentinterviewshadbeencompleted.In12ofthese15casesawristx-raywastakeneventhoughtheDIACfocusedageassessmentinterviewhadalreadyconcludedthattheindividualwaslikelytobeaminor.

Concernaboutthepracticeofconductingawristx-rayforanindividualwhowasinterviewedbyDIACandfoundlikelytobeaminorisexpressedbythesolicitorMrAnthonySheldoninhissubmissiontotheInquiry:

Aclient“L”wasinterviewedwhenhewasprocessedafterhisarrest.ADepartmentofImmigrationandCitizenship(DIAC)officerconductedthisinterview.Theofficer’stitlewas“AgeAssessmentInterviewOfficer”.ThisofficerreportedthatLwasinhisassessment,aminor.Followingthisassessmentawristx-raywasorderedwhich,whenexaminedbyaRadiologistsuggestedthatstatistically,Lwasover18.…

TheassessmentoftheAgeAssessmentInterviewOfficerwasnot,inL’scasesufficienttoshowLwasaminor.TheviewoftheCommonwealthDepartmentofPublicProsecutions(CDPP)inthatcasewasthatthex-raywasevidenceindicatingthatLwasanadult.NoattempttoverifyL’sagefromIndonesianrecords,orrelativeswasmadeinover12months.DuringthisperiodofdetentionDwasheldwithadultoffendersonremand.49

Theoutcomesofthe27casesinwhichDIACfocusedageassessmentinterviewswereconductedinOctober2010canbesummarisedasfollows:

• AssessedbyDIACtobelikelytobeover18(oneindividual):

o Chargedasanadultandultimatelyfoundlikelytobeaminorfollowinganagedeterminationdecisiondeliveredon25October2011intheDistrictCourtofWesternAustralia.50

• AssessedbyDIACtobeborderline(threeindividuals):

o TwoindividualswerechargedasadultsandultimatelyhadtheirprosecutionsdiscontinuedinOctober2011.

o Oneindividualwaschargedasanadultandfoundlikelytobeanadultinanagedeterminationdecisiondeliveredon25October2011intheDistrictCourtofWesternAustraliainR v Daud.51

• AssessedbyDIACtobelikelytobeunder18(23individuals):

o EightindividualswereassessedbytheAFPtobeunder18followingwristx-rayanalysisandwerenotchargedandremovedfromAustralia.

o TwelvewereassessedbytheAFPtobe19yearsorolderfollowingwristx-rayanalysisandwerechargedasadults,withalloftheseprosecutionsultimatelydiscontinued(inmostofthesecases,prosecutionswerenotdiscontinueduntilthesecondhalfof2011).


o Threeindividualshadawristx-raythatwasnotconclusive,withreportssayingthattheindividualshadeither‘justreachedskeletalmaturity’;52thattheywereover18butthattheirboneshad‘notyetfullyfused’;53orthattheywere‘between18-19’.54Ineachofthesecasestheindividualwaschargedasanadultandtheprosecutionwasultimatelydiscontinued.

Itappearsthat,incaseswherethewristx-rayanalysisfoundskeletalmaturity,theAFPreliedonthewristx-raytochargetheindividualasanadultnotwithstandingtheearlierDIACageassessmenthadconcludedthattheindividualwasaminor.Whilealloftheseprosecutionswereultimatelydiscontinued,theseindividualsspentaconsiderablelengthoftimeindetention.IssuesrelatingtothelengthoftimeyoungIndonesiansspentindetentionarediscussedfurtherinChapter7.

Itisofconcernthatinatleastthreecases,anindividualwaschargedasanadultevenwherethewristx-rayanalysiswasinconclusiveandaDIACageassessmentinterviewhadfoundthattheindividualwaslikelytobelessthan18yearsofage.Inoneofthesecases,DIACurgentlycommunicatedtheirconcernstotheAFPthatDUR041,whowasgoingtobechargedasanadult,hadrecentlybeenassessedasaminorinaDIACfocusedageassessmentinterview.ADIACofficeradvisedtheAFP:

Theviewofmyteamisthat,whilsttheclientisunlikelytobe11yearsoldasheclaims,theydonotconsiderheisover18(butmorelikelyaround14or15yearsofage).55

DUR041waschargedbytheAFPthedayafterhisDIACfocusedageassessmentinterviewfoundthathewaslikelytobelessthan18yearsofage.Hewaschargedasanadultonthebasisofthewristx-rayeventhoughtheanalysisofhiswristx-raywasnotconclusive.56UltimatelytheCDPPdiscontinuedhisprosecutionoveramonthlater.DUR041spent245daysindetentioninAustralia,57oftheminanadultcorrectionalfacility.57

OftheeightindividualswhowereassessedbytheAFPtobelessthan18yearsofage,twowerealsoassessedaslikelytobelessthan18yearsofagebybothDIACfocusedageassessmentinterviewsandfollowingwristx-rayanalysis.Inbothcases,anAFPfilenoterecordsadecisionnottoprosecutebasedonthewristx-rayanalysisapproximatelyfiveandsixmonthsrespectivelybeforetheDIACfocusedageassessmentinterviewsfortheseindividualswereevenheld.58ItisofconcernthattheAFPhadinformationthatthesetwoindividualswerelikelytobeminors,andhadrecordedadecisionnottoprosecute,manymonthsbeforetakingactiontoreturnthemtoIndonesia.59

248


4.2 The AFP age assessment interviews conducted in November 2010 did not produce reliable information about age

Asdiscussedabove,theAFPfocusedageassessmentinterviewsconductedinNovember2010werepremisedonquestionsthatmaynothaveprovidedreliableinformationaboutaperson’sage.

Asnotedabove,tenofthe12individualswhoparticipatedintheseinterviewswereassessedbytheAFPaslikelytobeadults.

TheCommissiononlyhasdocumentaryrecordsfortenoftheindividualswhoparticipatedintheAFPinterviews(twoofthesetenwereassessedaslikelytobeminors,eightofthetenwereassessedaslikelytobeadults).

Itappearsthatthetwoindividualswhowereassessedtobeminorswerenotx-rayedandwerereturnedtoIndonesia.However,itisconcerningthattheywerenotreturneduntilapproximatelytwoandthreemonthsrespectivelyaftertheAFPinterviewswereconducted.Inoneofthesecases,itappearsthattheAFPdidnotactonthedecisionnottopursueprosecution.ItwasdiscoveredduringareviewofCJSCsconductedinearly2011thatheremainedindetentionmorethantwomonthsafterthisdecisionwasmade.60

Athirdindividualwasassessedasbeinglessthan18yearsofagefollowingawristx-ray,despitetheassessmentoftheAFPinterviewerthattheanswersgiventoquestions‘wouldmakehimabout27years[old]–definitelyover18’.61

Anotherfourofthetenindividuals,whowereallassessedbytheAFPtobeadults,alsoparticipatedintheOctober2010DIACfocusedageassessmentinterviewsdescribedabove.DIACassessedallfourtobeminors.Allfourwerearrestedandcharged,andallfourultimatelyhadtheirprosecutionsdiscontinued.62

OfthethreeremainingcasesforwhichtheCommissionhasrecords,twoprosecutionswereultimatelydiscontinued,whileoneremainsbeforethecourtsatthetimeofwriting.63

Itisclearfromtheresultsoftheseinterviewsthattheydidnotprovidereliableinformationaboutage.ThisisevidentfromthedifferentoutcomesoftheAFPfocusedageinterviewswhencomparedwiththeresultsoftheDIACinterviews.Itisalsoapparentfromthefactthat,oftheeightmattersforwhichtheCommissionhasrecordswhereindividualswerefoundlikelytobeadultsbytheAFP,sevenprosecutionswerelaterdiscontinued.InmostcasesitappearsthattheprosecutionwasdiscontinuedbecausetheCommonwealthwasnotsatisfiedthattheindividualwouldbefoundbyacourtonthebalanceofprobabilitiestobeovertheageof18andtheprosecutionofaminorwasnotjustifiedinthecircumstances.Whileamatterbeingdiscontinued


isnotofitselfanindicationthattheindividualisdefinitelyaminor,itisclearthatthereisasignificantinconsistencybetweentheassessmentsofagemadebytheAFPandtheeventualoutcomeofthecases.

4.3 Legal advice is not provided prior to the conduct of DIAC age assessment interviews

SubmissionstotheInquiryhaveexpressedconcernthatlegaladviceisnotprovidedtoindividualspriortotheirparticipatinginaDIACfocusedageassessmentinterview.Forexample,LegalAidQueenslandobservesthat‘thereisnoobligationforthe[migration]officertocautiontheindividualofconcernaboutansweringquestions’.Thesubmissiongoesontosay:

Theanswersthatareprovidedinthecourseoftheseinterviewsmayhaveadirectimpactonwhethertheindividualislaterchargedwithacriminaloffence.Toensurethattherightsofanindividualofconcernareprotected,itisessentialthattheyreceivefulladviceinrelationtothelegalconsequencesofansweringagerelatedquestions.64

OthersubmissionstotheInquiryraisedsimilarconcerns,includingthoseoftheNorthernTerritoryLegalAidCommissionandLegalAidNSW.65

5 Disclosure of DIAC age assessment interviews to the defence

IssuesalsoarosebetweenagenciesregardingthedisclosureoftheDIACfocusedageassessmentinterviews.Itisimportanttonotethat,althoughtheageassessmentinterviewswereconductedinOctober2010,andaspreadsheetsummaryofresultswasprovidedtotheAFPsoonafterthistime,theactualreportsontheinterviewswerenotcompletedbyDIACuntilFebruary2011.

Atameetingon4November2010attendedbyofficersofAGD,theOfficeoftheCDPP,DIACandtheAFP,theOfficeoftheCDPPadvisedthat,notwithstandingthedifficultiestheyhadwithDIACageassessmentdocumentsandthemethodsusedbyDIACtoassessage,theCommonwealthhadanobligationtodiscloseanysuchdocuments.66

InDecember2010,theOfficeoftheCDPPagainacknowledgedthattherecordofaDIACageassessmentinterviewshouldbeprovidedbyDIACtotheprosecutionsothatconsiderationcouldbegivenastowhethertheyshouldbedisclosedtothedefence.67However,theOfficeoftheCDPPalsoconsideredthat,ifthedefenceweretotenderaDIACfocusedageassessmentinterviewasevidence,theOfficeoftheCDPPwouldchallengethecontentsofthatreport.Inparticular,theCDPPwouldchallenge:

250


• thequalificationsandexpertiseoftheAgeAssessmentOfficer;

• themethodologyusedbytheAgeAssessmentOfficer;

• thecriteriaofagedeterminationineachcategory;

• theself-servingstatementsoftheaccusedpersoninansweringthequestionsput;

• thescientific,includingsocialscience,basisofthequestions;and

• theappropriatenessofthemethodologywhencomparedwithotherknownandprovablescientificmethodology(includingtheprescribedwristx-rayprocedure).68

MaterialbeforetheCommissionindicatesthat,followingtheletterfromthePresidentoftheCommissiontothethenAttorney-Generaldated14February2011whichraisedtheissueofdisclosure,theagenciesinvolvedagreedthatDIACfocusedageassessmentinterviewsshouldbedisclosedtothedefenceandthattheywereinfactdisclosedinsomecases.69

On3March2011,theOfficeoftheCDPPwrotetotheAFPrequestingthattheAFPensurethatDIACfocusedageassessmentinterviewsweredisclosedtothedefenceinallcases.Theletterreportsthat,atthattime,onlyoneofthecasesinwhichaDIACfocusedageassessmentinterviewhadbeenconductedhadreachedtheprosecutionstageandthatthiscasehadbeendiscontinuedpriortotheDIACreportbeingdisclosed.70

SubmissionstotheInquiryhaveraisedconcernsaboutwhetherDIACfocusedageassessmentinterviewshavebeendisclosedtothedefenceinatimelymannerineverycase.Forexample,theNorthernTerritoryLegalAidCommissionreportedthat:

InonecasetheinterviewwasdisclosedtoNTLACverylate,aftertheindividualhadbeenincustodyforalongperiodoftimeandthematterhadbeenlistedfortrial.Theinterviewindicatedthatthedefendantmaywellbeyoungerthan18.

Ultimatelyinthiscasetheprosecutionfiledanolle prosequi,howeverthisdidnotoccuruntil16monthsafterapprehensionandafewweeksbeforethetrialwaslistedtocommence.Noexplanationwasgivenastothechangeinprosecutionview,norareweawareofanynewevidencebeingreceivedorprovidedtotheprosecutiontoexplainthedecision.Earlydisclosureofthismaterialmayhaveassistedinsubmissionstohavethechargewithdrawnatanearlierstage.71

WhiletheOfficeoftheCDPPagreedthattheDIACageassessmentinterviewsshouldbedisclosedtothedefenceinagedeterminationmatters,theOfficeoftheCDPPproposed,forthefollowingreasons,thattheprosecutionshouldleadtheminevidence:

Thereasonsarethatthetestisonthebalanceofprobabilitiesandthecourtsinsuchmattersdotendtoallowhearsayevidence;forexampleevidencefromtheaccusedastowhathewastoldbyhisparentsastohisdateofbirth.Alsothisapproachwouldallowtheproceedingstobedealtwithatonetimerather


thanbeingadjournedforthedefencetosummonsDIAC.AstheevidenceisDIACevidenceandthuspartoftheCommonwealthitmaybeworthwhilefromthepointofviewofthemodellitiganttoputbeforethecourtalltheinformationtheCommonwealthhas.Doingthiswouldalsoallowtheprosecutiontocontroltheproceedingsratherthanhavedefencecall,proofandleadevidenceinthedefencecaseleavingtheprosecutiontoattacktheevidenceincrossexamination.Thefactthatwesaythecourtshouldnotrelyontheevidencemaycomeoutinamorepositiveandcompellingwayratherthanhavingadefensivewitnessundercrossexamination.72

6 Outcomes of DIAC age assessment interviews conducted since December 2011

SincetheCommonwealthagenciesagreedinDecember2011thatDIACwouldrecommencefocusedageassessmentinterviews,themajorityofindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhohavesaidthattheywereminorshavebeenassessedbyDIACaslikelytobeminorsandhavebeenreturnedtoIndonesia.

DIAChastoldtheCommissionthat,betweenDecember2011and20April2012,56individualswereinterviewedbyDIAC,assessedaslikelytobeminors,andsubsequentlynotreferredtotheAFP.73

TheAFPhasalsoprovidedstatisticsaboutthenumberofindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhohavebeenassessedtobeminorsthroughthisprocess.RecordsoftheAFPindicatethatbetween21December2011and23May2012,therewere98crewarrivals.TheCommissionhasnotbeenprovidedwithinformationabouthowmanyoftheseindividualsparticipatedinDIACageassessmentinterviews.TheAFPhasprovidedthefollowinginformationtotheInquiryconcerningthe98crew:

• 50[were]not…referredtotheAFPbyDIAC;and

• 48werereferredtotheAFP[byDIAC]withthefollowingoutcomes:

o 4arecurrentlybeforethecourtschargedasadultsandageisnotindispute;

o 15arecurrentlyunderinvestigation,ofwhich2aresuspectedjuvenilerecidivists;

o 29werenotcharged;

o 9wereassessedasadultsbuttherewasinsufficientevidence;and

o 20weregivenbenefitofdoubtaspossiblejuveniles.74

ThisinformationindicatesthatalargeproportionofthecrewwhohavearrivedsinceDecember2011havebeengiventhebenefitofthedoubtthattheymayinfactbeminorsandhavebeenreturnedtoIndonesia.

252


7 Findings

Itisclearfrominternationalresearchthatwhereinterviewershavetheappropriateknowledgeandexperience,arewell-trained,followaclearprocedure,andcarefullydocumenttheirresults,focusedageinterviewsareabletoprovidevaluableinformationaboutanindividual’sage.SomeindirectsupportforthisconclusioncanbefoundintheAustraliancontext;BowenDCJnotedinR v Daudthathecouldattachrelativelylittleweighttotheevidenceofaninterviewerwhohadnothadanyformaltrainingwhatsoeverinassessingageandwhosepastassessmentshadnotbeenshowntobecorrect.75

However,focusedageinterviewshavesomeinherentlimitations,includingpotentialproblemswithinterpretationandtheriskthataninterviewerhasaninadequateunderstandingofthesocialandculturalcircumstancesoftheinterviewee.Consequently,inlinewithhumanrightsprinciples,awidemarginofbenefitofthedoubtshouldbeaffordedtosomeonewhosaysthatheisachild.

ItisdisappointingthatthefindingsoftheDIACfocusedageassessmentinterviewsconductedinOctober2010werelargelydisregardedbytheAFP;theyinsteadrelieduponwristx-rayanalysisasevidenceofage.Thisledtoprolongedperiodsofongoingdetention,includinginadultcorrectionalfacilities,forindividualswhoDIAChadfoundwerelikelytobeminors.Inthevastmajorityofthesecasestheprosecutionswereultimatelydiscontinued.

ItappearsthatthefocusedageassessmentinterviewsconductedbytheAFPinNovember2010werebasedoninappropriatequestionsandthattheyproducedunreliableresults.

TheCommissionisnotcriticalofthepractice,whichhasbeeninplacesinceDecember2011,ofDIACconductingfocusedageinterviewswithyoungIndonesianssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingoffenceswhoseageisindoubtandonlyreferringtotheAFPthoseindividualsitconcludesarelikelytobeadults.Thisprocessappearstoaffordawidebenefitofthedoubttoindividualswhosaythattheyarechildren.

However,apreferablepractice,particularlyifafocusedageassessmentinterviewistobereliedoninalegalproceeding,wouldbeforittobeconductedbyappropriatelytrained,IndonesianspeakinginterviewerswhoarefamiliarwiththecultureoftheplacesfromwhichtheyoungIndonesianssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingcome.TheintegrityoftheinterviewprocesswouldalsobeenhancedweretheinterviewerstobeindependentfromthegovernmentdepartmentsandagenciesresponsibleformakingdecisionsabouttheyoungIndonesians.

Additionally,individualswhoareinvitedtoparticipateinafocusedageassessmentinterviewwhichmaybereliedoninlegalproceedingsshouldbegivenanopportunitytospeakwithalawyerpriortodoingso.Legalaidagenciestowhichindividualsinvitedtoparticipateinafocused


ageassessmentinterviewarereferredshouldbeinformedofthenatureandpurposeoftheinterviewsinorderforthemtobeabletoprovidesuchadvice.

__________________________________________________________________________________

1VictoriaLegalAid,Submission13,pp18–19.2EuropeanMigrationNetwork,Policies on Reception, Return and Integration Arrangements for, and

Numbers of, Unaccompanied Minors – an EU Comparative Study(May2010),p76.Athttp://emn.intrasoft-intl.com/Downloads/prepareShowFiles.do?directoryID=115(viewed9July2012).

3ProfessorAlAynsley-Green,Submission38,p14.4ProfessorAlAynsley-Green,Submission38,p14.5ProfessorAlAynsley-Green,Submission38,p14.6Children’sCommissionersandGuardians,Submission31,pp3–4.7NorthernTerritoryLegalAidCommission,Submission32,p4.8LegalAidNSW,Submission35,p2.9UnitedNationsHighCommissionerforRefugees,Guidelines on Policies and Procedures in Dealing with

Unaccompanied Children Seeking Asylum,February1997,p2.Athttp://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain?page=search&docid=3ae6b3360(viewed9July2012).

10ProfessorAlAynsley-Green,Submission38,p14.11DeputyCommissioner,AFP,Transcript of hearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(20April

2012),p172.12DIAC,Responsetodraftreport,6July2012.13DIAC,Responsetodraftreport,6July2012.14Secretary,DIAC,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRights

Commission,22December2011,AttachmentB.15Secretary,DIAC,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRights

Commission,22December2011,AttachmentB.16Secretary,DIAC,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRights

Commission,22December2011,AttachmentB.17DepartmentofImmigrationandCitizenship,Submission37.18PrincipalAdvisor,Citizenship,SettlementandMulticulturalAffairs,DIAC,EmailtoSecretary,DIAC,16

September2010(DIACdocumentmail39646837).19DIACdocumentmail39646837,above.20DIACdocumentmail39646837,above.21OfficerforPrincipalAdvisor,DIAC,‘IndonesianCrewMinors’,Attachment–EmailfromOfficerforPrincipal

Advisor,DIAC,19October2010(DIACdocumentmail39646853).22ActingPrincipalAdvisor,DIAC,EmailtoFederalOfficers,AFP,14October2010(DIACdocument

mail39646172).23AFP,Responsetodraftreport,6July2012,pp7–8.24ActingDeputyCommissionerOperations,AFP,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,

AustralianHumanRightsCommission,5April2012,p3.

254


25FederalAgent,AFP,EmailtoOfficers,AFP,18November2010(DIACdocumentmail39642142).26DIACdocumentmail39642142,above.27AFP,Responsetodraftreport,6July2012,p8.28FederalAgent,AFP,EmailtoOfficer,DIAC,19November2010(DIACdocumentmail39642142).29ActingDeputyCommissionerOperations,AFP,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,

AustralianHumanRightsCommission,5April2012,p3.30FederalAgent,AFP,EmailtoLegalOfficer,CDPP,2November2010(DUR041–CDPPdocument

003.0104).31SeniorAssistantDirector,PeopleSmugglingBranch,CDPP,People Smuggling Prosecutions Age

Determination Issues,15December2010(CDPPdocumentAttachmentDdocument4)(CDPPPeopleSmugglingProsecutions–Paper),pp10–12.

32ActingAssistantSecretary,ImmigrationIntelligenceBranch,DIAC,EmailtoOfficers,DIAC,27January2011(DIACdocumentmail39642150).

33DIACdocumentmail39642150,above.34DIAC,Responsetodraftreport,6July2012.35HonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,andHonBO’ConnorMP,MinisterforHomeAffairsandJustice,

‘Improvedprocessforagedeterminationinpeoplesmugglingmatters’(Mediarelease,8July2011).Athttp://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22media%2Fpressrel%2F906838%22(viewed9July2012).




39FederalAgent,TeamLeaderPeopleSmugglingStrikeTeam,AFP,‘Resultsofmeetingwith[Professor]re:agedeterminationquestioning’,4August2011,Attachment–EmailfromFederalAgent,AFP,toActingAssistantSecretary,AGD,17October2011(AGDdocumentIMP-15).[Professor]isfromtheCrawfordSchoolofEconomicsandGovernment,AustralianNationalUniversity.

40CommonwealthagenciesmeetingonpeoplesmugglingcrewissuessupportingtheSeniorOfficials’Committeeteleconference,MinutesandOutcomes,AGD,12August2011(AGDdocumentPROS-62).

41AssistantCommissioner,NationalManagerCrimeOperations,AFP,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,29May2012,p7;FederalAgent,TeamLeaderPeopleSmugglingStrikeTeam,AFP,‘Resultsofmeetingwith[Professor]re:agedeterminationquestioning’,4August2011,Attachment–EmailfromFederalAgent,AFP,toActingAssistantSecretary,AGD,17October2011(AGDdocumentIMP-15).


43AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,pp14–15.44AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,p15.45DIAC,Responsetodraftreport,6July2012.46AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,p11.



48PrincipalAdvisor,Citizenship,SettlementandMulticulturalAffairs,DIAC,EmailtoSecretary,DIAC,16September2010(DIACdocumentmail39646837).

49AnthonySheldon,Submission26,p3.50R v Daud[2011]WADC175,2.51R v Daud[2011]WADC175,2.52DrLow,Medicalopinion,AFP,4May2011(WID021–CDPPdocument089.0206).53DrLow,Expertmedicalreport,AFP,22October2010(DUR041–CDPPdocument003.0124).54DeputyDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,EmailtoOfficers,CDPPPerthOffice,12April2011(TRA029–CDPP

document315.0275).55ActingPrincipalAdvisor,DIAC,EmailtoFederalAgents,AFP,6October2010(DUR041–DIACdocument

mail39642130).56DefenceBarrister,EmailtoLegalOfficer,CDPP,8October2010(DUR041–CDPPdocument003.0143);

LegalOfficer,CDPP,EmailtoDeputyDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,8October2010(DUR041–CDPPdocument003.0143).Twoexpertreportsweresought,oneofwhichstatedthathisboneage‘approximates19years’andtheotherofwhichstatedthathewasover18yearsofageandcloseto19yearsofage.

57AssistantDeputyDirector,CDPPSydneyOffice,LettertoFederalAgent,AFP,26November2010(DUR041–CDPPdocument003.0028).

58FederalAgent,AFPBrisbaneOffice,CaseNote,3August2010(HAM046–AFPdocument8);Ageassessmentinterviewreport,DIAC,7October2010(HAM046–AFPdocument9);FederalAgent,AFP,CaseNote,14May2010(GEE080–AFPdocument9);Ageassessmentinterviewreport,DIAC,7October2010(GEE080–DIACdocument).

59Consenttocarryoutaprescribedprocedure(wristx-ray)–individual,1April2010(HAM046–AFPdocument1);CancellationofCriminalJusticeStayCertificate,AGD,22October2010(HAM046–DIACdocument);FederalAgent,AFPDarwinOffice,FileNote,7May2010(GEE080–AFPdocument1);CancellationofCriminalJusticeStayCertificate,AGD,22October2010(GEE080–DIACdocument).

60FederalAgent,AFP,CaseNote–Decisionnottoprosecute,26November2010(NOK040–AFPdocument1);FederalAgent,AFPSydneyOffice,CaseNote–NotificationthatNOK040isyettoberepatriated,10February2011(NOK040–AFPdocument2).

61FederalAgent,AFP,EmailtoOfficer,DIAC,19November2010(DIACdocumentmail39642142).62BOM062;TOW043;IRI056;KIN050.63NOK041.64LegalAidQueensland,Submission6,p1.65NorthernTerritoryLegalAidCommission,Submission32,p4;LegalAidNSW,Submission35,p2.66Internalminuteoutliningdiscussionsfrom4November2010meeting,AFP(AFPdocument).67CDPPPeopleSmugglingProsecutions–Paper,note31,pp11–12.68CDPPPeopleSmugglingProsecutions–Paper,above,p12.69DeputyDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,EmailtoSeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,25March2011

(JDT046–CDPPdocument110.0504);Officer,DIAC,EmailtoFederalAgent,AFP,20March2011(JDT046–CDPPdocument110.0504).

256


70SeniorAssistantDirector,LegalPolicyandPracticeManagement,CDPP,LettertoAssistantCommissioner,NationalManagerCrimeOperations,AFP,3March2011(CDPPdocument5-AttachmentD).

71NorthernTerritoryLegalAidCommission,Submission32,p4.72SeniorAssistantDirector,CDPP,EmailtoDeputyDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,20April2011(JDT046

–CDPPdocument064.0053).73AssistantSecretary,IdentityBranch,DIAC,Transcript of hearing,PublichearingforCommonwealth

agencies(20April2012),p269.74AssistantCommissioner,NationalManagerCrimeOperations,AFP,CorrespondencetoHonCBranson

QC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,29May2012,p8.75R v Daud[2011]WADC175,27.


Chapter 6:

Age enquiries in Indonesia

258

Chapter 6: Age enquiries in Indonesia

Chapter contents

1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 259

2 TheprocessofmakingageenquiriesinIndonesia........................................................... 259

3 ThebenefitsandlimitationsofmakingageenquiriesinIndonesia.................................... 260

3.1 LimitedavailabilityoflegaldocumentsestablishingageinIndonesia........................ 261

3.2 Difficultiesinmakingcontactwithfamiliesandofficialsinremotelocations.............. 263

3.3 CooperationwiththeIndonesianNationalPolice..................................................... 264

4 TheCommonwealth’sapproachtoageenquiriesinIndonesia......................................... 264

5 ConcernsaboutAFPeffortstolocatedocumentaryevidenceofagefromIndonesia........ 267

5.1 InmanycasesnoenquiriesaboutageweremadeinIndonesiaatall....................... 267

5.2 InmanycasestherewasalongdelaybeforetheAFPmadeenquiriesinIndonesia................................................................................................................ 268

5.3 InsomecasesthedefenceobtainedevidencefromIndonesia................................ 270

5.4 InsomecasestheAFPwasreluctanttoundertakeenquiriesinIndonesia............... 272

5.5 AnAFPofficerwasnotdeployedtoIndonesiatomakespecificenquiriesaboutageuntilNovember2011........................................................................................ 273

6 TheCommonwealth’sapproachtotheauthenticityofdocumentaryevidencefromIndonesia......................................................................................................................... 274

7 Findings........................................................................................................................... 279


1 Introduction

Whenitcanbeobtained,verifieddocumentaryevidencefromaperson’scountryoforigincanbereliableevidenceofthatperson’sage.Consequently,themakingofenquiriesinIndonesiaaboutwhethersuchdocumentaryevidenceexistsisanimportantmeansofageassessment.Whentheyaremade,suchenquiriesareordinarilypartoftheinvestigationprocessconductedbytheAustralianFederalPolice(AFP).

TheimportanceofmakingageenquiriesinIndonesiaisrecognisedbytheCommonwealth.TheJuly2011announcementofan‘improvedageassessmentprocess’includedacommitmentthatstepswouldbetaken‘asearlyaspossibletoseekinformationfromtheindividual’scountryoforigin,includingbirthcertificates,whereageiscontested’.1

TheCommissionacknowledgesthattherearesignificantlogisticaldifficultieswhichimpactontheAFP’sabilitytomakeenquiriesaboutageinIndonesia.ItisalsoclearthatthelackofcomprehensiveprocessesforofficiallydocumentingageinIndonesiaincreasesthechallengeofobtainingverifieddocumentationofage.

FromthematerialbeforetheCommissionitappearsthatageenquiriesinIndonesiawerenotroutinelyconductedpriortomid-2011andwerenotcommencedimmediatelyinallcasesevenaftertheJuly2011announcement.Further,inmanycases,theAFPenquiriesdidnotproduceresultsalthoughinsomesituationsdefencelawyerswereabletosourcedocumentationthemselves.

Thischapterdiscusses:

• theprocessofmakingageenquiriesinIndonesia

• thebenefitsandlimitationsofmakingageenquiriesinIndonesia

• theCommonwealth’sapproachtoageenquiriesinIndonesia

• concernsabouttheAFPeffortstolocatedocumentaryevidenceofagefromIndonesia

• theCommonwealth’sapproachtotheauthenticityofdocumentaryevidencefromIndonesia.

2 The process of making age enquiries in Indonesia

TheprocessbywhichtheCommonwealthmakesageenquiriesinIndonesiainvolvestheAFPworkingwiththeIndonesianNationalPolice.TheJointCommonwealthsubmissiontotheInquiryindicatesthattheAFPmakesarequestfordocumentationassoonasitbecomesawarethatanindividual’sageisindoubt.Itstates:

260


Tomanagetheriskofdelays,theAFPseeksdocumentation[fromIndonesia]assoonasitbecomesawarethatapeoplesmugglingcrewmemberclaimstobeaminor,andcooperatescloselywiththeIndonesianNationalPolice(INP)toprioritiserequestsforassistance.2

OrdinarilythisinvolvestheAFPseekingdocumentaryevidenceofage,suchasabirthcertificate,throughpolice-to-policecooperationwiththeIndonesianNationalPolice.3TheCommonwealthhasadvisedtheCommissionthatpolice-to-policecooperationisoftenfasterthanformalrequestsforlegalassistance.4Despitethis,theCommonwealthstatesthatpolice-to-policecooperationcanstilltakesometimeduetofactorssuchas‘otherlawenforcementpriorities,roadandtelecommunicationsinfrastructure,record-keepingpracticesandgeography’.5

InNovember2011,duetoanumberofrequestsforevidenceofagebeingoutstanding,theAFPandtheIndonesianNationalPoliceagreedthattheAFPwouldsendanofficertoIndonesiatoassisttheIndonesianNationalPolicewithenquiriesabouttheageofindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingoffences.TheAFPofficertravelledtoIndonesiabetween21Novemberand15December2011.6TheCommissionisnotawareofanAFPofficertravellingtoIndonesiasincethistime.

3 The benefits and limitations of making age enquiries in Indonesia

AsshowninChapter2,medicalmethodsofassessingageareinexactandunreliable.Documentaryevidenceofage,ifitcanbeverified,isextremelyimportantasitislikelytobeseenbyacourtasdeterminativeofage.Arangeofdocumentscanbeusedasevidenceofage,includingrecordsthatmightbeobtainedfromlocalgovernment,schools,policeorreligiousorganisations.Affidavitevidencecanalsobeobtainedfromrelativesorcommunityleaders.

FromthedocumentsbeforetheCommission,itappearsthatinasignificantnumberofcases,prosecutionsofindividualschargedwithpeoplesmugglingoffenceshavebeendiscontinuedfollowingtheproductionofaffidavitevidence(andinsomecasesotherdocumentaryevidence)regardingagefromfamilymembersandcommunityleadersinIndonesia.Inanumberofcases,thisevidencehasbeenobtainedbylawyersrepresentingyoungIndonesianswhohavetravelledtoIndonesiatogatherevidenceofagefromfamilyandcommunityleaders.7

However,whiledocumentaryevidenceshouldbeacriticalcomponentofanyassessmentofage,itisnotalwayseasy,orindeedpossible,toobtainverifiabledocumentstoestablishanindividual’sage.ManyyoungIndonesianswillnothaveanyformaldocumentationoftheirage.Insomecircumstances,itmaybepossibletoobtainaffidavitevidencefromfamily,communityleadersorlocalgovernmentofficials.However,obtainingevidenceofthiskindwillusuallyrequiretraveltoIndonesia.


TheAFPhaverecentlyinformedtheCommissionthatofficialIndonesiandocumentationdoesnotprovidereliableevidenceofaperson’sage.8On24May2012,theAFPreceivedadvicefromanacademicexpertaboutIndonesiandocumentsconcerningidentityandage,includingadviceabout:

• theprocessesIndonesiannationalsfollowtoobtainidentitydocuments,includingprocessesforregisteringpersonalinformationforofficialpurposes

• thereliabilityofIndonesianidentitydocuments,particularlybirthcertificates

• Indonesianattitudesregardingthesignificanceofaperson’sdateofbirth

• therangeofcalendarsthatareusedinIndonesia.9

Insummary,theadvicewasthat:

officialIndonesianidentitydocumentationsystemsaresubjecttosuchsignificantsystemicproblemsastorenderthedocumentsproducedbythissystemextremelyunreliableinformallydeterminingidentityorage.10

TheJointCommonwealthsubmissiontotheInquiryalsonotesthatAustralianagenciesfaceparticularchallengesinestablishingtheidentityandassessingtheageofpersonsfromdevelopingcountrieswhoarriveinAustraliawithoutdocumentaryevidence.11TheJointCommonwealthsubmissionsetsoutsomeofthespecificchallengestheAFPhasfacedinestablishingtheageofyoungIndonesianssuspectedofpeoplesmuggling.Theseinclude:

• thelimitedavailabilityoflegaldocumentsestablishingageinIndonesia

• difficultiesmakingcontactwithfamiliesandofficialsinremotelocationswithlimitedinfrastructure

• technicalandlegalbarriersthatimpedecooperationwiththeIndonesianNationalPolice.12

3.1 Limited availability of legal documents establishing age in Indonesia

ItisclearthatinmanycasesitisdifficulttoobtainlegaldocumentsthatestablishageinIndonesia.ThisdifficultywasoutlinedbytheformerAttorney-GeneralincorrespondencewiththePresidentoftheCommission,13andbytheAFPintheirresponsetoarequestforinformationforthepurposesofthisInquiry.14Intheirresponsetothedraftreport,theAFPstatethatthey‘donotbelievethatinitiatinginquiriesinIndonesiawillnecessarilyprovideevidenceofanyprobativevalue’.15

262


In2010,UNICEFreportedthat60%ofchildrenunderfiveinIndonesiadonothavetheirbirthsofficiallyregistered;thisputsIndonesiainthebottom20countriesintheworldforlevelsofbirthregistration.16TheAFPhasrecentlyreceivedadvicethattherearesignificantdocumentaryandcosthurdles,combinedwithproblemsofcorruption,thatmakethesystemforobtainingabirthcertificatecomplexandsometimesimpossible.17Theadvicestatesthat:

officialIndonesianidentitydocumentationsystemsaresubjecttosuchsignificantsystemicproblemsastorenderthedocumentsproducedbythissystemextremelyunreliableinformallydeterminingidentityorage….DateofbirthisgenerallyunderstoodinWesternculturesas[a]linearindicatorofaperson’sagewithasinglepointoforiginthatisfixedontheGregoriancalendar.TraditionallythisideawasmuchlessimportantinIndonesia[n]culturesthanageascalculatedaccordingtoarangeofcyclical(andoftenoverlapping)indigenouscalendars,orbygeneralreferencetoimportanthistoricalmarkers,suchasamajornaturalorpoliticalevent.18

Furthertheadvicestates:

Evenwhereaformalbirthcertificateisissued(andthiscanberareinremoteandpoorvillages),itiscommonlythecasethatthedatainitisunreliable....Birthcertificateinformationprovidedbyparentsmaybeintentionallyprovidedinaninaccurateformtogainadvantagefordishonestreasonsbutitmayalsobeinaccurateevenifprovidedingoodfaith,asaresultoftheIndonesianculturalpatternsrelationtoageanddateofbirth.19

Insomecases,thebirthsofIndonesiannationalssuspectedofpeoplesmugglinghaveonlybeenregisteredaftertheindividualshavebeenarrestedinAustralia.Whereabirthisregisteredinthesecircumstances,theAFPhasconsideredthatitmustverifytheinformationprovidedtotheIndonesianauthoritiesatthetimeofregisteringthebirth.20

TheAFPhasreportedchallengesinconfirmingtheauthenticityofinformationprovidedtoIndonesianauthoritieswhenabirthisregistered.InNovember2010,AFPofficerspreparedaMinisterialBriefonagedeterminationprocessesandissuessurroundingcourtproceedingsforthethenMinisterforHomeAffairsandJustice.TheBriefdiscussesthedifficultiesassociatedwithobtainingdocumentaryevidenceofagefromIndonesia.TheBriefnotesthattheAFPdoesnotdoubttheauthenticityofbirthcertificatesprovidedtotheAFPthroughtheIndonesianConsulatebuthasquestionsabouttheprocessforregisteringabirthinIndonesia.21

TheBriefalsodiscussesinsomedetailthecasesofthreeindividuals,focusingparticularlyontheavailabilityofdocumentaryevidenceabouttheirage.TheBriefidentifiesthedocumentsobtainedabouttheiragebutquestionsthevalidityoftheprocessofregisteringtheirbirth.TheBriefnotesaparticularconcernaboutwhethersupportingdocumentationwasprovidedtotheCivilRegistryAuthorityinIndonesiatovalidatethedateofbirthontheyoungIndonesians’birthcertificates.22

Itisapparentthattheseconcernsareongoing.Forexample,inaFebruary2012brieffortheMinisterforHomeAffairsandJustice,theAFPreportthatIndonesianauthoritiesdonot:


sightdocumentationevidencingdateofbirthbutrather[accept]oraladvicefromparentsorothercloseassociatesandthiscanoccurmanyyearsafterthebirth.23

AdvicereceivedbytheAFPon24May2012aboutIndonesianidentitydocumentsstatedthatitiseasyforanindividualinIndonesiatoobtainfalseorinaccurateidentitydocumentsastheseareissued‘withlittleornoevidenceofidentityandoftenwithoutcitizenshavingtoattendgovernmentofficesorbesightedatallbyanofficial’.24TheacademicalsoadvisedthatitisnotunusualforIndonesianstopossessmultipleandinaccurateidentitycardsortopossessdifferentcardswithdifferentdatesofbirth‘inordertogainaccesstodifferentage-determinedgovernmentservices’.25

Initsresponsetothedraftreport,theAFPmadethefollowingobservationaboutageenquiriesinIndonesia:

TheAFPonoccasionshasconductedenquirieswiththeIndonesianNationalPoliceinrelationtoidentitydocuments.Inmanyinstances,documentationprovidedisintendedtoassertthatapersonisundertheageof18yearsold.ManyoftheseformsofdocumentaryevidencehavebeendiscreditedbyinquiriesconductedbyIndonesianauthorities.Inaddition,Australiancourtshavealsofoundthatidentitydocumentationpresentedduringagedeterminationhearingstobefalse.26

TheAFPprovideddetailsofanumberofcaseswheretheyhadreceivedunreliableorconflictingdocumentsregardingage.Theseincludedsomecaseswhereitappearedthatdocumentshadbeenalteredorwerefraudulent,acasewhereabirthcertificatethatwasotherwiseidenticalhadbeenissuedintwodifferentnames,acasewhereabirthcertificateconflictedwithschoolrecords,andacasewhereabirthcertificateextractconflictedwithabaptisimalcertificate.27TheCommissionrecognisesthatthereprobablyhavebeensomecaseswherefraudulentdocumentswereproducedandthatinsomecasesinconsistenciesindocumentationhavearisenfrompoorsystemsofrecordkeeping.However,thisdoesnotmeanthatdocumentaryevidenceofageshouldnotbesoughtfromIndonesia.

3.2 Difficulties in making contact with families and officials in remote locations

Incircumstanceswhereitisnotpossibletoobtainlegaldocumentationestablishingage,itmaybepossibletoobtainaffidavitevidencefromfamilymembers,communityleadersorlocalgovernmentofficialsattestingtoanindividual’sage.TheJointCommonwealthsubmissiontotheInquirystatesthatonoccasion,theIndonesianNationalPolicehasprovidedstatementsfromfriendsorrelativesastotheageofanindividualsuspectedofpeoplesmuggling.28

However,itisevidentthattherearedifficultiesassociatedwithobtainingevidenceofthiskind.Mostrelevantly,itusuallyrequirestraveltoIndonesia.Moreover,manyoftheyoungIndonesians

264


comefromremoteandisolatedlocationswithinIndonesia.Poorinfrastructureandlimitedtransportleadtodifficultiesinreachingthecommunitiesfromwhichaffidavitevidencemightbeobtained.

3.3 Cooperation with the Indonesian National Police

IncorrespondencetotheCommission,theAFPhasexplainedthattheyworkcloselywiththeIndonesianNationalPolicetoverifytheagegivenbyIndonesianpeoplesmugglingcrew.29TheJointCommonwealthsubmissionlistssomespecificchallengesinobtainingformalverificationofageofthiskindfromIndonesia,includingthat:

• aresponsetoaformalmutualassistancerequestcantakeseveralmonthsoryears

• police-to-policecooperationcantakeasignificantperiodoftimeduetofactorssuchasotherlawenforcementpriorities,roadandtelecommunicationsinfrastructure,record-keepingpracticesandgeography

• thereisnolawfulbasisfortheAFPtoexercisepolicepowers,suchasinvestigation,inIndonesiawithoutagreementfromIndonesianauthorities.30

4 The Commonwealth’s approach to age enquiries in Indonesia

TherevisedExplanatoryMemorandumtotheCrimesAmendment(AgeDetermination)Bill2001addressedtheissueofageenquiriesinthecrew’scountryoforigin.Specifically,itexplainedthatwhilesuchenquiriescouldbehelpful,theywerenotexplicitlyrequiredbytheBill.Itexplained:

TheBilldoesnotcontainanexpressrequirementtoexhaustallotheravenuesbeforeseekingaperson’sconsentto,ormagisterialauthorisationfor,aprescribedprocedure.However,inpractice,investigatingofficialswillseektodetermineaperson’sagebyallreasonablemeansbeforeexercisingthepowerscontainedintheBill.Forexample,ifreliabledocumentaryevidenceofaperson’sageisavailablethenthismaysuffice.31

ItisnotclearfromthedocumentsbeforetheCommissionpreciselywhentheAFPfirstmadeeffortstoobtaindocumentaryevidenceofagefromIndonesia.However,theimportanceofyoungIndonesiansbeingabletoprovidedocumentaryevidenceoftheiragehasbeenrecognisedforsometime.Forexample,inOctober2010,aDepartmentofImmigrationandCitizenship(DIAC)officerresponsibleforconductingfocusedageassessmentinterviewsrequestedassistancefromDIACcasemanagerstolocatedocumentstoprovidemoreinformationabouttheageofindividualswhoseagewasindoubt.Henotedtheimportanceandurgencyoflocatingdocumentsto‘lendweightorotherwisetotheirclaimsinrelationtotheirage’giventhattheseindividualsweresubjecttoongoingAFPaction.32


ThedocumentsbeforetheCommissiondonotmakeclearwhatfurtheraction,ifany,wastakenatthattimebyeitherDIACoranyothergovernmentagencytolocatedocumentstosupportthoseindividuals’statementsabouttheirage.

TheimportanceoflocatingrelevantdocumentaryevidenceinIndonesiawasalsorecognisedbytheOfficeoftheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions(OfficeoftheCDPP)inearly2011.On3March2011,aSeniorAssistantDirectoroftheOfficeoftheCDPPwrotetotheAFPsettingoutanumberofissuesinrelationtodeterminingtheageofpeoplesmugglingcrewwhosaythattheyarechildren.Atthattime,theOfficeoftheCDPPurgedtheAFPtoconsiderwhethermoreenquiriesshouldbemadeinIndonesia,stating:

itmaybeworthwhileconsideringifanythingmorecanbedonetoobtainanyrelevantdocumentationfromIndonesianauthorities.33

ItappearsthattherewasageneralAFPdirectionissuedinmid-2011thatAFPofficersshouldseekdocumentsregardingagefromIndonesia.On16June2011,theAFPsentanemailtoallteamleadersaskingthat,inallmatterssubjecttoagedetermination,thecaseofficerrequestJakartatoseekagerelateddocumentsandtoverifytheauthenticityofthosedocuments.Thetaskwasto‘backcapture’allmattersbeforethecourtandwastobecarriedouteventhoughitmayreturnnoresultsortakeextensivetimetocomplete.34

AttheAustralia-IndonesiaConsularConsultationsheldinlateJune2011,theAFPundertooktodiscussstepstoimprovecooperationonobtainingageidentificationdocumentationwiththeirIndonesiancounterpartsandtoagreetoanimprovedprocessgoingforward.35TalkingpointspreparedforthemeetingstatethattheAFP:

istakingstepstoasearlyaspossibleseekbirthcertificatesandotherrelevantinformationforcrewfromIndonesiawhereageiscontested.TheworkinggrouprecognisedthatitisimportantthatAFPengageasearlyaspossiblewithIndonesianauthoritiestoseekbirthcertificatesandotherdocumentationasitiscurrentlysometimesbeingprovidedtoolate.36

Asnotedabove,on8July2011,theGovernmentannouncedan‘improvedprocess’fordeterminingageinpeoplesmugglingmatters,whichincludedtakingearlystepstoseekinformationfromtheindividual’scountryoforigin.Itdoesnotappearthatthesestepswereinfacttakenimmediately.IntheweeksfollowingtheGovernment’sannouncementofthe‘improvedageassessmentprocess’,theOfficeoftheCDPPwrotetotheAFPaskingthemtomakegreatereffortsinmakingenquiriestolocateevidenceofageinIndonesia.On15July2011,theDeputyDirectoroftheOfficeoftheCDPPsentalettertotheNationalManagerofCrimeOperationsattheAFPadvisingthat:

TheAFPshouldinallcaseswherethereissomedoubtastoanindividual’sagemakeproactiveinquiries,attheearlieststagepossible,toseekanyrelevantinformationfromIndonesia.Thisincludescaseswhereagemaynotyethavebeenformallyraisedasanissueintheproceedings.37

266


On22July2011,theAFPreplied:

AFPcaseofficershavebeenremindedoftherequirementtoconductenquirieswithanindividual’scountryoforiginandseekrelevantdocumentation,assoonasitissuspectedthatthepersonmaybeajuvenile,orwhereagebecomesanissue.38

However,theOfficeoftheCDPPcontinuedtoholdconcernsthatenquirieswerenotbeingmadeinallcases.On2August2011,theOfficeoftheCDPPagainwrotetotheAFPurgingittomakeeffortstoconductenquiriesinIndonesiaofthetypethathadbeenannouncedon8July2011.39TheemailnotesthatitappearedthatneitherenquiriesinIndonesianoradentalx-rayhadbeenundertakenbytheAFPintheindividualmatterofOFD030andthattheOfficeoftheCDPP:

isextremelyconcernedthatgiventheGovernment’sannouncement,thefailuretohavecommencedimplementingtheimprovedprocessesforagedeterminationpriortothesematterscomingbeforethecourtsmayattractverysignificantcriticismandcouldcauseembarrassmenttotheCommonwealth.40

DocumentsbeforetheCommissionindicatethatmakingageenquiriesthroughformalchannelscouldbealengthyprocess.InOctober2011,theAttorney-General’sDepartment(AGD)receivedanemailfromanofficerattheAustralianEmbassyinIndonesiarequestinginformationonthelengthoftimetakentodetermineageandrepatriateminorstoIndonesia.TheemailsuggeststhattheagedeterminationprocesswasasubjectofdiscussionatmeetingsbetweenseniorIndonesianandAustralianofficials.TheAGDofficeradvisedtheDepartmentofForeignAffairsandTradeofficerthatoneoftheprocessescreatingdelaysinthetimetakentoprocessindividualcrewwasthelengthoftimetakenforaresponsetobereceivedfromtheIndonesianNationalPolicetorequestsfordocumentsfromtheAFP.TheAGDofficerstated:

Currentadviceisthatitistaking[IndonesianNationalPolice]2–3monthstoeitherprovideAFPwithverifieddocumentsorconfirmthattheyhavenotbeenabletolocateanydocuments.WeunderstandfromAFPthatthe[IndonesianNationalPolice]hasbeenreluctantattimestoprioritisetheAFP’srequests.41

FollowingthedecisionsinR v DaudandR v RMA,discussedinChapter3,inwhichtheCourthadpreferredotherevidenceofagetothatgivenbyDrLow,theOfficeoftheCDPPdecidedthatitwouldnotcontinuetoprosecutecaseswheretheonlyprobativeevidenceofagewasawristx-ray.42TheOfficeoftheCDPPalsoconsideredthelengthoftimethatitwouldbereasonabletowaitforaresultfromanenquirymadeinIndonesia.ASeniorAssistantDirectoroftheOfficeoftheCDPPsentaninternalemaildiscussingtheapproachtobetaken.Theemail,dated15November2011,states:

Iftheissueofagedeterminationdependsalmostexclusivelyonthereceiptof[informationfromIndonesia],IsuggestthatweasktheAFPtoprovideitsresultswithinaperiodofsixweeks.Ifthematerialisnotreceivedinthattimeanditisapparentthatitisnotlikelytobeforthcominginthenearfuture,andthereisnoothermaterialwhichraisesastrongreasontobekeptonfoot,thenIsuggestwecarefullyconsiderstoppingtheprosecution.43


TheCommissionhasnotbeenabletomakeanassessmentofwhetherthesetimeframeshavebeenobservedintheperiodoftimesinceNovember2011.

5 Concerns about AFP efforts to locate documentary evidence of age from Indonesia

AttheInquiryhearingforCommonwealthagencies,theAFPgaveevidencethattheyhadbeenworkingcloselywiththeIndonesianNationalPolicethroughAFPliaisonofficersbasedinJakartaforsometime.44However,asthediscussionaboveindicates,therewasnotasystemicapproachtomakingageenquiriesinIndonesiauntilatleastmid-2011.

AccordingtotheAFP,whiletheIndonesianNationalPoliceindicatedawillingnesstoassisttolocatemoredocumentaryevidenceaboutage,theAFPcontinuedtoconfrontanumberofchallengesinobtainingthekindofevidencethattheysought.ChallengesincludedthelimitedavailabilityofIndonesianNationalPoliceofficerstoconducttheenquiriesrequired,particularlyinremotelocations,thetimetakentorespondtorequestsforevidenceandalsothedifficultieswithobtainingevidencethatcomplieswiththerequirementsofAustralianlawsofevidence.45

ItiscleartotheCommissionthatthesearegenuinechallenges.However,documentsbeforetheCommissionsuggestthat,inmanycases,inadequateeffortsweremadetoconductenquiriesregardingagerelatedinformationinIndonesia.Forexample:

• inmanycases,noenquiriesaboutageweremadeinIndonesiaatall

• inmanycasestherewasalongdelaybeforetheAFPmadeenquiriesinIndonesia

• insomecasesthedefenceobtainedevidencefromIndonesiawhentheAFPwasnotabletodoso

• insomecasestheAFPwasreluctanttoundertakeenquiriesinIndonesia

• anAFPofficerwasnotdeployedtoIndonesiatomakespecificenquiriesaboutageuntilNovember2011.

