Upload
lenhan
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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.
3An age of uncertainty
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
5An age of uncertainty
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
7An age of uncertainty
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
9An age of uncertainty
• 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.
11An age of uncertainty
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
13An age of uncertainty
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.
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
17An age of uncertainty
(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
Chapter 1: Introduction and background
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.
19An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 1: Introduction and background
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
21An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 1: Introduction and background
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:
23An age of uncertainty
• 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
Chapter 1: Introduction and background
• 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.
25An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 1: Introduction and background
• 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
27An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 1: Introduction and background
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.
29An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 1: Introduction and background
• 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,
31An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 1: Introduction and background
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
33An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 1: Introduction and background
(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.
35An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 1: Introduction and background
• 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
37An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 1: Introduction and background
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
39An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 1: Introduction and background
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
41An age of uncertainty
(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
Chapter 1: Introduction and background
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
43An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 1: Introduction and background
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).
45An age of uncertainty
10RvDaud[2011]WADC175,255;RvRMA[2011]WADC198,69.InRvDaudthejudgenotedthattheexpertwitnesscalledbytheprosecution(DrVincent Low)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
Chapter 1: Introduction and background
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).
47An age of uncertainty
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.
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
51An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 2: Biomedical markers and the assessment of chronological age
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.
53An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 2: Biomedical markers and the assessment of chronological age
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’.
55An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 2: Biomedical markers and the assessment of chronological age
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.
57An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 2: Biomedical markers and the assessment of chronological age
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
59An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 2: Biomedical markers and the assessment of chronological age
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
61An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 2: Biomedical markers and the assessment of chronological age
(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.
63An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 2: Biomedical markers and the assessment of chronological age
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.
65An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 2: Biomedical markers and the assessment of chronological age
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.
67An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 2: Biomedical markers and the assessment of chronological age
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
69An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 2: Biomedical markers and the assessment of chronological age
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
71An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 2: Biomedical markers and the assessment of chronological age
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
73An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 2: Biomedical markers and the assessment of chronological age