5.1 In many cases no enquiries about age were made in Indonesia at all

TheCommissionhasreceiveddocumentsregardingasignificantnumberofcasesinwhichitappearsthatnorequestwasevermadebytheAFPtotheIndonesianNationalPolicefordocumentsrelatingtoanindividual’sage.

ThisincludesthematterofWAK087,whowasconvictedofapeoplesmugglingoffenceasanadultinFebruary2011.Therewasnoevidenceofhisageotherthanevidencebasedonhiswrist

268


x-ray.DuringhisentryinterviewWAK087hadprovidedDIACwiththephonenumberofafriendinIndonesiaandstatedthathehadanidentitycardathishomeinIndonesia.46However,itappearsthatnorequestwasevermadebytheAFPtotheIndonesianNationalPolicefordocumentsrelatingtotheageofthisyoungIndonesian.WAK087maintainsthathewasachildwhenhearrivedinAustralia.47

Inanothercase,FLE048claimedtobe15yearsoldwhenhearrivedinAustraliainApril2009.48HewasconvictedasanadultinOctober2009.Theonlyevidenceofhisagewasbasedonhiswristx-ray.DuringhisentryinterviewFLE048hadprovidedauthoritieswiththetelephonenumberforhisauntinIndonesia.49However,itappearsthatnoattemptwasmadebytheAFPtospeakwithhisauntortoseekdocumentsrelatingtohisagefromIndonesia.

Inafurthermatter,OXL003claimedtobe14yearsoldwhenapprehendedinApril2010andwaschargedasanadultbytheAFPinNovember2010.ItappearsfromthedocumentsprovidedtotheInquirythatnorequestwasmadebytheAFPtotheIndonesianNationalPolicefordocumentsrelatingtotheageofthisyoungIndonesian.DuringhisentryinterviewOXL003hadtoldDIACthattheywouldbeabletocontacthisfamilybyusingthemobilephoneownedbythecaptainofthevesselwhowasalsoinDIACcustodyatthattime.InSeptember2010,aDIACcasemanagerwassatisfiedthatOXL003wasunder15yearsold.50ADIACfocusedageassessmentreportcompletedinFebruary2011assessedthathewasunder18yearsoldbasedonhisappearance,behaviourandfamilyhistory.51InOctober2011,theAFPagreedwitharecommendationoftheOfficeoftheCDPPtodiscontinuethecaseastherewasnoevidenceofhisageotherthanananalysisofhiswristx-ray.52ThecasewasdiscontinuedinNovember2011,19monthsafterOXL003firstclaimedtobeachild.53

5.2 In many cases there was a long delay before the AFP made enquiries in Indonesia

FromthedocumentsbeforetheCommission,itappearsthattheAFPhasnotalwayssoughtinformationaboutagefromIndonesiainatimelymanner.

Assetoutabove,thetalkingpointspreparedfortheAustralia-IndonesiaConsularConsultationson30June2011indicatedthattheAFPwastakingstepstomakeageenquiriesinIndonesia‘asearlyaspossible’.Further,asnotedabove,anelementofthe‘improvedprocess’ofassessingageannouncedon8July2011wasthattheAFPwouldbetaking‘stepsasearlyaspossible’toseekinformationaboutagefromIndonesia.

MaterialbeforetheCommissionshowsthatuntilmid-2011,inasignificantnumberofcases,asubstantialamountoftimepassedbetweenthetimeayoungIndonesianwasapprehendedandtheAFPmakingitsfirstrequesttoIndonesiaforevidenceabouthisage.Forexample:


• NoenquiriesweredirectedtoIndonesiaaboutanindividualapprehendedinDecember2009untilApril2011;thatis,17monthslater.54

• NoenquiriesweredirectedtoIndonesiaaboutanindividualapprehendedinJune2010untilMarch2011;thatis,9monthslater.55

Itappearsthatinmanycases,theAFP’sfirstrequesttoIndonesiafordocumentsrelatingtoanindividual’sagewasonlymadeafterallcaseofficerswererequestedtomakesuchrequestson16June2011.Forexample:

• NoenquiriesweredirectedtoIndonesiaaboutanindividualapprehendedinDecember2009untilJune2011;thatis,18monthslater.56

• NoenquiriesweredirectedtoIndonesiaaboutanindividualapprehendedinMarch2010untilJuly2011;thatis,16monthslater.57

• NoenquiriesweredirectedtoIndonesiaaboutanindividualapprehendedinJune2010untilJuly2011;thatis,13monthslater.58

ItappearsthatthereweresignificantdelaysinmakingenquiriesevenincaseswhereanindividualprovidedtheauthoritieswithcontactdetailssuchasaphonenumberforfamilymembersinIndonesia.ThiswasoftendoneinaDIACentryinterviewshortlyafterapprehension.Forexample:

• DuringhisDIACentryinterviewinJanuary2010,NTN032informedDIACthathisfather’scontacttelephonenumberwasinthetelephoneinhispossessionwhenhearrived.59However,attemptstoobtaininformationfromIndonesiawerenotmadeuntilAugust2011;thatis,19monthslater.60InAugust2011,NTN032agreedthathewas18yearsofageatthetimeofhisallegedoffence;howeverheraisedthequestionofhisageagaininSeptember2011.61Heultimatelyadmittedthathewasover18andadvisedthathewishedtopleadguiltyinSeptember2011.62

• JDT046whoarrivedinFebruary2010providedinformationtoDIACinhisentryinterviewthatcouldhavebeenusedtoassistinanassessmentofhisage.63NoenquiriesinIndonesiaweremadebeforehewasarrestedandcharged.InMay2011,almostsixmonthsafterJDT046wascharged,theAFPandtheOfficeoftheCDPPconsideredwhethertheremightbesomewaytoverifytheinformationhegaveabouthisageinhisDIACentryinterview.TheydecidedtorequestanexpertreportfromanexpertinIndonesianstudiesontheinformation.64InJune2011,theAFPreceivedastatementfromavillagegovernmentbodystatingthatJDT046wasapproximatelyundertheageof18years.65InJuly2011,theAFPreceivedtheexpertreportthatindicatedthatitwaslikelyJDT046wasunder18yearsofage.66TheprosecutionwasdiscontinuedinAugust2011;thatis,18monthsafterhehadarrivedinAustralia.67JDT046spent537daysindetentioninAustralia,239ofthoseinanadultcorrectionalfacility.

270


InaninternalAFPemaildiscussingthedeploymentofanAFPofficertoIndonesiatoobtaindocumentaryevidenceofage,itwasnotedthattherewasabacklogofoutstandingrequestsmadetotheIndonesianNationalPolicetoobtaindocumentaryevidenceofageandthatmanyofthoserequestsrelatedtoindividualswhohadalreadybeenreturnedtoIndonesia.ItappearsthattherewasnosysteminplacefornotificationtobemadetotheIndonesianNationalPolicewhenanindividualhadbeenreturnedtoIndonesiaandnofurtherenquirieswererequired.68

ThelackofanysuchsystemmayhavecontributedtolongdelaysinthereturnofinformationfromIndonesiaabouttheageofindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglinginAustralia.

5.3 In some cases the defence obtained evidence from Indonesia

Insomecases,defencelawyersobtaineddocumentaryevidenceofagefromIndonesiainsituationswheretheAFPhadeithernotmadeenquiriesatallorwheretheirenquirieshadnotproducedanyevidenceofage.

InAugust2011,anemailfromaCDPPlegalofficerraisedthepointthat:

DefencelawyersherehaverealisedtheycanobtainBirthCertificatesveryquicklyiftheyrequestthemthroughtheIndonesianConsulate.Wedon’thaveanunderstandingoftheprocessofhowtheConsulateobtainorverifybirthcertificates;andAFParenotkeentomakethosesortofpoliticallysensitiveenquiries.

Inoneofmymatters,defenceobtainedabirthcertificatefromtheConsulateandAFPhadsentaseparatetaskingovertoJakartaforbirthcertificateetc.The[IndonesianNationalPolice]haveadvisedAFPtheycannotfindanydocumentaryevidenceinKupangandsurroundingareas(whichistheallegedplaceofbirth)forthedefendant.…[An]AFPagentwhowaspostedinJakartafor3yrsandrecentlyreturnedtoBrisbane,hasadvisedthatitcouldbeduetoincompetentstaffatthecivilregistryoritcouldbethatthebirthcertificatedefencegaveisaforgery.Thereisnowayofknowingwhich.69

SomesubmissionstotheInquiryquestionedwhyittooksolongforinformationaboutagetobegatheredbytheAFPwhenrepresentativesandadvocatesofsomeyoungIndonesianswereabletolocateeitherdocumentaryevidenceortestimonyoffamilyandfriendsveryquickly.Forexample,MrAnthonySheldon’ssubmissiontotheInquirynotesthataprivatelyfundedtriptogatherdocumentaryandaffidavitevidencetosupporttheevidenceofagegivenbythreeindividualswhoseageswereindoubt:

tookfourdaystocomplete,whereevidencewasverifiedandgatheredforthreeclients.UponpresentationtotheCDPPchargeswerewithdrawnandthethreeclientsrepatriated.ItremainsdifficulttoacceptthattheAFPhadadequatelyexpendedallresourcesoftheCommonwealthover12monthstoinvestigatetheageofthesechildrenwhenlawyersachievedthisinjustfourdaysattheirownexpense.70

ThefollowingexamplealsodemonstratesthecomparativeeasewithwhichdefencelawyerswereabletoobtainevidenceofagefromIndonesia.OFD030,whowasapprehendedinMarch


2010,toldauthoritiesthathewasunder18yearsofage.InJuly2011,16monthslater,anofficialrequestforinformationaboutagewasmadebytheAFPtotheIndonesianNationalPolice.TheAFPinformedtheOfficeoftheCDPPthatrequestsforinformationaboutagetakeaminimumofthreemonthstocomplete.InearlyAugust,aCDPPofficersentanemailtotheAFPexpressingconcernaboutthelengthoftimeithadtakenforevidenceotherthanwristx-rayevidencetobesought.Theemailstated:

FromMarch2010[OFD030]hasconsistentlyclaimedtohavebeen16yearsoldatthetimeoftheallegedoffending.Mr[OFD030]’srepresentativeswrotetoourOfficeon11July2011referringtotherecentannouncementonnewagedeterminationproceduresandspecificallyrequestingthattheAFPmakeinquiriesinIndonesiaregardingtheirclient’sage.On14July2011ourBrisbaneOfficewrotetotheMangeroftheAFPinBrisbane,attachingacopyoftheletterfromMr[OFD030]’srepresentativesandrequestingthattheinformationinthatletterbepassedtotheAFPinJakartatoassistinmakinginquiriesinIndonesiaandthateffortsbemadeforadentalx-raytobeobtainedpriortothehearingon22August2011.Todateweunderstandthatnoprogresshasbeenmadeoneitherofthesefronts.Ihavealsoattachedcopiesoftheselettersforyourreference.71

Aboutoneweekafterthatemailwassent,[OFD030]’sdefencelawyertravelledtoIndonesiaandproducedaswornstatementfromtheindividual’sbrotherattestingtohisdateofbirth.Tendayslatertheprosecutionwasdiscontinued.72

InthematterofGEO027,arequestforageverificationinformationfromIndonesiawasmadebytheAFPinNovember2011.73InDecember2011,theAFPprovidedtheOfficeoftheCDPPwithextractsofgovernmentdocumentsobtainedfromIndonesia.AlthoughtheCDPPrequestedfurtherverificationintheformofstatementsfromtheIndonesianRegistryofficialswhoproducedthedocuments,theAFPwasunabletoobtainevidencetosupporttheadmissibilityoftheIndonesianRegistrydocuments.However,inJanuary2012,thedefencewasabletotakeaffidavitsfromthesameregistryofficialsfromwhomtheCDPPhadsoughtstatementsthroughtheAFP.Inaddition,thedefenceobtainedaffidavitanddeclarationevidencefromIndonesianrelatives(includingtheindividual’sfather)abouthisage.Basedonthestrengthoftheevidenceobtainedbythedefence,theCDPPmadethedecisiontodiscontinuetheprosecution.74

TherearealsothecasesofthreeindividualsapprehendedinApril2010.AllthreeindividualsimmediatelyidentifiedthemselvestoAustralianauthoritiesaschildren.DuringtheirDIACentryinterviewsinMay2010,oneindividualprovidedhisbrother’smobilenumber,andanotherprovidedthetelephonenumberofafriendinIndonesia.75Ineachofthesecases,itappearsfromdocumentsbeforetheInquirythattheAFPmadenoattempttocontactauthoritiesinIndonesiaorfamilymemberstoobtaindocumentaryevidenceabouttheagesoftheseindividuals.InJanuary2011theywereeachchargedasanadultonthebasisofwristx-rayevidencealone.

OverMaytoJune2011,defencerepresentativesforallthreeindividualsobtainedbaptismcertificates,birthcertificatesandaffidavitevidencefromfamilymembersinIndonesiaindicating

272


thattheywereallchildren.76TheOfficeoftheCDPPrequestedtheAFPtomakeenquiriestoverifytheauthenticityofthesedocuments.77InJune2011,theAFPprovidedverificationonthebaptismcertificateforoneindividual,buthadnoindicationontheprogressforenquiriesontheothertwoindividuals.78Approximatelyoneweeklater,theCDPPwithdrewchargesagainstallthreeindividuals.79

Itappearsthatinmanycaseswherethedefencehavebeenabletoobtaininformationaboutanindividual’sagefromIndonesia,theOfficeoftheCDPPhasbeenwillingtowithdrawtheprosecution.80However,itisimportanttonotethatinsomeofthosecasesittookmanymonthsafterthedocumentswerereceivedfortheprosecutiontobediscontinued.Inaddition,priortomid-2011,theAFPandtheOfficeoftheCDPPwerereluctantinsomecasestoaccepttheauthenticityofdocumentsobtainedfromIndonesia.

5.4 In some cases the AFP was reluctant to undertake enquiries in Indonesia

DocumentsbeforetheCommissionindicatethatinsomecasestheAFPappearedreluctanttomakeenquiriesinIndonesia,evenwhendefencelawyershaddiscoveredthatitwaslikelythatdocumentsexistedinIndonesia.Forexample,ULT055wasapprehendedinAugust2009andatthattimehetoldauthoritieshewas16yearsold.ItappearsthattheAFPmadenoenquiriesinIndonesiaabouthisageandhewaschargedasanadultonthebasisofwristx-rayevidencealone.InAugust2010,ULT055’sdefencelawyeradvisedthathehadspokentotheindividual’smotherandshesaidthatshehadhisbirthcertificatewithherinhisvillageinIndonesia.TheAFPadvisedthatthatvillagewastooremoteforthemtobeabletocontactanyoneortoverifydocuments,stating:

Totravelto[theisland]youmustsourceavessel(throughprivatehire)inWancitotakeyouthere.ThisareaofIndonesiaisveryremoteandgenerallypeoplewholivethereareinalowsocioeconomicclass.

AfterdiscussionwithAFPOSOinJakartatheriskassociatedwithtraveltothisremoteareabyprivatevesselisconsideredtoohighrisktoachievetheoutcomerequired.TherearenoreliablesearchandrescueserviceinIndonesiaandnoaccreditedairlinesortransportcompaniesthattraveltothisarea.

TravelintothisareaofIndonesiarequiresalotoftimeasairlineschedulesarenotreliableandflightsareoftencancelledresultinginlongstaysinareasuntilalternativetransportcanbeorganised.…

ContactingPolri[police]intheseremoteareasisverydifficultduetocommunicationsissuesanditishighlyunlikelythatwewillreceiveanyresponsebeforethe9November2010.81

TheprosecutionagainstULT055continuedintheabsenceofanyevidenceofageotherthanwristx-rayanalysis.TheprosecutionwaseventuallydiscontinuedbutonlyafteracourtfoundthatitwasnotsatisfiedonthebalanceorprobabilitiesthatULT055wasover18yearsofageatthe


timeoftheoffence.82ULT055spent454daysindetentioninAustralia,424oftheminanadultcorrectionalfacility.

5.5 An AFP officer was not deployed to Indonesia to make specific enquiries about age until November 2011

AttheInquiryhearingforCommonwealthagencies,theAFPexplainedthat,whileithasofficerspermanentlystationedinJakarta,thereweresomedifficultiesindeployinganadditionalAFPofficertoIndonesiatoworkwiththeIndonesianNationalPolicetolocatedocumentaryevidenceofageforyoungIndonesianssuspectedofpeoplesmugglinginAustralia.ThewitnessstatedthatIndonesiais:

asovereignjurisdiction.Wecan’tjustattendIndonesiaandmakeourownenquiries.WehavetodoitwiththeauthorisationoftheCommissioneroftheIndonesianNationalPoliceandthereareprotocolsthatonemustfollow.Weneededtocollect–weneededtocollatealltheinformationrequired,transmitthattotheIndonesianNationalPolice,givethemanindicationoftheevidencethatwerequiredandthenseektheirauthorisationforamemberoftheAFPtotravelincompanywiththemthroughoutthearchipelagotocollecttheinformationrequired.83

EventuallyagreementwasreachedbetweentheAFPandtheIndonesianNationalPoliceandon21November2011,theAFPsentanadditionalofficertoIndonesiatomakeenquiriesabouttheageofindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingoffences.84TogetherwiththeOfficeoftheCDPP,theAFPcompiledalistof14casesinwhichobtainingdocumentaryevidenceofagewasconsideredapriority.85TheseweregenerallymattersthatwerelistedforagedeterminationhearingsinDecember2011.

On9January2012,theAFPofficerreportedtheoutcomeofhisenquiriesinIndonesia.TheAFPofficerstatedthathehadworkedtogetherwiththeIndonesianNationalPolicetoconductinvestigationsregardingtheageoftenindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmuggling.Onlytwoofthetenindividualsinvestigatedwereontheoriginallistof14prioritycasesthathadbeencompiledbytheagencies.TheAFPofficerobtainedidentitydocumentsforfourofthetenindividualshehadinvestigated.86

Documentaryevidenceofagewasnotobtainedinthemajorityofthe14prioritycasesinitiallyidentifiedbytheagencies.FollowingdeploymentoftheAFPofficertoIndonesia,theprosecutionsin11ofthe14prioritycaseswereultimatelydiscontinued.

TheCommissionrecognisesthattheAFPdoesnothavetheauthorityorjurisdictiontoconductinvestigationsorenquiriesoutsideAustraliawithouttheappropriateapprovalandauthorisationfromthehostcountry.However,itisofconcernthatittookuntilNovember2011fortheAFPtomakearrangementstodeployanofficertoIndonesiatoconductinvestigationsaboutagewhen

274


therewassuchawell-documentedhistoryofdifficultyinobtainingdocumentsthroughpolice-to-policecooperation.

6 The Commonwealth’s approach to the authenticity of documentary evidence from Indonesia

EvenwhendocumentsfromIndonesiawereobtained,insomecasespriortomid-2011,theywerenotconsideredbytheCommonwealthtobematerialonwhichadecisiontodiscontinueaprosecutioncouldbebased,orwhichtheyshouldconsenttodefencecounseladducinginevidenceduringanagedeterminationhearing.ThiswasbecausetheOfficeoftheCDPPconsideredthatthedocumentsdidnotcomplywiththerequirementsofthelawsofevidence.

TheCommonwealthpolicyofreturningminorstoIndonesiawithoutcharge,combinedwiththesubstantialmandatorypenaltiesthatapplytoadultsconvictedofpeoplesmugglingoffences,createanincentiveforindividualstosaythattheyareunder18yearsofage.ItisthereforenotunreasonablefortheAFPandtheOfficeoftheCDPPtorequiresomecredibleevidenceofage.However,inaccordancewiththeapplicationoftheprincipleofthebenefitofthedoubt,whenanindividualsaysthatheisunder18yearsofageandhisphysicalappearancedoesnotrenderhisclaimimplausible,Commonwealthagenciesshouldtreatthatindividualasachilduntiltheyarereasonablyabletosatisfythemselvesthatheisovertheageof18years.ThisshouldbetheprimarypurposeofenquiriesinIndonesia.

TheCommissionrecognisesthattherearerealdifficultiesinobtainingfromIndonesiadocumentsthatwillbeadmissibleasevidenceinlegalproceedingsinAustralia.ItappearsthattheOfficeoftheCDPPadvisedtheAFPthatrecordsfromIndonesiarelatingtoageshouldbeintroducedinastatementbyanofficialinchargeofmaintainingthoserecordsinaccordancewiththerequirementsoftheForeign Evidence Act 1994(Cth).87ToobtainsuchastatementfromanIndonesianGovernmentofficialwouldrequireaformalrequesttobemadeundertheMutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987(Cth).88

However,itisimportantthatformalrequirementsdonotleadtoasituationwhereapersonwhoisinfactaminoristreatedasanadultmerelybecausethedocumentaryevidencethatsupportshisclaimisviewedasinadmissibleinlegalproceedings.

InhersubmissiontotheInquiry,MsEdwinaLloyd,asolicitornotedherconcernswiththeexpectationofAustraliancourtsthatdocumentsfromIndonesiarelatingtotheageofanindividualwhoseageisindisputebeinadmissibleform.ShenotesfromherexperiencethattheLocalCourt:

willnotacceptdocumentaryevidenceunlessitisaccreditedbyAustralianlegalpractitionersandinaWesternstyleformat.Thisplacesanunreasonableburdenonlegalpractitionersandtheyoung


Indonesianclientsandtheirfamiliestoproducedocumentaryevidencethatisviewedascrediblebeforeawesterncourt.89

Itappearsthat,priortomid-2011,asaconsequenceofthepreoccupationwithdocumentsaboutagebeingadmissibleinAustralianlegalproceedings,insomecasesdocumentsproducedbydefencelawyersandotherrepresentativestosupportanindividual’sstatementabouttheiragewerenotrelieduponbytheCommonwealthasevidenceofage.Further,theOfficeoftheCDPPindicatedthattheiradmissibilitywouldbechallengedifittheyweresoughttobeadducedinevidenceinanagedeterminationhearing.

ThepositionoftheOfficeoftheCDPPchangedinmid-2011.90ThenewpositionisoutlinedinaMinutetotheDirectordated18August2011,regardingaspecificcase.Itstates:

ThisOfficehasstatedthatitwouldprovideallmaterialtothe[courts]toassistthe[courts]inmakingadeterminationaboutage.Giventhecircumstancesofthesematters,whereboththeprosecutionandthedefencearefacedwithverygreatdifficultiesinobtainingevidenceinrelationtoaperson’sage,Idonotthinkthatweshouldobjecttotheadmissibilityofthematerialthatthedefenceseekstoputbeforethe[courts]inthesemattersunlessthereareverycogentreasons.AtthesametimehowevercommentcanbemadeabouttheweightthattheCourtshouldgivetoanyevidenceincircumstanceswhereitishearsayorisunabletobetested.91

TheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionshasdescribedthisapproachtodocumentarymaterialfromIndonesiathatthedefendantwishestotenderas‘averyunusualandpermissivestancetobetakenbyaprosecutingentity’.92

TheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionshasprovidedtheCommissionwithdetailsofanumberofcasesthatwerediscontinued,inwhichmaterialfromIndonesiawhichwasnotadmissiblewasconsideredbytheOfficeoftheCDPPindeterminingwhetheracourtwaslikelytobesatisfiedonthebalanceofprobabilitiesthatthedefendantwasanadult.93InthesecasestheprosecutionwasdiscontinuedinJuly2011orlater.TheCommissionisawareofanumberofearliercaseswheredocumentarymaterialfromIndonesiawaseithernotconsideredasevidenceofageorwheretheOfficeoftheCDPPindicatedtodefencecounselthatitwouldchallengeitsadmissibility.

Forexample,inthecaseofAliJasmin,theCommonwealthreceivedacopyofabirthcertificateinAugust2010and,inOctober2010,acopyofthatcertificateverifiedbytheIndonesianNationalPolice.Despitethis,theOfficeoftheCDPPadvisedAliJasmin’sdefencelawyerthattheCommonwealthwoulddisputetheadmissibilityofthebirthcertificateunlessthedefenceobtained‘properevidenceestablishingwhatitisandthecircumstancesastohowitcameintobeing’.94InNovember2010,theAFPsaidthattheywouldnotbeaskingtheofficersinJakartaforfurtherdocumentaryevidence,stating:

276


ThehomeofJASMIN’sfamilyisfairlyremote,asisusualinthesematters,theyareextremelybusyandonlyhaveaverylimitedstaffingcapacitytoundertakeoperationalmatters.…Icannotseewhatthiswillprove,asthereissimplynoauthoritythatcanaccuratelystipulatethathisdateofbirthiscorrect.95

Asaresult,AliJasmin’sbirthcertificatewasnotplacedbeforethecourt.Hewasconvictedasanadultandsentencedtothemandatoryminimumsentenceoffiveyearsimprisonmentwithathreeyearnon-paroleperiod.On17May2012,followingareviewbyAGDofcaseswhereagehadbeenindisputeandaconvictionhadbeenobtained,anannouncementwasmadethatthreeindividualswouldbereleasedfromprisonandreturnedtoIndonesia.96MediareportsconfirmedthatAliJasminwasoneofthosereleased.Hespent878daysindetentioninAustralia,781oftheminanadultcorrectionalfacility.

Inthecaseofanotherindividual,UPW031,whowasapprehendedin2009,thedefencelawyertoldanofficerfromtheOfficeoftheCDPPinAugust2010thathehadstatementsfromcommunityleadersinIndonesiaandabirthcertificateshowingthathisclientwas15yearsold.TheAFPrespondedthattheAFPpositionisthatanydocumentscomingoutofIndonesiacannotbeconfirmedasgenuine.97InOctober2010,theOfficeoftheCDPPsentanemailtohislawyerchallengingtherelevanceofthedocumentsprovided:

Inrespectofthebirthcertificate…[w]ealsodisputethatitisadmissibleinitspresentformorwithoutcallingproperevidenceastowhatitisandthecircumstancesastohowitcameintobeing.

Inrelationtothelettersof[thecommunityleadersinIndonesia],itisdisputedthatthesedocumentsprovideanyrelevantevidencewhatsoever.Inanyeventtotheextentyoudeemthatsuchevidencehasanyrelevancewewouldrequirethepartiestogiveevidenceinperson.98

UPW031’sdefencelawyertheninformedtheOfficeoftheCDPPthatheintendedtomakeasubmissiontotheCourttotheeffectthattherewasnoinvestigationofageundertakenbytheprosecutionotherthanthewristx-ray.ItwasnotuntilJune2011thattheAFPfirstmadearequestforinformationfromIndonesia.

InSeptember2011,thedefencelawyersenttheOfficeoftheCDPPadocumentfromtheanIndonesianofficialcertifyingthebirthcertificatethathadpreviouslybeenprovidedtotheCDPP.TheCDPPrespondedinadisparagingmannersaying:

ThankyouforyourletterenclosinganotefromtheRegentof[nameredacted].AmItoassumethatthispersonwhosenameis[name]ontheofficialdocumentyouhaveemailedisinfactsupposedtobe[name]yourclient?Isthereanyreasonwhyafteryouhaveclearlygonetoconsiderabletroubleyouhaveprovidedfromapparentlyanofficialsourceacompletelydifferentnameonthedocument?

IalsonotethedateofbirthdiffersfromtheDIACentryinterviewdatewhereyourclientdescribedhimselfasbornon29January1995?Inoteattherecentmentionyourclienttoldthecourtviatheinterpreterthathewas15atthetimeoftheoffence(afteryouhadadvisedthecourthehadbeensixteen)andthislatest


documentwouldmakehim14attherelevanttime.Isthereanyreasonforthesediscrepancies?

Noprovenanceofhisagehasbeenprovidedbyyou,andthislatestdocumenthasnoforensicvalue.

IalsoadvisethattheAFPhasnotreceivedanyresponsefromtheIndonesianauthoritiesastoanyinquiriestheymaybeabletomake.99

DespitebeinginpossessionofalegalisedbirthcertificateandtwostatementsfromcommunityleadersattestingtothefactthatUPW031wasunder18yearsofage,theOfficeoftheCDPPcontinuedtoprosecutethisyoungIndonesianasanadultonthebasisofananalysisofhiswristx-ray.TheprosecutionwasdiscontinuedinNovember2011afterajudgeoftheDistrictCourtofWesternAustraliaconcludedthathewasnotsatisfiedonthebalanceofprobabilitiesthatUPW031wasovertheageof18yearsatthetimeoftheoffence.100UPW031wasinAustraliafor18monthsbeforearequestfordocumentswasmadetoIndonesiabytheAFP,andspent641daysinanadultcorrectionalfacility.

AfurtherexampleisOXL002whoarrivedinAustraliainApril2010andprovidedtoDIACcontactdetailsforhisfamilyinIndonesiasoonafterhisapprehension.ItappearsfromthedocumentsbeforetheCommissionthattheAFPmadeenquiriesinIndonesiaabouthisage.InAugust2011,withtheassistanceoftheIndonesianConsulate,LegalAidprovidedtotheOfficeoftheCDPPacopyofhisbaptismcertificateasevidenceofhisage.TheOfficeoftheCDPPforwardedthebaptismcertificatetotheAFPandaskedthemtomakeenquiriesaboutthedocument.

LegalAidthensoughtanadjournmenttoallowtheOfficeoftheCDPPtimetoverifythebaptismcertificate.Whilethemagistrategrantedtheadjournment,hecommentedthat‘fortheCrowntoverifyadocumentwhichhadbeenprovidedbytheIndonesianConsulatewas“embarrassing”’.101

TheAFPthenadvisedtheOfficeoftheCDPPthattherewasnophotographorfingerprintonthebaptismcertificateandassuchitwasquestionablewhetherthecertificatewasproofofage.Theystated:

InrelationtotheBaptismcertificateprovidedbythedefenceteamfor[OXL002]…whilstwedonotcontestthatthedocumentisaBaptismcertificateobtainedthroughtheConsulateGeneraloftheRepublicofIndonesia,wedonotbelievethatthereisanyfeasiblewayofconfirmingthedetailscontainedtherein.WedoubtthatwewouldhaveanysuccessintryingtoascertainanyevidencefromTimorwhichmaydatefrombeforetheseparationfromIndonesiaorthatRev.[nameredacted]couldbeexpectedtorecalltheBaptismsomeseventeenyearslaterifheisstillaliveandcould,indeed,belocatedfollowingtherecentupheavalsinTimor.Further,IwouldnotethattheConsulateGeneralalsodeclinestoacceptanyresponsibilityforthecontentsofthedocument.

Ourmainissueswiththedocumentare:wecontendthedateofbirthexpressedinthedocumentwouldhavebeenprovidedbythesubject’sfamilyandmaynotbereliable,thedocumentdoesnotcontainanysecondaryconfirmation,likefingerprintidentification,toshowthatthepersonreferredtoisthesame

278


asourdefendantoreventhatthedefendantis,infact,the[individual]referredtointhedocument.WealsonotethattherearenowitnessestotheBaptismdetailedonthedocumentandthatthedocumentappearstohavebeenpreparedon20July2011,possiblyfromsomeotherrecordwhichisnotattestedtoinanyway.102

InSeptember2011,thedefencemadesubmissionstotheOfficeoftheCDPPthattheprosecutionshouldbediscontinued.AninternalOfficeoftheCDPPemaildiscussingwhethertodiscontinuetheprosecutionreferredtothepracticeoftheOfficeoftheCDPPsaying:

Wehaveacceptedthatmatterswherethedefencesubmitthattheirclientisunder18shouldgotothecourttobedeterminedinan“agedeterminationhearing”.Thereisnolegislativebasisforsuchaproceeding.WehavejustifiedthisapproachonthebasisthatitisCommonwealthgovernmentpolicythatpersonsundertheageof18arenotprosecutedandthatadeterminationbyacourtbeforeatrialisconducted[in]anappropriatewaytohaveadefendant’sagedeterminedsothatthispolicymaybeapplied.103

TheemailthennotesthatthereisnoevidencetosuggestthatthedocumentfromIndonesiaisfabricated,norevidencethatdocumentsinIndonesiaare‘unreliableinthiscaseorgenerally’.Theofficerthenrecommendedthattheprosecutionbediscontinued.Theprosecutionwasdiscontinuedon30September2011.OXL002spent550daysdetainedinAustralia,289oftheminadultcorrectionalfacilities.

Inafinalexample,LAL040,whowasapprehendedinOctober2009,waschargedasanadultinDecember2009basedonwristx-rayanalysis.InJuly2010,thedefenceadducedabirthcertificateduringcourtproceedingswhichindicatedthathewasachild.Followingthis,theOfficeoftheCDPPsentthedefencealetterstatingthattheprosecutionwouldcontinuetomaintainthathewasanadultunlessthedefencecouldobtainmoreinformationtoproveotherwise.TheOfficeoftheCDPPadvisedthatits‘particularconcernaboutthedocumentisthatonitsfacetherecordofthebirthappearstohavebeencreatedin2009andwouldthereforebecompletelyunreliable’.104TheAFPwasthenrequestedbytheOfficeoftheCDPPtoverifytheauthenticityofthebirthcertificate.

InSeptember2010,theIndonesianNationalPolicefaxedtheAFPJakartaofficeanoriginalextractfromdocumentsusedtoregisterLAL040’sbirth.Thedateofbirthmatchedthedateofbirthonthebirthcertificateprovidedbythedefence.TheAFPofficerthenaskedherJakarta-basedcounterpart:

ifshewasabletotellifthedocumenthadbeenforgedinanywayandshewasunabletotellmegivenitwasafaxedcopy.IhaverequestedtheIndonesiaPoliceobtainacertifiedcopyorundertakesomeformofinquiriestoauthenticatethedocumentifpossible.105

TheliaisonofficerinJakartareportedthattherewereanumberofanomaliesinthedocumentsandthatitappearedthattheagesofLAL040’sparentswereinconsistentwithhisclaimeddateofbirth.106


InNovember2010,theAFPwasstillseekingtoverifythebirthcertificatethathadbeenprovidedbydefencefivemonthsearlier.Laterthatmonth,theOfficeoftheCDPPcontactedthedefencestating:

youmaybeseekingtotenderevidenceinthenatureofabirthcertificate.…Wedonotagreetothisbeingtenderedbyconsentasthedocumentsyouhaveshowntouslackprovenanceandontheirfaceshowrecentcreation.107

AtanagedeterminationhearinginJanuary2011,theMagistratefoundonthebalanceofprobabilitiesthatLAL040wasunder18atthetimeoftheoffence.108AfteranappearanceintheChildren’sCourt,hisprosecutionwasdiscontinuedinFebruary2011.TheOfficeoftheCDPPnotedthathe‘hasnowservedagreaterperiodincustodythanwouldbeimposedbyasentencingjudgeforajuvenileconvictedofa…peoplesmugglingoffence’.109LAL040spent485daysindetentioninAustralia,416ofwhichwerespentinanadultcorrectionalfacility.

7 Findings

TheCommissionrecognisesthatitisnotalwayspossibletoobtaincredibledocumentsthatestablishanindividual’sage,particularlyinIndonesia,thecountryoforiginofalloftheindividualswithwhomthisInquiryisconcerned.However,attemptingtolocatedocumentaryevidenceshouldbeacriticalcomponentofanyprocessofassessingage.

ItappearsthatinmanycasesinadequateeffortsweremadebytheAFPtoobtainfromIndonesiaagerelatedinformationregardingyoungIndonesianssuspectedofpeoplesmuggling.

TheCommissionhasidentifiedmanycasesinwhichnorequestwasevermadetoobtaindocumentaryevidenceofagefromIndonesia.TheCommissionhasalsoidentifiedanumberofcasesinwhichitappearsthattherewerelongdelaysbeforetheAFPcontactedtheIndonesianNationalPolicetorequestassistanceinlocatingdocumentstoestablishage.Inasignificantnumberofthesecases,theindividualhadgivenAustralianauthoritiescontactdetailsforrelativesorfriendsinIndonesiawhowouldprobablyhavebeenabletogiveinformationabouthisagehadtheybeencontactedbyAustralianauthorities.

Itappearsthatinanumberofcases,defencerepresentativeswereabletoobtaindocumentaryevidenceofagereasonablyeasily,evenwhenAFPenquirieshadnotproducedanyresults.TheCommissionisawarethatdefencerepresentativesarenotconstrainedbytherequirementsofworkingthroughtheagreedprocessesofpolice-to-policecooperationwiththeIndonesianNationalPolice.

Nonetheless,itisofconcernthatanAFPofficerwasnotdeployedtoIndonesiatoworkwiththeIndonesianNationalPoliceforthepurposeofinvestigatingtheageofindividualcrewuntil

280


November2011.ItappearstotheCommissionthatithadbeenclearforsometimethattheAFPwasexperiencingconsiderabledifficultiesinobtainingdocumentsthroughpolice-to-policecooperation.ItisnotclearwhyittookuntilNovember2011forarrangementstobemadetosendadedicatedAFPofficertoIndonesiaforthespecificpurposeofassistingwithenquiriesaboutage.

Astheindividualcasesconsideredaboveshow,priortomid-2011,theOfficeoftheCDPPwasreluctanttoconsenttodefencecounseladducinginevidencedocumentarymaterialfromIndonesia.Asaresult,insomecaseswheredocumentsaboutagedidexist,theywerenotconsideredbytheCommonwealthbecausetheycouldnotbeadducedinevidence.Norwerethecourtsadvisedoftheirexistence.TheCommissionisawareofcasesinwhichtheprosecutionagainstanindividualcontinuedevenwheredocumentaryevidencesuggestedthathewasachild.ThereappearstohavebeenconsiderabledoubtwithintheAFPandtheOfficeoftheCDPPabouttheauthenticityoftheinformationcontainedwithindocumentsfromIndonesia,eventhosedocumentsprovidedtotheAustralianauthoritiesbytheIndonesianNationalPoliceorEmbassy.

TheCommissionnotesthatsincemid-2011,theAFPandtheOfficeoftheCDPPhavetakenamoreflexibleapproachtoconsiderationofdocumentsthatmaybeinadmissibleinacourtproceeding.Thisisawelcomedevelopment,giventhedifficultiesinobtainingdocumentsfromIndonesiathatcanbeadducedinevidenceundertheformalrequirementsofAustralianlaw.

__________________________________________________________________________________

1HonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,30June2011;HonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,andHonBO’ConnorMP,MinisterforHomeAffairsandJustice,‘Improvedprocessforagedeterminationinpeoplesmugglingmatters’(Mediarelease,8July2011).Athttp://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22media%2Fpressrel%2F906838%22(viewed9July2012).

2AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,p15.3AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,p15.4AformalmutualassistancerequestisgovernedbytheMutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987

(Cth).5AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,p15.6ActingDeputyCommissionerOperations,AFP,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,

AustralianHumanRightsCommission,5April2012,p3.7Forexample,chargesagainstthreeIndonesianboysweredroppedon1July2011aftertheBrisbane

MagistratesCourtfoundthattherewaslackofevidencethattheywereover18yearsofage.LawyershadtravelledtotheremoteislandofRoteinJunetoobtainaffidavitevidencefromrelativesandvillageofficials(WIL024;WIL025;WIL042).



9Statementof[academicexpert]re:Indonesianidentityandproofofage,FederationFellow,Director,AsianLawCentre,FacultyofLaw,TheUniversityofMelbourne,24May2012(AFPdocumentprovided29May2012)(Statementof[academicexpert]).

10Statementof[academicexpert],above,p1.11AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,p4.12AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,pp15–16.13HonRMcClelland,Attorney-General,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,Australian

HumanRightsCommission,22August2011,p3.14Commissioner,AFP,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRights

Commission,21December2011.15AFP,Responsetodraftreport,6July2012,p22.16UNICEF,Children in Indonesia: Birth Registration (June2010).Athttp://www.unicef.org/indonesia/

UNICEF_Indonesia_Birth_Registration_Fact_Sheet_-_June_2010.pdf(viewed9July2012).17Statementof[academicexpert],note9,p4.18Statementof[academicexpert],above,p5.19Statementof[academicexpert],above,p5.20HonRMcClelland,Attorney-General,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,Australian

HumanRightsCommission,22August2011,p4.21MinisterialBrief–MinisterforHomeAffairs,Age determination process and issues surrounding court

proceedings,NationalManagerCrimeOperations,AFP,November2010(AFPdocumentprovided5April2012)(Agedeterminationprocess–MinisterialBrief).

22Agedeterminationprocess–MinisterialBrief,above.23MinisterialBrief–MinisterforHomeAffairsandJustice,People smuggling crew investigations – AFP

practices and procedures, Acting Deputy Commissioner,AFP,27February2012(AFPdocumentprovided5April2012).

24Statementof[academicexpert],note9,p2.25Statementof[academicexpert],above,p2.26AFP,Responsetodraftreport,6July2012,p7.27AFP,Responsetodraftreport,6July2012;LAL040;INN012;ALB057;SAN055;YND049;JUK070;

JUK069;KEL055.28AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,p16.29Commissioner,AFP,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRights

Commission,21December2011,p2.30AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,pp15–16.31RevisedExplanatoryMemorandum,CrimesAmendment(AgeDetermination)Bill2001(Cth),para9.At

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fr1246_ems_d3e6e08b-3169-4600-9186-4c53e07f9d02%22(viewed9July2012).

32DeputyStateDirector,DIACTasmaniaOffice,EmailtoOfficers,DIAC,8October2010(DIACdocumentmail39642131).

33SeniorAssistantDirector,CDPP,LettertoAssistantCommissioner,NationalManagerCrimeOperations,AFP,3March2011,p3(CDPPDocumentAttachmentDdocument5),p3.

282


34TeamLeaderCrimeOperations,AFP,EmailtoOfficers,AFP,16June2011(AFPdocumentAFP_05providedinhardcopy).

35Officer,OfficeoftheMinisterforForeignAffairs,EmailtoOfficers,AGDandOfficeoftheMinisterforForeignAffairs,29June2011(AGDdocumentENG-IG-48).

36TalkingpointsontheworkinggrouponagedeterminationtobediscussedattheAustralia-IndonesiaConsularConsultations–Perth,AGD,30June2011(AGDdocumentBRIEF19).

37DeputyDirector,CDPPCanberraOffice,LettertoAssistantCommissioner,NationalManagerCrimeOperations,AFP,15July2011(CDPPdocumentAttachmentDdocument12),p2.

38AssistantCommissioner,NationalManagerCrimeOperations,AFP,CanberraOffice,LettertoDeputyDirector,CDPP,22July2011(CDPPdocumentIMP-10),p1.

39ActingDeputyDirector,LegalandPracticeManagementandPolicyBranch,CDPP,EmailtoAssistantCommissioner,NationalManagerCrimeOperations,AFP,2August2011(AGDdocumentPROS-60).

40AGDdocumentPROS-60,above.41ActingAssistantSecretary,BorderManagementandCrimePreventionBranch,CriminalJusticeDivision,

AGD,EmailtoThirdSecretary(Political),AustralianEmbassyJakarta,26October2011(AGDdocumentENG-IG-34).

42AsdiscussedinChapter3.43SeniorAssistantDirector,LegalandPracticeManagementandPolicyBranch,CDPP,EmailtoLegal

Officers,CDPP,15November2011(CDPPdocumentAttachmentDDocument14).44AssistantCommissioner,AFP,Transcript of hearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(20April

2012),p168.45AssistantCommissioner,AFP,Transcript of hearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(20April

2012),p168.46Entryinterview,DIAC,29September2009(WAK087–AFPdocument1).47InterviewwithWAK087,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,PardelupPrisonFarm,27April2012.48Entryinterview,DIAC,23May2009(FLE048–AFPdocument2);AFP,MaterialFactsSheet,undated

(FLE048–CDPPdocument081.0074).49Entryinterview,DIAC,31May2009(FLE048–AFPdocument2).50Officer,DIAC,‘[email protected]’,Attachment–EmailfromOfficer,DIAC,toPrincipal

Advisor,Citizenship,SettlementandMulticulturalAffairs,DIAC,9September2010(OXL003–DIACdocumentmail39646801).

51Ageassessmentinterviewreport,DIAC,26February2011(OXL003–DIACdocument).52FederalAgent,AFP,EmailtoSeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPBrisbaneOffice,20October2011(OXL003

–CDPPdocument268.0180).53ProsecutionReport,CDPPBrisbaneOffice,7November2011(OXL003–CDPPdocument268.0003).54FederalAgent,AFP,CaseNote:INTN–BirthCertificateinquiriesinrelationto[PEN059],4April2011

(PEN059–AFPdocument10).55SeniorPoliceLiaisonOfficer,AFP,LettertoIndonesianNationalPolice:RequestforBirthCertificate,23

March2011(BOM062–CDPPdocument115.0018).56FederalAgent,AFP,CaseNote:RequestfordocumentaryevidencefromIndonesia,17June2011

(MAL011–AFPconfidentialdocument).57FederalAgent,AFP,Casenote:INTN–AgeDetermination,12July2011(OFD030–AFPdocument19).


58FederalAgent,AFP,CaseNote:INTN–SIEV155crewbirthcertificatelocation/verification/authenticity,25July2011(TIW044–AFPdocument13).

59Entryinterview,DIAC,12January2011(NTN032–DIACdocument),p7.60FederalAgent,AFP,EmailtoSeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,13September2011(NTN032

–CDPPdocument317.0365).61LegalOfficer,CDPP,EmailtoFederalAgent,AFP,10August2011;LegalOfficer,CDPP,EmailtoFederal

Agent,AFP,13September2011(NTN032–CDPPdocument317.0365).62FederalAgent,AFP,EmailtoCounselfordefence,27September2011(NTN032–CDPPdocument

0031).63Entryinterview,DIAC,4March2011(JDT046–DIACdocument).64SeniorLegalOfficer,PeopleSmugglingBranch,CDPPPerthOffice,EmailtoFederalAgent,AFP,23May

2011(JDT046–CDPPdocument110.0158);SeniorLegalOfficer,CDPP,Letterto[academicexpert],FederationFellow,Director,AsianLawCentre,FacultyofLaw,TheUniversityofMelbourne,22July2011(JDT046–CDPPdocument111.0410).

65Demographydeclaration,VillageChiefof[redacted],Governmentof[redacted],Subdistrictof[redacted],27June2011(JDT046–AFPdocument18).

66Statementof[academicexpert]re:IndonesianlawonvotingageandMarriageAct,FederationFellow,Director,AsianLawCentre,FacultyofLaw,TheUniversityofMelbourne,31July2011(JDT046–CDPPdocument111.0004).

67ProsecutionReport,CDPPBrisbaneOffice,15August2011(JDT046–CDPPdocument111.0009).68Commander(Indonesia),AFP,EmailtoAssistantCommissioner,NationalManagerCrimeOperations,AFP,

11November2011(AFPdocumentprovided5April2012).69SeniorLawyer,CDPP,EmailtoOfficer,CDPP,23August2011(TIW043–CDPPdocument145.0077).70AnthonySheldon,Submission26,p4.71ActingDeputyDirector,LegalandPracticeManagementandPolicyBranch,CDPP,EmailtoAssistant

Commissioner,NationalManagerCrimeOperations,AFP,2August2011(AGDdocumentPROS-60).72OfficerfortheDirector,CDPPBrisbaneOffice,LettertoManager,AFPBrisbaneOffice,22August2011

(OFD030–AFPdocument37).73FederalAgent,AFP,CaseNote:INTN–Agedeterminationof[GEO027],25November2011(GEO027

–AFPdocument5).74SeniorAssistantDirector,CDPP,MinutetoDirector,CDPP,14February2012(GEO027–CDDPdocument

2).75Entryinterview,DIAC,7May2010(WIL025–DIACdocument);Entryinterview,DIAC,7May2010

(WIL042–DIACdocument).76Statementof[counselfordefence],MagistratesCourtofQueensland,14June2011(WIL024–CDPP

document127.0031).77SeniorLegalOfficer,CDPP,EmailtoFederalAgent,AFP,16May2011,(WIL024–CDPPdocument

125.0117).78SeniorLegalOfficer,CDPP,MinutetoDirector,CDPP,29June2011(WIL024,WIL025,WIL042–CDPP

document323.0713).79SeniorLegalOfficer,CDPP,CorrespondencetoAFP,5July2011(WIL024–AFPdocument47).80LegalAidNSW,Submission35,p6.

284


81FederalAgent,AFP,CaseNote:INTN–Requestforinquiriesre:[ULT055],9September2010(ULT005–AFPdocument11).

82ULT055 v The Queen [No 2][2010]WADC169.83AssistantCommissioner,AFP,Transcript of hearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(20April

2012),p169.84DeputyAssistantCommissioner,AFP,Transcript of hearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies

(20April2012),p169.85Lawyer,Legal,PracticeManagementandPolicyBranch,CDPP,EmailtoOfficers,AFP,18November

2011(AFPdocumentprovided5April2012).86FederalAgent,PerthPeopleSmugglingTeam,AFP,‘OutcomesReport–AgeDeterminationEnquiries’,9

January2012(AFPdocumentprovidedinhardcopy).87ActingDeputyCommissionerOperations,AFP,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,

AustralianHumanRightsCommission,5April2012,p3.88ActingDeputyCommissionerOperations,AFP,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,

AustralianHumanRightsCommission,5April2012,p4.89EdwinaLloyd,Submission29,p7.90CommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions,Transcript of hearing,PublichearingforCommonwealth

agencies(20April2012),p266.91CDPPOfficer,MinutetoDirector,18August2011,(CDPPdocumentAttachmentDdocument5),p5.92CommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions,Responsetodraftreport,6July2012,p4.93CommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions,Responsetodraftreport,6July2012,p4.WIL024;

WIL025;WIL042;OXL002.94OfficerfortheDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,LettertoCounselfordefence,18October2010(CDPP

document026.0362).95FederalAgent,AFP,EmailtoPrincipalLegalOfficer,PeopleSmugglingBranch,CDPP,24November2010

(CDPPdocument026.0153).96HonNRoxonMP,Attorney-General,MinisterforEmergencyManagement,‘Initialresultsofpeople

smugglingconvictionsreview’(Mediarelease,17May2012).Athttp://www.attorneygeneral.gov.au/Media-releases/Pages/2012/Second%20Quarter/17-May-2012---Initial-results-of-people-smuggling-convictions-review.aspx(viewed9July2012).

97PrincipalLegalOfficer,CDPP,FilenoteofconversationwithFederalAgent,AFP,25August2010(UPW031–CDPPdocument038.0310).

98OfficerfortheDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,LettertoCounselfordefence,12October2010(UPW031–CDPP004.0396).

99PrincipalLegalOfficer,CDPP,EmailtoCounselfordefence,22September2011(UPW031–CDPPdocument039.0069).

100R v RMA[2011]WADC198.101AdjournmentReport,BrisbaneMagistratesCourt,12August2011(OXL002–AFPdocument13).102FederalAgent,AFPAdelaideOffice,EmailtoSeniorLegalOfficer,PeopleSmugglingBranch,CDPP,15

August2011(OXL002–CDPPdocument267.0226).103LegalOfficer,CDPP,EmailtoOfficers,CDPP,23September2011(OXL002–CDPPdocument

267.0179).


104Courtnotes:PerthMagistratesCourt,CDPP,July2010(LAL040–CDPPdocument352.0175).105FederalAgent,AFP,EmailtoFederalAgents,AFP,16September2010(LAL040–AFPdocument15).106FederalAgent,AFP,EmailtoFederalAgents,AFP,17September2010(LAL040–AFPdocument16).107PrincipalLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,EmailtoCounselfordefence,12November2010(LAL040

–CDPPdocument037.0067).108SeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,EmailtoOfficers,CDPP,28January2011(LAL040–AFP

document25).109DeputyDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,EmailtoSeniorAssistantDirector,CDPP,11February2011(LAL040

–CDPPdocument323.0432).


Chapter 7:

Some further aspects of the treatment of the young Indonesians

288

Chapter 7: Some further aspects of the treatment of the young Indonesians

Chapter contents

1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 290

2 Thedetentionofindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingoffences.............................. 290

2.1 Thelegalbasisfordetention.................................................................................... 290

(a) CriminalJusticeStayCertificates....................................................................... 291

(b) Judicialreviewofthelegalbasisfordetention................................................... 293

(c) CriminalJusticeStayVisas................................................................................ 294

2.2 Lengthofdetention................................................................................................. 295

(a) Prolongeddetentioninimmigrationdetentionfacilitiespriortocharge............... 296

(b) Prolongeddetentioninadultcorrectionalfacilities............................................. 299

2.3 Placeofdetention................................................................................................... 300

(a) TheAFPassignedanindividualadateofbirthbasedonwristx-rayanalysisevenwherethedateofbirthwasindispute....................................................... 300

(b) Individualswhoseageisindisputewereordinarilyremandedtoadultcorrectionalfacilities.......................................................................................... 302

(c) StateandTerritorycorrectionalauthoritiesdidnotreceivesufficientinformationregardingindividuals’claimsabouttheirage................................... 303

2.4 Bail.......................................................................................................................... 305

(a) BailapplicationsweregenerallyopposedpriortoJuly2011.............................. 306

(b) BailapplicationsweregenerallynotopposedfromJuly2011onwards.............. 308

3 Guardianship................................................................................................................... 310

4 Legaladviceandassistance............................................................................................ 311

5 Crewmaybevictimsoftrafficking.................................................................................... 313

5.1 Whatispeopletrafficking?...................................................................................... 313

5.2 ThelegalframeworkaroundtraffickinginAustralia.................................................. 314

5.3 TheexperiencesofyoungIndonesianssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingoffences.................................................................................................................. 314


6 Findings........................................................................................................................... 316

6.1 FindingsregardingCriminalJusticeStayCertificates............................................... 316

6.2 Findingsregardingtheplaceandlengthofdetention............................................... 316

6.3 Findingsregardingbail............................................................................................. 317

6.4 Findingsregardingguardianship.............................................................................. 317

6.5 Findingsregardinglegaladviceandassistance........................................................ 317

6.6 Findingsregardingtrafficking................................................................................... 318

290


1 Introduction

ThischapterdiscussessomefurtheraspectsofthetreatmentofyoungIndonesianssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhosaidthattheywerechildren.

AsdiscussedinChapter1,Australia’sinternationalhumanrightsobligationsrequirethatindividualswhosaythattheyarechildrenbegiventhebenefitofthedoubtandtreatedasminorsunlessthereisprooftothecontrary.Inthecaseofunaccompaniedchildren,thisshouldleadtoconsiderationbytheStateofwhatstepsneedtobetakentoensuretheirspecialprotectionandcare.

Asisclearfromtheprecedingchaptersofthisreport,inmanycasesthebenefitofthedoubtwasnotaffordedtoyoungIndonesianswhosaidthattheywerechildren.Instead,onthebasisoftheanalysisofawristx-ray,theywerechargedandprosecutedasadults.Thishashadfurtherconsequences,includinginmanycases,theirdetentioninadultcorrectionalfacilities.Thischapterconsidersissuesrelatedtothedetentionofindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingoffenceswhosaidthattheywerechildren.Italsoconsidersissuesrelatedtotheirguardianshipandtotheprovisionoflegaladviceandassistancetothem.ItcloseswithabriefdiscussionofwhethersomeoftheindividualswhoseexperiencethisInquiryisconsideringmightinfacthavebeenvictimsoftrafficking.

2 The detention of individuals suspected of people smuggling offences

2.1 The legal basis for detention

TheMigrationAct1958(Cth)permits,butdoesnotrequire,thedetentionofan‘unlawfulnon-citizen’whofirstarrivesinAustraliaatan‘excisedoffshoreplace’.1ItdoesnotappearthatanyyoungIndonesiansuspectedofpeoplesmugglinghasheldanAustralianvisa.Thereforetheyhaveallbeen‘unlawfulnon-citizen[s]’.NordoesitappearthatanyyoungIndonesiansuspectedofpeoplesmugglingfirstlandedontheAustralianmainland;theynearlyallfirstlandedonChristmasIslandwhichisanexcisedoffshoreplace.Theirdetentionwasthereforenotmandatory.2However,inpractice,almostallnon-citizenswhoarrivebyboatwithoutavalidvisaarecurrentlytakenintodetentiononChristmasIsland.ApersonwhoissodetainedmustbekeptinimmigrationdetentionuntiltheyareeitherremovedfromAustralia,deportedorgrantedavisa.3

AuthorityforthedetentionofindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingisalsofoundintheprovisionsoftheMigrationActrelatingtothedetentionofsuspectedoffenders.ApersonwhohastravelledtoAustraliaandisbelievedtohavebeenonboardaboatwhenitwasusedinconnectionwiththecommissionofanoffencemaybedetaineduntiladecisionismadewhethertoprosecutethepersonand,ifthedecisionistoprosecute,forthefurtherperiodoftimethatis


requiredforthepurposesoftheprosecution.4

Ifanunlawfulnon-citizenmakesawrittenrequesttotheMinisterforImmigrationandCitizenshiptoberemovedfromAustralia,hemustordinarilyberemovedassoonasreasonablypracticable.5Inordertostaytheremovalofasuspect,lawenforcementorprosecutingagenciesmayrequestthattheAttorney-GeneralissueaCriminalJusticeStayCertificate(CJSC).6TheAttorney-GeneralmayissueaCJSCifheorshe(orhisorherdelegate)issatisfiedthatanon-citizenshouldremaininAustralia‘temporarily’forthepurposesofthe‘administrationofcriminaljusticeinrelationtoanoffenceagainstalawoftheCommonwealth’.7IfaCJSCisinforce,thenon-citizentowhomitappliesisnottoberemovedordeportedfromAustraliaevenwheretheyhavemadeawrittenrequesttotheMinistertoberemoved.8

ACriminalJusticeStayVisa(CJSV)isatemporaryvisathatmaybegrantedtopersonswhoaresubjecttoaCJSC.9ACJSVisgrantedatthepersonaldiscretionoftheMinisterforImmigrationandCitizenship,havingregardtothematterssetoutins158oftheMigrationAct.ApersonwhohasbeenissuedaCJSVandwhoisbeingheldinimmigrationdetentionisentitledtobereleasedfromthatdetention.10

(a) CriminalJusticeStayCertificates

IndividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingareusuallyissuedwithaCJSCwhichpreventstheirremovalfromAustraliaforthedurationofacriminalinvestigationorprosecution,oruntilacustodialsentenceiscomplete.TheAttorney-General’sDepartment(AGD)informedtheCommissionthat,whenanagencyrequestsaCJSC,itprovidesAGDwith‘acostsundertakingandacompletedquestionnairesettingouttheinformationrequired’inorderforaCJSCtobeissued.11DuringtheInquiryhearing,theAttorney-General’sdelegateagreedthat,beforegrantingaCJSCsheneededtobesatisfiedthatthestayofaperson’sremoval‘wasrequiredfortheadministrationofcriminaljustice’andthatsherequiredtheprovisionofsufficientinformationforhertobesosatisfied.12

AnAGDofficeralsoinformedtheCommissionthatCJSCsareonlysoughtbytheAFPaftertheDepartmentofImmigrationandCitizenship(DIAC)hasassessedthepersontobeanadultandreferredthecasetotheAFPforinvestigation.13ThismaybetheprocesssinceageassessmentprocedureschangedinDecember2011.However,theCommissionbelievesthatpriortothisdate,inmanycases,CJSCswereissuedtosuspectsbeforeageassessmentprocesseswerecompleted.Forexample:

• Inonecase,aCJSCwasissuedinAugust2010–onemonthaftertheindividualconcernedwasapprehended.14ADIACageassessmentinterviewwasnotconducteduntilOctober2010,15andawristx-raywasnotrequestedbytheAFPuntilDecember201016–fourmonthsaftertheCJSCwasgranted.

292


• Inanothercase,aCJSCwasissuedinFebruary2010–onemonthbeforetheAFPrequestedawristx-ray.17

TheAttorney-General’sdelegatehasadutytocancelaCJSCwhichisnolongerrequiredforthepurposesforwhichitwasgiven.18AnAGDofficerinformedtheCommissionthattherelevantagencyrequestscancellationofaCJSCwhereaninvestigationhasbeencompletedwithoutproceedingtoaprosecution;whereaprosecutionhasbeendiscontinued;orwhereapersonhasbeenacquittedofanoffence.19

InSeptember2010,theAFPNationalManagerofCrimeOperationswrotetoaseniorAGDofficerabouthisconcernsregardingthelengthofdetentionofpeoplesmugglingcrewbeingheldindetentiononCJSCs:

WhilsttheAFPistakingallreasonablestepstoprogressinvestigationsinatimelymanner,thesefactorsalonemeanthatathoroughinvestigationofthesuspectedoffencewillbeprolonged.Theresultistheprolongeddetentionofsuspects,farinexcessofperiodsoriginallyanticipated,andforthisreasontheAFPhasconcernsregardingthesecurrentarrangements.

IbelieveitisappropriatetoreconsidertheapplicationofCJSCsincircumstanceswhereprolongedperiodsofdetentionareanticipated....IncaseswhereprolongedCJSCsareinplace,appropriatereviewmechanismsshouldalsobeconsidered.20

AGDrespondedbylettertotheAFP’sconcernsabouttheprolongeddetentionofindividualsonCJSCs.Theletterexpressedtheviewthat,whiletheAFPhadinplaceaclearprocessforinvestigationandprosecutionofindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingoffences,thegrantofCJSCsremainedappropriate.Theletteralsonotedthatitwouldbeappropriatetocontinuetomonitorthetimetakentocarryoutinvestigations.21

AGDhasinformedtheCommissionthattherearenoformaltimeframesforreviewingCJSCsundertheMigrationAct,butthatAGDandrelevantagencieshaveinformallyimplementedpracticestoreviewthestatusofCJSCsasrequired.22Thesepractices,AGDadvised,wereasfollows:

• InDecember2010,theAGDdelegateaskedtheAFPtoauditallCJSCsineffectforpeoplesmugglingcases,andadvisewhichcaseshadbeenreferredforprosecutionandwhichwerestillunderinvestigation.Followingthis,AGDbegantomanuallyrecordinitsdatabasea‘follow-update’threemonthsafterthedateoftheCJSCissue.

• InMarch2011,theAFPinitiatedanewprocessofsendingaweeklyreporttoAGDonalltheindividualschargedinthatweekwithpeoplesmugglingoffences,aswellasamonthlyreportofallthosewhowerestillunderinvestigationandyettobecharged.

• Inlate2011,whenthenumberofcasesattheinvestigationstagedecreased,theAFPceasedprovidingweeklyandmonthlyupdatestoAGD.Insteaditcommencedtoconduct


itsowninternalreviewofcasesattheinvestigationstageandadvisedAGDwhentocancelCJSCs.

TheInquiryhearingexploredissuesrelatingtothereviewofCJSCs.ItappearsthatindividualCJSCswerereviewedperiodicallywherecircumstances,suchastheperiodoftimetheCJSChadbeeninoperation,promptedtheAttorney-General’sdelegatetomakeenquirieswiththerequestingagency.23However,atthehearing,theAttorney-General’sdelegateagreedthatthefirsttimethatshehadproactivelysoughtinformationfromtheAFPaboutcurrentCJSCsandconductedasystematicreviewofwhethereachindividualCJSCshouldremaininoperationwasinDecember2010.24

TheCommissionisawareofsomecaseswhereitappearsthattherewasasignificantdelaybetweenadecisionnottoprosecuteayoungIndonesianandtheconsequentrequesttocancelhisCJSC.Forexample,inonecaseadecisionwasmadeinlateNovember2010nottoprosecuteanindividualwhohadarrivedinAustraliainearlyOctober2010.25Inmid-February2011,duringareviewofCJSCsthathadbeeninplaceforthreemonthsorlonger,theAFPrealisedthathewasstillinimmigrationdetention.26HewasremovedfromAustraliaaweeklater,afterspending134daysinimmigrationdetention.Thewristofthisindividualwasnotx-rayed.Fromthedateofbirththatheprovidedtotheauthorities,itappearsthathemayhavebeen12or13yearsold.

ItappearsthattherehavealsobeensomedelaysinapplicationsforthecancellationofCJSCsinthecasesofyoungIndonesianswhowerex-rayedandfoundlikelytobeundertheageof18years.TwocaseswheresuchdelaysareevidentarediscussedinChapter4,section3.

ItappearsthatthereweresomeprocessesinplacetoreviewwhethertherewasanongoingneedforparticularCJSCs.However,itisofconcernthatthefirsttimeasystematicreviewprocesswasinstitutedwasinlate2010.Subsequentreviewprocessesappeartohavebeenconductedonanadhocbasisand,forasignificantpartof2011,itdoesnotappearthattherewasanyreviewofindividualcases.Itisnotclearthatthereviewswhichtookplaceconsideredquestionssuchastheappropriatenessofthelengthofdetentionpriortocharge.Rather,itappearsthatdecisionstoissueorcancelaCJSCweremadelargelyonthebasisoftheviewoftheinvestigatingorprosecutingagencyastowhetheraCJSCwasrequired.

(b) Judicialreviewofthelegalbasisfordetention

IndividualswhohavebeenissuedwithCJSCsareeffectivelydeniedaccesstojudicialreviewoftheirdetention.Thisbecameclearwiththedecisionin[BAI031]vMinisterforImmigration&Citizenship;acaseinwhichanumberofindividualsheldinimmigrationdetentionfacilitiesintheNorthernTerritorysoughttochallengetheirdetentionbyapplyingforwritsofhabeuscorpus.27

294


TheHumanRightsLawCentresummarisestheplaintiffs’argumentsinthecaseasfollows:

thepowerscontainedinsections189,147and250oftheMigrationActareopenendedand,astheplaintiffswereallminors,decisionsmustbemadepromptlyastowhethertoprosecutethemornot.28

ThecourtconfirmedtheCommonwealth’spowertodetaintheplaintiffswhiletheCJSCswereinforce.MildrenJsaidthat‘whilsttheAttorney-General’scertificateisinforce,theprovisionsofs250(5)cannotoperate’.29

(c) CriminalJusticeStayVisas

Asnotedabove,apersoninrespectofwhomaCJSChasbeenissuedmaybegrantedaCJSV.IfgrantedaCJSV,thepersonwillbereleasedfromimmigrationdetentiontoliveinthecommunity.

InformationprovidedtotheInquiryshowsthattherehavebeensomedifferencesinopinionbetweenCommonwealthagenciesaboutthedesirabilityofgrantingCJSVstoindividualschargedwithpeoplesmuggling.However,thesedifferenceshavelargelybeenresolvedandthecurrentpracticeisnottoissueCJSVstoindividualschargedwithpeoplesmuggling.

InDecember2009,aDIACdocumentclarifyingtheimmigrationstatusofallegedpeoplesmugglersinimmigrationdetentionobservedthat,whereapersonischargedandtakenintocriminalcustody,considerationwillbegiventothegrantofaCJSV.30Thisdocumentnotedthatitisdesirableforsuspectstobeheldinimmigrationdetentiontoenableinvestigationstotakeplace,andnotedtheAFP’sconcernsthat,ifasuspectwerereleasedfromimmigrationdetentiononaCJSV,hemayabscondintothecommunityorleaveAustraliaofhisownvolitionbeforeinvestigationsintohisallegedoffencewerecomplete.31

However,thedocumentalsonotedconcernsabouttheongoingdetentionofindividualsforwhomaCJSCisinforce.Thedocumentstated:

Wherethereappearstobeunreasonabledelayinrespectofaparticularcase,…DIACwilldiscussoptionswiththeAFPandotheragenciesasappropriateforthemanagementandprogressofthecase,suchasconsiderationofthegrantofaCJSV.…AdelayindecidingwhethertochargeapersonbeyondaperiodofthreemonthsfromtheinitialpoliceinterviewwilltriggerformalconsiderationbyDIACofthegrantofaCJSV.32

TheCommissionisawareofcaseswhereindividualsweregrantedCJSVsbutremainedinimmigrationdetention.Forexample,inonecaseinlateNovember2010,anindividualisreportedbytheOfficeoftheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions(OfficeoftheCDPP)tohavebeenissuedwithaCJSV‘priorto…discussionswithDIACwhichcausedDIACtoceasethis


practiceinrelationtopeoplesmugglingcrew’.TheOfficeoftheCDPPexpressedconcernthatiftheindividualis‘foundtobeajuvenileandtheprosecutioncontinues,thereisastronglikelihoodhemaybegrantedbailbytheChildren’sCourtatwhichpointthisofficemayberesponsibleforhiscarewhichwillbeacomplexandexpensiveundertaking’.34

TheissueofwhetherCJSVsshouldbegrantedtosuspectswhosaythattheyarechildrenwasdiscussedextensivelybetweenCommonwealthagenciesinmid-2011.Thesediscussionsfirstaroseinthecontextofthe[BAI031]casediscussedabove,withDIACraisingthepossibilityofgrantingtheplaintiffsinthatcaseCJSVs.Inresponse,theOfficeoftheCDPPobservedthatit‘hasnotbeenfundednordoesithavetheresourcesorcapabilitiestosupportthesedefendantsduringthecourseofthecriminalproceedings’.35

SimilarconcernswereraisedinJune2011whenitappearedthatthreedefendantsinBrisbanewouldapplyforbailandmightapplyforCJSVs.TheOfficeoftheCDPPmadeitclearthatitwasnotinapositiontosupportanypeoplesmugglingdefendantsshouldtheybereleasedonbailintothecommunity.36Theseissuesarediscussedfurtherinsection2.4below.

TheCommissionisconcernedthatnoconsiderationappearstohavebeengiventoplacingyoungIndonesiansintheleastrestrictiveformofdetentionavailable.Fortheseindividualsthiswouldhavebeencommunity-baseddetention.

2.2 Length of detention

AsnotedinChapter1,undertheConventionontheRightsoftheChild(CRC),childrenshouldonlybedetainedasalastresortandfortheshortestappropriateperiodoftime.37Theprincipleofthebenefitofthedoubtmeansthatapersonwhosaysthatheorsheisachildshouldbetreatedasaminoruntilitisestablishedthatheorsheisanadult.Consequently,itisofconcernthatmanyindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhoseageswereindoubtspentprolongedperiodsoftimedetainedineitherimmigrationdetentionfacilitiesoradultcorrectionalfacilitiesorboth.

TheCommonwealthwasadvisedinMay2011ofthecontentoftheobligationsundertheCRCwithrespecttothedetentionofyoungIndonesianswhosaidthattheywerechildren.Thislegaladvicenoted:

• evenwhereanindividualistransferredtoaState-basedfacility,theAustralianGovernmentretainsultimateresponsibilityinrespectoftheactionofthatStateorTerritory.

• thebestinterestsofthechildshouldbeaprimaryconsiderationineverydecisiontakeninrelationtoachildaccused,includingnon-citizenchildrenaccusedofpeoplesmugglingoffences.…

296


• theobligationtodetainchildrenonlyasalastresortandfortheshortestappropriateperiodoftimeappliestobothimmigrationdetentionandcriminaldetention.38

TheprolongeddetentionofyoungIndonesianssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingisdemonstratedbythefollowingfiguresshowingtheaveragelengthofdetentionfordifferentcategoriesofindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhoseagewasindoubt:

• IndividualswhowereremovedfromAustraliawithoutchargeandwithouthavingtheirwristsx-rayed–averagelengthofdetention66days.

• Individualswhowerefoundtobeaminoraftertheirwristswerex-rayedandthenremovedfromAustraliawithoutcharge–averagelengthofdetention161days.

• Individualswhosewristswerex-rayed,werechargedasadultsandultimatelyhadtheprosecutionsagainstthemdiscontinued–averagelengthofdetention431days(oftheseanaverageof199dayswerespentinadultcorrectionalfacilities).

• Individualswhowerechargedbutultimatelyfoundnotguilty(sixpeople)–averagelengthofdetention570days(oftheseanaverageof418dayswerespentinadultcorrectionalfacilities).

• Individualswhowerechargedandconvictedandultimatelygrantedearlyreleaseonlicence(15people)–averagelengthofdetention948days(oftheseanaverageof864dayswerespentinadultcorrectionalfacilities).

• Individualswhowerechargedandconvictedandhaveservedtheentiretyoftheirsentences(threepeople)–averagelengthofdetention1088days(oftheseanaverageof1054dayswerespentinadultcorrectionalfacilities).

(a) Prolongeddetentioninimmigrationdetentionfacilitiespriortocharge

ManyyoungIndonesianssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingspentprolongedperiodsoftimeinimmigrationdetentionfacilities–eitherpriortoadecisionnottoprosecutethem,resultingintheirbeingremovedfromAustralia;orpriortotheirbeingchargedwithpeoplesmuggling.

TheabovefiguresshowthatthoseindividualswhowereeitherimmediatelyacceptedbytheAFPtobeminors,orwhowereacceptedbytheAFPtobeminorsaftertheirwristswerex-rayed,spentanaverageof66or161daysinimmigrationdetention,dependingonwhethertheirwristswerex-rayed.

Itappearsthatanumberofindividuals,whowereultimatelynotchargedwithpeoplesmuggling,experienceddelaysbetweenapprehensionandbeingsubjecttoawristx-rayofbetweenfiveandsevenmonths.Forexample:


• TheAFPdidnotarrangeawristx-rayforanindividualapprehendedinJuly2010untilDecember2010–5monthslater.39

• TheAFPdidnotarrangeawristx-rayforanindividualapprehendedinAugust2010untilFebruary2011–6monthslater.40

• TheAFPdidnotarrangeawristx-rayforanindividualapprehendedinDecember2010untilMay2011–5monthslater.41

• TheAFPdidnotarrangeawristx-rayforanindividualapprehendedinJune2010untilNovember2010–5monthslater.42

Ineachofthesecases,followingreceiptofthewristx-rayanalysis,theAFPmadeadecisionnottoprosecutetheindividual.Itappearsthatinmostcasesthedecisionnottoprosecutewasmadebecausethewristx-rayanalysisshowedthattheindividualwaslikelytobeunder18yearsofage.However,itisnotclearfromthedocumentsbeforetheCommissionwhetherinsomecasesthedecisionnottoprosecutewasmadebecausethetimethathadpassedbetweentheallegedoffenceandthedateofthex-rayincreasedtheprobabilitythattheindividual,althoughskeletallymatureatthetimeofx-ray,wasunder18yearsofageatthetimeoftheallegedoffence.

TheCommissionisawarethatinsomecases,delaymaybeexplainedbythelackofappropriatex-rayfacilitiesonChristmasIsland.Insomecases,youngIndonesianshadtowaitforaconsiderableperiodoftimeonChristmasIslandbeforetheyweretransferredtoDarwinwhereappropriatex-rayfacilitiesexisted.43SometimesthisdelaywasattributabletothelimitednumberofplacesofdetentioninDarwinsuitableforyoungIndonesianswhoDIACassessedtobeunder18yearsofage.44DIACappropriatelyconsideredthatminorsshouldbedetainedinalternativeplacesofdetentionwhichwerelessrestrictivethanimmigrationdetentioncentres.

TheyoungIndonesianswhowereultimatelychargedwithpeoplesmugglingandwhohadtheirprosecutionsdiscontinuedspentanaverageof186days(oversixmonths)inimmigrationdetentionpriortobeingcharged.Thiscanonlybedescribedasprolongeddetention.SomesubmissionstotheInquiryraisedtheissueofwhetherthelengthydetentionofanunlawfulnon-citizenforthepurposesofmakingadecisionaboutwhetherheshouldbechargedwithanoffenceamountstoarbitrarydetentionwithinthemeaningoftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.45

VictoriaLegalAid’ssubmissiontotheInquiryreportsaprolongedperiodofpre-chargedetentionfortheeightaccusedwhomtheyrepresented(whosechargeswereultimatelywithdrawnaftertheywereacceptedasbeingchildrenbytheCommonwealth).Theseeightindividualsspentanaverageof6.9monthsinimmigrationdetentionbeforebeingcharged.46

SubmissionstotheInquiryarguedthatthisperiodofpre-chargedetentionwasunreasonableas

298


theinvestigatingauthoritiesshouldhavehadsufficientinformationtomakeanearlierdecisionaboutwhethertheyshouldbecharged.Forexample,thesolicitorMsEdwinaLloydnoted:

8monthsisanunreasonableamountoftimetowaittobechargedandtherehasbeennoreasonableexplanationastowhyittooksolong.ItisunreasonablebecauseLuco[nameanalias]wasidentifiedasacrew-memberofavesselbringingasylumseekersintoAustralianterritorialwaters.ThereexistedenoughphysicalevidencefortheAFPtolaychargesuponapprehension.47

VictoriaLegalAidobservedthat,fornearlyeveryotheroffenceprosecutedinAustraliathatresultsintheimmediatedetentionofanaccused,achargingdecisionismadewithinhours.48VictoriaLegalAidrecommend:

thattheinitialinvestigationandchargingprocessbeexpeditedforallrelevantsuspectssuchthatnosuspectedpeoplesmugglercanbedetainedformorethan14daysbeforebeingcharged.TwoweeksissufficienttimeforanaccusedtobeinterviewedbytheAFPonChristmasIslandbeforebeingconveyedtoanotherStateorTerritoryforachargetobelaidandprosecutioncommenced.Theprosecutingauthoritieswouldthenbegivenadequatetimetocompileabriefofevidence.InVictoria,thisistypicallythreemonths.49

LegalAidNSWcontrastedthepotentialforindefinitedetentionpriortochargeforapersonsuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwiththeregimeunderpinningothercriminaloffences.Thesubmissionstatedthat:

NSWandCommonwealthlegislationenablespolicetoholdindividualsarrestedonsuspicionofcommittinganoffencefor4hours,furtherdetentionrequiresawarrantissuedthroughacourt.Eveninrelationtoterrorismoffencestherearetimelimitsondetentionandcourtinvolvementinextendingdetentionforinvestigation.50

TheAFPhasarguedthatthelengthoftheinvestigationprocessisaffectedbyanumberofdifficultiesthatitfacesinpreparingabriefofevidencefortheprosecutionofpeoplesmugglingcrew.ThisincludesthelengthoftimeittakestoobtainstatementsfromNavyandCustomsofficersandthechallengesinsecuringwitnessstatementsfrompassengersonboats.Thesechallengesincludethatmostpassengersrequiretheassistanceofaninterpreter.51TheAFPassertthatthesedifficultiescontributetothelengthoftimeayoungIndonesiansuspectedofpeoplesmugglingspendsinimmigrationdetentionwaitingforadecisiontobemadeaboutwhetherheshouldbecharged.TheAFPreiteratedtheseissuesinitsresponsetothedraftreport.52Initsresponse,theAFPalsooutlinedthedelayscausedbythesignificantincreaseinAFPinvestigationscausedbythehighnumberofboatscarryingasylumseekersthatarrivedinthefirstfourmonthsof2010,andthewhole-of-governmentnegotiationsthattookplacetoenableprosecutionstobeconductedinjurisdictionsotherthanWesternAustralia.ThechangeinjurisdictionforprosecutionsrequiredtheAFPtore-formatevidenceinasignificantnumberofcases.53


LegalAidNSWarguesthatthisperiodoftimeforinvestigationisnotrequiredinothercriminalproceedings.Thesubmissionstatesthat:

IfapersonarrivesatSydneyAirportwithdrugsintheirsuitcase,theyareinterviewed,thenimmediatelycharged.Ifsubsequentevidenceestablishestheirinnocencechargesarethendropped.Thelawallowspolicetochargeapersontheyreasonablysuspectofcommittinganoffence.Onceidentifiedasacrewmemberonaboatsuspectedofpeoplesmugglingthereisgenerallysufficientsuspiciontochargeindividualsandimmediatelybringthembeforeacourt.Witnessstatementscanbeobtainedlater,similartoothercriminalmatters.54

Furthermore,theargumentthatasignificantperiodoftimeisrequiredforinvestigationdoesnotexplainthelengthoftimespentinimmigrationdetentionbyindividualswhowereeitherremovedfromAustraliawithoutundergoingawristx-ray(presumablybecausefromtheirphysicalappearanceitwasapparentthattheywereunder18yearsofage)orthosewhowerex-rayedandremovedwithoutcharge(presumablybecausethex-raydidnotshowskeletalmaturityorbecausethelengthoftimebetweenthedateoftheallegedoffenceandthewristx-raybeingtakenwassolongastomakethewristx-rayanalysisuninformative).Inthesecases,theAFPfacednorequirementtoprepareabriefofevidence.

TheAFPhasinformedtheCommissionthattheaveragetimetakenbytheAFPtocompleteaninvestigationiscurrently104.5days,fromthetimeofarrivalonChristmasIslandtothedateofthecharge.55

(b) Prolongeddetentioninadultcorrectionalfacilities

Fromtheabovefiguresitcanbeseenthat,inthosecaseswhereyoungIndonesianswerechargedbuttheirprosecutionsultimatelydiscontinued,theindividualsspentonaverage228daysinadultcorrectionalfacilities.FromdocumentsprovidedtotheCommission,itappearsthatthemostcommonreasonsforaprosecutionbeingdiscontinuedwereeitherthatadecisionwasmadethatacourtwouldbeunlikelytofindthat,onthebalanceofprobabilities,theindividualwasover18atthetimeoftheoffenceandtherewerenoexceptionalcircumstancestojustifytheprosecutionofaminor;orfromlate2011onwards,becausetherewasnoprobativeevidenceofageotherthanwristx-rayanalysis.Thismeansthatasignificantproportionofthe55youngIndonesianswhoseprosecutionswereultimatelydiscontinuedmaywellhavebeenunder18yearsofageatthetimeoftheirapprehension–andperhapsforsomeperiodoftimeduringtheirdetention.

ThedetentionoftheseyoungIndonesiansinadultcorrectionalfacilitiesappearstohavebeenaconsequenceoftheirnotbeingaffordedthebenefitofthedoubtwhentheysaidthattheywereminors.Itwasalsoaconsequenceofthefactthat,earlierthanmid-2011,bailwasopposedinallcaseswhereindividualswerechargedwithpeoplesmuggling.Issuesrelatedtobailarediscussedinsection2.4below.

300


SubmissionstotheInquirydescribethedamagethatyoungIndonesianssufferedasaresultofbeingdetainedinanadultcorrectionalfacility.Forexample,theVictorianLegalAidsubmissionreportedthat:

Itisourexperiencethatchildrendetainedonpeoplesmugglingchargesareharmedbytheirtimeindetention,particularlywhentheyaredetainedinadultfacilities.Weknowthisbecausewehaveseenfirsthandtheirdistressandisolation.Thechildrensufferbyvirtueofbeingimprisonedinaforeigncountrywhereculturaldifferencesarehugeandtheirnativelanguageisnotspoken.Theeffectofhavinglittleornocontactwithfamily,particularlyatayoungage,isimmeasurable.56

2.3 Place of detention

Asdescribedinsection2.1above,individualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhosaythattheyarechildrenaretakenintoimmigrationdetentionwhentheyareapprehended.Fornearlyallofthem,theirfirstplaceofdetentionisonChristmasIsland.

InformationprovidedtotheCommissionindicatesthatDIACpracticeistogiveindividualswhosaythattheyarechildrenthebenefitofthedoubt,andconsequentlytotreatthemasiftheyarechildrenfortheperiodoftimethattheyareinimmigrationdetention.Thismeansthatindividualswhosaythattheyarechildrenaredetainedinlowsecurity‘alternativeplacesofdetention’ratherthaninhighsecurityimmigrationdetentioncentres.57Nonetheless,peopledetainedinsuchfacilitiesremainundersupervisionandarenotfreetocomeandgo.58

OncetheAFPmakesadecisiontochargeapersonwithpeoplesmuggling,arrangementsaremadetotransporthimtotheStateorTerritoryinwhichheistobechargedandarrested.Atthetimeofbeingcharged,theAFPcompletesaProsecutionNotice,whichsetsoutthedetailsoftheallegedoffenceandotherdetailsrelevanttothecharge,includingtheaccusedperson’sdateofbirth.TheindividualisremandedintothecustodyofStateorTerritorycorrectionalauthoritiesunlessheappliesfor,andisgranted,bail.

(a) TheAFPassignedanindividualadateofbirthbasedonwristx-rayanalysisevenwherethedateofbirthwasindispute

TheCommonwealthJointsubmissionstatesthatanindividualisgenerallyheldinacorrectionalfacilityonthebasisofthedateofbirthlistedontheProsecutionNoticepreparedbytheAFP.59Therefore,thedateofbirthgiventoanindividualontheProsecutionNoticeis,inmostcases,determinativeofhisplaceofdetention.

FromthedocumentsprovidedtotheCommission,itappearsthat,whereaperson’sdateofbirthisunknown,theAFP,whencompletingtheProsecutionNotice,ordinarilyassignedadateofbirthtotheindividualthatwasconsistentwiththeagegiveninthewristx-rayreport.Thatdateofbirth


wasusuallyincludedontheAFPStatementofMaterialFactsthatwasprovidedtotheOfficeoftheCDPPaspartofthebriefofevidence.

AnemailfromtheOfficeoftheCDPPtoAGDdescribingtheagedeterminationprovisionsintheCrimesActstated:

AFPaskifthecrewmanwillconsenttoawristx-ray.Theyusuallyconsent.IfthereportindicatesthepersonisanadulttheywillbechargedasanadultwithaDOBconsistentwiththe[x-ray]report.60

FromthedocumentsbeforetheCommissionregardingindividualcases,itappearsthatthepracticeofallocatingadateofbirthconsistentwiththemedicalpractitioner’sreportonthex-rayoccurredinmostcaseswhereanindividual’sexactdateofbirthwasunknownorindispute.Forexample,inonecaseadefencelawyerwrotetotheCDPPtoaskwhyhisclient’sdateofbirthhadbeenlistedas1January1991.Theindividualhadpreviouslytoldauthoritieshewasbornin1995.TheCDPPofficerreplied,‘IunderstandhewasallocatedthatdateasitwasconsistentwiththeDoctor’swristx-rayreport’.61

SomestaffintheOfficeoftheCDPPinstructedtheAFPthatitwasnotconsistentwithCDPPpolicytoallocateadateofbirthtoanallegedoffenderwherehisexactdateofbirthwasnotknown.Forexample,on20January2011,anofficeroftheBrisbaneOfficeoftheCDPPadvisedtheAFPthat,undertheOfficeoftheCDPPguidelines,the‘DOB’onthebenchchargesheetshouldbeleftblankwherethedateofbirthisunknown.62AgaininMarch2011,theOfficeoftheCDPPadvisedAFPtoleavethedateofbirthonthechargesheetforaparticularindividualblankbecausehisexactdateofbirthwasuncertain.63TheOfficeoftheCDPPadvisedtheAFPthatitappearedanominaldateofbirthhadbeenascribedtotheindividualonthebasisofthewristx-rayreportandthat:

Ifit’sjustanominaldateofbirth,thisisinappropriateandweshouldproperlyconcedethathisexactdateofbirthisunknowntoAustralianauthorities.64

However,itappearsthatthedateofbirthontheProsecutionNoticewasleftblankinveryfewcases.

Initsresponsetothedraftreport,theAFPexplainedthattheStatePolicechargingsystemrequiresadateofbirthtobeenteredwhenchargesarelaid.TheAFPthenstatesthat‘allocatingtheirclaimeddateofbirthwouldincorrectlyallocatethechargetoachildren’scourtwhichwasnotconsistentwiththeCDPPapproach’.65Whilethisistrue,itisalsotruethatallocatingadateofbirthconsistentwiththex-rayreportislikelytohaveresultedinchildrenbeingdetainedinadultcorrectionalfacilities.ThepreferableapproachinthecircumstancesisclearlythatadvisedbytheOfficeoftheCDPP;thatis,tomakeclearthattheexactdateofbirthisunknown.

302


(b) Individualswhoseageisindisputewereordinarilyremandedtoadultcorrectionalfacilities

Asnotedabove,individualswhowerechargedasadultswereinmostcasesdetainedfromthattimeinadultcorrectionalfacilities.Applicationsforbailweregenerallyopposeduntilmid-2011.Thisissueisdiscussedinsection2.4below.

ItappearsthatDIACwasconcernedaboutthepracticeofdetainingindividualsinadultcorrectionalfacilitiesonthebasisofwristx-rayanalysisalone.InaninternalDIACemailfromOctober2010concerningarrangementsfortransferringpeoplebetweendetentionfacilities,thefollowingpassageappears:

wewouldbemostgratefulifyoudonotmoveanyoftheUAMcrewofftheislanduntilwehavemetwiththeAFPtodiscusstheagedeterminationprocess.TheAFPhavebeenrigidintheirinterpretationofwristx-rays.Asaresult,itispossiblethataminorwillbeplacedinprisonandwestronglywanttoavoidthis.66

Asthediscussionabovedemonstrates,youngIndonesiansweredetainedinadultcorrectionalfacilitiesbecausetheywerenotaffordedthebenefitofthedoubtwhentheysaidthattheywereminors.

On8April2011,theCommonwealthreceivedpreliminarylegaladvicefromtheOfficeofInternationalLaw(OIL)withinAGDaboutthecontentoftheobligationsoftheCRCastheyappliedtoyoungIndonesianssuspectedofpeoplesmuggling.Insummary,OILadvisedthattheCommonwealthhasanobligationtogiveindividualswhosaytheyareaminorthebenefitofthedoubtandconsequentlyanobligationtodetainthemseparatelyfromadults.Theadvicegoesontosaythatanindividualshouldbedetainedseparatelyfromadultsuntilitisproventhatheisnotachild.67

Theholdingofanindividualwhoclaimstobeachildinanadultcorrectionalfacilitybeforehisagehasbeendeterminedbyacourtisdirectlyinconsistentwiththisadvice.Noindividualwhodisputedthathewasanadult,otherthanonewhowasmanifestlyanadult,shouldhavebeenheldonremandinanadultcorrectionalfacilityunlessanduntilacourtruledthathewasanadult.

Itappearsthatinatleastonecasefrom2010,theOfficeoftheCDPPsupportedtheholdingofayoungIndonesianwhoseagewasindoubtinanadultcorrectionalfacility.InthecaseofAliJasmin(seefurtherCaseStudy1inAppendix1),theIndonesianConsulatepresentedabirthcertificatetotheDIACofficeinWesternAustraliainAugust2010thatshowedhisageas14years.DIACimmediatelycontactedtheOfficeoftheCDPP.TheOfficeoftheCDPPrespondedtoDIACtosay:


MrJasminshouldnotbereleasedfromprisonuntilsuchtimeashisageisdeterminedbytheCourt....IftheCourtdeterminesthatheisundertheageof18,thenthemattermayberemittedtotheChildren’sCourt68

On15September2010,aDIACofficercontactedtheWesternAustralianOfficeoftheCDPPtoexpressherconcernabouttheriskofcontinuingtodetainapersonwhomaybeaminorinanadultfacility.TheOfficeoftheCDPPrespondedtoherconcernsbysayingthecasewouldtakeitsnormalcourseandthathewouldcontinuetobeheldinHakeaPrisonuntilthecourtdeterminedotherwise.69

FromthedocumentsbeforetheInquiry,itfurtherappearsthatevenafteracourthaddeterminedthatanindividualwasnotanadult,hemayhavecontinuedtobeheldforaperiodoftimeinanadultfacility.Forexample,aJudgeoftheDistrictCourtwasnotsatisfiedonthebalanceofprobabilitiesthatUPW031wasover18atthetimeoftheoffenceandremittedthemattertoChildren’sCourt.UPW031wasremandedincustody.70ThereisasignedwarrantreleasinghimfromHakeaPrisonthreedayslater.71

(c) StateandTerritorycorrectionalauthoritiesdidnotreceivesufficientinformationregardingindividuals’claimsabouttheirage

IndividualschargedwithCommonwealthcrimeswhoareremandedincustody,andindividualsconvictedofCommonwealthcrimesandsentencedtoimprisonment,aredetainedinStateandTerritorycorrectionalfacilities.

TheJointCommonwealthsubmissiontotheInquirystatesthatitistheresponsibilityofStateandTerritorycorrectionalfacilitiestoensurethatfederalprisonersaremanagedappropriately.72Throughout2011,thispointwasrepeatedlymadeintalkingpointsforvariousMinisters.Forexample,theMinister’sOfficeBrieffortheMinisterforHomeAffairsandJusticefromAugust2011statedthat:

TheStatesandTerritoriesareresponsibleforthemanagementandoperationofprisons,includingtheassessmentofeachprisoner’ssecurityclassificationandwhetheritisdesirabletophysicallyseparatecertainclassesofprisoners,suchasminors.73

TheJointCommonwealthsubmissionalsoclaimsthattheAFPprovidestoStateandTerritorycorrectionalauthoritiesallavailableinformationconcerningtheageclaimsofanindividualwhohasbeenchargedasanadultbutmaintainsthatheisaminor.74

Thisclaimwasalsorepeatedlymadein‘ministerialtalkingpoints’throughout2011.Forexample,onetalkingpointstated:

304


TheAustralianFederalPoliceprovidesStateandTerritorycorrectionsagencieswithinformationabouttheageofapersonclaimingtobeaminortoassistthoseagenciestomanagethatpersonappropriately.75

Underinternationallaw,obligationsoftheCommonwealthcannotbetransferredtotheStatesandTerritories.ItistheCommonwealth’sresponsibilitytoensurethatindividualswhosaythattheywerechildrenareaffordedthebenefitofthedoubtandtreatedconsistentlywithAustralia’shumanrightsobligations,includingwithrespecttotheirplaceofdetention.

DocumentsprovidedtotheInquirydemonstratethattheCommonwealthappearsinmanycasesnottohaveprovidedinformationtoStateandTerritorycorrectionalauthoritiesregardingayoungIndonesian’sclaimsabouthisage.Whereinformationwasprovided,itwasofteninsufficienttoenablethecorrectionalauthoritiestodeterminetheappropriateplaceofdetentionfortheindividualwhoseagewasindispute.

Inonecase,forexample,anAFPofficerrecommendedthatOFD030betreatedasaminorandremovedtoIndonesiabasedontheresultofanx-rayreport(askeletalageofapproximately18years)andthepolicynottoprosecutejuvenilesunlessexceptionalcircumstancesexist.76Fourmonthsaftertherecommendationwasmade,theAFPsoughtauthoritytochargeOFD030andhisco-accusedasjuvenilesonthebasisthatitwasnotclearwhowasthecaptainoftheboatand‘ifonewastoberepatriatedtheothermaythenclaimtherepatriatedmemberwasthemaster’.77

Approvaltochargethe‘allegedjuveniles’wasgiven.78InsubsequentinstructionsgiventotheOfficerinChargeoftheBrisbaneCityWatchHouse,aFederalAgentadvisedthatOFD030wouldbechargedasanadult.79Hewassubsequentlyarrestedandchargedasanadultanddetainedinanadultcorrectionalfacility.TheprosecutionagainstOFD030waseventuallydiscontinued.Hespent576daysindetentioninAustralia,326oftheminanadultcorrectionalfacility.

Itappearsthatinsomecasestherelevantdepartmentofcorrectiveservicesonlybecameawarethataperson’sagewasindisputeaftertheyhadbeenheldinadultfacilitiesforsometime.Forexample,on9September2010,theWesternAustralianDepartmentofCorrectiveServicescontactedDIACsayingthat‘[a]questionhasbeenraisedwithregardtotheactualageoftwoIndonesianscurrentlyinprisoncustodyinWesternAustralia’.TheDepartmentofCorrectiveServicesaskedwhetherthetwoindividualshadbeensubjecttoany‘bonedensityageverification’testingandwhethertheycouldbeprovidedtheresultofthosetests.80DIACforwardedtherequesttotheAFPforaction.

Similarly,on22October2010,aninternalOfficeoftheCDPPemailnotedtheconcernsofNewSouthWalesCorrectionsthatallinformationrelevanttothedetentionofindividualswasnotbeingsharedbetweenthevariousagencies.Theemailnotesthat:


advancenoticewasnotgiventhatoneindividualclaimedtobeajuvenile.ThisalsocausedadegreeofangstforLAC,whoareobviouslyconcernedabouttheprospectofajuvenilebeinghousedinanadultfacility.81

Inanotherexample,on26July2011,theQueenslandCommissionerofCorrectiveServiceswrotetotheSecretaryoftheCommonwealthAGDtoconveyarequestfromtheGeneralManagerofArthurGorrieCorrectionalCentreforadditionalverificationofagefortenIndonesianprisonersonremandforpeoplesmugglingcharges.QueenslandCorrectiveServiceswereseekinganassurancethatitwasappropriateforthosetenindividualstobeincarceratedwiththeadultprisonpopulation.82

Fromtheseexamplesitappearsthat,insomecases,StateandTerritorycorrectionalauthoritieswerenotprovidedwithinformationaboutanindividual’sclaimsregardinghisage.

ThisissuewasrecognisedbyaSeniorAssistantDirectoroftheOfficeoftheCDPPwho,on3March2011,wrotetotheAFPtoraisetheissueoftheprovisionofinformationaboutagetocorrectiveservices.Theletternotedtheimportanceofprovidinginformationconcerningaperson’sagetoStateandTerritorycorrectiveservicestoassistinthepropermanagementofyoungIndonesians.Theofficerstated:

AswehavediscussedtheAFPmayconsiderprovidingallrelevantinformationthatitisabletoprovideconcerningaperson’sagetoDIACandtherelevantcorrectiveservicesorganisationstoassistthemwiththepropermanagementofthecrew.

Inotethatsection3ZQJ(2)(a)(i)allowsthedisclosureofagedeterminationinformationobtainedunderDivision4AofPart1AAoftheCrimesAct1914forapurposerelatedtotheestablishingandcomplyingwiththerulesgoverningthedetentionofthepersontowhomtheagedeterminationinformationrelates.Itwouldbeimportanttoensurethattheagenciesareinformedofthelimitationsoftheanalysisofwristx-raymaterial.83

InsomecasesitappearsthattheAFPdidinformStateandTerritorycorrectionalauthoritiesthatanindividual’sagewasindispute,orprovidedthex-rayreportonwhichtheywererelyingtoshowthatanindividualwasanadult.However,itappearsthattheinformationprovidedincludedinformationabouttheresultsofwristx-rayswithoutexplanationofthelimitationsofthisprocedureasameansofageassessment.84

2.4 Bail

TheJointCommonwealthsubmissiontotheInquirystatesthattheOfficeoftheCDPPdoesnotgenerallyopposebailapplicationsbypeoplesmugglingdefendantswhosaythattheywereaminoratthetimeoftheallegedoffence.85However,whilethisseemstobecurrentpractice,itappearsthatthispracticewasonlyadoptedinJuly2011andnotformallycommunicatedtodefencelawyersbeforeNovember2011.

306


(a) BailapplicationsweregenerallyopposedpriortoJuly2011

TheanomalyinherentintheCommonwealth’sopposingbailapplicationsmadeonbehalfofyoungIndonesianschargedwithpeoplesmugglingishighlightedinthesubmissionmadebyVictoriaLegalAid.ThissubmissionnotesthatdefendantsinthecircumstancesoftheyoungIndonesianswouldordinarilyhaveaprimafacieentitlementtobailinVictoria:

[accusedpeople]inalikesituationofnopriorconvictions,nohistoryofbailbreaches,lowriskofre-offendingandalikelydelaytotrialofonetotwoyears,wouldeasilyachievebail.86

However,untilJuly2011,theCommonwealthpositionwasgenerallytoopposebailinallpeoplesmugglingmatters.

ThequestionofwhetherbailshouldbeopposedwasacontentiousissuebetweenCommonwealthagenciesduringmid-2011.On6April2011,theAFPwrotetotheOfficeoftheCDPPtoensurethatallegedoffenderswerehousedinthemostappropriatedetentionfacilityfortheirage.Accordingly,theAFPproposedthatincircumstanceswhereapersonhadbeenchargedasanadultbutmaintainedthattheywereaminor,theOfficeoftheCDPPshouldmakeanapplicationtohavehimbailedintoimmigrationdetentionuntilhisagewasdeterminedbythecourt.DIACsupportedthisproposal.87

TheOfficeoftheCDPPidentifiedanumberofpotentialrisksthatcouldarisefromthegrantingofbailtodefendantswhosaidthattheyarechildren.88Despitetheirconcerns,theOfficeoftheCDPPagreedtoindividualswhoseagewasindisputebeingbailedintoimmigrationdetentionpendingtheoutcomeofanagedeterminationhearing.TheCDPPofficernotedthattheobligationtoapplyforbailrestswiththedefendantandproposed:

ItwouldseemthemostappropriatecoursewouldbeforthisOfficeineachofthematterswherethereisanagedeterminationdispute,tocontacttherelevantdefendant’slegalrepresentativeandinformthemthatshouldanapplicationforbailbemadeitwouldnotbeopposedonthebasisthatthepersonwouldbebailedtoimmigrationdetentionandnotingthatthepositioninrelationtothepersonbeinganadultisstillmaintained.89

However,atthistimeAGDdidnotsupporttheproposaltofacilitatethegrantingofbailtodefendantswhoseagewasindispute.AGDwasconcernedthatgrantingbailinaparticularmatterinwhichthedefendantmaintainedhewasaminorinthefaceofa‘strongsetoffacts(thewristx-ray)’wouldweakenargumentsagainstbailinpeoplesmugglingmattersmoregenerally.90

AGDmaintainedthisstancedespitehavingreceivedon8April2011preliminaryadvicefromOILonAustralia’sobligationsundertheCRC,whichincludedtheconclusionthatanpersonclaimstobeachildthentheyshouldbegiventhebenefitofthedoubtthattheyareinfactachildandthatdetentionshouldbeusedasameasureoflastresortandfortheshortestappropriateperiodoftime.91


On14April2011,theAFPwrotedirectlytoAGDtoquestionwhetheritisappropriatetoholdadefendantwhosaysthatheisachildonremandinanadultcorrectionalfacilitybeforeacourthasdeterminedhisage.TheAFPinformedAGDthat,intheiropinion,animmigrationdetentionfacilitywould‘providemoreappropriateinterimaccommodation’.92TheAFPcontactedtheOfficeoftheCDPPatthesametimetorequestthattheycontacteachrelevantdefendant’slegalrepresentativetoinformthemthatifabailapplicationwasmade,itwouldnotbeopposedonthebasisthattheindividualwouldbebailedintoimmigrationdetention.93

On18April2011,theDeputyDirectorofthePerthOfficeoftheCDPPstatedthat:

ThecurrentpracticeofopposingbailremainstheCDPPpositionuntilthecurrentconsultationswithallotherstakeholdersinparticulartheAGD,DIACandAFPiscompleted.94

Atthistime,theSeniorAssistantDirectoroftheOfficeoftheCDPPnotedthatonepotentialconcernwithbailingyoungIndonesiansintoimmigrationdetentionwasthattheymayhavetobemovedinterstateinordertobehousedinanappropriatedetentionfacilityandthatthismayinterferewithanindividual’scontactwithhislegalrepresentative.95

ThisconcernwassharedbyLegalAidNSWinitssubmissiontotheInquiry.LegalAidNSWnotedthat:

DIAChasadvisedLegalAidNSWpractitionersthatitcouldnotguaranteewheretheyoungpeoplewouldbeheldifgrantedbail.TheyhavealternativelyadvisedLegalAidNSWpractitionersthattheyoungpersonwouldbemovedtoDarwin.LegalAidNSWunderstandsthatDIAChavenowhereinSydneytohouseunaccompaniedyoungpeople....Forthesereasons,sofarasLegalAidNSWisaware,nobailapplicationshavebeenmadeforindividualschargedwithpeoplesmugglingwhoclaimtobeunder18.DIACshouldensurethatitisabletohouseyoungpeoplewhoarechargedandclaimtobeunder18inappropriatecommunitydetentioninthecapitalcitywheretheyarebeingtried.96

On2May2011,theCriminalJusticeDivisionofAGDreceivedformaladvicefromOILaboutAustralia’sobligationsundertheCRCinrelationtotheapprehension,detention,charge,bailandprosecutionofindividualswhoseageisindispute.Theadviceconfirmedthepreliminaryadvicegivenon8April2011and,inrelationtobail,advisedthatifalternativemeasurestodetentionhavenotbeenconsideredtherewillbeaconflictwithAustralia’sobligationtodetainchildrenonlyasameasureoflastresort.97

InMay2011,aDIACofficeradvisedanAGDofficerthatitwasDIAC’sviewthatimmigrationdetentionshouldnotbeusedtoprovideongoingaccommodationfordefendantswhohavebeenbailedbythecourt.DIACwouldneverthelessfacilitatetheappropriateaccommodationofindividualswhowerebailedintoimmigrationdetention.98

308


(b) BailapplicationsweregenerallynotopposedfromJuly2011onwards

ItappearsthatbailwasfirstgrantedwithoutoppositionfromtheCommonwealthinmid-June2011.InonematterheardinMelbourne,bailwasgrantedunopposedon16June2011.99InanotherthreemattersheardtogetherinBrisbane,bailwasgrantedunopposedon17June2011.100InafurthermatterheardinBrisbane,bailwasgrantedunopposedon12July2011.101

On28June2011,aminutewassenttotheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionsdiscussingtheissueofbailinpeoplesmugglingmatters.ThememosetoutthepositionoftheOfficeoftheCDPPonbailinpeoplesmugglingmattersandnotedthattheOfficeoftheCDPPcouldcontinuetojustifyopposingbailinpeoplesmugglingmattersgenerally,notwithstandingthatthebasisforopposingbailistenuous,particularlygiventhatdefendantswillbebailedintoimmigrationdetention.However,giventheincreasingnumberofcrewwhowerechallengingtheirageandseekingbail,thememosuggeststhattheOfficeoftheCDPPadoptadifferentpositionforpeoplesmugglingcrewwhosaythattheyarechildren.Theminuterecommended:

Inmatterswhereadefendantdisputesthattheyareanadultandprovidesmaterialtosupportthisorthereisotherwisesomeconcernthatthepersonmaynotbeanadult,thenifthedefendantseeksbailthisOfficeshouldnotopposebailuntilsuchtimeasaCourtfindsthatthepersonisanadult.102

On4July2011,thepositionproposedintheminutewasapprovedbytheDirector.

On5July2011,theOfficeoftheCDPPinformedAGDthattheDirectorhadapprovedanewpositioninrelationtobailforindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhoseageisindoubtandthatbailwouldnotbeopposedforthoseindividualsuntilsuchtimeasacourtfindsthemtobeanadult.103

DocumentsbeforetheCommissionsuggestthattheOfficeoftheCDPPdidnotimmediatelymakeitspositiononbailforyoungIndonesianspublic.104Certainly,initssubmissiontotheInquiry,theNorthernTerritoryLegalAidCommissionstatedthatitwasnotawareofthepolicyoftheOfficeoftheCDPPnottoopposebailwhereageisindispute.105

ItfurtherappearsthatinsomecasesbailcontinuedtobeopposedaftertheOfficeoftheCDPPadoptedthepositionnottoopposebailwhereagewasindispute.Forexample,inthematterofENO029,theOfficeoftheCDPPreceivedsubmissionsfromadefencelawyeron22July2011statingthathisclientwas16yearsold,thattheprosecutionagainsthimshouldbediscontinuedandthattheywouldbemakingabailapplication.AninternalemailsuggeststhattheOfficeoftheCDPPresponsewastoindicatethattheprosecutionwouldnotbediscontinuedandthatbailwouldbeopposed.106On15August2011,thedefencelawyersentabirthcertificatetotheOfficeoftheCDPPindicatingthatENO029wasunder18yearsofage.107Onreceiptofthebirthcertificate,theCDPPindicatedtothedefendant’ssolicitorsthatbailwouldnotbeopposed.108


On19AugustaMinutewasprovidedtotheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionsrecommendingthattheprosecutionbediscontinued.TheDirectorapprovedtheMinuteonthatsameday.109ThesameCDPPofficerwhohadearliersuggestedthatbailbeopposedrecommendedthattheprosecutionagainstENO029bediscontinuedasitwasnotinthepublicinteresttoproceed.Hereported:

Ihavealsoseen[ENO029]andmyimmediatereactionwasthathecouldnotpossiblybeover18.Thephotoattachedtothesubmission,ifanything,possiblymakeshimlookalittleolderthanseeinghimintheflesh.110

ENO029spent546daysindetentioninAustralia–383oftheminanadultcorrectionalfacility.

Theissueofbailforindividualswhoseagewasindisputewasdiscussedon3November2011atameetingbetweentheDepartmentofForeignAffairsandTradeandIndonesianEmbassyofficials.Atthatmeeting,theIndonesianofficialsrequestedthatindividualsbebailedintoimmigrationdetentioninallcaseswhereageisindispute.111Inasubsequentdiscussion,AGDadvisedthat,whiletheCommonwealthdoesnotgenerallyopposebailwherecrewsaytheyareminors,thisisnotapolicysettingthathasbeenannounced.112

FollowingthedecisioninRvRMA,inwhichaDistrictCourtJudgepreferredtheevidenceofProfessorColeoverDrLow,theOfficeoftheCDPPdecidedtowritetotherepresentativesofalldefendantsinpeoplesmugglingmatterswhereagewasindisputetoadvisethemthatbailapplicationswouldnotbeopposed.AlllegalofficersattheOfficeoftheCDPPresponsibleforpeoplesmugglingmatterswhereagewasindisputewereinstructedtowritetodefendants’legalrepresentativesinthefollowingterms:

Wenotethatyouclientisintheprocessofclaimingthathewasajuvenileatthetimetheallegedoffenceoccurredandthatnobailapplicationhasbeenmadeonhisbehalf.Asaresultyourclienthasremainedonremandratherthaninimmigrationdetention.

YouwouldbeawarethatthisOfficehasasamatterofpracticenormallynotopposedbailincircumstanceswheredefendantsinpeoplesmugglingmattersareclaimingthattheywerejuvenilesatthetimeoftheoffence.

Wesuggestthatyourclientconsidersmakinganapplicationforbailinlightoftheabovepractice.Asyouareawareabailapplicationcanbebroughtonatanytime.113

FromthedocumentsbeforetheCommission,itappearsthatthedefendant’slegalrepresentativeswereinformedofthechangeinpositioninrelationtobailsoonafterthisinstructionwassenttoofficersattheOfficeoftheCDPP.

310


3 Guardianship

Individualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingoffenceswhoareundertheageof18(otherthanthoseaccompaniedbyanimmediatefamilymember)donothavealegalguardianwhiletheyaredetainedinAustralia.ThisisbecausetheImmigration(GuardianshipofChildren)Act1946(Cth),whichprovidesthattheMinisterforImmigrationandCitizenshipistheguardianofunaccompaniednon-citizenchildren,appliesonlytochildrenwhointendtobecomepermanentresidentsofAustralia.114Thismeansthatforminorcrew,whodonotintendtostayinAustraliapermanently,no-onehaslegalresponsibilityforensuringthattheirbestinterestsareconsideredatalltimes.TheCommissionPresidentraisedthisissuewiththethenAttorney-Generalincorrespondenceof17February2011.AttheInquiryhearing,aseniorAGDofficeradmittedthatAGDdidnotactimmediatelyonthisconcern,butsubsequentlyhaddiscussionswithOILandwithDIAC.115AdvicewasalsosoughtfromOILregardingtheViennaConventiononConsularRelationsaftertheIndonesianEmbassyraisedthepossibilityofConsularofficialsactingasguardiansofyoungIndonesiansinAustralia.116However,itdoesnotappearthatanystepshavebeentakentoprovideindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhosaythattheyareminorswithguardians.

AsdiscussedinChapter1,theprincipleofthebenefitofthedoubtmeansthatifthereisapossibilitythatanindividualisachild,thenheorsheshouldbetreatedassuch.Further,ifthereisapossibilitythatapersonisachild,heorshehastherighttoreceivespecialcareandprotection,includingthroughtheappointmentofaguardian.117

Theroleofaguardianistoensurethatthebestinterestsofthechildareconsideredatalltimes.Fortheguardianofachildsuspectedofpeoplesmuggling,thisincludesensuringthechild’sbestinterestsareconsideredindecisionsabouthowheistreatedwhileindetentionaswellashowheistreatedduringtheinvestigationandprosecutionprocesses.

TheAustralianChildren’sCommissionersandGuardiansintheirsubmissiontotheInquiryarguedthatitisimportantthatyoungpeoplesuspectedofpeoplesmugglingoffenceshaveaccesstoanindependentguardiantoensurethattheirbestinterestsareconsideredinalldecisionsthataffectthem.Theystated:

Toprotectthebestinterestsofyoungpeoplesuspectedofpeoplesmuggling,accesstoanindependentguardianappointedwithstatutoryresponsibilitiesforensuringtheprotectionoftheirrightsandtomonitortheirtreatmentandwellbeingisimportant.Anyappointmentofaguardianhowevershouldnotbeconsideredasubstitutefortheprovisionofearlyaccesstolegaladvice,assistanceandrepresentation,particularlyastheageassessmentprocesshassignificantramificationsinacriminallawcontext.118

Inprinciple,theCommissionbelievesthatallchildreninAustraliawhoareseparatedfromtheirparentsshouldbeprovidedwithanindependentguardiantoensuretheprotectionoftheir


bestinterests.Thisisespeciallythecasewhereindividualswhosaythattheyarechildrenfaceinvestigationandpotentialprosecutionforcriminaloffences.

Inmost,butnotall,cases,ayoungIndonesiansuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhosaidthathewasachildwasprovidedwiththesupportofanindependentadultduringhisinterviewswiththeAFP.AssetoutinChapter4,theindependentadultwasordinarilyarepresentativefromtheNGOLifeWithoutBarriers.LifeWithoutBarriersrepresentativeshavenolegaladvocacyresponsibilitiesunderthecontractbetweenLifeWithoutBarriersandDIAC;theyareessentiallypassiveobserversintheinterviewprocess.119

AssetoutinChapter4,theCommissiondoesnotviewthesupportprovidedbytheindependentadulttoyoungIndonesiansduringtheprocessofprovidingconsenttohavebeenofthestandardthataguardianwouldbeexpectedtoprovide.

Moreover,itappearsthatthesupportprovidedbytheindependentadultduringanindividual’sinterviewwiththeAFPforthepurposeoftheinvestigationofapeoplesmugglingoffencewasalsonotofthestandardthataguardianwouldbeexpectedtoprovide.

Althoughtheintervieweeswereofferedtheopportunitytocontactalawyer,itappearsfromthedocumentsbeforetheCommissionthatalargeproportionofthemelectednottospeaktoalawyerbeforecontinuingwiththeAFPinvestigationinterview.TheCommissionisnotawareofanycaseinwhichtheLifeWithoutBarriersrepresentativeadvisedthechildtospeaktoalawyerbeforeparticipatingintheAFPinvestigationinterview.Asaresult,manyoftheseindividualsdidnotspeaktoanyadultwhocouldrepresenttheirbestinterests,oradvisethemaboutcriminalproceduresinAustralia,untilaftertheywerechargedbytheAFPasanadultandbecameentitledtoagrantoflegalaid.Itisreasonabletoexpectthatalegalguardianwouldbemoreproactiveinencouragingayoungpersonwhowasbeingdetainedforthepurposeofacriminalinvestigationtoobtainlegaladviceattheearliestpossiblestage.Insituationswhereyoungpeoplearebeinginvestigatedandprosecutedforseriouscriminaloffences,itisimportantthattheyareprovidedwithalegalguardianwhocanadvocatefortheprotectionoftheirbestinterests.

4 Legal advice and assistance

TheJointCommonwealthsubmissiontotheInquiryobservesthatlegalaidfundedlawyersareresponsibleforprovidinglegaladviceandrepresentingpeoplesmugglingcrewincourt.Thesubmissionstatesthat:

Thisincludesprovidingadvice,bothpriortochargingandwhilebeforethecourt,onwhethertoraiseageasanissueandthemostappropriatewaytodoso.120

312


RecordsprovidedtotheCommissionindicatethatyoungIndonesianssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingareinitiallyofferedaccesstolegalassistancewhenfirstinterviewedbytheAFP.Thisinterviewisusuallyforthepurposesofobtainingconsentforawristx-raytobetaken.Atthebeginningofeachinterviewofthiskindtheindividualisordinarilyadvisedofhisrighttocommunicatewithalegalpractitioner.Inmanycases,individualssaidthattheydidnotwishtospeaktoalawyeratthattime.121Itappearsthatwhereindividualsdidspeaktoalawyer,theygenerallystillconsentedtothewristx-rayprocedure.

Iftheinvestigationcontinues,individualsareordinarilyofferedanopportunitytoparticipateinaninterviewwiththeAFPaspartoftheinvestigationprocess.ThedocumentsprovidedtotheCommissionindicatethatcrewarealsoroutinelyofferedaccesstolegalassistanceatthecommencementofinterviewsofthiskind.Inmanycases,individualshavesaidthattheydidnotwishtospeaktoalawyeratthattime.DocumentsprovidedtotheInquiryindicatethatthecrewwhoasktospeakwithalawyernormallyrefusetoparticipateintheAFPinterview.

Inbothofthesituationsdescribedabove,accesstolegalassistanceappearstobeobtainedthroughatelephonecalltothelocallegalaidoffice.

ThesubmissionbytheNorthernTerritoryLegalAidCommissiondiscussedthelegalaidgrantprocess.Itreportedthatindividualswhoarebeingheldinimmigrationdetentionpendinginvestigationofcriminalchargesareabletocontactalegalaidlawyerforpreliminaryandsimplelegaladvice,includingadviceabout:

• participatinginAFPinterviews

• theprocessofconsentingtousingawristx-raytodetermineage

• thestatusoftheAFPinvestigationintotheirallegedoffence.122

LegalaidagenciesexpressedconcerntotheCommissionaboutthepointintimeatwhichlegalassistanceisprovided.Whileitisopenforanindividualtoseekone-offlegaladvicefromalegalaidagencyatanytime,agrantoflegalaid(whichmeansalawyerisallocatedtorepresentanindividual)isgenerallynotmadeuntilcriminalchargeshavebeenlaid.

LegalAidNSWandLegalAidQueenslandbothsubmittedthatsuspectsshouldbeprovidedwithlegaladvicepriortoparticipatinginDIACentryinterviewsorDIACageassessmentinterviews.123LegalAidQueenslandsubmittedthatthisisbecausesuchinterviewshavebeenrelieduponbytheOfficeoftheCDPPinagedeterminationhearings.124

TheNorthernTerritoryLegalAidCommissionalsoexpressedconcernthatDIACinterviewsmayhaveasignificantimpactonthewayinwhichanindividualistreated,yet:


thereisnoobligationtocautionapersonorprovideaccesstolegaladvicepriortoparticipatingintheseinterviews.Thisissignificantastheinterviewmayformthebasisofthetypeofdetentioninwhichthepersonisheld,whetherornotchargesarelaidandultimatelythereisthepotentialforthemtobeusedincourtinagedeterminationproceedings.125

Similarly,LegalAidQueenslandsubmittedthatlegalassistanceshouldbeprovidedpriortoanyinterviewbyaDIACofficerwhichraisesquestionsaboutaperson’sage.126

LegalAidNSWalsoidentifiedaneedforindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhoseageisinissuetoreceivelegaladviceveryearlyintheinvestigationprocess.Itsubmitted:

Immediateadviceforallpeoplesuspectedofpeoplesmugglingisessentialsothatlawyerscanobtaininstructionsabouttheirage.Iftheyareunder18,lawyersneedtobeabletoadvisethemontherisksandbenefitsofwristx-raysandassistinobtainingagedocumentation,likeFamilyCardsandaffidavitsfromparentsasearlyaspossible.127

CommissionstaffmembersassistingtheInquirymetanumberofindividualswhohavebeenconvictedofpeoplesmugglingwhosaythattheywerechildrenwhentheywereapprehended.Manyofthoseindividualstoldthemthattheyrememberedalongtimepassingbetweenthetimetheyarrivedandthetimetheyfirstspoketoalawyer.Mostsaidthatthefirsttimetheyrememberedspeakingtoalawyerwasaftertheyhadbeenchargedanddetainedinprison;usuallyaboutoneyearafterarrivinginAustralia.128

TheCommissionisconcernedthat,insomecases,thereweresignificantdelaysinyoungIndonesiansbeingprovidedwithagrantoflegalaidafterbeingchargedwithpeoplesmuggling.Forexample,fouryoungIndonesianswhohadbeenremandedtoanadultcorrectionalfacilityon17October2009hadstillnotbeengrantedlegalaidon2November2009.129

5 Crew may be victims of trafficking

ThecircumstancesofmanyoftheyoungIndonesianssuspected,orconvicted,ofpeoplesmugglingoffencessuggestthattheymayhavebeendeceptivelyorforciblyrecruitedtoworkascrewonboatsbringingasylumseekerstoAustralia.

5.1 What is people trafficking?

Traffickinginpersonsinvolvesthephysicalmovementofpeopleacrossandwithinbordersthroughdeception,coercionorforceforthepurposeofexploitation.130Deceptiveorcoercivemeansincludesthethreatoruseofforce,fraudandabuseofpowerorapositionofvulnerability.131Exploitationmeansconductseriousenoughtobedescribedassexualexploitation,forcedlabour,slaveryorequivalentpractices.132

314


5.2 The legal framework around trafficking in Australia

TheAustralianGovernmenthasmadeacommitmenttocombattraffickinginpersonsandtoprovidevictimswithappropriatesupport.133

Australiahasinternationalobligationstopreventtraffickinginpersons.Australiaratifiedtheinternationalprotocoltopreventtraffickingin2005.134Additionally,theCRC,towhichAustraliaisaparty,callsonStatepartiestotakeallappropriatemeasurestopreventtheabductionof,thesaleofortrafficinchildrenforanypurposeorinanyform.135

Australiahaspassedlegislationtocreatearangeofpeopletraffickingoffences,includingaspecificoffenceoftraffickinginchildren.TheseoffencesarefoundinDivision271oftheCommonwealthCriminalCode.

InaNovember2010statementtoParliament,thethenMinisterforHomeAffairsandJustice,wholedthewhole-of-governmentanti-peopletraffickingstrategy,describedtraffickinginpersonsasa‘heinouscrimewhichinvolvesseriouscontraventionsofhumanrights’.136

5.3 The experiences of young Indonesians suspected of people smuggling offences

AsdiscussedinChapter1,manyoftheyoungIndonesianswhoworkonboatsthatbringasylumseekerstoAustraliaarerecruitedfromconditionsofpoverty,havelowlevelsofeducationandhaveexperiencedfrequentperiodsofunemployment,takingupworkasanopportunityarises.

ItappearsfromthedocumentsbeforetheCommission,andfromtheinterviewsbetweenmembersofCommissionstaffandindividualsconvictedofpeoplesmuggling,thatmanyoftheyoungIndonesiansthesubjectofthisInquirywererecruitedtoworkonboatsbringingasylumseekerstoAustraliawithoutknowingthepurposeoftheirjourneyorthattheirfinaldestinationwastobeAustralia.

ManyindividualswhohavebeeninvestigatedandprosecutedforpeoplesmugglingoffencesinAustraliaappeartohavebeentoldthattheywouldbetransportingcargo,suchasriceorfruit,aroundIndonesianislandsorthattheywouldbetakingtouristsonatouroftheIndonesianarchipelago.137Someindividualsreportasylumseekersbeingbroughtontotheboatsomedistancefromtheshoreinthemiddleofthenight.138ManyoftheyoungIndonesianssaidthatatthatpointintimetherewasnoalternativebuttostayontheboatthateventuallycametoAustralia.139InhisinterviewwiththeAFP,OSB051said:


Iwaslookingforaboatinordertogetajobtobringtimber,totransporttimber,butIcouldn’tfindajob.…Hesaid,Doyouwanttoworkwithme?Hesaid,Ifyouwanttoworkwithmefourdays,I’llgiveyouamillion....SoI,Isaidtohim,Onemillionforfourdays.WhatamIgoingtodo?Andhesaid,We’llbetransportingrice.ThenhetoldmetogetdownontheboatandsoIwaitedfromtheearlyeveningtolatenightandthericedidnotarrive.So,becauseIwaswatchingoveronthatboatthen,fromearly,thenIwenttosleep.Sowhenwelefttheydidnotwakemeup.Andthen,inthemiddleofthenight,IwokeupandIwentaftandtherewerealotofpeoplethere.Iaskedthecaptain,Wherearewegoing?Andthecaptainwassilent,didnotanswerandIsaid,Youknow,theysaidtheywouldtakericeandsuddenlythereareallthosepeople.SoIwasscaredbecausetherewerealotofpeople.SoIstartedtocry.Sotheywantedmetobethecook.Soforfourdays,so,sofrom,untiltwoo’clockinthemorning....IthoughtthatwearrivedinSumba–that’sanotherisland–becausethatjourneyhadtakenfour,fourdaysandIthoughtwehadarrivedfromSumba.Thenthey,theyorderedmetoputtheanchordown.IputtheanchordownandtherewerelightsthereandIthoughtwewereinSumba.Thenaboutseveno’clockinthemorningsuddenlytherewasthenavyandIwasscaredandIwascrying.Thenwetookusuponthebigboatandthey,or,orRoger(?)didbroughtthepeoplehereandIsaid,Yes,IwaswrongandIwasalsocheatedbythosepeople.Sothatwasmyexperience.140

Someindividualsreporthavingbeenthreatenedbythecaptainoftheboat,orbeingleftontheboattotraveltoAustraliawhenothercrewmembersgotoffbeforereachingAustralianwaters.141Inamemorecommendingaprosecutionbediscontinued,theOfficeoftheCDPPdescribedwhatonepassengersaidhadhappenedtotheyoungestcrewmemberontheboatthathadbroughthimtoAustralia.Hereported:

Inthestatementof[apassenger]dated7January2011,henotedthattherewereoriginally5crewmembers,butthatthe‘Captain’and‘Mechanic’gotoffthevesselnearRotiIsland.HestatedthathissonwasabletospeakIndonesianandthattheyoungestcrewmember[name]was‘cryingandaskingtheCaptaintolethimgetoffaswellbuttheCaptainwouldn’tlethim’....HeadvisedthatwhenthetwocrewgotoffthevesselatRote,theyoungestcrewmemberstartedcrying.Hesaidthetwocrewmemberswerespeakingsoftlytotheyoungcrewmemberandthattheyoungcrewmemberwascryingsoftly....Hesaidhissontoldhimthattheboywassayinghewantedtogetoff,buttheCaptainandMechanicwhowereleavingthevesselwouldn’tlethim....[T]heboysaidhewantedtogetoffthevessel,buthewastoldhehadtokeeptravellingwiththepassengers.142

Althoughmostarepromisedsignificantsumsofmoneyinreturnfortheirlabour,manyindividualsreportthattheywerenotpaidawagefortheirwork.Alternatively,theyreportbeingpromisedthatanypaymentwouldbemadeontheirreturntoIndonesia.143

ThesecircumstancessuggestthepossibilitythatatleastsomeyoungIndonesianswhohavecrewedboatsbringingasylumseekerstoAustraliaarevictimsoftrafficking.Whilesomeindividualsmaynothavetoldthetruthabouttheextentoftheirknowledgeofthepurposeoftheirtrip,orabouttheirexperiencesonthejourney,itseemsunlikelythattheyhaveallbeenuntruthful.

316


6 Findings

6.1 Findings regarding Criminal Justice Stay Certificates

AdecisiontoissueorgrantaCJSCismadebyadelegateoftheAttorney-General.However,itappearsthatinthecasesunderconsiderationbythisInquiry,thedecisiontoissueorcancelaCJSCwasmadelargelyonthebasisoftheopinionoftheinvestigatingorprosecutingagencyastowhetheraCJSCwasrequired.

FormostoftheperiodoftimeunderconsiderationbythisInquiry,itappearsthattherewasnoformalsysteminplaceforconductingasystematicreviewofallCJSCsthatwereinforce.Inparticular,itappearsthattherewasnosystematicreviewofwhethereachindividualsubjecttoaCJSCcontinuedtoberequiredinAustraliaforthepurposeforwhichthecertificatehadbeenissued.SomeindividualsremainedindetentioninAustraliaforsignificantperiodsoftimeafteradecisionhadbeenmadethattheywerenolongerrequiredforthepurposeofinvestigatingorprosecutingacriminaloffence.AsystemofregularandfrequentreviewofCJSCsthatareinforceshouldreducethelikelihoodoferrorsofthiskindoccurring.

6.2 Findings regarding the place and length of detention

ManyyoungIndonesianssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingspentprolongedperiodsoftimeinimmigrationdetentionfacilities,eitherpriortothemakingofadecisionthattheyshouldnotbeprosecuted,orpriortotheirbeingchargedwithanoffence.Insomecasesthiswasbecauseittookasignificantamountoftimeforanx-rayoftheirwristtobetaken.Inothers,thelengthoftheAFPinvestigationprocessaffectedthetimeanindividualspentinimmigrationdetentionpriortocharge.

ManyyoungIndonesianssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingspentasignificantamountoftimeinadultcorrectionalfacilitiesafterbeingchargedandbeforeultimatelyhavingtheprosecutionagainstthemdiscontinued.Manyofthemwereremandedinadultcorrectionalfacilitiesbeforetheiragehadbeendeterminedbyacourt.OftenthiswasasaresultoftheAFPassigninganindividualadateofbirthbasedonwristx-rayanalysis,evenwheretheexactdateofbirthwasunknownorindispute.Onceadateofbirthhadbeenassigned,itdoesnotappearthatStateandTerritorycorrectionalauthoritieswereprovidedsufficientinformationaboutthedisputeregardinganindividual’sage,includingspecificinformationaboutthelimitationsofwristx-rayanalysisfordeterminingage,toensurethatindividualswereplacedincorrectionalfacilitiesappropriatefortheirage.


Inalargenumberofcasesinwhichagewasindoubt,ultimatelyadecisionwasmadetodiscontinuetheprosecutionbecausetheCommonwealthconsidereditunlikelythatthecourtwouldfind,onthebalanceofprobabilities,thattheindividualwasover18yearsofageatthetimeoftheoffence.Itisareasonableconclusionthatasignificantproportionoftheseindividualswereinfactunder18yearsofageatthetimeoftheirapprehension.ManyyoungIndonesiansinthissituationspentprolongedperiodsoftimeinadultcorrectionalfacilities.

6.3 Findings regarding bail

ItappearsthatmanyyoungIndonesianssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhoseagewasindoubtspentasignificantamountoftimeinadultcorrectionalfacilitiespartlybecause,untilJuly2011,Commonwealthpolicywastoopposeapplicationsforbailmadeinthesecircumstances.Although,fromJuly2011,theCommonwealthnolongeropposedbailinpeoplesmugglingmatterswhereagewasindispute,thischangeinpolicywasnotannouncedorcommunicatedtolegalrepresentativesuntilNovember2011.Asaresultofthis,manyindividualsremainedindetentioninadultcorrectionalfacilitiesforaprolongedperiodoftimebeforetheiragehadbeendeterminedbyacourtortheircasebroughttotrial.

6.4 Findings regarding guardianship

YoungIndonesianssuspectedofpeoplesmuggling,andunaccompaniedbyanyadultwhoisabletoactastheirguardian,donothaveaguardianinAustralia.Consequently,noindependentadultischargedwithensuringthattheirbestinterestsareconsideredandprotectedinalldecisionsandactionsconcerningthem.

6.5 Findings regarding legal advice and assistance

AlthoughyoungIndonesianssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhoseageswereindoubtwereroutinelyofferedanopportunitytospeakwithalawyerpriortoprovidingtheirconsenttoawristx-rayprocedure,itappearsthatinasignificantnumberofcasestheydidnotdoso.

ManyadvocateshavearguedthataccesstolegaladviceshouldbeprovidedpriortoparticipationinaDIACageassessmentinterview.However,theCommissionhasacceptedthesubmissionofDIACthattherewillbecaseswherethisisnotnecessary,forexampleinthecaseofanobviouslyyoungchildwhoistobepromptlyremovedtoIndonesia.144ArequirementthatlegaladvicebeprovidedbeforeaDIACageassessmentinterviewinthesecircumstancesmayprolongtheindividualsdetention.However,legaladviceshouldbeprovidedpriortoanyageassessmentinterviewintendedtobereliedoninalegalproceeding.

318


Insomecases,thereweresubstantialdelaysbetweenthetimeanindividualwaschargedwithapeoplesmugglingoffenceandthetimethathewasprovidedwithagrantoflegalaid.

Asdiscussedinsection3above,youngIndonesianssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingdonothavealegalguardianinAustralia.Theeffectofthishasbeenthatuntiltheyhavebeenchargedandreceiveagrantoflegalaid,theyhavenoindependentadultrepresentingtheirbestinterestsduringtheinvestigationorprosecutionprocesses.

6.6 Findings regarding trafficking

ItappearstotheInquirythatsomeyoungIndonesianswhoarriveascrewonboatsbringingasylumseekerstoAustraliamaybevictimsoftrafficking.Assuch,theyshouldbetreatedasvictimsofcrimeandsupportedappropriately.

__________________________________________________________________________________

1MigrationAct1958(Cth),s189(3).2MigrationAct1958(Cth),s189(3).3MigrationAct1958(Cth),s196(1).4MigrationAct1958(Cth),ss250(1)–(3).ButseeHumanRightsCouncilofAustralia,Submission39,p4.

TheHumanRightsCouncilofAustraliaarguesthatthereisdoubtastowhethers189oftheMigrationActcanpermitapersontobedetainedinimmigrationdetentionforthepurposespecifiedins250(3).TheCommissionhasnotsoughttoevaluatethisargument.

5MigrationAct1958(Cth),s198(1).6MigrationAct1958(Cth),s147.7MigrationAct1958(Cth),ss143,147(1)(b)(iii).8MigrationAct1958(Cth),ss147,150.9MigrationAct1958(Cth),ss155(2),157(a),158.10MigrationAct1958(Cth),s161(2)(b).11PrincipalLegalOfficer,AGD,EmailtoDirector,HumanRightsUnit,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,

2April2012.12AssistantSecretary,InternationalCrimeCooperationDivision,AGD,Transcriptofhearing,Publichearing

forCommonwealthagencies(20April2012),p147.SeealsoMigrationAct1958(Cth),s147(1)(b)(iii).13PrincipalLegalOfficer,AGD,EmailtoDirector,HumanRightsUnit,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,

2April2012.14CriminalJusticeStayCertificate,AGD,13August2010(JAM074–AFPdocument1);Biodataform,DIAC,

2July2010(JAM074–DIACdocument).15TeamLeader,ChristmasIslandDetentionOperations,DIAC,EmailtoTeamLeader,PeopleSmuggling

StrikeTeam,DIAC,20October2010(JAM074–DIACdocumentmail39646050).16Consenttocarryoutaprescribedprocedure(wristx-ray)–individual,AFP,21December2010(JAM074

–AFPdocument7).


17CriminalJusticeStayCertificate,AGD,16February2010(TRA029–AFPdocument2);Consenttocarryoutaprescribedprocedure(wristx-ray)–individual,AFP,2March2010(TRA029–AFPdocument4).

18MigrationAct1958(Cth),s162(1).SeealsoAssistantSecretary,InternationalCrimeCooperationDivision,AGD,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(20April2012),p147.

19PrincipalLegalOfficer,AGD,EmailtoDirector,HumanRightsUnit,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,2April2012.

20NationalManagerCrimeOperations,AFP,LettertoFirstAssistantSecretary,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,7September2010(AFPdocumentprovided5April2012).

21FirstAssistantSecretary,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,LettertoNationalManagerCrimeOperations,AFP,20September2010(AFPdocumentprovided5April2012).

22PrincipalLegalOfficer,AGD,EmailtoDirector,HumanRightsUnit,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,2April2012.

23AssistantSecretary,InternationalCrimeCooperationDivision,AGD,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(20April2012),p152.

24AssistantSecretary,InternationalCrimeCooperationDivision,AGD,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(20April2012),p152.

25FederalAgent,AFP,CaseNote–Decisionnottoprosecute,26November2010(NOK040–AFPdocument1).

26FederalAgent,AFP,CaseNote,10February2011(NOK040–AFPdocument2).27[BAI031]vMinisterforImmigration&Citizenship[2011]NTSC45,[23].28HumanRightsLawCentre,Submission34,p4.29[BAI031]vMinisterforImmigration&Citizenship[2011]NTSC45,[22].30Director,Enforcement&CitizenshipLitigationSection,DIAC,‘CJSCforSIEVCrew–ProcessPaper’,15

December2009,Attachment–EmailfromDirector,Enforcement&CitizenshipSection,DIAC,toFederalAgent,AFP,10May2011(DIACdocumentmail39645896).

31DIACdocumentmail39645896,above.32DIACdocumentmail39645896,above.33SeniorAssistantDirector,LegalandPracticeManagementandPolicyBranch,CDPP,EmailtoDirector,

CDPP,18November2010(CDPPdocument3–AttachmentD).34CDPPdocument3–AttachmentD,above.35SeniorAssistantDirector,LegalandPracticeManagementandPolicyBranch,CDPP,EmailtotheAFP,

DIACandAGD,11May2011(DIACdocumentmail39645896).36SeniorAssistantDirector,LegalandPracticeManagementandPolicyBranch,CDPP,EmailtotheAFP,

AGDandDIAC,15June2011(AGDdocumentPROS-42).37ConventionontheRightsoftheChild(CRC),art37(b).Athttp://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm

(viewed9July2012).38SeniorLegalOfficer,OfficeofInternationalLaw,AGD,LettertoPrincipalLegalOfficer,PeopleSmuggling

andBorderProtectionSection,AGD,2May2011,Attachment–EmailfromOfficer,BorderManagementandCrimePreventionBranch,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,4May2011(AGDdocumentPROS-27),pp1–2,4.

39Consenttocarryoutaprescribedprocedure(wristx-ray)–individual,AFP,21December2010(OTF049–AFPdocument4);FederalAgent,AFP,CaseNote,22December2010(OTF049–AFPdocument6).

320


40FederalAgent,AFPBrisbaneOffice,CaseNote,14February2011(YAL048–AFPdocument10);FederalAgent,AFPBrisbaneOffice,CaseNote,18February2011(YAL048–AFPdocument11).

41Consenttocarryoutaprescribedprocedure(wristx-ray)–individual,AFP,18May2011(GRD044–AFPdocument4);FederalAgent,AFPCanberraOffice,CaseNote,25May2011(GRD044–AFPdocument8).

42Consenttocarryoutaprescribedprocedure(wristx-ray)–individual,AFP,12November2010(CRO033–AFPdocument6);FederalAgent,AFP,CaseNote,1December2010(CRO033–AFPdocument9).

43Seeforexample,ActingAssistantSecretary,ImmigrationIntelligenceBranch,DIAC,EmailtoDIACOfficers,28November2010(DIACdocumentmail39646078);CommonwealthagenciesmeetingonpeoplesmugglingcrewissuessupportingtheSeniorOfficials’Committeeteleconference,MinutesandOutcomes,20May2011(AGDdocumentPROS-39).

44Seeforexample,ActingAssistantSecretary,ImmigrationIntelligenceBranch,DIAC,EmailtoDeputyProjectLeader,CommunityDetentionImplementation,DIAC,21November2010(DIACdocumentmail39646098);AGDdocumentPROS-39,above.

45HumanRightsCouncilofAustralia,Submission39,p4;HumanRightsLawCentre,Submission34,p5.46VictoriaLegalAid,Submission13,p15.47EdwinaLloyd,Submission29,p5.Therealnameofthisindividualwaschangedinthesubmission

providedtotheInquiry.48VictoriaLegalAid,Submission13,p16.49VictoriaLegalAid,Submission13,p16.50LegalAidNSW,Submission35,p11.51AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,pp22–23.52AFP,Responsetodraftreport,6July2012,pp14–15.53AFP,Responsetodraftreport,6July2012,pp16–17.54LegalAidNSW,Submission35,p11.55AFP,Responsetothedraftreport,6July2012,p17.56VictoriaLegalAid,Submission13,pp12–13.57DepartmentofImmigrationandCitizenship,Submission37,p2.58Seegenerally,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,Immigrationdetentionandhumanrights,http://

www.humanrights.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/detention_rights.html#5(viewed9July2012).59AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,p25.60Officer,LegalandPracticeManagementBranch,CDPP,EmailtoSeniorLegalOfficer,FinancialCrime&

BorderManagementSection,AGD,3February2010(AGDdocumentLEG-1).61Coordinator,YouthLegalAidQueensland,EmailtoOfficer,CDPP,19October2010(OFD029–CDPP

document289.0101).62FederalAgent,AFP,CaseNote,21January2011(WIL025–AFPdocument15).63SeniorAssistantDirector,CDPPMelbourneOffice,LettertoManagingLawyer,VictoriaLegalAid,7March

2011(BOM062–CDPPdocument155.0216).64Lawyer,CDPPMelbourneOffice,EmailtoFederalAgent,AFP,7March2011(BOM062–CDPPdocument

115.0211).65AFP,Responsetodraftreport,6July2012,p23.


66AssistantDirector,PrincipalAdvisor’sUnit,Citizenship,SettlementandMulticulturalAffairs,DIAC,EmailtoOfficers,DIAC,13October2010(DIACdocumentmail39646157).

67Officer,OfficeofInternationalLaw,AGD,‘PeoplesmugglingoffencesandtheConventionontheRightsoftheChild’,Attachment–EmailfromOfficer,OfficeofInternationalLaw,AGD,toLegalOfficer,AGD,8April2011(AGDdocumentPROS-13).

68SeniorLegalOfficer,PeopleSmugglingBranch,CDPPPerthOffice,EmailtoOfficers,DIAC,24August2010(KAD059–CDPPdocument026.0434).

69SpecialCounsel,DIAC,EmailtoOfficers,DIAC,17September2010(DIACdocumentmail39646141).70TranscriptofProceedings,TheQueenvRMA(DistrictCourtofWesternAustralia,EatonDCJ,11

November2011),p261.71Warrantdirectingdischargeofpersonheldincustody,CDPP,14November2011(UPW031–CDPP

document038.0006).72AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,pp24–25.73Ministers’OfficeBrief–MinisterforHomeAffairs,Crewprosecutionandagedeterminationissues,30

August2011(AGDdocumentBRIEF-32).74AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,p25.75Ministers’OfficeBrief–MinisterforHomeAffairs,Crewprosecutionandagedeterminationissues,30

August2011(AGDdocumentBRIEF-32).76FederalAgent,AFP,CaseNote,13May2010(OFD030–AFPdocument8);FederalAgent,AFP,Emailto

TeamLeader,AFPBrisbaneOffice,22July2010(OFD030–AFPdocument48).77FederalAgent,AFPBrisbaneOffice,MinutetoCoordinator,CrimeOperations,AFPBrisbaneOffice,17

September2010(OFD030–AFPdocument40).78FederalAgent,AFPBrisbaneOffice,CaseNote:Authoritytocharge,30November2011(OFD030–AFP

document57).79FederalAgent,AFPBrisbaneOffice,EmailtoFederalAgent,AFP,27September2010(OFD030–AFP

document41).80IntelligenceAnalyst,JusticeIntelligenceServices,WADepartmentofCorrectiveServices,EmailtoWA

ReturnsandRemovals,DIAC,9September2010(KAD059–DIACdocumentmail39646221).81SeniorAssistantDirector,CounterTerrorism&PeopleSmugglingBranch,CDPP,EmailtoSeniorAssistant

Director,LegalandPracticeManagementandPolicyBranch,CDPP,22October2010(DIACdocumentmail39646033).

82Commissioner,QueenslandCorrectiveServices,LettertoSecretary,AGD,26July2011(AGDdocumentENG-ST-26).

83SeniorAssistantDirector,CDPP,LettertoAssistantCommissioner,NationalManagerCrimeOperations,AFP,3March2011(CDPPdocumentAttachmentDDocument5).

84Seeforexample,FederalAgent,PeopleSmugglingStrikeTeam,AFP,EmailtoFederalAgent,AFP,20May2011(WID021–CDPPdocument089.0154).

85AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,p25.86VictoriaLegalAid,Submission13,p5.87AssistantCommissioner,NationalManagerCrimeOperations,AFP,EmailtoSeniorAssistantDirector,

LegalandPracticeManagementandPolicyBranch,CDPP,6April2011(AFPdocument).

322


88SeniorAssistantDirector,LegalandPracticeManagementandPolicyBranch,CDPP,EmailtoAssistantCommissioner,NationalManagerCrimeOperations,AFP,7April2011(AFPdocument).

89SeniorAssistantDirector,LegalandPracticeManagementandPolicyBranch,CDPP,EmailtoAssistantCommissioner,NationalManagerCrimeOperations,AFP,7April2011(AFPdocument).

90PrincipalLegalOfficer,PeopleSmuggling,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,EmailtoOfficers,AGD,7April2011(AGDdocumentPROS-14).

91Officer,OfficeofInternationalLaw,AGD,‘PeopleSmugglingOffencesandtheConventionontheRightsoftheChildtoAGDofficers:Preliminaryresponses’,Attachment–EmailfromOfficer,OfficeofInternationalLaw,AGD,toLegalOfficer,AGD,8April2011(AGDdocumentPROS-13).

92AssistantCommissioner,NationalManagerCrimeOperations,AFP,EmailtoFirstAssistantSecretary,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,14April2011(AFPdocument).

93AssistantCommissioner,NationalManagerCrimeOperations,AFP,EmailtoSeniorAssistantDirector,LegalandPracticeManagementandPolicyBranch,CDPP,14April2011(AFPdocument).

94DeputyDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,EmailtoPeopleSmugglinggrouplist,18April2011(BOM062–CDPPdocument052.0024).

95SeniorAssistantDirector,LegalandPracticeManagementandPolicyBranch,CDPP,EmailtoAssistantCommissioner,NationalManagerCrimeOperations,AFP,19April2011(AGDdocumentPROS-25).

96LegalAidNSW,Submission35,p10.97SeniorLegalOfficer,OfficeofInternationalLaw,AGD,LettertoOfficer,AGD,PeopleSmugglingand

BorderProtectionSection,AGD,2May2011(AGDdocumentPROS-27),pp5–6.98ActingDirector,IrregularMaritimeArrivalsOperationsSection,Community&DetentionServicesDivision,

DIAC,EmailtoDeputyProjectLeader,CommunityDetentionImplementation,PrincipalAdvisor’sUnit,DIAC,16May2011(DIACdocumentmail39645765).

99FederalAgent,AFP,CaseNote,1July2011(TOW043–AFPdocument25).100FederalAgent,AFP,CaseNote,17June2011(WIL024–AFPdocument25).101FederalAgent,AFP,CaseNote,12July2011(BAZ138–AFPdocument25).102Officer,CDPPHeadOffice,MinutetoDirector,CDPP,28June2011(BAZ138–CDPPdocument

323.0701).103ActingSeniorAssistantDirector,LegalandPracticeManagementandPolicyBranch,CDPP,Emailto

PrincipalLegalOfficer,AGD,5July2011(AGDdocumentPROS-55).104ActingSeniorDirector,LegalandPracticeManagementandPolicyBranch,CDPP,EmailtoPeople

SmugglingandTraffickingSection,BorderManagementandCrimePreventionBranch,AGD,5July2011(AGDdocumentPROS-54).

105NorthernTerritoryLegalAidCommission,Submission32,p6.106SeniorAssistantDirector,PeopleSmuggling,CDPP,EmailtoOfficers,CDPP,25July2011(ENO029

–CDPPdocument160.0301).107Counselfordefence,LettertoOfficeoftheCDPP,15August2011(ENO029–CDPPdocument

160.0106).108CommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions,Responsetodraftreport,6July2012.109ActingSeniorAssistantDirector,OfficeoftheCDPP,MinutetoDirector,CDPP,19August2011(ENO029

–CDPPdocument323.0535).


110SeniorAssistantDirector,PeopleSmugglingBranch,CDPP,MinutetoDirector,CDPP,18August2011(ENO029–CDPPdocument323.0537).

111DirectorINA,Indonesia,RegionalIssuesandEastTimorBranch,South-EastAsiaDivision,DepartmentofForeignAffairsandTrade,EmailtoPrincipalLegalOfficer,AGD,3November2011(AGDdocumentENG-IG-35).

112PrincipalLegalOfficer,AGD,EmailtoDirectorINA,Indonesia,RegionalIssuesandEastTimorBranch,South-EastAsiaDivision,DepartmentofForeignAffairsandTrade,3November2011(AGDdocumentENG-IG-35).

113SeniorAssistantDirector,LegalandPracticeManagementandPolicyBranch,CDPP,EmailtoOfficers,CDPP,15November2011(TEN051–CDPPdocument286.0157).

114Immigration(GuardianshipofChildren)Act1946(Cth),s4AAA(1)(c).115FirstAssistantSecretary,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,Transcriptofhearing,Publichearingfor

Commonwealthagencies(19April2012),p122;Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(20April2012),pp160–161.


117CommitteeontheRightsoftheChild,GeneralCommentNo.6–TreatmentofUnaccompaniedandSeparatedChildrenOutsideTheirCountryofOrigin,UNDocCRC/GC/2005/6(2005),para33.Athttp://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/42dd174b4.html(viewed9July2012).

118Children’sCommissionersandGuardians,Submission31,p6.119‘ContractofServices,Schedule2C,ItemB.Services’,DIAC(DIACdocumentprovidedtoCommission19

January2012);DeputyProjectLeader,CommunityDetentionImplementation,PrincipalAdvisor’sUnit,DIAC,EmailtoPrincipalLegalOfficer,AGD,11March2011(DIACdocumentmail39642174).

120AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,p26.121Asdiscussedinsection3above,theCommissionisnotawareofanycaseinwhichtheindependent

adultpresentattheinterviewencouragedtheyoungIndonesiantoseeklegaladvicebeforeparticipatingintheAFPinterview.

122NorthernTerritoryLegalAidCommission,Submission32,pp2–3.123LegalAidNSW,Submission35,pp10–11;LegalAidQueensland,Submission6,p4.124LegalAidQueensland,Submission6,p1.125NorthernTerritoryLegalAidCommission,Submission32,p4.126LegalAidQueensland,Submission6,p1.127LegalAidNSW,Submission35,pp10–11.128AustralianHumanRightsCommissioninterviews,AlbanyRegionalPrisonandPardelupPrisonFarm,27

April2012.129OfficerfortheDirector,CDPP,LettertoDirectorofLegalAidWesternAustralia,2November2009

(WAK087–CDPPdocument045.0208).130ProtocoltoPrevent,SuppressandPunishTraffickinginPersons,EspeciallyWomenandChildren,

SupplementingtheUnitedNationsConventionagainstTransnationalOrganizedCrime,2000(ProtocolonTrafficking),art3(a).Athttp://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4720706c0.html(viewed9July2012).SeealsoAustralianGovernment,TraffickinginPersons:theAustralianGovernmentResponse,1July2010–30June2011(2011).Athttp://www.ag.gov.au/Peopletrafficking/Documents/Trafficking+in+Persons.pdf(viewed9July2012).

324


131ProtocolonTrafficking,above,art3(a).132AustralianInstituteofCriminology,TraffickinginPersons(November2011).Athttp://aic.gov.au/en/

crime_types/in_focus/trafficking.aspx(viewed9July2012).133AustralianGovernment,AustralianGovernmentAnti-PeopleTraffickingStrategy(June2009).Athttp://

www.ag.gov.au/Documents/TRAFFICKING%20-%20ENHANCED%20STRATEGY%20-%20FACT%20SHEET%20-%20English.pdf(viewed9July2012).

134SeeUnitedNationsOfficeonDrugsandCrime,Statusofratification,acceptance,approval,accessionandsuccessionoftheProtocoltoPrevent,SuppressandPunishTraffickinginPersons,EspeciallyWomenandChildren,SupplementingtheUnitedNationsConventionagainstTransnationalOrganizedCrime,http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/treaties/CTOC/countrylist-traffickingprotocol.html(viewed9July2012).

135CRC,note37,art35.136MinisterialStatement,HonBO’ConnorMP,MinisterforHomeAffairsandJustice,‘TheGovernment’s

ResponsetoPeopleTrafficking’,22November2010.Athttp://www.ag.gov.au/Documents/Ministerial%20Statement%20AntiTrafficking.pdf(viewed9July2012).

137InterviewwithALE058,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,PardelupPrisonFarm,27April2012;InterviewwithOSB051,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,AlbanyRegionalPrison,26April2012;InterviewwithAliJasmin,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,AlbanyRegionalPrison,26April2012;InterviewwithWAK087,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,PardelupPrisonFarm,27April2012.

138InterviewwithAliJasmin,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,AlbanyRegionalPrison,26April2012;InterviewwithOSB051,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,AlbanyRegionalPrison,26April2012.

139InterviewwithYRE052,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,PardelupPrisonFarm,27April2012.140Transcriptoftapedrecordofinterview,AFP,17March2010(OSB051–CDPPdocument021.0114),p

11.141InterviewwithVMT011,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,AlbanyRegionalPrison,26April2012.142ActingSeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPSydneyOffice,MinutetoActingPrincipalLegalOfficer,CDPP,18

December2011(HWD059–CDPPdocument323.0954).143VictoriaLegalAid,Submission13,p4;InterviewwithALE058,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,

PardelupPrisonFarm,27April2012.144DIAC,Responsetodraftreport,6July2012.


Chapter 8:

Findings and recommendations

326

Chapter 8: Findings and recommendations

Chapter contents

1 Introduction..................................................................................................................... 327

2 Failuretoensurethattheprincipleofthebenefitofthedoubtwasaffordedinallcaseswhereanindividualsaidthathewasachild..................................................................... 327

3 Failuretoensurethatthebestinterestsofthechildareaprimaryconsideration............... 330

4 Failuretoensurethatdetentionofchildrenisameasureoflastresortandfortheshortestappropriateperiodoftime.................................................................................. 330

5 Failuretoensurethatchildrendeprivedoftheirlibertyareseparatedfromadults............. 332

6 Failuretoensurerespectfortherightsofchildrenallegedtohavecommittedanoffence. 333

7 Failuretoensurerespectfortherightsofachildseparatedfromhisorherfamily............. 334

8 Recommendations.......................................................................................................... 334


1 Introduction

ThemajorfindingofthisInquiryisthatAustralia’streatmentofindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingoffenceswhosaidthattheywerechildrenhasledtonumerousbreachesofboththeConvention on the Rights of the Child(CRC)andtheInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR).

ThespecificfindingswithregardtoeachoftheissuesconsideredduringthisInquiryaredetailedattheendofeachchapter.ThisfinalchapterdrawsoneachsetofspecificfindingstoassesswhetherthesystemoftreatmentoftheyoungIndonesianssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhosaidthattheywerechildrenbreachedAustralia’sinternationalhumanrightsobligations.

InconductingthisInquirytheCommissionhasinquiredintotheactsandpracticesoftheCommonwealth.ThisisbecauseitisAustraliathatistheStatepartytotheCRCandtheICCPR.Forthisreason,thefindingsmakebroadreferencetotheCommonwealth.HowevertheCommissionrecognisesthateachoftheCommonwealthagencieswhoseactsandpracticeshavebeenconsideredbythisInquiryhaveaspecificrole.Ingeneraltermsthoserolesareasfollows:

• theDepartmentofImmigrationandCitizenship(DIAC),isresponsiblefortheindividualswhiletheyareinimmigrationdetention,andmayassessageforthepurposeofdetermininganappropriateplaceofdetention

• theAustralianFederalPolice(AFP),isresponsibleforinvestigatingpotentialchargesofpeoplesmugglingandfordecidingwhetherchargesarelaid

• theOfficeoftheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions(OfficeoftheCDPP),isresponsibleforprosecutingallegedoffencesofpeoplesmuggling

• theAttorney-General’sDepartment(AGD),hasbroadresponsibilityforlawenforcementpolicy.

TheCommissionnotesinparticularthatDIAChasnoroleintheinvestigationorprosecutionofpeoplesmugglingmattersandhaslittlecontrolovertheamountoftimeanindividualsuspectedofpeoplesmugglingspendsinimmigrationdetention.

2 Failure to ensure that the principle of the benefit of the doubt was afforded in all cases where an individual said that he was a child

AmajorfindingofthisInquiryisthattheprincipleofthebenefitofthedoubtwasnotaffordedtoindividualswhosaidthattheywerechildren.ForAustraliantomeetitsobligationsundertheCRC,

328


anindividualwhosaysthatheorsheisachildoughttobegiventhebenefitofthedoubtandtreatedasachildunlessoruntilitisconclusivelyshownthatheorsheisnotachild.

ItisafindingofthisInquirythattheCommonwealthordinarilyassumedthatanindividualwaseitheranadultorachild.However,theprincipleofthebenefitofthedoubtrequirestheauthoritiestorecognisethattherewillbethreecategoriesofindividuals:thosewhotheycanbesatisfiedareadults;thosewhotheycanbesatisfiedareminors;andthoseaboutwhoseagethereisreasonabledoubt.Itisthatlastcategoryofindividualswhomustbegiventhebenefitofthedoubt–individualswhoseageisindoubtshouldbetreatedaschildren.

TheindividualswhoseexperiencewasconsideredbythisInquiry,youngIndonesianswhosaidthattheywerechildren,werenotaffordedthebenefitofthedoubt.Instead:

• Theywereroutinelysubjectedtoawristx-ray(insomeandpossiblyallcaseswithouttherequiredconsentshavingbeenobtained),abiomedicalageassessmentprocedurethatwascalledintoquestionin2001andhasnowbeenshowntobeuninformativeofwhetheranindividualhasreached18yearsofage.

• Ifthewristx-rayanalysisshowedthattheywereskeletallymature,theywerechargedasanadultandinthevastmajorityofcasesthendetainedinanadultcorrectionalfacilityregardlessofwhethertheycontinuedtomaintainthattheywereunder18yearsofage.

• Individualswerechargedasadultsevenwhenwristx-rayanalysiswasinconclusive,directlyincontraventionofstatedAustralianGovernmentpolicy.

• Individualswerechargedandprosecutionscontinuedevenwhentherewasothermaterialavailablethatindicatedthatanindividualmightbeachild,includingdocumentaryevidenceandtheresultsofDIACageassessmentinterviews.

Thereisaclearunderstandingthattheprincipleofthebenefitofthedoubtrequiresthat,ifthereisadoubtaboutwhetherapersonwhoissubjecttoacriminalproceedingisachild,heorshemustbetreatedasachild.InthecontextoftheyoungIndonesianssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingthisdidnotoccur.

Thefailuretogiveindividualswhosaidthattheywerechildrenthebenefitofthedoubtwascompoundedbythefactthatwristx-rayanalysisisuninformativeofwhetheranindividualhasreached18yearsofage.

Untilveryrecently,Commonwealthagenciesplacedrelianceonwristx-rayanalysisasevidencethatapersonwasovertheageof18years–despitesignificantmaterialbeingavailabletosupporttheconclusionthattheyshouldnotdoso.Thisreliancemeantthat:


• TheAFPcontinuedtousewristx-rayanalysistoinformdecisionsaboutwhethertochargeyoungIndonesianswhosaidthattheywerechildrenbeyondthepointintimeatwhichtheybecameawarethatseriousquestionshadbeenraisedregardingthismethodofageassessment.

• TheOfficeoftheCDPPcontinuedtoadducewristx-rayanalysisasevidenceofageinlegalproceedingsbeyondthepointintimeatwhichtheywere,orshouldhavebeen,awarethatseriousquestionshadbeenidentifiedaboutthereliabilityoftheevidencebeingadducedfromtheirpreferredexpertwitness.

• TheOfficeoftheCDPPfailedtodisclosetodefencecounselmaterialofwhichitwasawarethatunderminedthecredibilityofexpertevidenceproposedtobeadducedbyit.

• Together,theCommonwealthagenciesfailedtoundertakeadequateconsultationwithappropriatelyqualifiedexperts,includingmedicalexperts,regardingtheuseofwristx-rayanalysisforageassessmentpurposes.TheycontinuedtorelyontheopinionsofanindividualradiologistwhenfacedwithexpressionsofconcernbythePresidentoftheRoyalAustralianandNewZealandCollegeofRadiologistsandtheleadershipofanumberofothermedicalcollegeswhosemembershiphadrelevantexpertise.

• AGDdidnotprovideeitherAttorney-GeneralMcClellandorAttorney-GeneralRoxonwithevenaprécisofthescientificmaterialcriticaloftheuseofwristx-rays.Whilethe‘improvedageassessmentprocess’introducedinJuly2011didprovidesomealternativemethodsofageassessment,thesewereeitherinsufficientlyinformativeofage,ornotimplemented.AtnotimedoesitappearthatAGDprovidedeithertheformerorthecurrentAttorney-Generalwithadvicethatwristx-rayanalysiswasnotfitforthepurposeofassessingwhetheranindividualisovertheageof18years.

Thesefailuresresultedintheongoinguseofanageassessmentprocedurethatisnotinformativeofwhetherapersonhasreached18yearsofage,wellpastthetimethateachoftheseagencieswas,orshouldhavebeen,awareofitslimitations.Relianceonskeletalmaturityasevidencethatapersonisovertheageof18yearsislikelytoresultinanincorrectassessment.Eachoftheseagencieswas,oroughttohavebeen,awareofthisfactfrommid-2011onwards,yettheprosecutionsofindividualswhohadbeenchargedasadultssolelyorsubstantiallyonthebasisofwristx-rayanalysiscontinued.

Theconsequenceofrelianceonwristx-rayanalysisforthepurposesofageassessmentwasthatasignificantnumberofchildrenweremistakenlyassessedtobeadults.Thiserrorledtofurtherbreachesoftheirhumanrights.

330


3 Failure to ensure that the best interests of the child are a primary consideration

Thefirstofthesefurtherbreacheswasthefailuretoensurethatinallactionsconcerningthem,theirbestinterestswereaprimaryconsideration.ThishumanrightiscentraltotheCRCandisthehumanrightsprinciplethatisattheheartofthisInquiry.Article3oftheCRCprovides:

Inallactionsconcerningchildren,whetherundertakenbypublicorprivatesocialwelfareinstitutions,courtsoflaw,administrativeauthoritiesorlegislativebodies,thebestinterestsofthechildshallbeaprimaryconsideration.

WheretheyoungIndonesianswerenotaffordedthebenefitofthedoubtandmistakenlyassessedtobeadults,theCommonwealthdidnothaveregardtotheirbestinterestsasaprimaryconsideration.Iftheirbestinterestshadbeenregardedasaprimaryconsideration,theywouldhavebeentreateddifferentlyfromadultsandtheirotherrightsassetoutintheCRCwouldhavebeenrespected.

Yet,thematerialbeforetheCommissionshowsthatchildren,andyoungIndonesiansaboutwhoseagetherewasdoubt,weredetainedforprolongedperiodsoftimeinbothadultimmigrationdetentionfacilitiesandinadultcorrectionalfacilities.Theywerenotaffordedthespecialprotectionandassistancetowhichachildseparatedfromhisparentsisentitled.Theywerenotprovidedwithaguardian.Allofthesesubsequentbreachesofchildren’srightsflowfromthefailuretoaffordtheyoungIndonesianswhosaidthattheywerechildrenthebenefitofthedoubt,andthefailuretotreattheirbestinterestsasaprimaryconsiderationinallactionsconcerningthem.

4 Failure to ensure that detention of children is a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time

Articles37(b)and(d)oftheCRCstatethatthedetentionofchildrenshouldbeameasureoflastresort,fortheshortestappropriateperiodoftimeandpromptlyreviewableinthecourts.

TheCommissionissatisfiedthattherehavebeennumerousandrepeatedbreachesoftherequirementthatchildrenshouldbedetainedasameasureoflastresortandfortheshortestappropriateperiodoftime.

First,therehavebeenmanycaseswhereindividualswhowereclearlychildrenweredetainedforprolongedperiodsoftime.Individualswhowerex-rayedbutnotchargedspentanaverageof161daysinimmigrationdetention.Thislengthydetentionwasaresultofasignificantdelaybothbetweentheobtainingofawristx-rayanalysisthatfoundanindividualtobeskeletallyimmature


andthemakingofadecisionnottoprosecute;aswellasbetweenthemakingofadecisionnottoprosecuteandthemakingofarequesttocancelaCriminalJusticeStayCertificate(CJSC).Thesedelayshaveresultedintheunjustifiedandprolongeddetentionofminors.

Second,manyyoungIndonesianssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingspentprolongedperiodsofpre-chargedetentioninimmigrationdetentionfacilities.Individualswhowerex-rayedandeventuallychargedspentanaverageof157daysinimmigrationdetentionbeforetheywerecharged.Theseareunacceptablylongperiodsofpre-chargedetentionunderanycircumstance,butparticularlyinthecaseofchildren.

Third,manyyoungIndonesianswhoultimatelyhadtheirprosecutionsdiscontinuedspentlongperiodsoftimeinadultcorrectionalfacilities,spendinganaverageof215daysinsuchfacilities.WhiletheCommissioncannotbecertainthatalloftheseindividualswereinfactchildrenatthetimeoftheirapprehension,orduringtheperiodoftheirdetention,itappearslikelythatasignificantnumberofthemwere.Itfurtherappearsthat,mostcommonly,prosecutionswerediscontinuedbecausetheprosecutiondidnotbelievethatitcouldprovethatthepersonchargedwas,onthebalanceofprobabilities,overtheageof18years.Alternatively,theprosecutionswerediscontinued,fromNovember2011onwards,becausetherewasnoprobativeevidenceoftheageofthepersonchargedotherthanwristx-rayanalysis.

Fourth,untilmid-June2011(althoughthepolicychangewasnotannounceduntilNovember2011),Commonwealthpolicywastoopposebailinallcasesinwhichanindividualwaschargedwithpeoplesmuggling.Agrantofbaildoesnotautomaticallyresultintheindividual’sreleaseintothecommunity–thefewindividualswhoweregrantedbailwerereturnedtoimmigrationdetention.However,theCommissionbelievesthattheprinciplethatchildrenshouldbedetainedfortheshortestappropriateperiodoftimeshouldordinarilyleadtotheplacementincommunity-basedaccommodationofanyaccusedpersonwhosestatusasanadultisindoubtandwhoisgrantedbail.Theprolongedperiodsofpre-chargedetention,incombinationwiththelackofaccesstobailforthemajorityofcasesunderconsideration,alsoamountstoabreachofarticle9(3)oftheICCPR.

TheCommissionalsofindsthatthedetentionofmanyoftheyoungIndonesianshasbeenarbitrary,inbreachofarticle37(b)oftheCRC,andalsoinbreachofarticle9(1)oftheICCPR.Detentionthatislawfulisnonethelessconsideredarbitraryifitexhibitselementsofinappropriateness,injusticeorlackofpredictabilityorproportionality.DetentionalsobecomesarbitraryifitisunreasonableordisproportionatetoalegitimateaimoftheCommonwealth.

TheCommissionisawareofsomecaseswhereindividualswerefoundtobeskeletallyimmature,andthusacceptedbytheCommonwealthaslikelytobechildren,butwerenotremovedfromAustraliaforsomemonthsduetoanapparentoversightinrequestingthecancellationofaCJSC.

332


Inothercases,individualsspentmonthsinimmigrationdetentionbeforeawristx-raywastakenwhich,whenanalysed,suggestedthattheywereunder18yearsofage.OnlythenweretheyremovedfromAustralia.IntheCommission’sview,thisamountstoarbitrarydetentioninbreachofarticle37(b)oftheCRC.

Thelengthyperiodsofpre-chargedetentiontowhichtheyoungIndonesiansweresubjectcouldalsoconstitutearbitrarydetention,particularlywhereconsiderationwasnotgiventotheirbeingheldintheleastrestrictiveformofdetention;arguably,communitydetention.Further,thelengthyperiodsofdetentioninadultcorrectionalfacilitiesofindividualswhosaidthattheywerechildren(asbailwasopposedinallcasesuntilmid-June2011)couldalsoamounttoarbitrarydetention,inbreachofarticle37(b)oftheCRC.

Inaddition,individualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhosaidthattheywerechildrenatthetimeoftheiroffenceareeffectivelydeniedaccesstojudicialreviewoftheirdetention.AjudicialrulinghasconfirmedthepoweroftheCommonwealthtodetainindividualsinthiscircumstancewhileaCJSCisinplace.1Thisamountstoabreachofarticle37(d)oftheCRC.

5 Failure to ensure that children deprived of their liberty are separated from adults

Thecombinationofthepracticeofchargingasadultsindividualswhowereassessedtobeskeletallymature,andthefactthatindividualschargedasadultswereoverwhelminglydetainedinadultcorrectionalfacilities,ledtonumerousbreachesofarticle37(c)oftheCRCwhichrequiresthatachilddeprivedofhisorherlibertyshallbeseparatedfromadults.

Asnotedabove,atleast48individualswhohadwristx-raystakenandwhoseprosecutionswereultimatelydiscontinuedweredetainedinadultcorrectionalfacilities.However,theCommissionbelievesthattheremaybeasignificantlyhighernumberofindividualswhowere,atsometime,detainedinadultcorrectionalfacilitieswhiletherewasatleastastrongpossibilitythattheywerechildren.ThisisbecausetheCommissionisawareofcaseswhereindividuals,whoeithermaintainedthattheywerelessthan18yearsofage,orappearednottohaveknowntheirage,acceptedthattheywereover18yearsofageoncepresentedwithwhattheyunderstoodtobeconclusiveevidenceintheformofawristx-rayanalysis.TheCommissionisalsoawareofcaseswhereindividuals’legalrepresentativesacceptedwristx-rayanalysisasdeterminativeandaccordinglyadvisedtheirclientstoconcedeageortopleadguilty.Thewillingnessofdefencerepresentativestoacceptwristx-rayanalysisasreliableevidenceofagemayhavebeenattributable,atleastinpart,tothefailureoftheCommonwealthtodisclosetheinformationithadinitspossessionthattendedtoquestiontheaccuracyofwristx-rayanalysisasamethodofdeterminingage.


Furthermore,inmid-2011,thethenAttorney-GeneralwasadvisedtodeclinearequestmadebythePresidentoftheCommissionforareviewofcaseswheresubstantialreliancehadbeenplacedonwristx-rayanalysis.SuchareviewwasnotannounceduntilMay2012.Theresultingreviewfoundthattherewasdoubtaboutwhethersome15individualswhohadbeenconvictedofpeoplesmugglingoffenceswereadultsatthetimetheywereapprehended.Thedelayinthecallingofthisreviewhascontributedtoanongoingbreachofarticle37(c),aswellasabreachofarticle37(b)inthesespecificcases.

6 Failure to ensure respect for the rights of children alleged to have committed an offence

Article40(2)oftheCRCoutlinesminimumproceduralguaranteesforchildrenchargedwithcriminaloffences,includingtherighttobepresumedinnocentuntilprovenguilty,therighttobeinformedpromptlyofthecharge,therighttolegalorotherappropriateassistanceandtherighttohavethematterdeterminedwithoutdelay.

Asnotedabove,theCommissionhasfoundthattherehavebeensignificantperiodsoftimebetweenapprehensionandchargeforindividualssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingoffenceswhosaidthattheywerechildren.Anaverageperiodoftimeofapproximatelyfiveandahalfmonthspriortochargealmostcertainlyviolatestheprinciplethatamattermustbedeterminedwithoutdelay,particularlywheretheindividualsweredetainedduringthisperiod.Consequently,theCommissionfindsthattherehasbeenabreachofarticle40(2)(b)(iii)oftheCRC.

TheCommissionhasnotconsideredindetailthereasonsfordelaysintheprosecutionofindividualsoncetheywerecharged.However,thereweresignificantdelaysandconsequentlysomepeoplespentlongperiodsoftimeinadultdetentionfacilitiesbeforeadecisionwasultimatelymadetodiscontinuetheirprosecution.

YoungIndonesianssuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwereroutinelyofferedaccesstoalawyereitherpriortoprovidingtheirconsenttoawristx-rayprocedureorpriortoparticipatinginanAFPinvestigativeinterview.Forthisreason,theCommissiondoesnotfindthattherehasbeenabreachoftherequirementtoprovidelegalassistance.However,alargeproportionofyoungIndonesianselectednottospeaktoalawyerbeforespeakingtotheAFP.Thismayhavebeenbecausetheywerenotprovidedwithaguardianand,asaresult,didnothaveanindependentadultwhocouldactintheirbestinterestsandencouragethemtoobtainlegaladviceattheearliestpossiblestage.

AlthoughmanyadvocateshavearguedthataccesstolegaladviceshouldbeprovidedpriortoparticipationinaDIACageassessmentinterview,theCommissionhasconcludedtherewillbecaseswherethisisnotnecessary,forexampleinthecaseofanobviouslyyoungchildwho

334


istobepromptlyremovedtoIndonesia.Legaladvice,however,shouldbeprovidedpriortoparticipationinanyageassessmentinterviewintendedtobereliedoninalegalproceeding.

7 Failure to ensure respect for the rights of a child separated from his or her family

TheCRCrequiresAustraliatoensurethatchildrenlackingthesupportoftheirparentsreceivetheextrahelpthattheyneedtoguaranteetheenjoymentoftherightssetoutundertheCRCandotherinternationalinstruments.Separatedchildrenshouldbeprovidedwithspecialprotectionandassistance,animportantelementofwhichiseffectiveguardianship.

TheCommissionfindsabreachofarticle20(1)oftheCRC.ItisclearthatmanyoftheindividualsofconcerntothisInquirywereeitherchildrenorentitledtothebenefitofthedoubtandshouldhavebeentreatedaschildren.However,theywerenotprovidedwithspecialprotectionandassistanceastheywerenotprovidedwithguardians.Inaddition,theindependentadultswhoattendedtheseinterviewswhiletheywereinimmigrationdetentionwerenotinformedoftherequirementthattheyactintheinterviewee’sbestinterestsanditdoesnotappearthattheysoughttodoso.NoindependentadultwasgiventheresponsibilitytoensurethatthebestinterestsoftheseyoungIndonesianswereconsideredandprotectedinalldecisionsconcerningthem.

TheCommissiondidnotreceivesubstantialevidenceabout,anddidnotmakefurtherinquiryinto,issuesrelatingtowhethertheindividualsofconcerntothisInquiryweremistreatedwhiletheywereinadultcorrectionalfacilities.

8 Recommendations

Recommendation 1: TheMigration Act 1958(Cth),andifappropriatetheCrimes Act 1914(Cth),shouldbeamendedtomakeclearthatforthepurposesofPart2,Division12,SubdivisionAoftheMigrationAct,anindividualwhoclaimstobeundertheageof18yearsmustbedeemedtobeaminorunlesstherelevantdecision-makerispositivelysatisfied,orinthecaseofajudicialdecision-maker,satisfiedonthebalanceofprobabilitiesaftertakingintoaccountthemattersidentifiedins140(2)oftheEvidence Act 1995(Cth),thattheindividualisovertheageof18years.

Recommendation 2:Anindividualsuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhosaysthatheisachild,andwhoisnotmanifestlyanadult,shouldbeprovidedwithanindependentguardianwithresponsibilityforadvocatingfortheprotectionofhisbestinterests.


Recommendation 3:Noprocedurewhichinvolveshumanimagingusingradiationshouldbespecifiedasaprescribedprocedureforthepurposesofs3ZQA(2)oftheCrimes Act 1914(Cth),orremainaprescribedprocedureforthatpurpose,withoutajustificationoftheprocedurebeingundertakeninaccordancewiththerequirementsofparagraphs3.18,3.61–3.64and3.66oftheInternationalAtomicEnergyAgencySafetyStandard:Radiation Protection and Safety of Radiation Sources: International Basic Safety Standards – Interim Edition(GeneralSafetyRequirements:Part3)oranylatereditionoftheserequirements.Suchjustificationshouldtakeintoaccountcontemporaryunderstandingoftheextenttowhichtheprocedureisinformativeofchronologicalage.

Recommendation 4: TheCrimes Act 1914(Cth)and,ifappropriate,theCrimes Regulations 1990 (Cth),oralternativelytheEvidence Act 1995(Cth),shouldbeamendedtoensurethatexpertevidencewhichiswhollyorsubstantiallybasedontheanalysisofawristx-rayisnotadmissibleinalegalproceedingasproof,orasevidencetendingtoprove,thatthesubjectofthewristx-rayisovertheageof18years.

Recommendation 5:Imagingofanindividual’sdentitionusingradiation(dentalx-ray)shouldnotbespecifiedforthepurposesofs3ZQA(2)oftheCrimes Act 1914(Cth)asaprescribedprocedureforthedeterminationofage.

Recommendation 6:Imagingofanindividual’sclavicleusingradiation(claviclex-ray)shouldnotbespecifiedforthepurposesofs3ZQA(2)oftheCrimes Act 1914(Cth)asaprescribedprocedureforthedeterminationofage.

Recommendation 7:Ifanyforensicprocedureisspecifiedasaprescribedprocedureforthepurposeofagedeterminationwithinthemeaningofs3ZQA(2)oftheCrimes Act 1914(Cth),PartIAADivision4AconsiderationshouldbegiventoamendingtheCrimesActtoprovidethatsuchaproceduremayonlybeundertakeninthecircumstancesinwhichaforensicprocedurewithinthemeaningofs23WAoftheCrimesActmaybeundertakenwithrespecttoachild.

Recommendation 8: Unlessanduntilrecommendation9isimplemented,theCommissionerofFederalPoliceshouldensurethatallFederalAgentsareawareoftheirobligationswhenactingasan‘investigatingofficial’inrelianceons3ZQCoftheCrimes Act 1914(Cth)andshouldfurtherensurethatprotocolsorguidelinesareputinplacetoensurethattheseobligationsaremet.Specifically,aninvestigatingofficialshouldbeawarethattheroleofanyindependentadultpersonistorepresenttheinterestsofthepersoninrespectofwhomtheprescribedprocedureistobecarriedoutandthatheorsheshouldbesoadvised.

336


Recommendation 9:Whereitisnecessaryforaninvestigatingofficialwithinthemeaningofs3ZQB(1)oftheCrimes Act 1914(Cth),whosuspectsthatapersonmayhavecommittedaCommonwealthoffence,todeterminewhetherapersonis,orwasatthetimeoftheallegedcommissionofanoffence,undertheageof18years,theinvestigatingofficialshouldseektheconsentofthepersontoparticipateinanageassessmentinterview.

Wherereasonablypossible,theinterviewershouldspeakthelanguageordinarilyspokenbythepersonwhoseageistobeassessedandshouldbefamiliarwiththecultureoftheplacefromwhichthepersoncomes.Theinterviewer,whoideallyshouldbeindependentoftheCommonwealth,shouldbeinstructedthatheorsheshouldonlymakeanassessmentthatthepersonisovertheageof18yearsifpositivelysatisfiedthatthisisthecaseafterallowingforthedifficultyofassessingagebyinterview.

Allinterviewersshouldbetrained,shouldfollowanestablishedprocedureandshouldrecordtheirinterviews.Theirconclusionsandthereasonsfortheirconclusionsshouldbedocumented.

Recommendation 10:Anyindividualsuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhosaysthatheisachildandwhoisnotmanifestlyanadultshouldbeofferedaccesstolegaladvicepriortoparticipatinginanyageassessmentinterviewintendedtobereliedoninalegalproceeding.

Recommendation 11: Ifadecisionismadetoinvestigateorprosecuteanindividualsuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhodoesnotadmitthathewasovertheageof18yearsatthedateoftheoffenceofwhichheissuspected,immediateeffortsshouldbemadetoobtaindocumentaryevidenceofagefromhiscountryoforigin.

Recommendation 12: TheAttorney-Generalshouldsetandensuretheimplementationofanappropriatetimelimitbetweentheapprehensionofayoungpersonsuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhodoesnotadmittobeingovertheageof18yearsandthebringingofachargeorchargesagainsthim.TheAttorney-GeneralshouldfurtherconsultwiththeCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionsconcerningproceduresputinplacebytheDirectortoensuretheexpeditioustrialofanyyoungpersonwhodoesnotadmittobeingovertheageof18yearsandwhoischargedwithaCommonwealthoffence.ShouldtheAttorney-GeneralnotbesatisfiedthatappropriateprocedureshavebeenputinplacebytheDirector,theAttorney-Generalshouldissueguidelinesonthistopicunders8oftheDirector of Public Prosecutions Act 1983(Cth).

Recommendation 13:TheCommonwealthshouldonlyinexceptionalcircumstances,andafterbringingthosecircumstancestotheattentionofthedecision-maker,opposebailwhereapersonwhoclaimstobeaminor,andisnotmanifestlyanadult,hasbeenchargedwithpeoplesmuggling.Whereapersonwhoclaimstobeaminor,andisnotmanifestlyanadult,hasbeenchargedwithpeoplesmugglingandgrantedbail,heshouldbeheldinappropriatecommunity


detentionininthevicinityofhistrialcourt.TheMinisterforImmigrationandCitizenship’sguidelinesfortheadministrationofhisresidencedeterminationpowersshouldbeamendedsothatsuchcasescanbebroughttotheMinister’simmediateattention.

Recommendation 14:TheAttorney-GeneralshouldconsultwiththeCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionsconcerningproceduresputinplacebytheDirectortoensurethattheCommonwealthdoesnotadduceexpertevidenceinlegalproceedingswheretheacceptancebythecourtofthatevidencewouldbeinconsistentwiththeaccusedperson’sreceivingafairtrial.ShouldtheAttorney-GeneralnotbesatisfiedthatappropriateprocedureshavebeenputinplacebytheDirector,theAttorney-GeneralshouldseekadvicefromanappropriatelyqualifiedjudicialofficerorformerjudicialofficerastothetermsofguidelinesonthistopicthatitwouldbeappropriateforhertofurnishtotheDirectorunders8oftheDirector of Public Prosecutions Act 1983(Cth).

Recommendation 15:TheAttorney-General’sDepartmentshouldestablishandmaintainaprocesswherebythereisregularandfrequentreviewofthecontinuingneedforeachCriminalJusticeStayCertificategivenbytheAttorney-Generalorhisorherdelegate.TheAttorney-General’sDepartmentshouldadditionallyensurethataCriminalJusticeStayCertificateiscancelledaspromptlyascompliancewiths162(2)oftheMigration Act 1958(Cth)allowswhenitisnolongerrequiredforthepurposeforwhichitwasgiven.

Recommendation 16:If,atanytime,theCommonwealthbecomesawareofinformationthatindicatesthatanindividualsuspectedofpeoplesmugglingwhoseageisindoubtmayhavebeentrafficked,heshouldbetreatedasavictimofcrimeandprovidedwithappropriatesupport.

Recommendation 17:TheAustralianGovernmentshouldremoveAustralia’sreservationtoarticle37(c)oftheConvention on the Rights of the Child.

__________________________________________________________________________________

1[BAI031] v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship[2011]NTSC45.

339An age of uncertainty 2012-13

Appendix 1:

Case studies

340

Appendix 1: Case studies

Case study 1: Ali Jasmin

• Apprehended:18December2009

• Charged:29March2010

• RemovedfromAustralia:18May2012

• Numberofdaysindetention:878days

UntilDecember2009,AliJasminlivedwithhisfamilyinBalaUring,asmallvillageontheislandofFlores,Indonesia.Hisfamilyboughtfishfromthelocalfishermenandsoldthematthemarket.Alihadcompletedsevenyearsofschoolingandworkedasafishermaninalittletownnotfarfromhishome.

Alisaysthathewasapproachedbyamiddle-manandofferedajobonaboat.HesaysthathewaspromisedanamountofmoneytohelpwithshippinggoodsbetweentheIndonesianislands.1Theboatwasalreadyatseawhenthepassengerscameonboardviasmallervessels.HesaysthathehadneverheardofpeoplesmugglingbeforeanditdidnotoccurtohimthatthesepeoplewereseekingasyluminAustralia.2

Alidescribedtheboatasnotverysea-worthy,withleaksinthehull.Themotoroftentrippedoutandhadtoberepaired.Atonepointduringtheirjourneythesailbroke.Initially,thereweresixorsevencrewmembers,butonlyfourwereontheboatwhenitreachedAustralianwaters.3

Aliworkedasacookontheboat.4Theboathadfuel,water,riceandeggs,butthesupplyoffoodandwaterranoutbeforeitreachedAustralia.Therewerenolifejacketsorothersafetyequipmentonboard,andtherewassmokecomingfromtheengine.5Onthelastnightatsea,theenginebrokedownandthecrewcouldnotfixit.Thepassengersfearedtheywouldsinkandtheyformedachaintopassbucketsofwatertoemptytheboataswaterwasfillingthelowerdeck.Floodwaterwasuptoametrehigh,6andthepassengerswereuptotheirkneesinwaterwhilebailingitout.7Alisaysthathefelthalf-deadduringthejourneybecausehewassoafraid.8

18 December 2009

AliJasminisapprehendedinAustralianwatersbyAustralianauthorities.HeisoneoffourIndonesiancrewmembersonboardaSIEVcarrying55AfghaniasylumseekerstoAustralia.AlitellsAustralianofficialsthathewasbornin1993(makinghim16yearsold).Hehasatotalof3185500rupiah[A$343equivalent]inhispossession.9

HeistakentoChristmasIslandforprocessingandtransferredintoDIACcustody.


Ali says that he did not understand what was happening and thought the Australian customs boat was the Australian military.10

January 2010

AlispendsseveralweeksonChristmasIslandbeforebeingtakentoNorthernImmigrationDetentionCentre(Berrimahaccommodation)inDarwin.

On20January2010,AFPofficersseekAli’sconsenttoperformawristx-raybasedonhisearlierclaimthatheisnotyetanadult.Whenaskedhisdateofbirth,Alisaysthatheis14yearsoldandwasbornon12October1996.

AliiscautionedandgivenacopyofhisrightsinBahasaIndonesia.BothAliandanindependentadultfromLifeWithoutBarriersgiveconsentfortheprocedure,andanx-rayofhisrightwrististakenatRoyalDarwinHospital.11Alichoosestonotspeaktoalawyerbeforeawristx-rayistaken.12

On25January2010,aCriminalJusticeStayCertificateisissuedwhichstatesthatAli’sdateofbirthis12October1996.13

On28January2010,aninitialx-rayreportsaysthat‘theskeletonismature’asthebonesofthewristhavefusedandthat‘[a]ccordingtothemalestandardsofGreulichandPyleskeletalageis19yearsorgreater’.14Itstatesthat‘theskeletalageandstatedchronologicalageareincongruous’.15

InhisinterviewwiththeAFPon20January2010,Aliisadvisedthatthequestionofwhetherhewasunder18yearsofageisrelevantto‘therulesgoverningregulardetention,theinvestigationoftheoffenceortheinstitutionofcriminalproceedings’.16

Ali says that he didn’t understand what he was waiting for as no one had explained the criminal justice and investigative process to him. He says that when he was being put on a plane to be transferred to Darwin, he thought he was being sent home to Indonesia.17

He says that he was told by the AFP that the wrist x-ray would specify his age. He says that he didn’t understand the importance of the issue of his age and that he thought that the AFP simply wanted to check his age because they didn’t believe him.18

3 February 2010

AliisinterviewedbyDIACandagainstatesthatheis14yearsold.19

342


30 March 2010

AlideclinestoparticipateinatapedrecordofinterviewwiththeAFPafterreceivinglegaladviceoverthephone.Hesaysthathewouldliketocommunicatewithhisgirlfriendtotellherwhereheis.TheAFPofficerreplies:‘We’lltryandorganisethatforyoubutitmighthavetowaituntilyou’reinHakeaonThursday.’20

Onthesameday,Aliisformallychargedasanadult.AProsecutionNoticeispreparedfortheMagistratesCourtofWesternAustraliawhichstatesthatAli’sdateofbirthis12October1990(makinghim19yearsold).21

7 May 2010

AliistransferredtoHakeaPrison.

Ali says that he was frightened and shocked and did not understand why he was being locked up. Ali says that he was told by the Indonesian prisoners in Hakea that some of the younger crew suspected of people smuggling offences were sent home to Indonesia. He says this was the first time he began to understand how important the issue of his age was.22

July 2010

On2July2010,anindictmentissignedbytheSeniorAssistantDirectoroftheOfficeoftheCDPPwhichlistsAli’sdateofbirthas12October1990.23

On30July2010,Ali’slegalrepresentativeraisestheissueofAli’sageforthefirsttimeduringasentencingmentionintheDistrictCourtofWesternAustralia.Thereisnointerpreterpresentashislawyerdidnotbookone.Ali’slawyersaystheissueofhisagehas‘onlyjustarisen.…It’scometomyattentionnowthathemaynotbe18…andapparentlyabirthcertificateiscomingfromIndonesia.’TheCommissioneroftheDistrictCourtsays:‘Well,thenifheisunder18,presumablywejustremandhimintotheChildren’sCourtorsomething?’24Whiletheywaitforthebirthcertificatetoarrive,Alicontinuestoberemandedinanadultprison.

Onthesameday,theOfficeoftheCDPPconfirmsthatDrVincentLowwillappearasanexpertwitnessinAli’sagedeterminationhearing.HeisaskedtoprepareanexpertreportbasedonAli’swristx-ray.25

August 2010

On2August2010,aSeniorOfficeroftheOfficeoftheCDPPsendsalettertotheAFPsayingthatthey‘willattempttolistthe[agedetermination]hearingsomemonthsaway,butitislikelythecourtwillbeanxioustodetermineageassoonaspossible’.26


Bythisstage,theIndonesianConsulatehasreceivedacopyofAli’sbirthcertificatebutithasnotyetbeenreceivedbythedefence.27Duringadirectionshearing,theCommissioneroftheDistrictCouldacceptsthatoncetheyhaveclarityonAli’sage,theycanremitthemattertotheChildren’sCourt.Whenheasksifthereisanyreasonwhyheshouldn’tcontinuetohaveAliremandedincustody,Ali’slawyersays‘No’.Ali’scaseisadjournedandhecontinuestobeheldonremandinanadultprisonwhilehislegalrepresentativewaitstobeprovidedwithhisbirthcertificate.

On24August2010,DIACreceivesacopyofAli’sbirthcertificatefromtheIndonesianConsulateinWesternAustralia.ThebirthcertificateindicatesthatAliis13yearsold.DIACraisestheissueofAli’sagewiththeOfficeoftheCDPPandquerieshisplaceofdetention.28TheOfficeoftheCDPPindicatethattheywillasktheAFPtoinvestigatetheprovenanceofthebirthcertificate,andthattheywillnotreleaseAlifromcustodyuntilanagedeterminationhearingisheldandacourtdeterminesthatheisunder18yearsofage.29

Thesameday,DIACemailsacopyofthebirthcertificatewhichithadreceivedfromtheIndonesianConsulatetotheOfficeoftheCDPP.30

September 2010

On9September2010,theDepartmentofCorrectiveServicesinWesternAustraliacontactDIACqueryingAli’sageandaskwhetherhehasbeensubjecttoawristx-ray.31

On22September2010,theAFPreceiveanexpertreportfromDrLowandtelltheOfficeoftheCDPP:‘[DrLow]claimsthathecanonlystate19yearsorolderinlinewiththedeterminationguidelinesbutthatJasminisanadultandhasbeenforsometime’.32

On27September2010,theAFPcommencedenquiriesinIndonesiainanattempttoascertaintheauthenticityofthebirthcertificate.33

October 2010

On12October2010,theIndonesianNationalPolicefaxalegalisedcopyofAliJasmin’sbirthcertificatetoanAFPLiaisonOfficerinDenpasar.34

TheOfficeoftheCDPPcontinuestodenytheadmissibilityofthebirthcertificate,sayingthatitwascreatedaftertheoffencewascommitted.Theytelldefencethat,eventhoughitwasprovidedbytheIndonesianConsulate,theywilldisputeitsadmissibilityunlessthedefenceobtains‘properevidenceestablishingwhatitisandthecircumstancesastohowitcameintobeing’.35

On20October2010,theAFPsendelectronicdocumentsrelatingtoAli’sagefromtheAFPLiaisonOfficerinJakartatotheOfficeoftheCDPPandstatethattheythinkthedocument

344


‘doesn’treallyaccuratelyclarifyhistrueyearofbirth’.36TheOfficeoftheCDPPrequesttheAFPprovideafulltranslationofthebirthcertificate.

24 November 2010

TheAFPofficerresponsibleforAli’scasetellstheOfficeoftheCDPPthattheywillnotbeaskingtheirofficersinJakartaforfurtherdocumentaryevidence:

ThehomeofJasmin’sfamilyisfairlyremote,asisusualinthesematters,theyareextremelybusyandonlyhaveaverylimitedstaffingcapacitytoundertakeoperationalmatters.…Icannotseewhatthiswillprove,asthereissimplynoauthoritythatcanaccuratelystipulatethathisdateofbirthiscorrect’.37

December 2010

Ali’sagedeterminationhearingtakesplaceintheDistrictCourton8December2010.Thehearingcommenceswithoutaninterpreter.WhenAliisaskedhisdateofbirth,hesaysinEnglishthathewasbornon12October1990.Whenaninterpreterarrives,heclarifiesinBahasaIndonesiathathewasbornon12October1996.Heexplainsthatafterthex-raywastaken,theAFPtoldhimthathewasbornin1990.38Ali’sbirthcertificateisnotplacedintoevidencebyeitherthedefenceortheprosecution.

On22December2010,thejudgedeterminesthatAliisover18yearsofage.39

Aliisconvictedoftheoffenceofpeoplesmugglingandsentencedtothemandatoryminimumsentenceoffiveyearsimprisonmentwiththreeyearsnon-parole.40

June 2011

InJune2011AliJasminlodgesanappealagainsthissentence,basedonthestandardandburdenofproofcontainedins233CoftheMigrationAct.Hisappealisdismissed.41

16 March 2012

TheCommissionwritestotheAttorney-Generalrequestinganindependentreviewofanumberofcaseswhereconvictionswereobtainedforpeoplesmugglingoffencesandtherewassubstantialrelianceontheuseofwristx-raystodetermineage.42AliJasmin’scaseisoneofthecasesidentified.

April 2012

AjournalisttravelstoIndonesiaandmeetsAli’sfamily.HeobtainscopiesofdocumentscorroboratingAli’sclaimthatheisachild.43Ali’scasereceivesasignificantamountofmediaattention.44


May 2012

On17May2012,theAttorney-GeneralannouncesthatthreeIndonesiannationalsconvictedofpeoplesmugglingwillbereleasedfromprisonandreturnedtoIndonesia.45MediareportsconfirmthatAliJasminisoneofthesethreeindividuals.46

On18May2012,AlireturnshometoIndonesia.Sincefirstclaimingtobeachild,Alihasspent97daysinimmigrationdetentionand781daysinamaximumsecurityadultprison.

Case study 2: OSB051


• Charged:17March2010

• RemovedfromAustralia:18May2012

• Totaldaysindetention:864days

UntilDecember2009,OSB051livedwithhismother,brotherandthreesistersinOelaba,asmallvillageonRoteIslandinIndonesia.Hisfatherpassedawaysomeyearsago.Hisfamilyworkedasfishermenorhelpedwithsellingfishatthelocalmarketwheretheycouldearnupto20000rupiahperweek[A$2equivalent].47OSB051hadattendedprimaryschoolforsomeyearsandhadworkedasafishermanfortwomonths.48

OSB051waslookingforworkonanearbyislandwhenhewasapproachedbyamanandoffered1000000rupiah[A$105equivalent]totransportrice.49OSB051saysthatthiswasalotmoremoneythanhewouldnormallybepaid,buthebelievedthatallfourpeopleontheboatwouldsharethemoneytheyearnedbysellingthebagsofrice.OSB051wasnottoldthattheywouldbecomingtoAustralia.Hedidnotreceivethemoneyhewaspromised.50

OSB051boardedtheboatatMakassarandfellasleepwhilewaitingforthericetoarrive.Theboatwasalreadyatseawhentheasylumseekerscameonboardviasmallerboats.OSB051wokeupinthemiddleofthenighttoseealotofpeopleontheboatandhebecamescaredandstartedtocry.51Hesaysthathehadneverseenpeopleliketheasylumseekersandhedidnotknowwheretheyhadcomefrom.52Heaskedthecaptainwheretheyweregoingbutthecaptainwouldnotanswer.53

Duringthejourney,OSB051workedasacookontheboat.54Hesaysthathewasinitiallytoldthattheywouldbeatseafortwodays.Afterfourdayshadpassed,hestartedtoworryandrealisedthatsomethingwaswrong,butnoonewouldtellhimwheretheyweregoingorwhattheyweredoing.Hesaysthattherewasnoopportunityforhimtogetofftheboatasitneveranchoredanywhere.55

346


30 December 2009

OSB051isapprehendedinAustralianwatersbyAustralianauthorities.HeisoneoffourcrewmembersonboardSIEV90,carrying48AfghaniasylumseekerstoAustralia.HedoesnotunderstandwhatishappeningwhentheAustraliancustomsofficialsboardtheboat.Heisscaredandcrying.56

January 2010

On5January2010,OSB051istakenintoanalternativeplaceofdetentiononChristmasIsland(ConstructionCamp).ThenominalrollcompiledafterinterceptionlistsOSB051’sdateofbirthas17April1997(makinghim12yearsold).57

On12January2010,OSB051tellsimmigrationofficersthathisdateofbirthis7April1997.58

On21January2010,AFPofficersseekOSB051’sconsenttoperformawristx-ray.OSB051iscautionedandgivenacopyofhisrightsinBahasaIndonesia.59Heisofferedanopportunitytospeakwithalawyer,butdeclines.60BothOSB051andanindependentadultfromLifeWithoutBarriersgiveconsentfortheprocedure,andanx-rayofhisleftwrististakenatRoyalDarwinHospital.61

On25January2010,aCriminalJusticeStayCertificateisissuedwhichstatesthatOSB051’sdateofbirthis17April1997.62

On28January2010,aninitialx-rayreportsaysthatOSB051is19yearsorolder.63

OSB051 says that it was only after he arrived on Christmas Island that he was told that the passengers were asylum seekers and that they needed permission to come to Australia.64

He says that he did not understand what was happening when the AFP asked him if he wanted to have a wrist x-ray taken.65 He says that the AFP officers told him a wrist x-ray would prove that he was under 18 years old when he arrived in Australia, and that he agreed to the procedure because the AFP officers did not believe him when told them his age.66

March 2010

On17March2010,OSB051participatesinarecordofinterviewwiththeAFP.Thisisthefirsttimehespeakstoalawyeroverthephone.Duringtheinterview,AFPofficerstellOSB051that:‘Wehavedeemedyoutobenineteenyearsorolderbasedonanx-raythatwastakeninahospitalthatyouconsentedto.’


OSB051clarifiesthathisdateofbirthis7April1997andheknowsthisishiscorrectageasthisiswhathewastoldwhenhisfatherdied.HetellstheAFPthathestartedschoolin2001andattendedprimaryschooluntilcompletingsixthgradein2008.67

Laterthatday,OSB051isarrestedandformallychargedasanadult.AProsecutionNoticeisissuedwhichstatesthathisdateofbirthis17April1990(makinghim20yearsold).68

On18March2010,OSB051firstappearsinPerthMagistratesCourt.Heisplacedonremandinanadultcorrectionalfacility.

OSB051 says that when he first entered prison, he was sad and afraid as Australians are very tall people. 69

FromMarch2010toJuly2010,OSB051isunrepresentedincourtonanumberofoccasionsasthereisnoappearancebyhisdefencerepresentatives.70

May 2010

On31May2010,anofficeroftheOfficeoftheCDPPemailsLegalAidtoquerywhyOSB051hasbeenunrepresentedincourtforhislasttwoappearances.71

July 2010

On1July2010,OSB051’slawyerappearsincourtandsayshehasbeenunabletolocateOSB051andhasbeenunabletotakeinstructionsfromhim.Thecaseisadjourned.72

OSB051 says that the first time he met his lawyer was when he was on remand at Albany Regional Prison.73

On29July2010,OSB051’slawyerraisestheissueofOSB051’sageforthefirsttime.HeentersapleaofnojurisdictionbeforethePerthMagistratesCourtonthebasisthatOSB051claimstohavebeenunder18yearsoldatthetimeoftheoffence.Hismatterislistedforanagedeterminationhearingon16November2010.74

September 2010

On3September2010,thedefencetelltheOfficeoftheCDPPthattheymaychallengethex-rayonthebasisthatOSB051consentedtox-raysbutwasnottoldthathewasconsentingtox-raysbeingtakenforanagedeterminationpurpose.75

348


On9September2010,theDepartmentofCorrectiveServicesinWesternAustraliacontactsDIACqueryingOSB051’sageandaskwhetherhehasbeensubjecttoawristx-ray.76

October 2010

On19October2010,theOfficeoftheCDPPreceivesanexpertreportfromDrVincentLowafterrequestinga‘secondopinion’ontheinitialx-rayresult.77ItstatesthattheprobabilityofOSB051havinghisstateddateofbirthiszero.78Thereportisdisclosedtothedefence.

On21October2010,OSB051’slawyercontactsDrLowtoaskhimformoreinformationonOSB051’sx-rayandtheinterpretationofx-raysinordertodecidewhethertoobtainareportfromtheirownexpert.79

AnOfficeoftheCDPPbrieftocounselaboutseveraldefendantsincludingOSB051saysthat‘theAFParrangedforwristx-rayswhichconfirmedthatthattheywereinfactadults’.Itgoesontosaythat:

Thedefenceineachcasehasbeenremarkablylaxinfailingtopursueanyofthesemattersgiventhatthexraysineachcasewereperformedmanymonthsago.Ithasbeenentirelyasaresultoftheprosecutorsforeachmatterremindingthemoftheissue[ofage].80

16 November 2010

OSB051’slawyercontactstheOfficeoftheCDPPtosaythatthedefencenolongerchallengesthelawfulnessofthex-rayandtheyagreetothex-raybeingadmittedasevidence.81

Onthesameday,anagedeterminationhearingisheldinPerthMagistratesCourt.Noevidenceofageotherthanwristx-rayanalysisisconsidered.82

3 December 2010

AmagistratefindsonthebalanceofprobabilitiesthatOSB051wasover18yearsoldatthetimeofoffenceandthattheMagistratesCourthasjurisdictiontohearhiscase.83

OSB051 says that this was the second occasion where there was no interpreter present in court and that he did not understand what was happening. He says that on both occasions, his lawyer told him that no interpreter was available, but he continued with the hearings anyway. He told OSB051 that he would meet him at the prison and explain what happened during the hearings afterwards, but this never occurred.84


28 January 2011

OSB051entersaguiltypleaandiscommittedtotheDistrictCourtofWesternAustraliaforsentencing.85

March 2011

On8March2011,theDeputyDirectoroftheOfficeoftheCDPPagreesthatthereisapublicinterestinproceedingonindictmentinthismatter.86

On14March2011,thedefenceobtainsanexpertreportonOSB051’sx-rayfromDrJamesChristie.Itstatesthat:

thestatedchronologicalageandtheskeletalageareincongruous.HoweveritisnotpossiblefromthisexaminationtodrawaconclusionastowhetherMr[OSB051]isgreaterthan18yearsorlessthan18yearsatthetimeofthestudy.

Italsostatesthat‘DrLow’suseofapparentlyprecisepercentageestimatesofskeletalageisnotsupportedbyscientificuseofthedata’.87

On17March2011,thedefencesendsDrChristie’sreporttotheOfficeoftheCDPPandinformsthemthattheywillbecontendingatsentencingthatOSB051wasunder18yearsofageatthetimeoftheoffence.88

On25March2011,thedefenceraisestheissueofOSB051’sageasamatterrelevanttosentencingduringalistinghearingintheDistrictCourt.89

21 June 2011

AjudgeoftheDistrictCourtdeterminesthattheDistrictCourtisnotboundbytheMagistratesCourt’sfindingonage.HeholdsthatitisopenforanaccusedtoraisetheissueoftheirageatsentencingstageintheDistrictCourt,andifitisestablishedonthebalanceofprobabilitiesthatanaccusedwasunder18atthetimeoftheoffence,thematterwillberemittedtotheChildren’sCourtforsentencing.90

OSB051’scaseislistedforanagedeterminationhearingintheDistrictCourton10November2011.

350


August 2011

TheAFPreceivesdocumentaryevidenceofagefromtheIndonesianConsulate.Accordingtothedateofbirthrecordedonthedocument,OSB051wouldhavebeen17yearsandsixmonthsatthetimeoftheoffence.91

September 2011

OSB051 says that someone from Australia tried to call his older sister in Indonesia, but she did not understand as they were speaking in English. OSB051 is not aware of any other attempts made to contact his family in Indonesia to obtain information about his age.92

14 October 2011

ThedefenceobtainsanexpertreportfromProfessorTimCole,aprofessorofmedicalstatistics.ItstatesthattheconclusiondrawnbyDrLowthat‘itisareasonableinterpretationthatMr[OSB051]is19yearsofageorolder’basedonthewristx-rayis‘wrongandshouldbedismissed’.Itstatesthat‘thechanceof[OSB051]havingbecomeskeletallymaturebeforeage18is61%’.93

November 2011

On2November2011,aninternalmemorandumdiscussingtheissueofageinOSB051’ScasewasproducedwithintheOfficeoftheCDPP.ThememorandumnotesthattheCDPPhadconsistentlybeeninformedthatAFPenquiriesinIndonesiahadnotresultedintheproductionofanydocuments.However,ithadbecomeapparenttotheOfficeoftheCDPPthatanagerelateddocumenthadinfactbeenobtainedbytheAFPsomemonthsearlier.94AseparateinternalOfficeoftheCDPPmemopreparedbythePrincipalLegalOfficerstatesthattheagerelateddocumentfromIndonesiahas‘noforensicvalue’andrecommendscontinuingtheprosecutionagainstOSB051.95

Onthesameday,aseparatememoispreparedbytheSeniorAssistantDirectoroftheOfficeoftheCDPPwhichrecommendsthattheprosecutionagainstOSB051bediscontinuedonpublicinterestgrounds,andasconsistentwiththeconservativepolicyapproachtobetakentotheissueofagebytheOfficeoftheCDPP.Itstatesthat‘itcannotbecompletelyruledoutthatMr[OSB051]wasunder18’.Thememoismarked‘draft’and‘notsent’.96

On2November2011,theOfficeoftheCDPPalsodisclosesthedocumentaryevidenceobtainedfromIndonesiatothedefence.97Thenextday,thedefencecontactstheOfficeoftheCDPPtoinformthemthatapleaofguiltywillbeenteredtothechargeontheindictmentandthemattercanproceedtosentencing.98


On10November2011,theagedeterminationhearingisvacatedasthedefencedoesnothaveanypositiveevidencetoadduceinfavourofOSB051’sageclaim.Thedefenceentersaguiltypleaandwithdrawstheirpreviousobjectionraisedtojurisdiction.Duringthehearing,theDistrictCourtJudgesays:‘itjuststrikesmeasoddthatinthisdayandage…reliableevidenceofagecan’tbeobtainedbyonesideortheother’.99ThematterproceedstosentenceandOSB051issentencedtofiveyearsimprisonmentwiththreeyearsnon-parole.100

OSB051 says that he felt he had been waiting too long already – he had already spent two years in prison, and he just wanted it to be over. He felt that there was nothing he could do about it as he does not have any documents to prove his age – his family are poor people and they do not have enough money to buy a birth certificate. He says that he has asked his mother whether there is any proof of his age, but she has told him that they have nothing in writing.101

March 2012

TheCommissionwritestotheAttorney-Generalrequestinganindependentreviewofanumberofcaseswhereconvictionswereobtainedforpeoplesmugglingoffencesandtherewassubstantialrelianceontheuseofwristx-raystodetermineage.102OSB051’scaseisoneofthecasesidentified.

April 2012

DIAC officials visit Albany Regional Prison and speak to some of the Indonesian prisoners. OSB051 says that he did not understand why they were asking questions about age for the Indonesians who have already been sentenced – he says that he feels it is too late for them to ask questions about age now. He says he did not receive a reply when he asked them if he would be sent home if he was under 18 years old.103

On26April2012,CommissionstaffmembersvisitOSB051atAlbanyRegionalPrison.

He says that though he was initially scared in prison, he has been here so long that he feels being in prison is almost normal. He says that he used to be able to contact his family fairly regularly, but he thinks the number may have been recently disconnected. He is very worried about them as he has no other way of getting in touch with them and he does not know how they are. He expresses a desire to go home. He plans to continue to work as a fisherman, but that he certainly does not want to come back to Australia.104

May 2012

On17May2012,theAttorney-GeneralannouncesthatthreeIndonesiannationalsconvictedofpeoplesmugglingwillbereleasedfromprisonandreturnedtoIndonesia.105OSB051isoneofthesethreeindividuals.

352


On18May2012,OSB051returnshometoIndonesia.Sincefirstclaimingtobeachild,OSB051hasspent71daysinimmigrationdetentionand793daysinamaximumsecurityadultprison.

Case study 3: NTN031


• Charged:6October2010

• RemovedfromAustralia:26November2011


UntilDecember2009,NTN031workedasafishermaninIndonesia.Hehadbeenworkingasafishermansinceleavingschoolmid-waythroughjuniorhighschool.Whentheweatherwaspoorandnotsuitableforfishing,NTN031workedasafarmeronhisfriend’sfarm.106

NTN031saysthathehadnointentionofcomingtoAustralia,andthathewasnottoldhewascomingtoAustralia.NTN031wastoldthathewastotakethepassengersontheboatfromTimikatoMeraukeIsland.107Theboatdepartedatnightfromaremotelocation,108andthenormalcaptaingotofftheboatbeforeitlefttheshore.109

Duringthesixtosevendayjourney,NTN031assistedwithrefuellingtheengineandhealsoassistedwithsteering.110Afterafewdays,theyranoutofdrinkingwaterandtherewasverylittlefoodonthetrip.Theboatsailedforseveraldaysunderitsownpowerbeforetheenginebrokedown.Thevesselbegantotakeonwater,causingthepassengerstofearfortheirlives.Amanualpumpandbucketswereusedtodrawoutthewater.111NTN031saystheboatdriftedfortwodaysbeforeendingupinAustralianwatersbecausetwoofthepassengersontheboatwouldnotletthecrewdropanchor.112

29 December 2010

NTN031isapprehendedoutsideofAustralianwatersbutwithinAustralia’sExclusiveEconomicZonebyAustralianauthorities.113HeisoneofthreeIndonesiancrewmembersonboardaSIEVcarrying30AfghaniasylumseekerstoAustralia.Hehasatotalof864000Indonesianrupiah[A$91equivalent]inhispossession.114

January 2010

On5January2010,NTN031istransferredfromtheNavyvesseltoanalternativeplaceofdetentiononChristmasIsland.


On10January2010,duringaDIACentryinterview,NTN031statesthathisdateofbirthis27November1993.Thiswouldmakehim16yearsold.Healsosaysthathisbrother’scontactphonenumberforIndonesiaissavedinhismobilephonewhichhasbeenconfiscated.115

On13January2010,NTN031istransferredtoNorthernImmigrationDetentionCentreinDarwin.

On21January2010,AFPofficersseekNTN031’sconsenttoperformawristx-ray.Whileobtainingconsent,NTN031istoldbyanAFPofficerthatthepurposeofthewristx-rayis‘todeterminewhetherornotyouareundertheageofeighteen’.Whenheisasked‘Doyouunderstandwhythatx-rayisneeded?’,NTN031says‘[t]ocheckmytrueage’.Heconfirmsthathebelievesthathisdateofbirthis27November1993.116

NTN031iscautionedandgivenacopyofhisrightsinBahasaIndonesia.117BothNTN031andanindependentadultfromLifeWithoutBarriersgiveconsentfortheprocedure,118andanx-rayofhisleftwrististakenatRoyalDarwinHospital.

On22January2010,aninitialx-rayreportby[radiologist]statesthatthebonesinNTN031’swristare‘almostcompletelyfused’andhis‘skeletalageisestimatedatapproximately18.5years’.119

3 February 2010

AninformalmeetingtakesplacebetweenNTN031andDIACstaff,aswellasarepresentativefromLifeWithoutBarriers.Accordingtoasummaryofthemeeting:

[NTN031]statedthathewas18andassuchwouldliketobemovedtothe[adult]NIDC.…Clientconfirmedhewas18andwouldliketobemoved.…[DIACstaff]advisedoftheresultsofthewristx-rayandexplainedthattheseconfirmthatclientis18.ClientwasadvisedthatamovetotheNIDCwouldbearranged.120

7 July 2010

DuringatapedrecordofinterviewwiththeAFP,thefollowinginteractiontakesplaceconcerningNTN031’swristx-rayresult:

FEDERALAGENT:Doyourememberhavingx-rayonyourwrist?

THEINTERPRETER:Yes,Iwasx-rayed.

FEDERALAGENT:Yeah.Theytellusyou’re19,over19.

THEINTERPRETER:No,Iwasnottoldthat.AtthetimeIhadmyx-ray,Iwastoldthatmyagewasbetween18and19,butI’mnotover19.

354


FEDERALAGENT:So–okay.Soyouweretoldbetween18and19?

[NTN031]:Yeah.

FEDERALAGENT:Andyoustillsayyou’re16,eventhoughmedicalproofshowsyou’reover?

THEINTERPRETER:AssoonasIfoundthatout,IaskedthatIbemoved…totheplacewiththeadults.…

FEDERALAGENT:Okay.Isitpossiblethatyouareover18?Thatyouarenotsureofyouryearofbirth?

THEINTERPRETER:No.Mydateofbirthiscorrect.…

FEDERALAGENT:[I]fyoubelieveyouare16,whydidyouasktobemovedintotheadultdetentioncentre?

THEINTERPRETER:BecauseI’mthesortofperson,Iwasabitafraidtogointodebatewiththemoverit.121

ItislatersuggestedbytheAFPthat‘themainreasonsomeaccusedpersonsindetention,claimingtobejuveniles,asktobemovedtotheadultcentreisbecausetheycannotgainaccesstocigaretteswhilebeingtreatedasajuvenile’.122

6 October 2010

NTN031isarrestedandchargedasanadult.123AprosecutionnoticeissignedwhichstatesthatNTN031’sdateofbirthis27November1991.124

1 November 2010

NTN031istransferredtoAlbanyRegionalPrison,anadultmaximumsecuritycorrectionalfacility.

18 January 2011

AnemailfromtheOfficeoftheCDPPtoLegalAidraisestheissuethatNTN031doesnothavelegalrepresentation.125Bythistime,hehasbeenindetentionforover12monthsanditisoverthreemonthssincehewascharged.

April 2011

On12April2011,aninternalemailfromtheDeputyDirectoroftheOfficeoftheCDPPdrawsattentiontotheinitialx-rayreportwhichfoundthatNTN031was18.5yearsold.ItstatesthatthebenefitofthedoubtshouldbegivenandtheOfficeoftheCDPPshouldconsiderdiscontinuingtheprosecution.126


On26April2011,asecondmedicalopinionisobtainedfortheAFPfromDrVincentLow.HesaysthatNTN031’swristhasreachedskeletalmaturity,and‘itisareasonableinterpretationthat[NTN031]is19yearsofageorolder’.127HestatesthattheprobabilityofNTN031havingadateofbirthof27November1993‘islessthan1%’.128

20 May 2011

NTN031’slegalrepresentativesraisetheissueofageforthefirsttime.ThedefenceindicatesthatNTN031isdisputingageandchallengesthejurisdictionofthePerthMagistratesCourttohearhiscase.Thedefenceasksforanagedeterminationhearingtobelisted.129

July 2011

On17July2011,aStatementofMaterialFactsispreparedbytheOfficeoftheCDPPwhichstatesthatawristx-rayconductedonNTN031identifiesthatheis‘overtheageof18yearsofage,believedtobeatleast19yearsofage’.130

On25July2011,theOfficeoftheCDPPcontactsthedefencetoofferNTN031adentalx-raytohelpdeterminehisage.131

August 2011

On10August2011,anAFPofficertellstheOfficeoftheCDPPthatshehasrequestedenquiriestobeconductedinIndonesiatolocatedocumentationconfirmingNTN031’sage.132

On26August2011,theagedeterminationhearingisvacatedduetotheunavailabilityofdefencecounsel.133

September 2011

On1September2011,almosttwoyearsafterNTN031wasapprehendedinAustralia,anAFPofficertellstheOfficeoftheCDPPthatenquiriesareunderwayinIndonesiatolocatedocumentationconfirmingNTN031’sage,andthatitcantakebetweentwotoeightweeksforresultstobecomeavailable.134

On22September2011,theMagistrateinthePerthMagistratesCourtdecidesthatitwouldbeawasteofthecourt’stimetohaveanagedeterminationhearing,astheDistrictCourtisabletoreconsideranagedeterminationissueandthequestionofjurisdictionthathaspreviouslybeendeterminedintheMagistratesCourt.135

NTN031iscommittedfortrialon16December2011,withtheexpectationthatanagedeterminationhearingwilltakeplaceintheDistrictCourt.

356


On28September2011,theOfficeoftheCDPPrecommendssigninganindictmenttoproceedagainstNTN031.Itstates:

[NTN031]claimstobeajuvenileandisdisputingthejurisdictionofthecourt.…ThisminuteispreparedbasedontheassumptionthattheCrownwillsuccessfullyarguethat[NTN031]wasover18yearsatthetimeoftheallegedoffence.136

November 2011

On16November2011,anAFPofficerisassignedtotraveltoIndonesiaforthreeweekstopersonallyworkwiththeIndonesianNationalPoliceinseveralinvestigationsregardingtheagesofIndonesianschargedwithpeoplesmuggling.NTN031isoneoftheseindividuals.137

Onthesameday,aninternalminuteissenttotheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionsrecommendingtheprosecutionagainstNTN031bediscontinued.Itnotesthathehasconsistentlymaintainedthathisdateofbirthis27November1993,andthattheAFPenquirieshavenotresultedintheproductionofanydocumentsfromIndonesiarelevanttodeterminingage.Inparticular,itexpressesconcernsthat‘thefactthatthosetwodoctorscannotagree,castsseriousdoubtonthereliabilityofthemethodofageassessmentandinterpretationofthex-ray’.138

On22November2011,adecisionismadetodiscontinuetheprosecution.139

On26November2011,NTN031returnshometoIndonesia.Sincefirstclaimingtobeachild,NTN031hasspent278daysinimmigrationdetentionand412daysinamaximumsecurityadultprison.

Case study 4: INN012

• Apprehended:20February2010


• RemovedfromAustralia:16November2011


UntilFebruary2010,INN012livedwithhisaunt,hissister,andhisaunt’sfourchildreninAlorPantarBakalang,Indonesia.140Bothhisparentshavepassedaway.INN012beganworkingafterhecompletedprimaryschool.Heworkedanumberofcasualjobswhichhavenotprovidedhimwithmuchmoney–asadeckhandcarryingbagsofriceorcement,workingonhiscousin’sboatandalsohelpinghisauntcleanthehousewhilethefamilyfarmed.141Healsoworkedasamachineboyonsmallwoodenpowerboats,wherehecouldearnupto700000rupiah[A$74


equivalent]permonth.Inadditiontothis,hisauntrequiredhimtogofishing.142Hehadbeenfishingsinceheleftschool,usinghisowncanoe.Hecouldearnupto30000rupiah[A$3.20equivalent]perdaysellingfish,orupto150000rupiah[A$16equivalent]perweek.143Hewouldgivehalfofhisearningstohisaunttousefordailyneeds.144

INN012wassittingneartheentranceofhishousewhenhewasapproachedbyamannamed‘Herman’whohehadnevermetbefore.Hermanofferedhim10millionrupiah[A$1060equivalent]totakesomepeoplearoundthesmallislandsinIndonesia.INN012wastoldthathewouldbepaidoncehereturnedhome.145

INN012saysthathewentbyboattoMakassarwithHermanwheretheymettheothercrewmembers.TheythendrovetoSurabayatofindanothervesselastheoriginalboatwastoonarrowandtooshallowtobeofuse.HermandidnotaccompanythecrewwhentheboatleftSurabaya.Thepassengerscameontotheboatfromanothervesselwhileoutatsea.146Duringthejourney,INN012’sdutiesontheboatincludedlookingaftertheengine,steeringtheboatattimesandraisingandloweringthesail.147

February 2010

On20February2010,INN012isapprehendedinAustralianwatersnearAshmoreReefbyAustralianauthorities.HeisoneofthreeIndonesiancrewmembersonboardaSIEVcarrying10AfghaniasylumseekerstoAustralia.Hehas9000rupiah[$1equivalent]inhispossession.148INN012tellsmembersoftheRoyalAustralianNavythatheis15yearsold.149TheDIACnominalrollrecordsINN012’sdateofbirthas1January1995.150

On24February2010,INN012istakentoChristmasIslandforprocessingandtransferredintoDIACcustody.SERCOrecordshisdateofbirthas1January1995.151

On25February2010,duringaDIACentryinterview,INN012againassertsthatheis15yearsold.152DIACproceedstotreatINN012asajuvenile.153

10 March 2010

INN012istransferredtoNorthernImmigrationDetentionCentre(Berrimahaccommodation)inDarwin.

April 2010

On1April2010,AFPofficersseekINN012’sconsenttoperformawristx-raybasedonhisearlierclaimthatheisnotyetanadult.INN012iscautionedandgivenacopyofhisrightsinBahasaIndonesia.154BothINN012andanindependentadultgiveconsentfortheprocedure,andanx-ray

358


ofhisleftwrististakeninDarwin.155AninitialmedicalopinionassessesINN012tobeabout19yearsold.156

On6April2010,aCriminalJusticeStayCertificateisissuedwhichstatesthatINN012’sdateofbirthis1January1995.157

June 2010

On16June2010,INN012participatesinatapedrecordofinterviewwiththeAFP.Hedeclinestomakecontactwithalawyer.158AnindependentadultispresentduringtheinterviewbutappearstostaysilentandoffersnoadvicetoINN012.159Duringtheinterview,INN012istoldbytheAFPthatthewristx-raydeterminedhisagetobe19yearsold.160Heisthenaskedthequestion‘Areyouundertheageofeighteen?’,andhesays‘Yes.I’mnineteen’.161

Thisisthenreferredtoasan‘admission’byINN012ofbeingbornon1January1991.162

ApsychologistreportobtainedbyINN012’sdefencelawyerduringpreparationforhistrialdescribesINN012’sexperienceofhisinterviewwiththeAFP.Thereportreads:

[INN012]statedthathewasafraidduringtheinterviewwiththePolice.Whenaskedwhyheinitiallysaidhewas15yearsoldandlatersaidhewas19yearsold,[INN012]reportedthat“theyaskedmesomanyquestions…Iwasconfused…theytoldmeaccordingtoawristx-raymyageshouldbe19andI’mafraidtogoagainstthat…buttheladywhoraisedmesaidmyagewas15andhowcouldInotbelieveher…Iamconfusedaboutthex-ray”.Headdedthat“inthatinterview,Isaidthewrongthinginmyheart”.163

October 2010

On14October2010,INN012isformallyarrestedandcharged.Accordingtoadescriptioninthepsychologist’sreport,INN012foundtheexperienceofbeingarrestedfrightening:

[H]ewas“terrified”whenhewasarrestedandstatedthathisheartwasracing.Headdedthathethoughtitwasbettertostayquietsoasnotto“sayanythingagainstthepolice”.164

Thesameday,theAFPcontactstheIndonesianConsulateandtheDeputyConsularGeneralagreestocontactINN012’suncleinIndonesiatoinformhimofINN012’sarrest.165INN012appearsbeforeCentralLocalCourt.166Bailisnotappliedforandisformallyrefused.INN012istransferredfromimmigrationdetentiontotheMetropolitanRemandandReceptionCentreatSilverwaterCorrectionalCentre.Again,thepsychologistreportobtainedbyINN012’sdefencelawyerdescribesINN012’sexperienceofbeinginprison:


Ofhissituationinprison…hedescribedthathefeels“theothersaremoregrownupthanme”andfurtherstatedthathefeels“sad”aboutbeinginprison.Specifically,hestatedthathemissedtheskyandwisheshecouldgohome.Hecommentedthathetriesto“liveeachdayasitgoesby”andtriestokeepbusybyworkingintheprisonfoldingclothes.167

26 November 2010

ThefullbriefofevidenceonINN012’scaseisservedonthedefence.168ThisisthefirsttimeINN012receiveslegalrepresentation.169

December 2010

On20December2010,INN012’slawyerwithdrawsfromthecaseduetoapotentialconflictofinterest.ThematterisreturnedtotheLegalAidCommissionforreallocation.170

On24December2010,INN012obtainsnewlegalrepresentation.Itisnotedthattherewillbeadelayuntil17January2011untilthepreviouslawyerreturnsfromholidaysothathecantransferthebriefofevidenceacrosstoINN012’snewdefencerepresentatives.171

January 2011

On10January2011,anOfficeoftheCDPPfilenotefromaconversationwithINN012’sdefencerepresentativesnotesthat‘hedoeslookyoung’.172Thedefenceraisetheissueofhisageforthefirsttimeandaskforacopyofthewristx-rayandreport.173

February 2011

On2February2011,theAFPobtainanotherreportontheinitialwristx-rayfromaconsultantradiologist.Hesaysthat‘itisareasonableinterpretationthat[INN012]isabovetheageof19years’.174

On7February2011,amagistrateintheLocalCourtexpresseshisunhappinesswiththeprogressionofthematterandapologisestoINN012forthedelay.175

March 2011

On7March2011,INN012’sdefencerepresentativesmakeanapplicationforanadjournmentoffourweekstoallowtimetoobtainanexpertreport,havingonlyreceivedtheoriginalx-rayoneweekearlier.176

360


On29March2011,anemailfromtheAFPtotheOfficeoftheCDPPreferstothetapedrecordofinterviewwhereINN012isasked:

howoldheisand[INN012]answers19.Thisquestionisfollowedby[INN012]claimingthathedoesnotknowhisdateofbirth.ThisisagainconsistentwiththemajorityofSIEVcaseswherebyatthetimeofinterceptionbothfalsenamesanddatesofbirthareprovidedtoauthoritiesinordertominimisethechanceofprosecution.177

30 May 2011

DrVincentLowprovidestheAFPwithanexpertreportwhichstatesthattheprobabilityofINN012beinglessthan18yearsoldatthedateoftheoffenceisapproximately24%.178

June 2011

On6June2011,amagistratefromtheBankstownLocalCourtsaysthatINN012’smatterhasbeendraggingonsinceOctober2010anditisnotfairtotheaccused.179

On16June2011,theAFPmakesitsfirstrequesttoIndonesiaforagerelateddocumentation,16monthsafterINN012wasapprehended.TheystatethatINN012’sdateofbirthis1January1991.180

July 2011

On7July2011,theAFPreceivedocumentaryevidencefromIndonesia.Theyobtaintwo‘CitationofBirthCertificates’;onefora‘[INN012]’andtheotherunderadifferentname.Thetwocitationsareidenticalinallaspectsexceptfornameandyearofbirth.TheAFP‘suggeststhatthedocumentinthenameof[INN012]wherenooriginalwasavailablecouldbeafraudulentdocument’.181

On8July2011,INN012’slawyersasktheOfficeoftheCDPPtodiscontinuetheprosecutiononthegroundsthatINN012was15yearsoldatthetimeoftheoffenceandbasedonhisspecialvulnerability.182TheyprovidearadiologistreportwhichstatesthattheGPAtlas‘wasnotintendedasanestimatorofchronologicalage.Extrapolatingdatainareversefashionisnotscientificallyvalid’.Thereportgoesontosaythat‘notestforchronologicalageisconclusive’.TheradiologiststatesthatINN012hasaskeletalageof19years,but‘itisincorrecttointerpretthisfindingasstatingheis19yearsorolder.…[He]couldbeunder18yearsofageandstillhaveaskeletalageasdescribed.’183

ThedefencealsoprovidetheOfficeoftheCDPPwithastatementfromanIndonesianculturalexpertwhointerviewedINN012andreviewedtheAFPtapedrecordofinterview.Shestatesthat


itislikelyINN012acceptedwhattheAFPofficersaidwhenhewastoldthathewas19afterthewristx-ray,as‘[w]hensomeoneinauthoritytellsavillagersomething,heorshewouldsimplyacceptit,outofdeferenceorfearofpeopleinauthority’.184

ThedefencealsoprovidesareportofaclinicalpsychologistwhoreportsthatINN012hasasignificantmentalimpairmentwithanintellectualfunctioninginthelowest5%ofhisagedpeers,185andthathemeetsthecriteriaforamildtomoderateintellectualdisability.186ShealsosaysthereareseveralindiciaofINN012’syouth,whichinclude‘alackofanyintimaterelationships,orevenholdinghandswithagirl,lackoflicencetodriveamopedorcar,andlackofidentitycardknownasKTP’.187

On8July2011,aninternalOfficeoftheCDPPemailindicatesthattheywillobjecttothetenderofbothreportsproducedbythedefence,theculturalreport‘onthebasisthatitscontentisirrelevanttoanagedeterminationactivity’andthereportoftheclinicalpsychologistonthegroundsthatit‘doesnotrelatetoanychronologicalagebutto[INN012’s]perceivedabilityto“handleimprisonmentinanadultprison”’.188

On18July2011,anOfficeoftheCDPPminuteispreparedbytheLegalOfficerresponsibleforINN012’scaseandrecommendsthattheprosecutionbediscontinuedbasedontheclinicalpsychologist’sreportthatINN012hasanintellectualdisability.189

Thesameday,anofficeroftheAFPcommunicatestotheOfficeoftheCDPPthathecannotseeanyfactsthatindicatetheprosecutionshouldbediscontinued,‘[n]otwithstandingthecompassiononemayfeelfor[INN012]andhiscircumstances’.190

On20July2011,aPrincipalLegalOfficerandSeniorLegalOfficeroftheOfficeoftheCDPPbothdecidetocontinuewiththeprosecution,stating‘[i]nregardstointellectualdeficit,thelevelofpovertyandlackofeducationistypicalintheseoffence[sic]andrequiregeneraldeterrence.…[T]heaccusedknewwhathewasdoingandexpectedtobepaid’.191

August 2011

On15August2011,anagedeterminationhearingisheldinBankstownLocalCourt.TheMagistrate‘acceptsthatx-rayscannotgiveachronologicalage’.However,basedonthewristx-rayevidencehebelievesitismoreprobablethannotthatINN012wasover18yearsoldatthetimeoftheoffence.192

On29August2011,INN012iscommittedfortrialinCampbelltownDistrictCourton12June2012.193

362


October 2011

On21October2011,INN012’slawyersonceagainasktheOfficeoftheCDPPtodiscontinuetheprosecutiononthegroundsthatINN012isachild.TheyproduceanexpertreportfromProfessorTimColeassertingthatthereisa61%probabilityofINN012reachingskeletalmaturitybefore18yearsofage.194

On23October2011,INN012’sdefencelawyertravelstoIndonesiaandgathersaffidavitevidenceofINN012’sagefromhissister,auntanduncleattestingtohisclaimthathewaslessthan18yearsold.195

November 2011

On1November2011,INN012’slawyerssendtheOfficeoftheCDPPtheaffidavitsobtainedfromINN012’ssister,auntandunclewhichstatethatheislessthan18yearsold.

On2November2011,anOfficeoftheCDPPminuterecommendsthattheprosecutionagainstINN012bediscontinuedfollowingreceiptofthedefenceevidence.196AfilenotewrittenbyanActingPrincipalLegalOfficerfromtheOfficeoftheCDPPagreeswiththerecommendationtodiscontinue.Nonetheless,itstatesthat:‘ThereportofProfessorColedoesnomorethanattempttounderminethecredibilityofthemethodologywhichhasbeenproscribedbytheAustralianParliament.’197

On7November2011,theCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionsagreestodiscontinuethecaseagainstINN012.198

On8November2011,chargesareformallywithdrawnatSydneyDistrictCourt.INN012issubsequentlyreleasedtoVillawoodImmigrationDetentionCentre.199

On16November2011,INN012returnshometoIndonesia.Sincefirstclaimingtobeachild,INN012hasspent241daysinimmigrationdetentionpriortoformalarrest,and390daysinanadultprison.

Case study 5: DUR041

• Apprehended:28March2010


• RemovedfromAustralia:3December2010



UntilMarch2010,DUR041livedwithhismotherinRote,Indonesia.DUR041onlycompleteduptoGrade3ofschoolinhisvillageashisfamilycouldnolongeraffordtopaytheschoolfees.Afterleavingschool,DUR041workedasafishermanandcouldearnupto50000rupiahperday[A$5.30equivalent].200DUR041hadworkedasacookandcrewmemberonfishingboatsforoneyear.201

DUR041wasathomewithhismotherwhenafriendcametohishouseandtoldhimthatthecaptainwantedtoseehim.Hehadworkedwiththecaptainonetimebefore.Thecaptainofferedhim5millionrupiah[A$530equivalent]tobeacrewmemberonaboatthatwouldbegoingtoAustralia.Hewaspaidthemoneythatnightandgaveittohismother.Heaccompaniedthecaptaintotheharbourthefollowingnightandtheygotintoasmallboattotravelouttoalargerboat.Onehouraftergettingonthelargerboat,thepassengerscameonboardviasmallervesselsoutatsea.202

Duringthejourney,DUR041wasresponsibleforpreparingthefoodforthecrewandpassengers.203Hedidnotknowthathewouldbethecookbeforehegotontheboat.204Therewereinitiallysevencrewonboardtheboat,butthreeofthecrewmembersdepartedviaasmallervesselthenightbeforetheboatwasintercepted.205

DUR041 was not aware of the difference between Indonesian and Australian waters but he knew that boats monitor the border. He did not know that it is illegal to travel from Indonesia to Australia without travel documents.206

March 2010

On28March2010,DUR041isapprehendedinAustralianwatersbyAustralianauthorities.HeisoneoffourIndonesiancrewmembersonboardaSIEVcarrying36asylumseekerstoAustralia.207

DUR041remainsontheAustralianNavyshipforthreedaysbeforeheistakentoChristmasIslandforprocessingandtransferredintoDIACcustody.208

April 2010

On2April2010,DUR041statesduringaninterviewwithDIAC209thathisdateofbirthis24August1999,asthisiswhathewastoldbyhisparents.210Thiswouldmakehim11yearsold.

On5April2010,DUR041istransferredfromChristmasIslandtoNorthernImmigrationDetentionCentre(BerrimahAccommodation)inDarwin.211

On15April2010,AFPofficersseekDUR041’sconsenttoperformawristx-raybasedonhisearlierclaimthatheisnotyetanadult.HeiscautionedandgivenacopyofhisrightsinBahasa

364


Indonesia.212BothDUR041andanindependentadultfromLifeWithoutBarriersgiveconsentfortheprocedure,213andanx-rayofhisleftwrististakenatNorthernTerritoryMedicalImaging.214

DUR041 says that he was aware the x-ray was to determine his age.215

6 May 2010

ACriminalJusticeStayCertificateisissuedwhichstatesthatDUR041’sdateofbirthis24August1999.216

September 2010

On8September2010,aninternalDIACemailattachingalistofminorcrewindetentionstatesthataDIACcasemanagerissatisfiedthatDUR041isunder15yearsoldandshouldberemoved.217

On11September2010,CorrectiveServicesNSWcontacttheAFPDarwinOfficeandrequestDUR041’sx-rayinformationashehasinformedthemthatheisonly11yearsold.TheAFPprovidedCorrectiveServicesNSWwiththex-rayreportforDUR041.218

On29September2010,aStatementofMaterialFactsispreparedbytheAFPwhichstatesthatDUR041toldtheAFPthathewasawarethatthewristx-rayresultsindicatedthathewas19yearsold.ItstatesthatDUR041didnotbelievethathewasthisoldashismotherandfathertoldhimhewasbornin1999.219

On30September2010,aninternalDIACemailexpressesconcernaboutDUR041’sageandhistransferintoAFPcustodytofacechargesasanadult.Itstates‘IknowthattheAFP’swristx-rayindicatesthisclient“approximates19”butourinformationisthatheislikelytobeunder15’.220

October 2010

On4October2010,aninternalDIACemailnotesthat‘theAFPareinsistentthat[DUR041]isover18andintendtochargehimasanadult.…[T]heindicationsfromtheAFParethattheywon’tdiscussoptionsforthisclient.’221

On6October2010,DIACinformstheAFPthatDIACageassessmentofficersdonotconsiderDUR041]tobeover18yearsold,andconsideritlikelythatheisbetween14to15yearsold.TheyalsotelltheAFPthatDUR041sayshismotherhasabirthcertificateandthathewilltrytoobtainacopy.222

On7October2010,DUR041isformallychargedasanadult.223HeistransferredtoSilverwaterCorrectionalfacility.224


On8October2010,DUR041appearsbeforeCentralLocalCourt.Bailisnotappliedforandisformallyrefused.TheMagistrateordersthatDUR041istobekeptwithatleastoneothercrewmemberforcompany,andthematterisadjournedforanagedeterminationhearingon1November2010.225

Thesameday,thedefenceemailstheOfficeoftheCDPPqueryingwhethertheAFPhaveanywayofconfirmingDUR041’sdateofbirth.Thedefencedrawsattentiontothebriefmedicalreportwhichreferstoan‘estimate ofanapproximate age’andsaysthatthis‘islessthansatisfactorywhentheresultisthepossibledetentionofachildinanadultgaol’.ThedefencealsosaysthatDUR041didnotlook18yearsold.226

Laterthatday,aninternalOfficeoftheCDPPemailnotes,‘Iamconcernedaboutthisone.Thesolicitorsheresaythathewouldpassfor15.Wherewehaveaborderlinecaseof“approximately19”,I’mwonderingwhetherweshouldpressonorsendhimback.’227Thisisfollowedbyanemailwhichstatesthatinmatterswheretherehasbeensomedoubtabouttheage,theOfficeoftheCDPPhas‘ensuredthatCorrectiveServiceswereawareoftheissue’.228

On11October2010,aninternalOfficeoftheCDPPemailnotestheconcernsraisedbyLegalAidandrecommendsfollowingupwiththeAFP.Itsays‘[a]lsoask(thoughweknowtheanswer)whetherrecordsmaybeavailablefromIndonesia.Thetonetotakeisthatthisisofgenuineconcern(becauseitis),andthatwearenotbeingdismissiveoftheconcernsof[LegalAid]’.229

On14October2010,CorrectiveServicesNSWagaincontacttheAFPenquiringaboutDUR041’sageasheiscontinuingtoclaimthatheisachild.TheAFPadvisethat‘itwastheopinionoftheAFPthattheearlierx-rayanalyseswas[accurate]andthat[DUR041]wasbornnolaterthan1991andthattheonlyreasonthanaexpertwitnessstatementwasbeingobtainedwastosatisfyNSWCourts’.230

On22October2010,anexpertreportfromDrVincentLowstatesthatDUR041is‘over18yearsofage,andclosetoreachingskeletalmaturityageof19years’.Itnotesthatthebonesinhiswristhavenotfullyfused.231

On29October2010,anOfficeoftheCDPPfilenotefromaconversationwiththedefencerecordsrealconcernabouttheapplicabilityoftheGPAtlastopeoplefromdifferentethnicbackgrounds.ThedefencesaythattheydonotaccepttheexpertreportfromDrLowandareseekingfundingfromLegalAidtoobtaintheirownexpertreport.232

Thesameday,DIACsendstheformalreportfromDIAC’sageassessmentinterviewofDUR041totheAFPandtheOfficeoftheCDPP.233Itstatesthatbasedonhisphysicalappearance,demeanour,behaviour,educationandfamilyhistory,DIACbelievesthatDUR041isprobablyolder

366


than11yearsbutheisnotovertheageof18.234BoththeCDPPandAFPtakeissuewiththerelevanceofthereport.235

November 2010

On1November2010,anofficerfromtheOfficeoftheCDPPtellstheAFPthathefeelstheexpertwitnessreportandDIACageassessmentreportarelikelytocreateenoughdoubtforthecourttohaveiterronthesideofcautionandconsiderDUR041asunder18yearsofage.236

On2November2010,theOfficeoftheCDPPasktheAFPfortheirviewofDUR041’smatter.AnAFPofficerstatesthattheAFPwould:

seektoreturnallpeoplethattestto18years,aspartoftheinitialtestingprocess,unlessthereisexceptionalcircumstances.Inthiscase[DUR041]testedat19,theexpertreportdetailshimasover18.Therearenoexceptionalcircumstanceswiththisindividual.237

HealsostatesthattheDIACageassessmentreportis‘questionableastoitsconclusions’,and:

theoutcomesnowpotentiallymeanthatanytestof19(anyadult)throughthex-rayprocesstheprosecutioncanbecrippledbytheDIACpilotassessmentthathaslittleacademicrigourorfoundationfortheconclusionsmade.…ThiscurrentDIACpilotprocesspotentiallyraisesrisksforthegovernmentparticularlytotheirclaimatbeingtoughonpeoplesmugglers.238

On21November2010,aninternalOfficeoftheCDPPemailrecommendstakingacautiousapproachincaseswhereawristx-rayshowsaperson’swristplatesarenotcompletelyfusedandthattheseindividualsshouldbetreatedasjuveniles.239

On23November2010,anOfficeoftheCDPPminuteissenttotheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionsrecommendingwithdrawalofthechargesagainstDUR041.ItstatesthatthereisapossibilitythatDUR041isunder18yearsofageduetothestandarddeviationsavailablewhencomparingchronologicalandskeletalage.240

On30November2010,chargesagainstDUR041arewithdrawnandheisplacedinDIACcustody.241

3 December 2010

DUR041returnshometoIndonesia.Sincefirstclaimingtobeachild,DUR041hasspent188daysinimmigrationdetentionand57daysinanadultprison.

__________________________________________________________________________________

1InterviewwithAliJasmin,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,AlbanyRegionalPrison,26April2012.


2InterviewwithAliJasmin,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,AlbanyRegionalPrison,26April2012.3Statementofmaterialfacts,AFP,31March2010(CDPPdocument026.0031).4Statementofmaterialfacts,CDPP,30June2010(CDPPdocument026.0190).5InterviewwithAliJasmin,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,AlbanyRegionalPrison,26April2012.6InterviewwithAliJasmin,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,AlbanyRegionalPrison,26April2012.7Statementofmaterialfacts,CDPP,30June2010(CDPPdocument026.0190).8InterviewwithAliJasmin,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,AlbanyRegionalPrison,26April2012.9Statementofmaterialfacts,AFP,31March2010(CDPPdocument026.0031).10InterviewwithAliJasmin,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,AlbanyRegionalPrison,26April2012.11Consenttocarryoutaprescribedprocedure(wristx-ray)–individual,AFP,20January2010(AFP

document2);Consenttocarryoutaprescribedprocedure(wristx-ray)–independentadult,AFP,20January2010(AFPdocument2);[Radiologist],Medicalopinion,RoyalDarwinHospital,28January2010(CDPPdocument026.0029).

12Transcriptoftapedrecordofinterview,20January2010(CDPPdocument026.0300).13CriminalJusticeStayCertificate,AGD,25January2010(AFPdocument4).14[Radiologist],Medicalreport,RoyalDarwinHospital,28January2010(CDPPdocument026.0029).15[Radiologist],Medicalreport,RoyalDarwinHospital,28January2010(CDPPdocument026.0029).16Transcriptoftapedrecordofinterview,20January2010(CDPPdocument026.0300).17InterviewwithAliJasmin,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,AlbanyRegionalPrison,26April2012.18InterviewwithAliJasmin,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,AlbanyRegionalPrison,26April2012.19CDPPPerthOffice,FileNote,22September2010(CDPPdocument026.0419).20Transcriptoftapedrecordofinterview,AFP,30March2010(AFPdocument6).21Prosecutionnotice,MagistratesCourtofWesternAustralia,AFP,29March2010(AFPdocument5);

FederalAgent,AFP,EmailtoLegalOfficer,CDPP,30March2010(CDPPdocument026.0588).22InterviewwithAliJasmin,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,AlbanyRegionalPrison,26April2012.23Indictment,DistrictCourtatPerth,CDPP,2July2010(CDPPdocument027.0003).24TranscriptofProceedings,R v Ali Jasmin (DistrictCourtofWesternAustralia,CommissionerGething,30

July2010)(CDPPdocument026.0452).25LegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,EmailtoDrVincentLow,30July2010(CDPPdocument026.0491);

SeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,EmailtoFederalAgent,AFPPerthOffice,2August2010(CDPPdocument026.0470).

26SeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,LettertoFederalAgents,AFPPerthOffice,2August2010(CDPPdocument026.0486).

27TranscriptofProceedings,R v Ali Jasmin (DistrictCourtofWesternAustralia,CommissionerGething,6August2010)(CDPPdocument026.0449).

28Officer,DIAC,EmailtoLegalOfficers,CDPPPerthOffice,24August2010(CDPPdocument026.0434).29SeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,EmailtoDIACOfficer,24August2010(CDPPdocument

026.0434).30Officer,DIAC,EmailtoLegalOfficers,CDPPPerthOffice,24August2010(CDPPdocument026.0444).31IntelligenceAnalyst,DepartmentofCorrectiveServicesWesternAustralia,EmailtoReturnsandRemovals

Manager,DIAC,9September2010(DIACdocumentmail39646221).

368


32FederalAgent,AFP,EmailtoSeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,22September2010(CDPPdocument026.0410).

33An.HeadofEasternIndonesianPolice,DirectorateofIntelligenceandSecurity,TheRepublicofIndonesiaNationalPoliceForceEasternIndonesia,FaxtoAFPLiaisonOfficer,AustralianConsul,12October2010(CDPPdocument026.0348).

34An.HeadofEasternIndonesianPolice,DirectorateofIntelligenceandSecurity,TheRepublicofIndonesiaNationalPoliceForceEasternIndonesia,FaxtoAFPLiaisonOfficer,AustralianConsul,12October2010(CDPPdocument026.0348).

35OfficerforDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,LettertoCounselfordefence,18October2010(CDPPdocument026.0362).

36FederalAgent,AFP,EmailtoLegalOfficer,CDPP,20October2010(CDPPdocument026.0347).37FederalAgent,AFP,EmailtoPrincipalLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,24November2010(CDPP

document026.0153).38TranscriptofProceedings,The Queen v A J(DistrictCourtofWesternAustralia,KeenDCJ,8December

2010)(CDPPdocument029.0019),p72.39R v Jasmin[2010]WADC189,[97].40TranscriptofProceedings,The Queen v A J(DistrictCourtofWesternAustralia,KeenDCJ,22December

2010)(CDPPdocument026.0067),p106.41AJ v The Queen[2011]WASCA166.42HonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,CorrespondencetoHonNRoxon

MP,Attorney-General,16March2012.43ChannelTenTelevision,‘IndonesianminorsinadultAustralianprisons’,The Project,16April2012.At

http://theprojecttv.com.au/video.htm?movideo_p=39696&movideo_m=178563(viewed9July2012).44See,forexample,AAP,‘JailedIndonesianboy:Greensurgeinquiry’,Sydney Morning Herald,19April

2012.Athttp://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/jailed-indonesian-boy-greens-urge-inquiry-20120419-1x8sm.html(viewed9July2012);ProjectSafeComInc,‘GillardonAliJasmin:wooden,stubborn,stupidanddumb’(Mediarelease,19April2012).Athttp://www.safecom.org.au/news-1904-2012.htm(viewed9July2012);DSyofyan,‘ThetragedyofIndonesia’sinternationaldiplomacy’,The Jakarta Post,5May2012.Athttp://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/05/05/the-tragedy-indonesia-s-international-diplomacy.html(viewed9July2012);MMorrison,‘TimetorethinkAustralianpolicies’,The Jakarta Post,5May2012.Athttp://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2012/05/05/time-rethink-australian-policies.html(viewed9July2012);RTaylor,‘Sinkinginrhetoric’,The West Australian,5May2012.Athttp://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/latest/13609403/sinking-in-rhetoric/(viewed9July2012).

45HonNRoxonMP,Attorney-General,‘Initialresultsofpeoplesmugglingconvictionsreview’(Mediarelease,17May2012).Athttp://www.attorneygeneral.gov.au/Media-releases/Pages/2012/Second%20Quarter/17-May-2012---Initial-results-of-people-smuggling-convictions-review.aspx(viewed9July2012).

46NO’Brien,‘Hewas13yearsoldwhenAustralialockedhiminanadultprisonforpeoplesmuggling’,Sydney Morning Herald,20May2012.Athttp://www.smh.com.au/national/he-was-13-years-old-when-australia-locked-him-in-an-adult-prison-for-people-smuggling-20120519-1yxfc.html(viewed9July2012);HMacDonald,‘AliJasmincomeshome’,The Global Mail,24May2012.Athttp://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/ali-jasmin-comes-home/249/(viewed9July2012).

47Transcriptoftapedrecordofinterview,AFP,17March2010(AFPdocument6),p8;Statementofmaterialfacts,CDPP,18May2010(CDPPdocument022.0002).


48InterviewwithOSB051,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,AlbanyRegionalPrison,26April2012;Transcriptoftapedrecordofinterview,AFP,17March2010(AFPdocument6),p8–9.

49Transcriptoftapedrecordofinterview,AFP,17March2010(AFPdocument6),p11;Statementofmaterialfacts,CDPP,18May2010(CDPPdocument022.0002).

50InterviewwithOSB051,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,AlbanyRegionalPrison,26April2012.51Transcriptoftapedrecordofinterview,AFP,17March2010(AFPdocument6),p11.52InterviewwithOSB051,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,AlbanyRegionalPrison,26April2012.53Transcriptoftapedrecordofinterview,AFP,17March2010(AFPdocument6),p11.54Transcriptoftapedrecordofinterview,AFP,17March2010(AFPdocument6),p11.55InterviewwithOSB051,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,AlbanyRegionalPrison,26April2012.56Transcriptoftapedrecordofinterview,AFP,17March2010(AFPdocument6),p11.57Statementof[DIACDetentionOperationsOfficer],AFP,26May2010(CDPPdocument025.0184),p9.58Entryinterview,DIAC,12January2010(CDPPdocument021.0182),p3.59Part1CCautionandrights–Bahasa(Indonesia),AFP,21January2010(CDPPdocument004.0321).60Audiorecordingofwristx-rayconsentprocedure.AFPResponsetodraftreport,6July2012.61Consenttocarryoutaprescribedprocedure(wristx-ray)–individual,AFP,21January2010(CDPP

document004.0326);Consenttocarryoutaprescribedprocedure(wristx-ray)–independentadult,AFP,21January2010(CDPPdocument004.0324);Consenttoreleaseofpatientmedicalinformation,AFP,21January2010(CDPPdocument004.0322).

62CriminalJusticeStayCertificate,AGD,25January2010(AFPdocument2).63Transcriptoftapedrecordofinterview,AFP,17March2010(AFPdocument6),p6;Medicalopinion,28

January2010(CDPPdocument022.0558).64InterviewwithOSB051,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,AlbanyRegionalPrison,26April2012;

Transcriptoftapedrecordofinterview,AFP,17March2010(AFPdocument6),p20.65InterviewwithOSB051,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,AlbanyRegionalPrison,26April2012.66InterviewwithOSB051,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,AlbanyRegionalPrison,26April2012.67Transcriptoftapedrecordofinterview,AFP,17March2010(AFPdocument6),p9.68Prosecutionnotice,MagistratesCourtofWesternAustralia,AFP,17March2010(AFPdocument5).69InterviewwithOSB051,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,AlbanyRegionalPrison,26April2012.70Affidavitof[SeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice],DistrictCourtofWesternAustralia,15April2011

(CDPPdocument022.0216),p2.71Affidavitof[SeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice],DistrictCourtofWesternAustralia,15April2011

(CDPPdocument022.0216),p2.72Affidavitof[SeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice],DistrictCourtofWesternAustralia,15April2011

(CDPPdocument022.0216),p2.73InterviewwithOSB051,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,AlbanyRegionalPrison,26April2012.74Affidavitof[SeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice],DistrictCourtofWesternAustralia,15April2011

(CDPPdocument022.0216),p2.75SeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,EmailtoFederalAgent,AFPPerthOffice,3September2010

(CDPPdocument022.0591).

370


76IntelligenceAnalyst,DepartmentofCorrectiveServicesWesternAustralia,EmailtoReturnsandRemovalsManager,DIAC,9September2010(DIACdocumentmail39646221).

77SeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,EmailtoFederalAgent,AFP,13October2010(CDPPdocument022.0585);DrVincentLow,Expertmedicalreport,AFP,19October2010(CDPPdocument004.0314).

78DrVincentLow,Expertmedicalreport,AFP,19October2010(CDPPdocument004.0314),p2.79Counselfordefence,FaxtoDrVincentLow,21October2010(CDPPdocument004.0334).80OfficerforDirector,CDPP,InstructionstoCounsel(CDPPdocument004.0006).81Affidavitof[SeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice],DistrictCourtofWesternAustralia,15April2011

(CDPPdocument022.0216),p4.82TranscriptofProceedings,The Queen v [OSB051] and RMA(MagistratesCourtofWesternAustralia,

MagistrateCalder,16November2010)(CDPPdocument022.0383),p13.83TranscriptofProceedings,Police v [OSB051] and RMA (MagistratesCourtofWesternAustralia,

MagistrateCalder,3December2010)(CDPPdocument022.0079),pp7–8.84InterviewwithOSB051,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,AlbanyRegionalPrison,26April2012.85ActingSeniorAssistantDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,MinutetoDeputyDirectorforFastTrackIndictment,

CDPPPerthOffice,3March2011(CDPPdocument069.0219).86DeputyDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,SignedFastTrackIndictmenttoActingSeniorAssistantDirector,

CDPPPerthOffice,8March2011(CDPPdocument069.0219).87DrJamesChristie,Medicalopinion,Defence,14March2011(CDPPdocument022.0163).88Counselfordefence,LettertoSeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,17March2011(CDPPdocument

022.0162).89TranscriptofProceedings,The Queen v [OSB051](DistrictCourtofWesternAustralia,MartinoCJDC,25

March2011)(CDPPdocument022.0186),p2.90TranscriptofProceedings,R v [OSB051] (DistrictCourtofWesternAustralia,WisbeyDCJ,21June2011)

(CDPPdocument022.0055).91ActingSeniorAssistantDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,EmailtoSeniorAssistantDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,

2November2011(CDPPdocument069.0102).92InterviewwithOSB051,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,AlbanyRegionalPrison,26April2012.93ProfessorTimCole,Expertreport,Defence,14October2011(CDPPdocument022.0091).94SeniorAssistantDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,MemorandumtoDeputyDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,2

November2011(CDPPdocument069.0106).95PrincipalLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,MinutetoSeniorAssistantDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,2

November2011(CDPPdocument069.0079).96SeniorAssistantDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,MemotoDeputyDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,2November

2011(CDPPdocument069.0106).97PrincipalLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,EmailtoCounselfordefence,2November2011(CDPP

document069.0083).98Counselfordefence,FaxtoCriminalRegistry,DistrictCourtofWesternAustralia,3November2011

(CDPPdocument069.0059).99TranscriptofProceedings,The Queen v [OSB051](DistrictCourtofWesternAustralia,StaudeDCJ,10

November2011)(CDPPdocument069.0009),p41.


100TranscriptofProceedings,The Queen v [OSB051](DistrictCourtofWesternAustralia,StaudeDCJ,10November2011)(CDPPdocument069.0009),p56.

101InterviewwithOSB051,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,AlbanyRegionalPrison,26April2012.102HonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,CorrespondencetoHonNRoxon

MP,Attorney-General,16March2012.103InterviewwithOSB051,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,AlbanyRegionalPrison,26April2012.104InterviewwithOSB051,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,AlbanyRegionalPrison,26April2012.105HonNRoxonMP,Attorney-General,‘Initialresultsofpeoplesmugglingconvictionsreview’(Media

release,17May2012).Athttp://www.attorneygeneral.gov.au/Media-releases/Pages/2012/Second%20Quarter/17-May-2012---Initial-results-of-people-smuggling-convictions-review.aspx(viewed9July2012).

106Transcriptoftapedrecordofinterview,AFP,7July2010(AFPdocument7),p4.107Entryinterview,DIAC,10January2010(AFPdocument1),p11.108SeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,MinutetoSeniorAssistantDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,28

September2011(CDPPdocument317.0245),p14.109Entryinterview,DIAC,10January2010(AFPdocument1),p16.110SeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,MinutetoSeniorAssistantDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,28

September2011(CDPPdocument317.0245),p8.111Statementofmaterialfacts,CDPP,17July2011(CDPPdocument173.0251).112Entryinterview,DIAC,10January2010(AFPdocument1),p14.113SeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,MinutetoSeniorAssistantDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,28

September2011(CDPPdocument317.0245),p5.114Statementofmaterialfacts,CDPP,17July2011(CDPPdocument173.0251).115Entryinterview,DIAC,10January2010(AFPdocument1),pp3,7.116Transcriptoftapedrecordofinterview,AFP,21January2010(CDPPdocument173.0458).117Part1CCautionandrights–Bahasa(Indonesia),AFP,20January2010(CDPPdocument315.0246).118Consenttocarryoutaprescribedprocedure(wristx-ray)–individual,AFP,21January2010(AFP

document4);Consenttocarryoutaprescribedprocedure(wristx-ray)–independentadult,AFP,21January2010(AFPdocument4).

119SeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,MinutetoDirector,CDPP,16November2011(CDPPdocument317.0086),p2.

120FederalAgent,AFP,EmailtoSeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,22August2011(CDPPdocument251.0014),p6.

121Transcriptoftapedrecordofinterview,AFP,7July2010(AFPdocument7),pp5,7.122SeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,MinutetoDirector,CDPP,16November2011(CDPPdocument

317.0086),p4.123SeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,MinutetoSeniorAssistantDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,28

September2011(CDPPdocument317.0245),p6.124Prosecutionnotice,MagistratesCourtofWesternAustralia,AFP,6October2010(AFPdocument10).125SeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,EmailtoLegalAidWesternAustralia,18January2011(CDPP

document315.0300).

372


126DeputyDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,EmailtoLegalOfficers,CDPPPerthOffice,12April2011(CDPPdocument315.0275).

127DrVincentLow,Medicalopinion,AFP,26April2011(CDPPdocument315.0259).128DrVincentLow,Expertmedicalreport,AFP,26April2011(CDPPdocument181.0085).129SeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,EmailtoFederalAgent,AFP,20May2011(CDPPdocument

315.0237).130Statementofmaterialfacts,CDPP,17July2011(CDPPdocument173.0251).131SeniorLegalOfficerforDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,LettertoCounselfordefence,25July2011(CDPP

document316.0264).132FederalAgent,AFP,EmailtoSeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,10August2011(CDPPdocument

251.0014),p8.133ActingSeniorAssistantDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,EmailtoSeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,23

August2011(CDPPdocument316.0020).134FederalAgent,AFP,EmailtoSeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,1September2011(CDPP

document251.0014),p4.135SeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,EmailtoFederalAgent,AFP,22September2011(AFP

document23).136SeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,MinutetoSeniorAssistantDirector,CDPPPerthOffice,28

September2011(CDPPdocument317.0245),p1.137Officer,CDPPHeadOffice,EmailtoSeniorstaff,CDPP,16November2011(CDPPdocument056.0006).138SeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,MinutetoDirector,CDPP,16November2011(CDPPdocument

317.0086),p7.139LegalOfficer,CDPPPerthOffice,MinutetoDirector,CDPP,21November2011(CDPPdocument

323.0926).140ClinicalPsychologist,PsychologicalAssessmentReporton[INN012],Defence,28June2011(CDPP

document240.0238),pp2–3.141ClinicalPsychologist,PsychologicalAssessmentReporton[INN012],Defence,28June2011(CDPP

document240.0238),p4.142SeniorLecturer,UniversityofNewSouthWales,ExpertCertificateinthematterofCDPP v [INN012],

Defence,6July2011(CDPPdocument242.0457),p4.143Independentadult,LifewithoutBarriers,FileNote,16June2010(CDPPdocument255.0250).144SeniorLecturer,UniversityofNewSouthWales,ExpertCertificateinthematterofCDPP v [INN012],6

July2011(CDPPdocument242.0457),p4.145Independentadult,LifewithoutBarriers,FileNote,16June2010(CDPPdocument255.0250).146Independentadult,LifewithoutBarriers,FileNote,16June2010(CDPPdocument255.0250).147FederalAgent,AFP,CaseNote,17June2010(AFPdocument5).148Solicitor,Defence,LettertoLegalOfficer,CDPPSydneyOffice,8July2011(CDPPdocument240.0233).149LegalOfficer,CDPPSydneyOffice,MinutetoSeniorAssistantDirector,CDPPSydneyOffice,18July

2011(CDPPdocument323.0851).150LegalOfficer,CDPPSydneyOffice,MinutetoSeniorAssistantDirector,CDPPSydneyOffice,2June

2011(CDPPdocument241.0144).151LegalOfficer,CDPPSydneyOffice,FileNote,20January2011(CDPPdocument241.0358).


152LegalOfficer,CDPPHeadOffice,MinutetoDirector,CDPPHeadOffice,7November2011(CDPPdocument242.0066);LegalOfficer,CDPPSydneyOffice,EmailtoCounselfordefence,18July2011(CDPPdocument242.0594).

153PrincipalLegalOfficer,CDPPSydneyOffice,FileNote,20January2011(CDPPdocument241.0373);PrincipalLegalOfficer,CDPPSydneyOffice,EmailtoFederalAgent,AFP,29March2011(CDPPdocument241.0198).

154Part1CCautionandrights–Bahasa(Indonesia),1April2010(AFPdocument2).155Consenttocarryoutaprescribedprocedure(wristx-ray)–individual,AFP,1April2010(CDPPdocument

241.0363);Consenttocarryoutaprescribedprocedure(wristx-ray)–independentadult,AFP,1April2010(AFPdocument1).

156FederalAgent,AFPPeopleSmugglingStrikeTeam,EmailtoLegalOfficer,CDPPSydneyOffice,20January2011(CDPPdocument241.0365);OfficerforDirector,CDPPSydneyOffice,LettertoDefence,27January2011(CDPPdocument241.0343);[Radiologist],Medicalreport,AFP,1April2010(CDPPdocument241.0360).

157CriminalJusticeStayCertificate,AGD,6April2010(AFPdocument8).158FederalAgent,AFPSydneyOffice,CaseNote,17June2010(AFPdocument5).159EdwinaLloyd,Submission29,p3.160Independentadult,LifewithoutBarriers,FileNote,16June2010(CDPPdocument255.0250);Federal

Agent,AFPSydneyoffice,CaseNote,17June2010(CDPPdocument255.0248).161LegalOfficer,CDPPSydneyOffice,MinutetoSeniorAssistantDirector,CDPPSydneyOffice,2June

2011(CDPPdocument241.0144).162FederalAgent,AFPSydneyOffice,CaseNote,17June2010(CDPPdocument255.0248);Special

Member,AFPSydneyOffice,LettertoDeputyDirector,CDPPSydneyOffice,26November2010(CDPPdocument241.0423);TranscriptofProceedings, R v [INN012](BankstownLocalCourt,MagistrateStill,15August2011)(CDPPdocument240.0070),p2.

163ClinicalPsychologist,PsychologicalAssessmentReporton[INN012],Defence,28June2011(CDPPdocument240.0238),p6.

164ClinicalPsychologist,PsychologicalAssessmentReporton[INN012],Defence,28June2011(CDPPdocument240.0238),p5.

165FederalAgent,AFPSydneyOffice,CaseNote,15October2010(AFPdocument7).166SpecialMember,AFPSydneyOffice,LettertoDeputyDirector,CDPPSydneyOffice,26November2010

(CDPPdocument241.0423).167ClinicalPsychologist,PsychologicalAssessmentReporton[INN012],Defence,28June2011(CDPP

document240.0238),p6.168CourtInstructionSheet,CDPP,13December2010(CDPPdocument241.0443).169FederalAgent,AFPSydneyOffice,CaseNote,15March2011(AFPdocument9).170CourtInstructionSheet,CDPP,20December2010(CDPPdocument241.0441).171LegalOfficer,CDPPSydneyOffice,EmailtoSpecialMember,AFPSydneyOffice,10January2011

(CDPPdocument241.0410).172LegalOfficer,CDPPSydneyOffice,FileNote,10January2011(CDPPdocument241.0417).173LegalOfficer,CDPPSydneyOffice,EmailtoSpecialMember,AFP,10January2011(CDPPdocument

241.0390).

374


174[Radiologist],Medicalopinion,AFP,2February2011(CDPPdocument240.0300).175Courtresultsheet,CDPPSydneyOffice,7February2011(CDPPdocument241.0281).176Courtresultsheet,CDPPSydneyOffice,7March2011(CDPPdocument241.0212).177SpecialMember,AFPPeopleSmugglingStrikeTeam,EmailtoPrincipalLegalOfficer,CDPPSydney

Office,29March2011(CDPPdocument240.0301).178DrVincentLow,Expertmedicalreport,AFP,30May2011(CDPPdocument241.0152).179Courtresultsheet,CDPPSydneyOffice,6June2011(CDPPdocument241.0122).180FederalAgent,AFPSydneyOffice,CaseNote,16June2011(AFPdocument14).181FederalAgent,AFPSydneyOffice,CaseNote,7July2011(AFPdocument15).182Solicitor,Defence,LettertoLegalOfficer,CDPPSydneyOffice,8July2011(CDPPdocument240.0233).183[Radiologist],Children’sHospitalWestmead,ExpertCertificateinthematterof[INN012],Defence,29April

2011(CDPPdocument241.0017).184SeniorLecturer,UniversityofNewSouthWales,ExpertCertificateinthematterofCDPP v [INN012],

Defence,6July2011(CDPPdocument242.0457),p3.185ClinicalPsychologist,PsychologicalAssessmentReporton[INN012],Defence,28June2011(CDPP

document240.0238),p9.186Timelinefor[INN012],CDPP(CDPPdocument240.0004).187Counselfordefence,LettertoLegalOfficer,CDPPSydneyOffice,8July2011(CDPPdocument

240.0233).188LegalOfficer,CDPPSydneyOffice,EmailtoActingPrincipalLegalOfficer,CDPP,8July2011(CDPP

document241.0006).189LegalOfficer,CDPPSydneyOffice,MinutetoSeniorAssistantDirector,CDPPSydneyOffice,18July

2011(CDPPdocument323.0851).190TeamLeader,AFPSydneyOffice,EmailtoLegalOfficer,CDPPSydneyOffice,18July2011(CDPP

document242.0579).191LegalOfficer,CDPPSydneyOffice,MinutetoSeniorAssistantDirector,CDPPSydneyOffice,18July

2011(CDPPdocument323.0851),p6.192TranscriptofProceedings,R v [INN012] (BankstownLocalCourt,MagistrateStill,15August2011)(CDPP

document240.0070),p53.193LegalOfficer,CDPPSydneyOffice,MinutetoDirector,CDPP,7November2011(CDPPdocument

323.0834).194LegalOfficer,CDPPSydneyOffice,MinutetoDirector,CDPP,7November2011(CDPPdocument

242.0066).195EdwinaLloyd,Submission29,p7;ActingSeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPSydneyOffice,MinutetoDirector,

CDPP,2November2011(CDPPdocument240.0015),p2.196ActingSeniorLegalOfficer,CDPPSydneyOffice,MinutetoDirector,CDPP,2November2011(CDPP

document240.0015),p1.197ActingPrincipalLegalOfficer,CDPPSydneyOffice,FileNote,2November2011(CDPPdocument

240.0161).198NolleProsequi,DistrictCourtofNewSouthWales,CDPP,7November2011(CDPPdocument

242.0029).


199EdwinaLloyd,Submission29,p5.200Ageassessmentinterviewreport,DIAC,6October2010(AFPdocument15).201Statementofmaterialfacts,AFP,29September2010(CDPPdocument003.0175),p8.202Statementofmaterialfacts,AFP,29September2010(CDPPdocument003.0175),pp4,9.203Statementofmaterialfacts,AFP,29September2010(CDPPdocument003.0175),p6.204CaseNote–Initialassessmentofadmissibilityofbriefofevidence,CDPP(CDPPdocument003.0189).205Statementofmaterialfacts,AFP,29September2010(CDPPdocument003.0175),p5.206CaseNote–Initialassessmentofadmissibilityofbriefofevidence,CDPP(CDPPdocument003.0189).207Statementofmaterialfacts,AFP,29September2010(CDPPdocument003.0175),pp2,5.208Statementofmaterialfacts,AFP,29September2010(CDPPdocument003.0175),p3.209Biodataform,DIAC,2April2010(DIACdocument20100402).210ActingLegalOfficer,CDPPSydneyOffice,MinutetoDirector,CDPPSydneyOffice,23November2010

(CDPPdocument003.0045).211InformationprovidedbyDIACtotheCommission,17February2012.212Part1CCautionandrights–Bahasa(Indonesia),AFP,15April2010(AFPdocument3).213Consenttocarryoutaprescribedprocedure(wristx-ray)–individual,15April2010(AFPdocument5);

Consenttocarryoutaprescribedprocedure(wristx-ray)–independentadult,15April2010(AFPdocument5).

214Statementof[FederalAgent],AFPDarwinOffice,28September2010(AFPdocument8).215Statementofmaterialfacts,AFP,29September2010(CDPPdocument003.0175),p10.216CriminalJusticeStayCertificate,AGD,6May2010(AFPdocument7).217ImmigrationOfficer,DIACCanberraOffice,EmailtoImmigrationOfficer,DIACCanberraOffice,9

September2010(DIACdocumentmail39646801).218FederalAgent,AFPPerthOffice,CaseNote,12October2010(AFPdocument12).219Statementofmaterialfacts,AFP,29September2010(CDPPdocument003.0175),p10.220ActingPrincipalAdvisor,DIAC,EmailtoImmigrationOfficer,DIAC,30September2010(DIACdocument

mail39646739).221ActingPrincipalAdvisor,DIAC,EmailtoActingAssistantSecretary,ImmigrationIntelligenceBranch,DIAC,

4October2010(DIACdocumentmail39646176).222ActingPrincipalAdvisor,DIAC,EmailtoFederalAgent,AFP,6October2010(DIACdocument

mail39642130).223FederalAgent,AFP,FileNote,8October2010(AFPdocument9).224ActingDirector,IrregularMaritimeArrivalsOperationsSection,DIAC,EmailtoImmigrationOfficer,DIAC,

29November2010(DIACdocumentmail39646085).225FederalAgent,AFP,FileNote,8October2010(AFPdocument9).226CounselforDefence,EmailtoLegalOfficer,CounterTerrorism&PeopleSmugglingBranch,CDPP,8

October2010(CDPPdocument003.0138).227SeniorAssistantDirector,CDPP,EmailtoDeputyDirector,CDPP,8October2010(CDPPdocument

003.0143).228SeniorAssistantDirector,CDPP,EmailtoDeputyDirector,CDPP,8October2010(CDPP

document.003.0143).

376


229SeniorAssistantDirector,CounterTerrorismandPeopleSmugglingBranch,CDPP,EmailtoLegalOfficer,CDPP,11October2010(CDPPdocument003.0137).

230FederalAgent,AFPPerthOffice,CaseNote,14October2010(AFPdocument13).231DrVincentLow,Expertmedicalreport,AFP,22October2010(CDPPdocument003.0124).232LegalOfficer,CDPPSydneyOffice,FileNote,29October2010(CDPPdocument003.0117).233ActingPrincipalAdvisor,DIAC,EmailtoFederalAgent,AFP,29October2010(DIACdocumentmail

39645997).234Ageassessmentinterviewreport,DIAC,6October2010(CDPPdocument003.0064).235ActingAssistantSecretary,ImmigrationIntelligenceBranch,DIAC,EmailtoActingPrincipalAdvisor,DIAC,

31October2010(DIACdocumentmail39645997).236FederalAgent,AFPPerthOffice,CaseNote,01November2010(AFPdocument19).237FederalAgent,AFP,EmailtoDeputyDirector,CDPP,2November2010(CDPPdocument003.0104).238FederalAgent,AFP,EmailtoDeputyDirector,CDPP,2November2010(CDPPdocument003.0104).239SeniorAssistantDirector,CDPP,EmailtoDeputyDirector,CDPP,22November2010(CDPPdocument

003.0074).240ActingLegalOfficer,CDPP,MinutetoDirector,CDPP,23November2010(CDPPdocument003.0045).241OfficerfortheDirector,CDPPSydneyOffice,FaxtoCourtCoordinator,BankstownLocalCourt,29

November2010(CDPPdocument003.0021).


Appendix 2:

Individuals of concern to the Inquiry

378

Appendix 2: Individuals of concern to the Inquiry

ThetablebelowcontainsinformationabouteachoftheindividualsofconcerntotheInquiry.ThedatacontainedinthistablewasprovidedbytheDepartmentofImmigrationandCitizenshipandtheAustralianFederalPolice.

TheCommissionhasendeavouredtoensurethattheinformationcontainedinthistableisaccurate.However,largelyduetosomeinconsistenciesintheoriginaldataprovided,weareunabletoguaranteeitsaccuracyineverycase.


Name Status Date apprehended

Date detained Date x-rayed

Date moved to correctional facility

Date returned to immigration detention

Date removed

Days in immigration detention

Days in correctional facilities

Total days detained – until 6 July 2012

UNA001Before the court

10/08/10 10/08/10 25/01/11 8/04/11CJSC in place

241 455 696

NOK041 Before the court

1/10/10 6/10/10 31/03/11 20/04/11CJSC in place

196 443 639

TAR041 Before the court

16/11/10 16/11/10 – 10/02/11 –Still in detention

86 512 598

LAW085Before the court

7/05/11 7/05/11 – 15/09/11 –Still in detention

131 295 426

ART020 Convicted 17/01/09 19/01/09 5/02/09 8/02/09 16/01/12 16/01/12 20 1072 1092

ART019 Convicted 17/01/09 19/01/09 5/02/09 6/02/09 16/01/12 16/01/12 18 1074 1092

ART018 Convicted 17/01/09 19/01/09 5/02/09 7/02/09 16/01/12 16/01/12 19 1073 1092

DRU001 Convicted 2/04/09 9/04/09 28/04/09 29/04/09 2/04/12 2/04/12 20 1069 1089

FLE049 Convicted 16/04/09 21/04/09 20/05/09 5/06/09 14/04/12 20/04/12 51 1044 1095

FLE048 Convicted 16/04/09 5/05/09 22/05/09 29/05/09 14/04/12 20/04/12 30 1051 1081

QUE053 Convicted 23/06/09 28/06/09 20/08/09 20/08/09 12/06/12 12/06/12 53 1027 1080

QUE051 Convicted 23/06/09 28/06/09 20/08/09 20/08/09 12/06/12 12/06/12 53 1027 1080

YAG065 Convicted 11/09/09 16/09/09 15/10/09 29/10/09 3/07/12 3/07/12 43 978 1021

WAK090 Convicted 12/09/09 17/09/09 15/10/09 15/10/09 19/06/12 19/06/12 28 978 1006

WAK089 Convicted 12/09/09 17/09/09 15/10/09 16/10/09 19/06/12 19/06/12 29 977 1006

WAK087 Convicted 12/09/09 17/09/09 15/10/09 15/10/09 19/06/12 19/06/12 28 978 1006

FAI030 Convicted 28/09/09 28/09/09 20/11/09 7/12/09 3/07/12 3/07/12 70 939 1009

FAI031 Convicted 1/10/09 2/10/09 20/11/09 7/12/09 3/07/12 3/07/12 66 939 1005

INW054 Convicted 9/10/09 13/10/09 26/11/09 26/11/09 –Still in detention

44 953 997

OAK031 Convicted 23/10/09 25/10/09 – 15/12/09 3/07/12 3/07/12 51 931 982

UPW029 Convicted 15/11/09 19/11/09 14/01/10 11/02/10 –Still in detention

84 876 960

380






Date removed




VMT011 Convicted 16/11/09 20/11/09 14/01/10 3/02/10 12/06/12 12/06/12 75 860 935

YRE052 Convicted 19/11/09 20/11/09 14/01/10 2/02/10 26/06/12 26/06/12 74 875 949

ALE058 Convicted 23/11/09 27/11/09 13/01/10 8/02/10 26/06/12 26/06/12 73 869 942

DER026 Convicted 27/11/09 2/12/09 9/12/09 11/12/09 –Still in detention

9 938 947

DER024 Convicted 27/11/09 2/12/09 9/12/09 11/12/09 –Still in detention

9 938 947

EAS056 Convicted 3/12/09 9/12/09 14/01/10 4/03/10 –Still in detention

85 855 940

EAS054 Convicted 3/12/09 9/12/09 14/01/10 4/03/10 18/05/12 18/05/12 85 806 891

KAD059 Convicted 18/12/09 22/12/09 20/01/10 29/03/10 18/05/12 18/05/12 97 781 878

NTN032 Convicted 29/12/09 5/01/10 20/01/10 6/10/10 –Still in detention

274 639 913

OSB051 Convicted 30/12/09 5/01/10 21/01/10 17/03/10 18/05/12 18/05/12 71 793 864

PEN061 Convicted 31/12/09 5/01/10 20/01/10 29/09/10 26/06/12 26/06/12 267 636 903

OFD029 Convicted 7/03/10 9/03/10 12/04/10 30/09/10 8/06/12 8/06/12 205 617 822

SAN055 Convicted 7/06/10 7/06/10 21/12/10 10/02/11 –Still in detention

248 512 760

JET090 Convicted 13/09/10 14/09/10 – 28/06/11 –Still in detention

287 374 661

FAI029 Acquitted 1/10/09 2/10/09 20/11/09 7/12/09 30/03/11 11/04/11 78 478 556

LAL041 Acquitted 18/10/09 23/10/09 21/12/09 22/12/09 5/08/11 20/08/11 75 591 666

KAD058 Acquitted 18/12/09 24/12/09 22/01/10 29/03/10 20/05/11 29/05/11 104 417 521

TEN051 Acquitted 25/04/10 1/05/10 24/09/10 10/03/11 7/12/11 13/01/12 350 272 622

TIW043 Acquitted 5/06/10 14/06/10 17/11/10 1/12/10 25/11/11 3/12/11 178 359 537

WIC116 Acquitted 17/11/10 17/11/10 17/06/11 10/03/11 3/04/12 20/04/12 130 390 520

TUC016 Discontinued 7/10/08 10/10/08 24/10/08 17/10/08 13/11/08 21/11/08 15 27 42






Date removed




ULT055 Discontinued 29/08/09 2/09/09 24/09/09 24/09/09 22/11/10 30/11/10 30 424 454

LAL040 Discontinued 18/10/09 23/10/09 21/12/09 22/12/09 11/02/11 20/02/11 69 416 485

UPW031 Discontinued 15/11/09 18/11/09 13/01/11 11/02/10 14/11/11 19/11/11 90 641 731

MAL011 Discontinued 28/12/09 4/01/10 20/01/10 29/09/10 2/12/11 2/01/12 299 429 728

NTN031 Discontinued 29/12/09 5/01/10 21/01/10 6/10/10 22/11/11 26/11/11 278 412 690

PEN060 Discontinued 31/12/09 5/01/10 21/01/10 29/09/10 18/04/11 29/04/11 278 201 479

PEN059 Discontinued 31/12/09 5/01/10 21/01/10 30/09/10 7/12/11 18/12/11 279 433 712

TRA029 Discontinued 8/01/10 11/01/10 2/03/10 14/10/10 20/09/11 24/09/11 280 341 621

INN012 Discontinued 20/02/10 23/02/10 1/04/10 14/10/10 8/11/11 16/11/11 241 390 631

JDT046 Discontinued 24/02/10 28/02/10 8/04/10 16/12/10 12/08/11 19/08/11 298 239 537

OFD030 Discontinued 7/03/10 10/03/10 12/04/10 30/09/10 22/08/11 7/10/11 250 326 576

ALB057 Discontinued 23/03/10 26/03/10 15/04/10 11/11/10 26/10/11 4/11/11 239 349 588

DUR041 Discontinued 28/03/10 2/04/10 15/04/10 7/10/10 – 3/12/10 188 57 245

ENO028 Discontinued 29/03/10 29/03/10 – 5/08/10 28/10/11 30/11/11 162 449 611

ENO029 Discontinued 29/03/10 29/03/10 – 4/08/10 22/08/11 26/09/11 163 383 546

HER053 Discontinued 4/04/10 9/04/10 21/11/11 14/10/10 11/11/10 20/01/12 623 28 651

OXL003 Discontinued 11/04/10 19/04/10 21/05/10 4/11/10 3/11/11 5/12/11 231 364 595

OXL002 Discontinued 11/04/10 19/04/10 21/05/10 3/11/10 19/08/11 21/10/11 261 289 550

SHE003 Discontinued 22/04/10 24/04/10 – 2/12/10 14/07/11 8/08/11 247 224 471

SHE002 Discontinued 22/04/10 24/04/10 – 2/12/10 19/07/11 8/08/11 242 229 471

WIL025 Discontinued 26/04/10 1/05/10 21/05/10 20/01/11 17/06/11 13/07/11 290 148 438

382






Date removed






KRM054 Discontinued 13/05/10 13/05/10 21/12/10 – – 18/05/11 370 NIL 370

LEN060 Discontinued 15/05/10 20/05/10 24/09/10 9/12/10 12/05/11 2/06/11 224 154 378

TIW041 Discontinued 5/06/10 14/06/10 1/12/10 1/12/10 26/10/11 2/11/11 177 329 506

TIW044 Discontinued 5/06/10 14/06/10 21/12/10 1/12/10 6/10/11 13/10/11 177 309 486

BOM062 Discontinued 12/06/10 18/06/10 21/03/11 9/03/11 21/04/11 17/05/11 290 43 333

JAM074 Discontinued 2/07/10 2/07/10 21/12/10 – – 30/11/11 516 NIL 516

TOW043 Discontinued 28/07/10 29/07/10 14/12/10 13/04/11 16/06/11 21/12/11 446 64 510

WID021 Discontinued 13/08/10 14/08/10 19/04/11 – – 5/01/12 509 NIL 509

IRI056 Discontinued 6/09/10 11/09/10 17/03/11 7/04/11 1/08/11 23/08/11 230 116 346

KIN050 Discontinued 20/09/10 20/09/10 17/03/11 6/04/11 21/04/11 15/05/11 222 15 237

MOA025 Discontinued 1/10/10 5/10/10 – 14/04/11 – 24/03/12 191 345 536

QUN077 Discontinued 8/10/10 8/10/10 10/02/11 9/03/11 9/09/11 15/09/11 158 184 342

RUN068 Discontinued 9/10/10 9/10/10 17/03/11 24/03/11 22/06/11 26/06/11 170 90 260

TYE059 Discontinued 13/10/10 13/10/10 25/01/11 29/03/11 8/12/11 21/12/11 180 254 434

GEO027 Discontinued 27/10/10 31/10/10 23/05/11 6/05/11 15/02/12 22/02/12 194 285 479

GEO028 Discontinued 27/10/10 31/10/10 25/01/11 6/05/11 20/12/11 29/12/11 196 228 424

BAI031 Discontinued 25/11/10 2/12/10 20/04/11 19/05/11 21/12/11 10/01/12 188 216 404

BAI032 Discontinued 25/11/10 2/12/10 20/04/11 19/05/11 21/12/11 10/01/12 188 216 404

DRL038 Discontinued 27/11/10 2/12/10 19/04/11 1/06/11 5/05/12 5/05/12 181 339 520






Date removed




HWD059 Discontinued 10/12/10 16/12/10 31/10/11 23/06/11 28/11/11 7/12/11 198 158 356

IGL009 Discontinued 14/12/10 14/12/10 11/02/11 19/05/11 12/12/11 21/12/11 165 207 372

LMN005 Discontinued 19/12/10 26/12/10 8/04/11 5/05/11 21/05/11 2/06/11 142 16 158

NEP059 Discontinued 25/12/10 4/01/11 18/05/11 – – 19/07/11 196 NIL 196

PAL080 Discontinued 7/01/11 18/01/11 10/02/11 20/04/11 28/05/11 19/06/11 114 38 152

UNI098 Discontinued 26/02/11 6/03/11 7/06/11 30/06/11 8/12/11 21/12/11 129 161 290

BAZ139 Discontinued 17/03/11 21/03/11 31/03/11 23/06/11 2/11/11 5/12/11 127 132 259

BAZ138 Discontinued 17/03/11 21/03/11 31/03/11 23/06/11 12/07/11 2/12/11 237 19 256

CLA059 Discontinued 21/03/11 25/03/11 31/03/11 – – 6/12/11 256 NIL 256

DEA039 Discontinued 30/03/11 7/04/11 – 8/06/11 11/11/11 19/01/12 131 156 287

NAK032 Discontinued 18/05/10 22/05/10 – 10/02/11 25/05/12 25/05/12 264 470 734

UNI099 Discontinued 26/02/11 6/03/11 7/06/11 30/06/11 13/12/11 21/12/11 124 166 290

IGL011

X-rayed & removed without charge

14/12/10 14/12/10 11/02/11 – – 22/03/11 98 NIL 98

DRU003


2/04/09 9/04/09 28/04/09 – – 15/05/09 36 NIL 36

DRU002


2/04/09 9/04/09 28/04/09 – – 15/05/09 36 NIL 36

CAN050


31/01/10 31/01/10 11/03/10 – – 7/05/10 96 NIL 96

GIR041


16/02/10 16/02/10 1/04/10 – – 24/08/10 189 NIL 189

384






Date removed




HAM046


18/02/10 23/02/10 1/04/10 – – 11/11/10 261 NIL 261

INN013


20/02/10 23/02/10 8/04/10 – – 16/08/10 174 NIL 174

JDT047


24/02/10 28/02/10 8/04/10 – – 12/08/10 165 NIL 165

MAN048


3/03/10 7/03/10 8/04/10 – – 16/08/10 162 NIL 162

NED054


6/03/10 6/03/10 12/04/10 – – 24/08/10 171 NIL 171

GEE080


2/04/10 7/04/10 6/05/10 – – 11/11/10 218 NIL 218

KRM055


13/05/10 13/05/10 11/11/10 – – 20/12/10 221 NIL 221

MOI046


16/05/10 23/05/10 12/11/10 – – 20/12/10 211 NIL 211

BOM061


12/06/10 18/06/10 7/09/10 – – 9/04/11 295 NIL 295

BOM064


12/06/10 18/06/10 12/11/10 – – 20/12/10 185 NIL 185

CRO033


14/06/10 18/06/10 12/11/10 – – 20/12/10 185 NIL 185

CRO036


14/06/10 18/06/10 12/11/10 – – 20/12/10 185 NIL 185






Date removed




JAM075


2/07/10 2/07/10 25/01/11 – – 16/03/11 257 NIL 257

OTF049


13/07/10 17/07/10 21/12/10 – – 13/01/11 180 NIL 180

EAS055


3/12/09 9/12/09 14/01/10 – – 12/03/10 93 NIL 93

BAI033


25/11/10 2/12/10 20/04/11 – – 30/06/11 210 NIL 210

GRD044


13/12/10 16/12/10 18/05/11 – – 9/06/11 175 NIL 175

LMN006


19/12/10 26/12/10 19/04/11 – – 30/06/11 186 NIL 186

PAL078


7/01/11 18/01/11 10/02/11 – – 7/04/11 79 NIL 79

ASH049


16/03/11 21/03/11 10/05/11 – – 9/06/11 80 NIL 80

BAZ137


17/03/11 21/03/11 31/03/11 – – 5/05/11 45 NIL 45

CLA060


21/03/11 25/03/11 8/04/11 – – 18/05/11 54 NIL 54

JSS023


28/04/11 1/05/11 15/06/11 – – 18/11/11 201 NIL 201

JSS024


28/04/11 1/05/11 16/06/11 – – 6/01/12 250 NIL 250

386






Date removed




PRK056


30/05/11 3/06/11 26/09/11 – – 18/11/11 168 NIL 168

YND048


26/07/11 30/07/11 26/09/11 – – 28/10/11 90 NIL 90

LEA009


25/12/2009 4/1/2010 1/04/10 – – 12/08/10 220 NIL 220

YAL048


17/08/2010 18/08/2010 9/02/11 – – 16/03/11 210 NIL 210

SNUG002Not x-rayed & removed

29/09/08 2/10/08 – – – 16/10/08 14 NIL 14

TUC017Not x-rayed & removed

7/10/08 10/10/08 – – – 27/10/08 17 NIL 17

VEL010 Not x-rayed & removed

19/11/08 24/11/08 – – – 30/12/08 36 NIL 36

ALT002 Not x-rayed & removed

15/09/09 19/09/09 – – – 2/10/09 13 NIL 13

PRE038Not x-rayed & removed

30/10/09 3/11/09 – – – 7/01/10 65 NIL 65

TRK051Not x-rayed & removed

14/11/09 17/11/09 – – – 5/12/09 18 NIL 18

TRK050Not x-rayed & removed

14/11/09 17/11/09 – – – 5/12/09 18 NIL 18

DAL036 Not x-rayed & removed

1/02/10 1/02/10 – – – 18/03/10 45 NIL 45

MOA026Not x-rayed & removed

1/10/10 5/10/10 – – – 28/01/11 115 NIL 115

NOK039 Not x-rayed & removed

1/10/10 6/10/10 – – – 7/04/11 183 NIL 183

NOK040 Not x-rayed & removed

1/10/10 6/10/10 – – – 17/02/11 134 NIL 134

TAR042 Not x-rayed & removed

16/11/10 16/11/10 – – – 29/01/11 74 NIL 74

ALI057 Not x-rayed & removed

18/11/10 23/11/10 – – – 24/02/11 93 NIL 93


18/11/10 23/11/10 – – – 18/02/11 87 NIL 87






Date removed





18/11/10 23/11/10 – – – 18/02/11 87 NIL 87

RAS046Not x-rayed & removed

6/02/11 12/02/11 – – – 10/06/11 118 NIL 118

RAS045 Not x-rayed & removed

6/02/11 12/02/11 – – – 10/06/11 118 NIL 118

RAS047 Not x-rayed & removed

6/02/11 12/02/11 – – – 10/06/11 118 NIL 118

CLA061Not x-rayed & removed

21/03/11 25/03/11 – – – 20/04/11 26 NIL 26

NON056Not x-rayed & removed

16/05/11 16/05/11 – – – 26/09/11 133 NIL 133

PRK054Not x-rayed & removed

30/05/11 3/06/11 – – – 15/02/12 257 NIL 257

PRK055Not x-rayed & removed

30/05/11 3/06/11 – – – 18/11/11 168 NIL 168

ULI062 Not x-rayed & removed

8/07/11 8/07/11 – – – 15/08/11 38 NIL 38

ULI064 Not x-rayed & removed

8/07/11 8/07/11 – – – 15/08/11 38 NIL 38

BIL051Not x-rayed & removed

7/08/11 7/08/11 – – – 23/09/11 47 NIL 47

CRB104 Not x-rayed & removed

11/08/11 11/08/11 – – – 10/09/11 30 NIL 30

CRB106Not x-rayed & removed

11/08/11 11/08/11 – – – 10/09/11 30 NIL 30

DOY060Not x-rayed & removed

12/08/11 12/08/11 – – – 7/10/11 56 NIL 56

EMY069Not x-rayed & removed

19/08/11 19/08/11 – – – 6/01/12 140 NIL 140

HPR111 Not x-rayed & removed

23/09/11 23/09/11 – – – 16/12/11 84 NIL 84

GDE001 Not x-rayed & removed

23/09/11 24/09/11 – – – 14/10/11 20 NIL 20

HPR112 Not x-rayed & removed

23/09/11 23/09/11 – – – 21/12/11 89 NIL 89

GDE002Not x-rayed & removed

23/09/11 24/09/11 – – – 14/10/11 20 NIL 20

IML076 Not x-rayed & removed

28/09/11 28/09/11 – – – 21/10/11 23 NIL 23

IML075Not x-rayed & removed

28/09/11 28/09/11 – – – 2/12/11 65 NIL 65

388






Date removed




KEL053 Not x-rayed & removed

18/10/11 22/10/11 – – – 12/01/12 82 NIL 82

MUN081Not x-rayed & removed

22/10/11 23/10/11 – – – 16/12/11 54 NIL 54

MUN080Not x-rayed & removed

22/10/11 23/10/11 – – – 18/11/11 26 NIL 26

NIC045Not x-rayed & removed

23/10/11 23/10/11 – – – 18/11/11 26 NIL 26

NIC047 Not x-rayed & removed

23/10/11 23/10/11 – – – 18/11/11 26 NIL 26

OLD050 Not x-rayed & removed

30/10/11 7/11/11 – – – 9/02/12 94 NIL 94

ROB050Not x-rayed & removed

2/11/11 7/11/11 – – – 13/01/12 67 NIL 67

SIR059Not x-rayed & removed

6/11/11 15/11/11 – – – 9/12/11 24 NIL 24


6/11/11 15/11/11 – – – 9/12/11 24 NIL 24


6/11/11 15/11/11 – – – 21/12/11 36 NIL 36

TOB056Not x-rayed & removed

8/11/11 8/11/11 – – – 16/12/11 38 NIL 38

VDR079Not x-rayed & removed

20/11/11 21/11/11 – – – 14/01/12 54 NIL 54

WEE083 Not x-rayed & removed

22/11/11 22/11/11 – – – 8/01/12 47 NIL 47


22/11/11 22/11/11 – – – 8/01/12 47 NIL 47


22/11/11 22/11/11 – – – 8/01/12 47 NIL 47

WEE069Not x-rayed & removed

22/11/11 22/11/11 – – – 8/01/12 47 NIL 47


Appendix 3:

Submissions

390

TheInquiryreceivedatotalof39submissions,fourofwhichremainconfidential.

Submission name Submission No.

AmnestyInternationalAustralia 23

AustralianGovernment 30

AustralianLawyersAlliance 21

AustralianSocietyofForensicOdontology 4

Aynsley-Green,Al(ProfessorSir) 38

Children’sCommissionersandGuardians 31

Christie,James(Dr) 19

Cole,Tim(Professor) 5

DentalAgeAssessmentTeam,KingsCollegeLondonDentalInstitute 7

DepartmentofImmigrationandCitizenship 37

Franklin,Daniel(AssociateProfessor) 16

Henson,Graeme(ChiefMagistrate,LocalCourtofNSW) 27

Hofman,Paul(Dr)andothers 9

Hogan,Greg 24

HumanRightsCouncilofAustraliaInc 39

HumanRightsLawCentre 34

Hyde,John(MLA) 1

IndonesiaInstitute 3

Appendix 3: Submissions


InternationalCommissionofJuristsAustralia 33

Knott,Stephen(Dr) 17

Lee,Simon 10

LegalAidNSW 35

LegalAidQueensland 6

Lloyd,Edwina 29

Low,Vincent(Dr) 15

NorthernTerritoryLegalAidCommission 32

RefugeeActionNetworkNewcastle 20

Sheldon,Anthony 26

TheGeorgeInstituteforGlobalHealth 22

TheRoyalAustralasianCollegeofPhysicians 11

TheRoyalAustralianandNewZealandCollegeofRadiologists 14

VictoriaLegalAid 13

VictorianEqualOpportunityandHumanRightsCommission 25

VictorianInstituteofForensicMedicine 18

Xamon,Alison(MLC) 28

CONFIDENTIAL 4Submissions


Appendix 4:

Hearings and visits

394

1 Hearings

TheInquiryheldtwopublichearings;thefirstformedicalexpertsandthesecondforCommonwealthagencies.

Thefollowingisalistofwitnesseswhoappearedateachofthehearings.

Public hearing for key medical experts – Sydney, 9 March 2012

• ProfessorTimCole(ProfessorofMedicalStatistics)

• DrAnthonyHill(PresidentoftheAustralianSocietyofForensicOdontology)

• DrPaulHofman(PresidentoftheAustralasianPaediatricEndocrineGroup)

• DrVincentLow(ConsultantRadiologist)

• DrEllaOnikul(PaediatricRadiologist)

Public hearing for Commonwealth agencies – Canberra, 19-20 April 2012

• CommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutionsandseniorstafffromhisoffice

• DeputyCommissionerOperationsoftheAustralianFederalPoliceandoneotherAFPofficer

• FirstAssistantSecretary,CriminalJusticeDivisionoftheAttorney-General’sDepartmentandtwootherAGDofficers

• FirstAssistantSecretary,DepartmentofImmigrationandCitizenshipandtwootherDIACofficers

2 Visits

On26and27April2012,twomembersofthestaffoftheAustralianHumanRightsCommissionvisitedAlbanyRegionalPrisonandPardelupPrisonFarmforthepurposesofthisInquiry.

TheCommissionstaffundertookfourinterviewsatAlbanyRegionalPrisonandthreeinterviewsatPardelupPrisonFarmwithindividualswhohadsaidthattheywerechildrenatthetimeoftheoffenceofwhichtheywerecharged.

Appendix 4: Hearings and visits


Appendix 5:

The use of statistical evidence in the context of section 236B of the Migration Act

396

1 Introduction

Thisshortpaperisconcerned,first,toexaminethesignificanceinaparticularcaseofstatisticalevidence;secondly,toexaminewhatitmeanstoproveafacton‘thebalanceofprobabilities’;andfinallytoexaminethesignificanceofrelyingonstatisticalevidencetoestablishanaccusedperson’sageinthecontextofs236BoftheMigration Act 1958(Cth).

Section236BoftheMigrationActfixesmandatoryminimumpenaltiesforcertainpeoplesmugglingoffences.Inparticular,thesectionfixesamandatoryminimumpenaltyoffiveyearsimprisonmentfortheoffencecreatedbys233CoftheMigrationAct–theaggravatedoffenceofpeoplesmuggling.TheaggravatedoffenceofpeoplesmugglinginvolvesorganisingorfacilitatingthebringingorcomingtoAustraliaofagroupofatleastfiveunlawfulcitizens.ItistheoffencewithwhichmostIndonesiancrewofpeoplesmugglingvesselsarecharged.

Thelegislaturehasmadeitplainthatitdoesnotintendthemandatoryminimumpenaltiesforpeoplesmugglingoffencestoapplytochildren.Subsection236B(2)provides:

Thissectiondoesnotapplyifitisestablishedonthebalanceofprobabilitiesthatthepersonwasagedunder18yearswhentheoffencewascommitted.

Thispaperisnotconcernedwiththeissueofwhichpartybearstheonusofestablishingthatanindividualchargedisundertheageof18years.Thislatterissueiscomplicatedby,amongotherthings,therelatedissuewhichariseswhenaparticularcourthasexclusivejurisdictiontohearanddetermineachargeforanoffenceallegedtohavebeencommittedbyachild(seeforexample,theChildren’s Court of Western Australia Act 1988 (WA)).

NoristhispaperconcernedwiththedebateabouttheapplicabilityofavailablestatisticalinformationtoapopulationofyoungIndonesianmaleswhohavearrivedinAustraliaaftertravellingtoAustralianonavesselcarryingasylumseekersandwhosaythattheyarechildren.

Theissueofhowinformativeskeletalmaturity,asrevealedbyawristx-ray,isontheissueofwhetheranindividualisovertheageof18yearsisconsideredinChapter2ofthisreport.Thatissueisnotfurtherconsideredinthispaper.

2 Statistics are concerned with populations – not with individuals

Itisuniversallyacknowledgedthataperson’sprecisechronologicalagecannotbedeterminedfromawristx-rayorfromanyotherbiomedicalmarker.However,statisticalinformationisavailableastotheapproximateageatwhichyoungpeoplegenerallywillshowamaturex-ray.

Appendix 5: The use of statistical evidence in the context of section 236B of the Migration Act


Whereanindividualsuspectedofpeoplesmugglinghasbeenshownbyx-raytohaveamaturewrist,ithasbeencommoninAustraliancourtsforopinionevidencetobegivenintermssuchas:

Theprobabilityofthesubjectofthex-raybeinglessthan18yearsoldat17November2010isapproximately22%.

Chapter2ofthisreportrevealstheinaccuracyofthissuggestedprobability.However,sinceitmayprovepossibletocalculateamoreaccuratestatisticalprobabilityofaperson’sbeingaparticularage,itisusefultounderstandtheimportofevidenceofthiskind.Forconveniencethisissueishereexaminedonthe(false)assumptionthattheaboveprobabilityisaccurate.

Takenatfacevalue,astatisticalprobabilityofthiskindhasatendencytomislead.Theauthoroftheabovestatement,inreferringtotheprobabilityoftheindividualbeinglessthan18yearsofage,soughttoidentifythestatisticalprobabilityoftheindividualbeinglessthan18yearsofage;hewasnotsayinganythingdirectlyconcerningtheindividualthesubjectofthex-ray.

Thisisbecausestatisticsareconcerned,notwithindividuals,butwithpopulations.Theexpertopinionquotedaboveintendedtoidentifythemathematicalprobabilitywithinagivenpopulationofanindividualwhoislessthan18yearsofageshowingamaturewristonx-ray.MathematicalprobabilitiesrelyontheprincipleofindifferencewhichisdiscussedbyLigertwoodandEdmondinAustralian Evidence: A Principled Approach to the Common Law and the Uniform Acts.1

Thetrueimportoftheabovestatementisthat,assumingthatthesubjectofthex-raycomesfromapopulationcomparabletothatfromwhichtherelevantstatisticshavebeenderived,iftheindividualthesubjectofthewristx-ray,andasufficientlylargenumberofotherindividualsfromthesamepopulationwhohavex-raysshowingtheidenticaldegreeofskeletaldevelopment,areallfoundtobeadults,thisfindingwillbecorrectin78outofevery100cases–butinevitablyincorrectin22outofevery100cases.Putanotherway,thestatisticacceptsthatapproximately22%ofindividualswithanx-rayidenticaltothesubject’sx-raywillbelessthan18yearsofageandsaysnothingaboutwhetherthesubjectmightbeoneofthem.Toassessthesubject’sageonthebasisofthisstatisticalprobabilityalonewillbetoacttohisseriousprejudiceshouldhebeoneofthe22%whomaturesearly.

Theabovereferencetoa‘sufficientlylargepopulation’isintendedtoreflectthedifferencebetweenatheoreticalandanempiricalprobability.Thisdifferencecanbeillustratedbyreferencetothetossofacoin.Wetakeitasagiventhat,withasufficientlylargepopulation,thetossofacoinwillcomedownheads:tails50:50.Thisresult,however,maynotbeachievedin100tossesoreven1,000;itisatheoreticalprobabilitywhichmightonlybereplicatedempiricallyinamuchlargernumberoftosses.Inalimitedsampletheempiricaloutcomemightbeheads:tails75:25or25:75orsomeotherratio.Thesmallerthesample,thelesslikelyitisthatthetheoreticalratiowillbeachieved.

398


ThesignificanceofthefailureofstatisticalevidencetoaddressanyparticularcasewasexaminedbyDantin‘Gambling on the Truth: The Use of Purely Statistical Evidence as a Basis for Civil Liability’.2Inthisarticlethelearnedauthorusefullydiscussesthedifferencebetweenrationaldecision-makingforgamblingpurposesandrationaldecision-makingforjudicialpurposes.Shemakesthepointthat,onthebasisofthestatistic‘60%ofthemarblesinthesackarered’,itisrationaltobetthataparticularmarblewithdrawnfromthesackisredeventhoughthestatisticdoesnotassertanythingabouttheparticularmarbleselected.3Longtermwinningswillbemaximisedbybettingredoneveryoccasiononwhichamarbleisdrawnfromthesack.Bycontrast,therationalbasisrequiredforfactfindingforjudicialpurposesislogicalorevidentiarysupportinthecontextoftheindividualcase.4Whileitmightberationaltobetthatthemarbleisredasthiswillmaximiselongtermwinnings,itwouldnotberationalonthebasisofthestatisticalonetoformabeliefthatthemarbleisred;anybeliefthattheparticularmarbleisredwillbenomorethanaguess.

ThelearnedauthorsofAustralian Evidence: A Principled Approach to the Common Law and the Uniform Acts(5thedition)analysethenatureofmathematicalprobabilitiesinasimilarway.Theystate:

mathematicalprobabilitiesdescribethenatureofentireclassesandsaynothingabouttheindividualmembersofthatclass.Tosaythatanindividualhypothesisisprovedwhereitsprobabilityexceeds0.5istosaythat,althoughtherecanbenocertaintyabouttheoccurrenceofthisindividualhypothesis,nevertheless,toactonitasifithadoccurredwillinthelongrunproducemorecorrectdecisionsthanincorrectdecision.Butincorrectdecisionstherewillbe.5

Legalwriterswhohaveconsideredthisissuenotinfrequentlyrefertotwotheoreticalcasestoillustratetheunsatisfactorynatureofmathematicalprobabilitiesasproofofaparticularissue–evenwheretheissueinquestionisonlyrequiredtobeprovedonthebalanceofprobabilities.Whilethesetheoreticalcasestendtobeunrealistic,asfewcaseswillariseinwhichmathematicalprobabilitiesconstitutetheonlyevidenceavailableandjoinderruleswouldprobablyobviatesomeofthedifficultiesenvisaged,thecasesusefullyilluminatethedeficienciesofevidencebasedonstatisticsalone.

Thefirstcase,foundinCohen’sThe Probable and the Provable,postulatesthat499peoplehavepaidforadmissiontoarodeoand1,000peoplearefoundtobeattheevent,with‘A’beingoneofthosepresent.6NoothertestimonyisavailableastowhetherApaidforhisseat.Plainlyenoughthereisa0.501probabilitythatA,andindeedallotherspresent,didnotpay,butitwouldbemanifestlyunjusttoholdAliable.Apartfromanythingelse,thereisa0.499probabilitythathedidpay.ProfessorGlanvilleWilliamshassuggestedthatitwouldremainwrongtogivejudgmentagainstAevenifonly50ofthe1,000peoplepresenthadpaid,raisingthemathematicalprobabilityto0.95.7


ThesecondtheoreticalcaseisoneinitiallyraisedbyProfessorGlanvilleWilliamshimself.8HehypothesisesthattheBlueBusCompanyhasfarmorebusesontheroadthantheRedBusCompanyandpointsoutthatthisconstitutesnoreasoninlawtoassumethattheplaintiffwasknockeddownbyabluebusratherthanaredbus–otherwisetheBlueBusCompanywouldhavetopaydamagesinallcasesinwhichthesoleissueistheownershipoftheoffendingbusanditcannotbeshownwhetherthebuswasblueorred.

Thereisjudicialsupportfortheaboveconcernswithrespecttostatisticalevidence.InState Government Insurance Commission v Laube9aninsurersuedaninsuredtoobtainreimbursementofanamountpaidindamagestoapedestrianwhohadbeenstruckbyacardrivenbytheinsured.Theinsurerclaimedthattheinsuredhadfailedtocomplywithatermofhispolicybydrivingwhilesomuchundertheinfluenceofalcoholastobeincapableofexercisingeffectivecontrolofthevehicle.Itwasprovedthatthecollisionoccurredat1:20amandthatat2:35amtheinsured’sbloodalcoholreadingwas0.155.Expertevidencewasgiventhat,withsuchanalcoholcontent,mostbutnotallpersonswouldhavetheirfacultiesimpairedtoadegreethatwouldsignificantlyimpairtheirabilitytoexerciseeffectivecontrolofavehicle.Allthreejudgesheldthattheinsurerhadfailedtoproveitscase.KingCJ,afterreferringtotheevidence,said:

Themostthatcanbesaidisthatitisstatisticallymoreprobablethannotthatanyindividualwithsuchabloodalcohollevelwouldbeincapableofexercisingeffectivecontrol.…Iamclearlyoftheopinionthatthestatisticalfactthataparticularpropositionistrueofthemajorityofpersonscannotofitselfamounttolegalproofonthebalanceofprobabilitiesthatthepropositionistrueofanygivenindividual.10

Thefactthatmostpeoplewithabloodalcohollevelof0.15areincapableofexercisingeffectivecontrolofamotorvehicledoesnotestablishagainstanyindividualwiththatbloodalcohollevelthattheindividualissoincapable.11

Criticismshavebeenmadeoftheabovedecision,forexamplebytheHonMrJusticeDHHodgsonin‘The Scales of Justice: Probability and Proof in Legal Fact-Finding’.12HodgsonJtakestheviewthat:

subjecttotherequirementofadequatematerialconcerningtheparticularcase,and,inparticular,thecallingofappropriateevidencebythepartybearingtheonusofproof,evidenceofthekindgiveninLaubeshouldbeenoughtoenableaninferencetobedrawn,onthebalanceofprobabilities,ifthedefendantchoosesnottogiveevidence.13

HisHonour’scriticismthereforehaslimitedapplicationtoacaseinwhichstatisticalevidenceistheonlyrelevantevidenceavailabletobeadduced.Indeed,HodgsonJacceptsthat‘meremathematicalprobability’constitutes‘inadequatematerial’onwhichtobaseajudicialfinding.14

SirRichardEgglestonhasalsocriticisedthedecisioninState Government Insurance Commission v Laubebutitissignificanttonotethattheauthoritiestowhichhepointswereconcernedeither

400


toestimateafutureevent(e.g.topredictthelifeexpectancyofaparticularperson)orinvolvedhighprobabilities.HeadditionallypointstosomestatementsintheUnitedStateswhichrejectmathematicalprobabilityasabasisforfact-finding.15

ItmaybedoubtedthattheapproachadoptedbyKingCJwouldnowattractjudicialsupportwheretherelevantstatisticalprobabilitiesareextremelyhigh.ItisnolongerdoubtedthatstatisticalevidencebasedonDNAanalysiscanbeprobativeinaparticularcase.16Ordinarily,however,theprobabilitiesgeneratedfromDNAevidenceareextremelyhighandotherevidencemakingthedefendantapersonofinterestisavailable.InR v Galli,forexample,wherethepaternityofafoetuswasinissue,itwasacceptedthatthedefendantwasoneofonlyaverysmallgroupofmenwhohadaccesstothemotherofthefoetusandonetestindicatedthathewas172timesmorelikelytobethefatherofthefoetusthatapersontakenatrandomfromthepopulationandasecondtestputthatprobabilityat14330timesmorelikely.17

Nonetheless,ithasbeenrecognisedthat,evenwherestatisticalevidenceofhighprobabilitiesisreceivedbyacourt,itisinappropriateforthedecision-maker,whetherjudgeorjury,toapproachtheissueofchanceonastrictlymathematicalbasis.18InR v Galli,SpigelmanCJreferredtothedangerthatastatisticalcomputationby‘itsveryprecisionandconcretenesssuggestsanexactnesswhichastatisticaldistributiondoesnothave’.19TheChiefJusticerecognisedthedesirabilityofcounterbalancingthesefeaturesofstatisticalcalculations,observing:

Findingsoffactinbothcivilandcriminalcasesrequirecommonsensejudgmentandthetribunaloffactisrequiredtoreachalevelofactualpersuasiononthewholeoftheevidence.Thisdoesnotinvolveamechanicalapplicationofprobabilities.20(citationsomitted)

3 What does it mean to prove a matter of fact on the balance of probabilities?

Itiscommontoidentifytwobroadjudicialapproachestowhatisrequiredinajudicialproceedingtoestablishafactonthebalanceofprobabilities.Thefirstapproachisthatwhichcallsforthedecision-makerto‘feelanactualpersuasionofitsoccurrenceorexistencebeforeitcanbefound’.21Thesecondapproachisthatwhichlooks,notforactualbelief,butratherfor‘amoreprobableinferenceinfavourofwhatisalleged’.22

Thewell-knownobservationofDixonJinBriginshaw v Briginshaw23iscommonlyregardedasanexampleofthe‘actualbelief’approach:

Fortunately...atcommonlawnothirdstandardofpersuasionwasdefinitelydeveloped.Exceptuponcriminalissuestobeprovedbytheprosecution,itisenoughthattheaffirmativeofanallegationismadeouttothereasonablesatisfactionofthetribunal.Butreasonablesatisfactionisnotastateofmindthatisattainedorestablishedindependentlyofthenatureandconsequenceofthefactorfactstobeproved.


Theseriousnessofanallegationmade,theinherentunlikelihoodofanoccurrenceofagivendescription,orthegravityoftheconsequencesflowingfromaparticularfinding,areconsiderationswhichmustaffecttheanswertothequestionwhethertheissuehasbeenprovedtothereasonablesatisfactionofthetribunal.

ThestatementofLordSimoninDavies v Taylorthat‘theconceptofproofonthebalanceofprobabilities…canberestatedastheburdenofshowingoddsofatleast51to49thatsuch-and-suchhastakenplaceorwilldoso’isanexampleofthe‘moreprobableinference’approach.24AnotherexampleofthisapproachisfoundinMalec v J C Hutton Pty LtdwhereDeane,GaudronandMcHughJJstated:

Acommonlawcourtdeterminesonthebalanceofprobabilitieswhetheraneventhasoccurred.Iftheprobabilityoftheeventhavingoccurredisgreaterthanitnothavingoccurred,theoccurrenceoftheeventistreatedascertain.25

Thedifferentapproachessuggestedtoexistinjudicialauthoritytofindingafactprovedonthebalanceofprobabilitiesareprobablymoreapparentthanrealintheirpracticalapplication.Thisisbecauseineverycivilcasethecourtwillberequiredtoassessthetotalityoftheevidencebeforeitforthepurposeofassessingwhichof(ordinarilytwo)competingpotentialfactualfindingsappearsthemorelikelytobetrue.Forpresentpurposes,however,itisimportanttonotethatneitherapproachwouldappeartosanctiondecision-makingonthebasisofpurestatisticalevidence.Asthediscussionaboveconcerningthenatureofstatisticalevidenceillustrates,properlyunderstood,amerestatisticcannotofitselfamounttoproofonthebalanceofprobabilitiesinaparticularcase.Thisisbecauseitdoesnotspeaktotheindividualcasebutrathertoapopulation.TheonlyexceptiontothismaybewherethestatisticconveysaveryhighprobabilityasinthecaseofmostDNAevidence.

InthewordsofLigertwoodandEdmond:

Torelyonamathematicalprobabilityinageneralclassbyready(andunwarranted)relianceupontheprincipleofindifferencemayproducemorerightdecisionsinthelongrun,buttodosofliesinthefaceofasystemofjusticewhichseekstruthinindividualcases.26

Assumingthatthereisarealdifferencebetweenthetwoapproachesidentifiedabove,itmaybeobservedthatinenactingtheEvidence Act 1995(Cth)thelegislatureappearstohaveexpressedaclearpreferenceforatleastsomeelementsoftheBriginshawapproach.27Section140oftheEvidenceActprovides:

(1)Inacivilproceeding,thecourtmustfindthecaseofapartyprovedifitissatisfiedthatthecasehasbeenprovedonthebalanceofprobabilities.

(2)Withoutlimitingthemattersthatthecourtmaytakeintoaccountindecidingwhetheritissosatisfied,itistotakeintoaccount:

402


(a)thenatureofthecauseofactionordefence;and

(b)thenatureofthesubject-matteroftheproceeding;and

(c)thegravityofthemattersalleged.

Becauseofitsreferencetoa‘civilproceeding’,s140mustbeassumedtohavenodirectapplicationtoacriminalproceedinginwhichanissuemustbeproved‘onthebalanceofprobabilities’.However,itseemsreasonabletoassumethatthereferenceto‘onthebalanceofprobabilities’ins236B(2)oftheMigrationAct,whichwasenactedlaterthantheEvidenceAct,wasintendedtoreflectthecontentofs140(2)oftheEvidenceAct.

4 Reliance on statistics concerning age in the context of section 236B of the Migration Act.

Asnotedabove,s236BoftheMigrationActfixesmandatorytermsofimprisonmentforpeoplesmugglingoffencesprovidedthatthepersonconvictedwasovertheageof18yearsatthedateoftheoffence.TheexclusionofchildrenfromthereachoftheprovisionreflectsnotonlyanaturalreluctancetosubjectchildrentomandatoryimprisonmentinadultfacilitiesbutalsoAustralia’sobligationsasapartytotheConvention on the Rights of the Child.

Whilethelegislaturehasdecidedthatageneedonlybeestablishedonthebalanceofprobabilitiesforthepurposesofs236B,theconsequencesofaninaccuratedeterminationthattheindividualchargedisanadultwillbeextremelyserious.Itwillalmostcertainlylead,onconviction,toachildbeingsentencedtoasentencenotintendedbythelegislaturetoapplytoachildandtoachildbeingimprisonedinanadultfacilitywhereheorshewillfacethedangersnecessarilyinherentinbeingsoheld.

Asaconsequence,anydeterminationthatanindividualsuspectedofaggravatedpeoplesmugglingisanadultoughtnottobebasedonamerestatisticalprobability–exceptperhapswherethatprobabilityisexceptionallyhigh.Anyotherapproachrunstheriskofdisadvantaginginasystematicwayindividualswhomatureearly–asthestatisticsplainlyreflectthatasignificantproportionofindividualswill.Moreover,inreachingsuchadetermination,acourtwouldneedtogivecarefulconsiderationtothefactthatthedeterminationwasbeingmadeforthepurposesofacriminalproceedingconcerningaseriousoffenceinwhichthelibertyoftheaccused,forasignificantperiodoftime,wasatstake–andwhereerrorcouldresultinachildbeingconvictedasanadult,subjectedtoamandatorysentenceofimprisonmentonlyintendedtoapplytoadults,andthereafterheldinanadultjail.

CatherineBranson

June2012


__________________________________________________________________________________

1ALigertwoodandGEdmond,Australian Evidence Act: A Principled Approach to the Common Law and the Uniform Acts(5thed,2010),paras[1.45]–[1.46].

2MDant,‘GamblingontheTruth:TheUseofPurelyStatisticalEvidenceasaBasisforCivilLiability’(1988–1989)22Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems31.

3MDant,above,p38.4MDant,above,p44.5ALigertwoodandGEdmond,note1,para[1.35].6LJCohen,The Probable and the Provable (1977),p75,ascitedinHonSirREggleston,‘Focussingonthe

Defendant’(1987)61Alternative Law Journal58.7GWilliams,‘TheMathematicsofProof’(1979)Criminal Law Revue297,304,ascitedinHonSirR

Eggleston,‘FocussingontheDefendant’(1987)61Alternative Law Journal58.8GWilliams,above.9State Government Insurance Commission v Laube(1984)37SASR31.10State Government Insurance Commission v Laube(1984)37SASR31,33.11Above,seealsoTNT Management v Brooks(1979)23ALR345.12See,forexample,HonJusticeDHodgson‘TheScalesofJustice:ProbabilityandProofinLegalFact-

Finding’(1995)69Alternative Law Journal731.SeealsoHonSirREggleston‘FocusingontheDefendant’(1987)61Alternative Law Journal58.

13DHodgson,above,p742.14DHodgson,above,p736.15GWilliams,note7.16R v Galli[2001]NSWCCA504.SeealsoYusuf Aytugrul v The Queen[2012]HCA15,wheretheHigh

CourtrecentlydismissedanappealbytheappellantagainsthisconvictionofmurderbasedonDNAopinionevidence(andothercircumstantialevidence)expressedasanexclusionpercentageandaccompaniedbyafrequencyratioandexplanationofthetwo.TheCourtunanimouslyheldfoundthattheDNAevidencewasnotexpressedtothejuryinaprejudicialwaythatwouldenlivens135oftheEvidence Act 1995(NSW).WhiletheDNAevidencestatesasanexclusionpercentagewashigh,99.9percent,theevidencegivenwasnotsaidtoestablishthattheDNAprofilefoundinthehaircamefromtheappellant.

17R v Galli[2001]NSWCCA,[30]–[31].18R v Milat(1996)87ACrimR446,452(HuntCJ).19R v Galli[2001]NSWCCA504,[50].20R v Galli [2001]NSWCCA504,[55].Seealso,Seltsam Pty Ltd v McGuiness[2000]NSWCA29.21Seeforexample,Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing & Allied

Services Union of Australia v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission(2007)162FCR466,31.22Seeforexample,Bradshaw v McEwans Pty Ltd(1951)217ALR1,5.23Briginshaw v Briginshaw[1938]HCA34;(1938)60CLR336,361–362.24Davies v Taylor[1974]AC207,219;[1972]3AllER836,844.25Malec v J C Hutton Pty Ltd(1990)169CLR638,642–643(Deane,GaudronandMcHughJJ).26ALigertwoodandGEdmond,note1,para[1.45].

404


27InQantas Airways Ltd v Gama[2008]FCAFC69,BransonJstated(at139):‘Thecorrectapproachtothestandardofproofinacivilproceedinginafederalcourtisthatforwhichs140oftheEvidenceActprovides.Itisanapproachwhichrecognises,adoptingthelanguageoftheHighCourtinNeat Holdings,thatthestrengthoftheevidencenecessarytoestablishafactinissueonthebalanceofprobabilitieswillvaryaccordingtothenatureofwhatissoughttobeproved–and,Iwouldadd,thecircumstancesinwhichitissoughttobeproved.’FrenchandJacobsenJJagreedwithBransonJonthispoint.


Appendix 6:

Responses to Inquiry report – Attorney-General’s Department, Australian Federal Police and Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

406

Appendix 6: Responses to Inquiry report – Attorney-General’s Department, Australian Federal Police and Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

11/28717

12 July 2012

The Hon Catherine Branson QCPresidentAustralian Human Rights CommissionGPO Box 5218SYDNEY NSW 2001

Dear President

Thank you for your letters of 9 and 10 July 2012 in which you provided a revised draft of yourReport on the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) inquiry into the treatment ofpersons suspected of people smuggling offences who say they are children.

As you requested, I have outlined the actions the Department has taken in working with otherCommonwealth agencies to address many of the issues raised in your Report. I have alsoincluded the Department’s comments on your specific recommendations where they relate tothis Department (Attachment A). I note your advice that this letter will be published in theReport.

Overview of actions by the Department on age determination

Following your initial concerns about age determination issues expressed on 17 February 2011and in subsequent correspondence, the Department has engaged stakeholders across theCommonwealth to discuss, formulate and implement measures for operational agencies toexpand and improve the procedures to assess the age of persons suspected of people smugglingoffences who say they are minors. These measures include:

• establishing an interdepartmental working group on age determination issues

• changing the Government’s policy framework on age determination for criminal justicepurposes

• leading whole-of-government development of the Government’s current policy to removepersons suspected of people smuggling offences assessed by the Department ofImmigration and Citizenship (DIAC) as minors

• working with the AFP, CDPP and DIAC to conduct a factual evaluation of the cases of12 persons, referred by the AHRC, who were charged with or convicted of peoplesmuggling offences and who said they were minors


2 of 14

• conducting a review of 28 persons convicted of people smuggling offences who had raisedage at some stage resulting in the Attorney-General granting 15 of these persons earlyrelease on licence as they may have been minors on arrival in Australia

• engaging the Office of the Chief Scientist to obtain independent advice on the scientificand statistical approaches to age determination

• working with the Indonesian Embassy and Consulates to more effectively identify personswho say they are minors and more quickly obtain age documentation for relevantCommonwealth agencies, and

• engaging with senior representatives of the States and Territories on the appropriatemanagement of persons charged with or convicted of people smuggling offences,including for those who say they are minors.

The role of the Attorney-General’s Department in developing age determination policy

The Department is the lead policy agency on Commonwealth criminal justice issues, includingfor persons suspected of people smuggling offences. The role of the Department includescoordinating a whole-of-government approach to these issues, including age determinationpolicy, and providing advice to the Attorney-General and Minister for Home Affairs andJustice. The Department also administers the relevant part of the Crimes Act 1914 dealing withage determination in the criminal justice context. While DIAC has administrativeresponsibility for offences under theMigration Act 1958, in practice the Department has takenthe lead on legislative amendments as a result of similar offences in place in the Criminal Code,which the Department administers.

The Australian Federal Police (AFP) is the primary agency responsible for investigatingbreaches of Commonwealth criminal law, including offences under the Migration Act, and theOffice of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) is responsible forprosecuting these offences. While the AFP and CDPP are agencies within theAttorney-General’s portfolio, each agency makes decisions about the conduct of investigationsand prosecutions independently of government.

Consistent with its role, the Department has taken the lead in progressing whole-of-governmentefforts to develop and implement improved techniques for the age determination of personssuspected of people smuggling offences who say they are minors. Media reports first raised theissue of the prosecution of such persons in around November 2010, and from this time theDepartment and other agencies were engaged in considering the issue of age determination.

On 1 March 2011, the Department led a senior interdepartmental working group withrepresentatives from the AFP, CDPP and DIAC to examine options for providing additionalinformation to the courts to assist them in making decisions about whether a person accused ofa people smuggling offence is an adult or a minor. The working group concluded on10 June 2011.

For the remainder of June 2011, the Department worked with the AFP, CDPP and DIAC todevelop a submission to the former Attorney-General, the Hon Robert McClelland MP, and theformer Minister for Home Affairs and Justice, the Hon Brendan O’Connor MP, on the nextsteps on age determination policy. The submission sought agreement to the outcomes of theinterdepartmental working group. It also recommended a new age determination policy

408


3 of 14

framework to supplement existing wrist X-ray procedures, based on a more holistic approach toage determination which better reflects international practice.

The policy framework involved the AFP seeking documents and information from Indonesia asearly as possible, and offering voluntary dental X-rays and voluntary interviews under cautionusing enhanced interview techniques. Importantly, if any one procedure or verified documentsraised a doubt that a person may be a minor, the submission stated that AFP and CDPP wouldgive the benefit of the doubt to the individual, which involved the investigation or prosecutionbeing discontinued and the person being removed from Australia. This required agencies togive the benefit of the doubt about age where the available evidence did not clearly establish aperson was a minor. In addition, the submission set out what became the CDPP’s approach,implemented in early July 2011, of not opposing bail in court proceedings where age was anissue. The submission was agreed on 28 June 2011 and the Government announced the newage determination policy framework on 8 July 2011.

The Department also subsequently led the development of the Government’s current policy toremove persons suspected of people smuggling offences assessed by DIAC as minors, wherethere are no exceptional circumstances to warrant their prosecution. Since 8 December 2011,any person suspected of people smuggling offences assessed to be minors by DIAC on thebasis of an age assessment interview have been removed to their country of origin unlessexceptional circumstances apply (for example, the person was a crew member on more thanone venture, or a serious incident occurred on the vessel). If persons suspected of peoplesmuggling offences are assessed to be adults they are referred to the AFP to considerinvestigation.

The Department also developed protocols that applied this policy, and DIAC and the AFPworked with the Department to implement revised standard operating procedures on referringand investigating persons suspected of people smuggling offences who say they are minors.The Department continues to play a coordinating role to ensure that the revised procedures areimplemented in accordance with government policy.

The Department understands that since 1 December 2011, 101 persons suspected of peoplesmuggling offences have said they are minors on arrival, of a total 155 persons suspected ofpeople smuggling offences arriving in Australia (65 per cent of all persons suspected of peoplesmuggling offences say they are minors on arrival). Of these, DIAC has assessed 44 personssuspected of people smuggling offences as minors and 57 as adults (as at 30 June 2012),demonstrating that less than half of persons who say they are minors on arrival aresubsequently assessed by DIAC as minors. Since 8 December 2011, 84 persons suspected ofpeople smuggling offences have been removed as minors to their country of origin on the basisof being assessed as minors by Australian Government agencies or determined to be a minor bya court.

The Department’s approach to wrist X-rays as an age determination procedure

When wrist X-rays were introduced as a prescribed procedure in 2001, the Department wasaware of concerns about the procedure and the limitations of the Greulich and Pyle Atlas. Atthe time, these concerns focused on the possibility of racial or ethnic variations betweenpopulations, the effect of malnutrition on skeletal maturity, and ethical objections to the use ofa medical procedure for a non-medical purpose.

These issues were the subject of robust discussion by the Senate Legal and ConstitutionalAffairs Committee and by the Parliament in 2001. The Committee heard evidence about the


4 of 14

limitations of the Greulich and Pyle Atlas to assess chronological age from wrist X-rays. Italso heard evidence that, notwithstanding the fact that the Atlas was developed to assessskeletal and not chronological age, the Atlas was ‘still valid today’ and was the ‘simplest andmost practical’ method available that ensures ‘radiation is kept to a minimum’.1 Afterconsidering all of the available information, the Committee weighed the risks associated withthe procedure against the reality that there are very few other age determination techniques, andrecommended that the Government adopt wrist X-rays as a prescribed age determinationprocedure. This approach was subsequently endorsed by the Parliament.

Criticisms of the statistical methodology used by Dr Vincent Low as the expert witness for theCommonwealth arose in 2011. The Department was advised of the nature of these criticismsby the CDPP at a meeting of Commonwealth agencies on 12 August 2011. At that time, theCDPP advised the Department that Dr Low’s approach had been contested by Professor TimCole in an age determination hearing. The CDPP advised that it was consulting further with DrLow on the issues raised by Professor Cole. The CDPP subsequently advised the Departmenton 2 September 2011 that after these discussions it was satisfied with the appropriateness ofDr Low’s approach and how wrist X-ray evidence was being presented. The Department didnot receive documentation containing the substance of those criticisms until it received materialfor the evaluation of the 12 cases, which were referred to the Department by the AHRCbetween September and November 2011.

Engagement with the Office of the Chief Scientist on age determination issues

The Department has consulted the Office of the Chief Scientist on a range of scientific issuesrelating to age determination. In late November 2011 the Department requested advice fromthe Office of the Chief Scientist on the methods available for age determination in the absenceof documentary evidence. On 11 January 2012 the Chief Scientist, Professor Ian Chubb AC,advised the Department on the available scientific methods for determining chronological age.The advice confirmed what the Department was aware of in 2001, that wrist X-rays did notallow for precise estimation of chronological age, that results vary with ethnic and socio-economic conditions, and that there were ethical considerations. The ‘observed variation’ oftwo years for wrist X-rays, identified by the Chief Scientist, further indicated to the Departmentthat the science of wrist X-rays and statistical extrapolation from that science was a contestedissue that required further expert consideration.

Between January and June 2012, the Department consulted further with the Office of the ChiefScientist on a number of age determination issues. This included seeking assistance onidentifying available experts to assist the Commonwealth with the science of agedetermination, in particular to critically analyse the scientific and statistical basis for usingwrist X-rays as an age determination procedure. On 29 June 2012, the Office of the ChiefScientist provided the Department with advice relating to statistics and wrist X-rays fromProfessor Patty Solomon, Professor of Statistical Bioinformatics of the University of Adelaide.

Professor Solomon reviewed the approaches of each of the experts who contributed to yourinquiry. In her report, Professor Solomon concluded that there is not enough scientific data ineither the Greulich and Pyle Atlas or the TW3 Manual for those experts to draw sufficientlyprecise inferences of chronological age for young Indonesian males. To address the issue,Professor Solomon suggested that ‘[w]ell designed, population-based studies are needed to

1 Evidence of Dr Kevin Osborn, Secretary, ACT Branch, Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologistsfrom transcript of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee hearing on 23 March 2001 (pp.3 and 7).

410


5 of 14

properly evaluate the potential impacts of poverty, malnutrition and disease on patterns ofskeletal development’.

Professor Solomon also indicated that, in her opinion, each of the experts who gave evidence toyour inquiry applied oversimplified statistical methods or made statistical errors in theiranalyses. For example, Professor Solomon noted that Dr Low’s model is ‘simplistic at best andprobably misleading’. She also concluded that she:

[does] not have confidence in Professor Cole’s probability model, including the often quoted 61%probability of attaining skeletal maturity before age 18.

In considering Professor Cole’s discussion of ‘likelihood ratios’, Professor Solomon furthernoted that she:

[does not] believe Professor Coles’ [sic] normal model assumptions to be true necessarily, and allsubsequent calculations ensue from those assumptions.

As a result of Professor Solomon’s advice, the Department considers that it is premature tomake specific findings about drawing inferences of chronological age from wrist X-rays giventhe contested nature of the science, the insufficient data sets that experts have been workingfrom, and the errors and limitations in applying statistical analysis to the limited datasets byeach of the experts.

A summary of Professor Solomon’s advice was provided to the AHRC on 6 July 2012, but herconclusions have not been reflected in the Report. The Department is concerned that theReport does not include any reference to Professor Solomon’s critique of the experts who gaveevidence during the inquiry, including those upon whose opinion the AHRC’s findings aresubstantially based.

The Department’s review of persons convicted of people smuggling offences who raised age asan issue

The Department has taken seriously and been responsive to concerns about minors beingimprisoned in adult gaols. On 14 July 2011, you requested an independent review of all agedetermination matters. In response to your request, the Department took steps to examine12 cases following notifications from the AHRC after details of those cases were provided tothe Department on 28 September 2011. The former Attorney-General provided you withdetails of the Department’s factual evaluation of these cases on 30 November 2011, as an inputto your inquiry.

Following your letter of 16 March 2012, in which you again requested an independentassessment of age, the Department engaged with the AFP, CDPP and DIAC to review thosecases of persons convicted of people smuggling offences who raised age as an issue at somestage between arrival in Australia and conviction as quickly as possible. On 29 March 2012,the Department requested additional information on each of the cases from the AFP, CDPP andDIAC for the purposes of conducting a review. The Department also separately soughtdocumentation containing information about age from the Indonesian Embassy. The reviewwas formally approved by the Attorney-General, the Hon Nicola Roxon MP, on 24 April 2012and the Minister for Home Affairs and Justice, the Hon Jason Clare MP, on 2 May 2012. Thereview was announced publicly on 2 May 2012.

The Department finalised its review of 28 cases of persons convicted of people smugglingoffences who said they were minors at some stage on 25 June 2012. The persons whose cases


6 of 14

were examined as part of the review were all legally represented at the time of trial, and wereconvicted as adults. Of these, 17 of them pleaded guilty. Only three contested age and theywere determined by the court to be adults.

As part of the review, the Department considered information from age determinationprocesses which was not available when the persons convicted of people smuggling offencesoriginally advised Commonwealth they were minors. In particular, the Indonesian Embassyprovided age documentation for 15 persons as part of the review (provided on 6, 8 and20 June 2012), DIAC conducted age assessment interviews for all persons as part of the review(provided on 18 April and 12 June 2012), and the AFP and CDPP provided relevant caseinformation for all persons as part of the review. Recommendations were made to theAttorney-General by the Department after it considered this additional material, as well as thematerial previously available in each case.

The review applied the benefit of the doubt in matters where information from the case file orfurther information raised a doubt that the person may have been minors at the time of arrivalin Australia. For all persons assessed by DIAC as likely to be minors at the time of arrival,recommendations were put to the Attorney-General either within one week of receivingministerial approval to conduct the review, or within six days of receiving that advice fromDIAC. For all persons where documentation was provided by the Indonesian Embassyindicating they were a minor at the time of arrival, recommendations were put to theAttorney-General within five days of receiving those documents, except for one case whererecommendations were put to the Attorney-General after 10 days.

On 29 June 2012, the Attorney-General announced the outcomes of the review. This involved:

• 15 persons being granted early release from prison on licence as there was a doubt they mayhave been minors on arrival in Australia

• two persons being released early on parole

• three persons completing their non-parole periods prior to the commencement of thereview, and

• eight persons being assessed to be adults as there was no evidence supporting their claimsto have been minors at the time of their arrival.

The Department has actively sought additional information on age from theIndonesian Embassy for persons subject to the review, and will continue to engage closely withthe Embassy to obtain any further identity documentation where it becomes available. Anyfurther information will be considered by the Department in accordance with the usualprocesses governing applications from federal offenders for early release from prison onlicence.

The Department’s outstanding concerns with the Report

The Acting Secretary of the Department, Tony Sheehan, wrote to you on 6 July 2012responding to a draft of the Report and raised a number of concerns about the AHRC’sproposed findings and recommendations. Some of these issues have been resolved in the finalReport. However, a number of the Department’s substantive concerns have not beenaddressed.

412


7 of 14

One of the Department’s key concerns is that the findings and recommendations in the Reportare underpinned by an over-reliance on age assessment interviews, without adequatelyrecognising the difficulties in relying on that process for age determination in a criminal justicecontext. The Report also rejects X-rays as an age determination method, on the primary basisof expert opinion formed using an inadequate dataset.

I am also concerned that you have concluded that officers in the Department’s Criminal JusticeDivision, in the course of their work on people smuggling issues, produced work that wasdeliberately ‘misleading’ and ‘disingenuous’. The Department categorically rejects theseassertions and any implications that officers of the Department did not strive diligently andprofessionally to advise on improving policy on age determination for persons suspected orconvicted of people smuggling offences since November 2010. The Department believes thatthe enhanced age determination policies announced by the Government in July 2011 and thoseimplemented in December 2011, as well as the review of individual cases in 2012, are areflection of this.

The Department does not accept the emphasis you have selectively placed upon individualdocuments or statements with respect to this period and emphatically denies any suggestionthat errors in briefings, talking points and submissions were deliberately made by officers ofthe Department with a view to misleading the public and relevant ministers. Where errors havebeen identified, they have been formally corrected as quickly as possible.

The Department thanks the AHRC for the opportunity to comment on the Report. If you haveany questions about the information above, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely

Elizabeth KellyActing Secretary


8 of 14

ATTACHMENT A

Attorney-General’s Departments comments on the Australian Human RightsCommission’s recommendations from its inquiry into the treatment of persons suspectedof people smuggling offences who say they are children

Recommendation 1: TheMigration Act 1958 (Cth), and if appropriate the Crimes Act 1914(Cth), should be amended to make clear that for the purposes of Part 2, Division 12,Subdivision A of the Migration Act, an individual who claims to be under the age of 18 yearswill be deemed to be a minor unless the relevant decision-maker is positively satisfied, or in thecase of a judicial decision-maker, satisfied on the balance of probabilities after taking intoaccount the matters identified in s 140(2) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), that the individual isover the age of 18 years.

This recommendation is a matter for the Government as it proposes a legislatively prescribedpresumption of age in all cases where an individual says they are a minor. Therecommendation limits the proposed presumption to persons charged with offences underPart 2, Division 12, Subdivision A of the Migration Act. However, as the recommendationdelineates between a ‘relevant decision-maker’ and a ‘judicial decision-maker’, thepresumption appears to apply to such persons in both the immigration and criminal justicecontexts.

The Department considers the recommendation already broadly reflects existing practices ofagencies for the treatment of persons who say they are minors in immigration detention andcriminal custody. For example, DIAC does not detain a person who says they are a minor as anadult unless they assess that person to be an adult. The AFP also does not proceed to charge aperson if it considers the person is a minor, unless exceptional circumstances exist, such as ifthe person is substantially involved in the venture, involved in multiple ventures, or involved ina serious incident on the venture. Further, while the burden of proof in establishing a person’sage is not legislatively prescribed in the Migration Act, the prosecution assumes this burden inpractice.

A legislatively prescribed presumption of age was recently proposed as part of the CrimesAmendment (Fairness for Minors) Bill 2011, and rejected by the Senate Legal andConstitutional Affairs Committee in its report dated 4 April 2012. As set out in theDepartment’s submission to the Senate Committee, there are a number of risks involved inlegislating a presumption of age that would need to be carefully considered by theGovernment. These include the risk to other minors detained with the person, where theperson’s physical and emotional maturity suggests that they are in fact an adult. It is apparentfrom the Department’s review of persons convicted of people smuggling offences who saidthey were minors that organisers in a number of cases told persons to claim to be minors inorder to be quickly returned to Indonesia. The Report accepts that persons suspected of peoplesmuggling offences do not necessarily tell the truth about their age, and the Department notesthat at least one person the AHRC notified the Department about in September 2011 changedthe date of birth claimed to the AHRC, indicating he was an adult rather than a minor. As such,applying a presumption of age on the basis of the person’s claim alone presents a number ofpractical difficulties.

Further, the recommended ‘relevant decision-maker’ would need to be defined. It is not clearwhether this is referring to the independent assessor in recommendation 9 below, or the AFPand DIAC. It is also not clear how the ‘relevant decision-maker’ should be ‘positivelysatisfied’ that a person is under the age of 18 years.

414


9 of 14

For background, the Commonwealth Evidence Act does not generally apply to Commonwealthcriminal proceedings held in State and Territory courts, as the relevant States and TerritoryEvidence Acts apply. However, NSW, ACT, Victoria and Tasmania are all Uniform EvidenceAct jurisdictions (like the Commonwealth) and have largely adopted the model Evidence Actthat the Commonwealth Evidence Act is based on.

Recommendation 2: An individual suspected of people smuggling who says that he is a minor,and who is not manifestly an adult, should be provided with an independent guardian withresponsibility for advocating for the protection of his best interests.

This recommendation is a matter for the Government, as implementation could involve fundingdecisions and potentially legislative amendments.

It is not clear what the status of the guardian being proposed would be. The Government wouldneed to consider whether an independent guardian would be appropriate in the circumstances ofa particular person suspected of a people smuggling offence who says they are a minor, and ifso, who would perform that role. For example, there are a number of difficulties with consularofficials acting in this capacity, where consular assistance is not accepted by the individual.

It is also not clear what makes a person ‘manifestly’ an adult, and if an assessment of whether aperson is ‘manifestly’ an adult is separate to the age assessment processes by agencies. Giventhe recommendation proposes that a ‘guardian’ is provided to any person who says they are aminor who is not ‘manifestly’ an adult, it would be important to clearly define the meaning of‘manifestly’.

Recommendation 3: No procedure which involves human imaging using radiation should bespecified as a prescribed procedure for the purposes of s 3ZQA(2) of the Crimes Act, or remaina prescribed procedure for that purpose, without a justification of the procedure beingundertaken in accordance with the requirements of paragraphs 3.18, 3.61–3.64 and 3.66 of theInternational Atomic Energy Agency Safety Standard: Radiation Protection and Safety ofRadiation Sources: International Basic Safety Standards – Interim Edition (General SafetyRequirements: Part 3) or any later edition of these requirements. Such justification should takeinto account contemporary understanding of the extent to which the procedure is informative ofchronological age.

This recommendation is a matter for the Government.

Under the IAEA Safety Standard, performing human imaging using radiation for legal reasonsis not normally justified unless the government or regulatory body considers it appropriate,with regard to the factors set out in paragraph 3.61 of the Standard. The Department agreesthat any X-ray procedure to be prescribed for age determination purposes under the Crimes Actmust meet the requisite justification processes set out in that Standard.

The framework for this justification process is contained in subsection 3ZQA(4) of theCrimes Act, which requires consultation with the minister responsible for the administration ofthe Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, prior to prescribing any new age determination procedure.The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) advises the relevant minister for this purpose,currently the Minister for Health and Ageing.

Prior to introducing the framework for prescribing age determination procedures under theCrimes Act in 2001, a comprehensive process of parliamentary scrutiny took into account theviews of all stakeholders. The Government and the Parliament decided that age was of


10 of 14

considerable significance for both individuals and investigating agencies, and wrist X-rayswere assessed as delivering potential value in this context with minimal exposure to radiation.

Subsequently, prior to prescribing wrist X-rays as an age determination procedure in theCrimes Regulations, the TGA and the Minister for Health and Aged Care were consulted andagreed to the proposed regulations. Similarly, in late 2011, the Parliamentary Secretary forHealth and Ageing, the Hon Catherine King MP, was consulted about the proposal to prescribedental X-rays as an age determination procedure.

By way of additional ongoing safeguards for age determination procedures already prescribed,a procedure may only be undertaken with the person’s consent, or by court order. If the courtdoes not consider the procedure is justified in a given case, the authorities may not undertakethe procedure.

Recommendation 4: The Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and, if appropriate, the Crimes Regulations1990 (Cth), or alternatively the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), should be amended to ensure thatexpert evidence which is wholly or substantially based on the analysis of a wrist x-ray is notadmissible in a legal proceeding as proof, or as evidence tending to prove, that the subject ofthe wrist x-ray is over the age of 18 years.

This recommendation is a matter for the Government as implementation would involvelegislation.

The Department understands that wrist X-rays are not routinely being offered or used by theAFP and CDPP at present. However, they remain available for Commonwealth agencies toassist in investigations and prosecutions where appropriate. While the Department recognisesthat further research on their scientific interpretation is required, it would be premature to limitthe admissibility of wrist X-ray evidence, as recommended, particularly as it is the role of thecourt to weigh this evidence and rule on its relevance and probity.

Recommendation 5: Imaging of an individual’s dentition using radiation (dental x-ray) shouldnot be specified for the purposes of s 3ZQA(2) of the Crimes Act as a prescribed procedure forthe determination of age

Recommendation 6: Imaging of an individual’s clavicle using radiation (clavicle x-ray) shouldnot be specified for the purposes of s 3ZQA(2) of the Crimes Act as a prescribed procedure forthe determination of age.

Recommendations 5 and 6 are matters for the Government.

The Department accepts that there is not sufficient scientific evidence to support theintroduction of dental or clavicle X-rays as prescribed procedures for age determination at thistime. However, the Department may seek further expert scientific opinion on the use of dentaland clavicle X-rays for age determination purposes. As such, it does not rule out the possibilityof providing advice on prescribing dental or clavicle X-rays age determination procedures tothe Attorney-General and Minister for Home Affairs and Justice at some stage in the future.

416


11 of 14

Recommendation 7: If any forensic procedure is specified as a prescribed procedure for thepurpose of age determination within the meaning of s 3ZQA(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth),Part IAA Division 4A consideration should be given to amending the Crimes Act to providethat such a procedure may only be undertaken in the circumstances in which a forensicprocedure within the meaning of s 23WA of the Crimes Act may be undertaken with respect to aminor.


Part ID of the Crimes Act sets out the requirements for undertaking certain forensic procedureson suspects, offenders and volunteers largely for the purposes of producing evidence thatconfirms or disproves the commission of an offence. The procedures authorised under Part IDmostly relate to obtaining a forensic sample from which a DNA profile can be derived andplaced on the Commonwealth’s DNA database. The authorisation requirements, includingthose relating to consent, contained in Part ID for carrying out a forensic procedure are specificto this purpose and are therefore not applicable to the circumstances in which age determinationis required. However, the Department will give further consideration as to whether theauthorisation requirements in Part IAA could be further aligned with those requirements inPart ID.

Recommendation 8: Unless and until recommendation 9 is implemented, the Commissioner ofFederal Police should ensure that all Federal Agents are aware of their obligations whenacting as an ‘investigating official’ in reliance on s 3ZQC of the Crimes Act and should furtherensure that protocols or guidelines are put in place to ensure that these obligations are met.Specifically, an investigating official should be aware that the role of any independent adultperson is to represent the interests of the person in respect to whom the prescribed procedure isto be carried out and that he or she should be so advised.

This recommendation is a matter for the AFP.

Recommendation 9: Where it is necessary for an investigating official within the meaning ofs 3ZQB(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), who suspects that a person may have committed aCommonwealth offence, to determine whether a person is, or was at the time of the allegedcommission of an offence, under the age of 18 years, the investigating official should seek theconsent of the person to participate in an age assessment interview.

Where reasonably possible, the interviewer should speak the language ordinarily spoken by theperson whose age is to be assessed and should be familiar with the culture of the place fromwhich the person comes. The interviewer, who ideally should be independent of theCommonwealth, should be instructed that he or she should only make an assessment that theperson is over the age of 18 years if positively satisfied that this is the case after allowing forthe difficulty of assessing age by interview.

All interviewers should be trained, should follow an established procedure and should recordtheir interviews. Their conclusions and the reasons for their conclusions should bedocumented.

This recommendation is a matter for the AFP or, if legislative amendments are being proposed,the Government.

The recommendation reflects the AFP’s current processes in terms of seeking the person’sconsent prior to participating in an interview under caution with investigating officials. The


12 of 14

AFP undertakes voluntary interviews for investigative purposes and those interviews includequestions concerning the age of individual participating in the interview. The AFP’s currentprocess is not to undertake specific age assessment interviews. The AFP conducts interviewsusing an appropriately qualified interpreter.

The recommendation proposes that an independent assessor conduct the interview with theperson. However, the recommendation does not address the issue of whether such interviewswould be conducted under criminal caution. Further, there may be difficulties in locatingsufficient numbers of qualified interviewers who are fluent in Indonesian and familiar withIndonesian culture, who could conduct an interview in this context.

Recommendation 10: Any individual suspected of people smuggling who says that he is a childand who is not manifestly an adult should be offered access to legal advice prior toparticipating in any age assessment interview intended to be relied on in a legal proceeding.

This recommendation reflects existing practice, whereby the AFP offers access to legal adviceto all persons, regardless of age, prior to participating in a voluntary interview under cautionconducted by the AFP for investigative purposes. It appears this recommendation does notpropose that legal advice is provided to individuals prior to DIAC age assessment interviews,as these interviews are not conducted with the intention that they will be relied on in legalproceedings.

Recommendation 11: If a decision is made to investigate or prosecute an individual suspectedof people smuggling who does not admit that he was over the age of 18 years at the date of theoffence of which he is suspected, immediate efforts should be made to obtain documentaryevidence of age from his country of origin.

This recommendation is a matter for the AFP. Under the policy framework announced on8 July 2011, the AFP is to request documents containing information about the age of personswho say they are minors from their country of origin as soon as possible.

Recommendation 12: The Attorney-General should set and ensure the implementation of anappropriate time limit between the apprehension of a young person suspected of peoplesmuggling who does not admit to being over the age of 18 years and the bringing of a chargeor charges against him. The Attorney-General should further consult with the CommonwealthDirector of Public Prosecutions concerning procedures put in place by the Director to ensurethe expeditious trial of any young person who does not admit to being over the age of 18 yearsand who is charged with a Commonwealth offence. Should the Attorney-General not besatisfied that appropriate procedures have been put in place by the Director, the Attorney-General should issue guidelines on this topic under s 8 of the Director of Public ProsecutionsAct 1983 (Cth).

This recommendation is a matter for the Attorney-General.

The Department supports measures to reduce delays in investigations for persons suspected ofpeople smuggling offences who say they are minors. The AFP currently has a benchmarktimeframe of 90 days from interception to laying charges. The Department understands thecurrent average timeframe for laying charges is 112.9 days.

It is important that the AFP and CDPP have adequate time to consider all relevant factors whenmaking a decision to charge or prosecute a person. The CDPP makes decisions relating to theprosecution process in accordance with the guidelines established by the Prosecution Policy of

418


13 of 14

the Commonwealth. The Prosecution Policy outlines relevant factors to be considered whenexercising prosecutorial discretion, including specific factors relating to decisions about theprosecution of minors.

The CDPP makes decisions independently of the Government. However, the Attorney-Generalhas the power to issue directions or guidelines to the CDPP under section 8 of the Director ofPublic Prosecutions Act. It is a matter for the Attorney-General to determine whether it isappropriate to issue directions or guidelines, in consultation with the CDPP.

Recommendation 13: The Commonwealth should only in exceptional circumstances, and afterbringing those circumstances to the attention of the decision-maker, oppose bail where aperson who claims to be a minor, and is not manifestly an adult, has been charged with peoplesmuggling. Where a person who claims to be a minor, and is not manifestly an adult, has beencharged with people smuggling and granted bail, he should be held in appropriate communitydetention in in the vicinity of his trial court. The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship’sguidelines for the administration of his residence determination powers should be amended sothat such cases can be brought to the Minister’s immediate attention.

This recommendation in part reflects existing practices. The CDPP generally does not opposeapplications for bail made by persons charged with people smuggling offences who say theywere minors at the time of the offence. This policy has been in place since mid-2011.Provided the defendant’s legal representative makes an application for bail, and this is grantedby the court, the defendant will be released into immigration detention as an unlawful non-citizen until the court either reconsiders the issue of bail or the outcome of the prosecution isknown.

The detention arrangements for individuals who have been bailed into immigration detentionare a matter for DIAC, which ensures that minors are held in appropriate facilities. Whereappropriate, DIAC holds these individuals in alternative places of detention, which may includerented accommodation in the community (such as hotel rooms or apartments). Communitydetention placement decisions are made by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship usinga non-delegable non-compellable power. Any guidelines on the use of this power are mattersfor DIAC and the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship.

Recommendation 14: The Attorney-General should consult with the Commonwealth Directorof Public Prosecutions concerning procedures put in place by the Director to ensure that theCommonwealth does not adduce expert evidence in legal proceedings where the acceptance bythe court of that evidence would be inconsistent with the accused person’s receiving a fair trial.Should the Attorney-General not be satisfied that appropriate procedures have been put inplace by the Director, the Attorney-General should seek advice from an appropriately qualifiedjudicial officer or former judicial officer as to the terms of guidelines on this topic that it wouldbe appropriate for her to furnish to the Director under s 8 of the Director of PublicProsecutions Act 1983 (Cth).

This recommendation is a matter for the Attorney-General.

The CDPP conducts prosecutions in accordance with the Prosecution Policy of theCommonwealth. The court also has the power to refuse to admit evidence if its probative valueis outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant, and has the power to manageits processes in a way that ensures a defendant’s right to a fair trial is protected. It is a matterfor the Attorney-General to determine whether it is appropriate to issue directions or guidelinesunder section 8 of the Director of Public Prosecutions Act, in consultation with the CDPP.


14 of 14

Recommendation 15: The Attorney-General’s Department should establish and maintain aprocess whereby there is regular and frequent review of the continuing need for each CriminalJustice Stay Certificate given by the Attorney-General or his or her delegate. TheAttorney-General’s Department should additionally ensure that a Criminal Justice StayCertificate is cancelled as promptly as compliance with s 162(2) of theMigration Act 1958(Cth) allows when it is no longer required for the purpose for which it was given.

The Department accepts the recommendation that the Department establish and maintain aprocess for regular and frequent review of criminal justice stay certificates (CJSCs). TheDepartment currently has procedures in place for the review of CJSCs, and will continue torefine and document those procedures consistent with the Commission’s findings andrecommendations.

As indicated by the Department at the AHRC hearings, the AFP and CDPP are the competentauthorities in relation to investigations and prosecutions, and the Attorney-General’s delegatenecessarily relies on advice from these agencies as to whether a person’s presence in Australiais required for the purposes of the administration of justice. The Department’s refinements toits procedures for review of CJSCs will however include guidance on appropriate follow upwith AFP or CDPP, as relevant, for confirmation of the continuing need or otherwise for theCJSC to ensure cancellation of certificates promptly once a person is no longer required.

Recommendation 16: If, at any time, the Commonwealth becomes aware of information thatindicates that an individual suspected of people smuggling whose age is in doubt may havebeen trafficked, he should be treated as a victim of crime and provided with appropriatesupport.

The Department accepts this recommendation in principle. However, in cases whereCommonwealth authorities become aware that someone may be a victim of trafficking, the ageof the suspected victim (whether in doubt or otherwise) is irrelevant. All arrivals on asuspected irregular entry vessel are referred first to DIAC to establish their reasons for travel.DIAC officers are provided with specific training to identify possible indicators of traffickingin persons. All suspected victims of trafficking identified by Australian authorities are referredto the AFP for assessment and possible referral to the Australian Government Support forTrafficked People Program.

Recommendation 17: The Australian Government should remove Australia’s reservation toarticle 37(c) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.


As part of Australia’s National Human Rights Action Plan, the Australian Government isreviewing its reservations to all United Nations human rights treaties, including article 37(c) ofthe Convention on the Rights of the Child.

420


422



DPP Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

Chris Craigie SC

4 Marcus Clarke Street Canberra City 2601 GPO Box 3104 Canberra ACT 2601 Telephone 02 6206 5666 Facsimile 02 6257 5709

Your reference: Our reference: 12 July 2012 The Hon Catherine Branson QC President and Human Rights Commissioner Australian Human Rights Commission GPO Box 5218 SYDNEY NSW 2011 Dear President Inquiry into the treatment of individuals suspected of people smuggling offences who say that they are children Thank you for your letter of 10 July 2012 and for providing this Office with a confidential copy of the final draft report of the Inquiry into the treatment of individuals suspected of people smuggling offences who say that they are children and for the opportunity to respond to this final draft and to address subsection 29(2)(e) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986. Accordingly I would be grateful if this letter responding to your request was published as an Appendix to the Report. I note that this letter draws upon our earlier comments on the draft findings and recommendations. Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth The period of the last surge of people smuggling prosecutions in the late 1990’s to the early 2000’s pre-dates the CDPP’s present policy of not prosecuting minors for people smuggling offences except where there are exceptional circumstances. Previously, given the seriousness of the alleged offences, it had been considered appropriate to prosecute minors for people smuggling offences. The CDPP had cause to reconsider its position in relation to the prosecution of minors for people smuggling offences in late 2010. This arose from the fact that the AFP had decided not to charge any persons considered to be minors. The CDPP’s position also changed to one under which minors should not be prosecuted for people smuggling offences unless there were exceptional circumstances on the basis of the minor’s significant involvement in a people smuggling venture or involvement in multiple ventures.

424


- 2 -

Where the CDPP is conducting a people smuggling prosecution and the defendant claims to be a minor, the CDPP assesses all material provided on the referral of a matter. This includes any additional material on age provided by the AFP or the defence in considering whether a court is likely to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the defendant was an adult in assessing whether there is a reasonable prospect of conviction in accordance with the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth. Where the CDPP has not been satisfied that a court would be likely to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities on all the evidence available that the defendant was an adult the CDPP has discontinued the prosecution. The CDPP has discontinued a significant number of people smuggling prosecutions at various stages of the prosecution process after coming to the view that we were not satisfied on all the evidence available that a court would not likely be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the defendant was an adult. As previously indicated, the CDPP has discontinued 55 of the matters considered by the Commission in this inquiry where a claim has been made by the defendant to be a minor. This includes 22 matters which were discontinued prior to October 2011 without an age determination hearing having been conducted and a further 20 matters which were discontinued between October and December 2011 without an age determination hearing having been conducted. The above approach has been and continues to be the CDPP’s practice. Over the course of the latest surge of people smuggling prosecutions, that is, since September 2008, the CDPP has also implemented further policies in relation to the prosecution of people smuggling offences where the defendant claims to be a minor, as the assessment of these matters before the courts has evolved or issues have become apparent to the CDPP. Expert evidence in relation to wrist x-rays The draft report contains extensive discussion of the use of wrist x-ray evidence in relation to the investigation and prosecution of people smuggling offences. Evidentiary material provided to the CDPP in briefs of evidence relating to people smuggling offences has included wrist x-ray evidence taken in accordance with Division 4A of Part 1AA of the Crimes Act 1914. The CDPP has presented expert evidence in relation to wrist x-rays, including evidence by Dr Low, to courts in age determination hearings when age had been raised as an issue. Expert evidence on wrist x-rays provided to the CDPP was not limited to Dr Low. As provided in our email of 3 April 2012, the CDPP had been provided with expert evidence by 22 experts. In most cases which went to an age determination hearing, the CDPP was provided with 2 expert reports in relation to wrist x-rays. The first was the initial report usually made in Darwin, after the x-ray was conducted. The second was a more detailed report, usually by Dr Low, for the purposes of providing evidence in an age determination hearing. In all matters where the CDPP relied on the evidence of Dr Low at an age determination hearing, the initial report was disclosed to the defence as well. The CDPP did not consider that it was continuing to adduce wrist x-ray analysis as evidence of age in legal proceedings beyond a point in time at which the Office was or should have been aware that serious questions had been identified about the reliability of the evidence being adduced from their preferred expert witness. The CDPP had been provided with an expert who had been accepted by courts. The CDPP was aware that challenges were being made to the wrist x-ray evidence being relied on and considered that these constituted differences of opinion that should be assessed by the Courts. In late 2011, there were matters in which the courts made critical assessments of the use of statistical probabilities by Dr Low in relation to wrist x-ray evidence. The CDPP responded


- 3 -

quickly to the critical assessments that have been made as to Dr Low’s formulation of statistical probabilities in relation to wrist x-ray evidence. These assessments were made by the Court in the cases of R v Daud [2011] WADC 175 and R v RMA [2011] WADC 198 and, in response, the CDPP reviewed its position in relation to the use of wrist x-ray evidence. The CDPP’s position was that no people smuggling matter in which age was contested should be prosecuted where the sole probative evidence that the defendant was over 18 years at the time of the offending was the analysis of the wrist x-ray. The CDPP does not agree that this Office had a ‘culture of disbelief’ in relation to the age claimed or indicated by defendants. In relation to references to the CDPP having a high level of scepticism concerning the claims of young Indonesians to be minors, the CDPP’s experience in prosecuting people smuggling offences involving crew from Indonesia is that these matters can involve complex situations and uncertainty as to precise dates of birth and accordingly the age of defendants. There have been instances of multiple dates of birth being provided and cases where different ages have been claimed by the claimant individual at different stages. These aspects, combined with other difficulties that have arisen in relation to potential evidence as to age including issues relating in particular to Indonesian documentary material, has meant that age determination can be extremely difficult, which has been reflected in the CDPP’s conduct of these matters. Disclosure The draft report contains discussion of disclosure obligations in prosecuting and of the CDPP not disclosing scientific material. The draft report finds that the CDPP failed to disclose to defence counsel material of which it was aware that undermined the credibility of expert evidence proposed to be adduced by it. The CDPP regards the Crown’s obligations of disclosure as a core duty. The CDPP rejects any implication that the CDPP breached its duty of disclosure. The CDPP considered that the appropriate course was for the differing views of experts in relation to wrist x-rays, which were known and used by defence lawyers and provided to the CDPP by them, to be considered and decided by the courts. Accordingly, in 2011, contrary views on wrist x-rays were before the courts and were assessed through a number of age determination hearings and in this way were public knowledge, leading to the decisions of R v Daud [2011] WADC 175 and R v RMA [2011] WADC 198, as discussed above. Documentary material from Indonesia The draft report suggests that the CDPP has focused on admissibility when considering material from Indonesia. In prosecuting, the CDPP must scrutinise material to determine whether it is authentic, reliable and accurate. To do otherwise would constitute a grave derogation in our duty to the Court. In people smuggling matters where the issue of age has arisen, the CDPP has had to consider whether the document or material provided does indeed go to establish an age for the person. This requires consideration of the provenance of the document and the underlying information which has been used to create the document, including the date of registration and the date of extract of the information. The CDPP has also had a responsibility to consider whether the material is admissible in order to determine whether it could properly be tendered in evidence by the prosecution and whether objections could be taken to the material by the defence. The admissibility of

426


- 4 -

material from Indonesia has been a matter which the CDPP has been required to consider in detail. Material from Indonesia which was not admissible was considered by the CDPP in determining whether a court was likely to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the defendant was an adult. In a number of matters the CDPP has discontinued the prosecution after considering documentary material, notwithstanding that it was not in admissible form. Given the issues that the CDPP has encountered with documentary material from Indonesia, including admissibility issues and in some cases conflicting documentation, the CDPP’s position evolved. This position only relates to the material that the defendant wishes to tender. The CDPP cannot require or expect that defence representatives will allow the CDPP to tender documentary material which is not admissible. The approach that the CDPP has adopted in relation to documentary material from Indonesia that the defendant wishes to tender is a very unusual and permissive stance to be taken by a prosecuting entity. The approach has been taken as a result of practical issues confronting the CDPP in relation to documentary material from Indonesia. The CDPP does not have a similar approach in any other area of its practice. This approach has facilitated the CDPP’s decisions in these matters and highlights the often unusual difficulties and issues which confronted the CDPP in people smuggling prosecutions. Bail The draft report’s findings regarding bail suggest that the CDPP’s change in policy regarding bail was not announced or communicated to legal representatives until November 2011. Prior to this, bail was raised by defence solicitors with CDPP prosecutors in individual matters as is normal practice. Bail was granted unopposed in a number of matters. In November 2011 the CDPP formally implemented a national practice of writing to all legal representatives of defendants claiming to be minors but who had not applied for bail. They were informed of the CDPP’s position not to normally oppose bail for persons claiming to be minors. Chapter 7 Whilst I appreciate that the statements in section 5.3 are expressions of opinion, I note that it is an element of the people smuggling offences that the defendant intentionally facilitated the bringing or coming to Australia or entry or proposed entry to Australia of another person and that a large number of defendants have been convicted by courts of these offences. In summary:

The CDPP notes the findings and recommendations made in the draft report; The CDPP has made detailed comments on a number of the findings in this letter; The CDPP’s policies and practices in relation to people smuggling prosecutions have

evolved, including in relation to issues arising from the use of wrist x-ray evidence; The CDPP’s policies in relation to bail and documentary material from Indonesia

address areas covered by the recommendations made in the draft report; The CDPP notes the recommendations relating to consultation between the Attorney-

General and the CDPP; The CDPP will, subject to practical limitations as to matters within our control,

continue to consider ways in which this Office can facilitate trials for people smuggling


- 5 -

offences involving defendants who do not admit to being over 18 years of age to proceed expeditiously through the court system; and

The CDPP prosecutes in accordance with the Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth, which is based on the principles of fairness, openness, consistency, accountability and efficiency and affirms the importance of an accused person receiving a fair trial.

Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. Yours sincerely

Chris Craigie SC

AU

ST

RA

LIA

N H

UM

AN

RIG

HT

S C

OM

MIS

SIO

N A

n A

ge

of

un

ce

rtA

int

y • 2012

An age of

uncertaintyInquIry Into the treatment of

IndIvIduals suspected of people smugglIng offences who say that they

are chIldren • 2012

Australian Human Rights Commissionwww.humanrights.gov.au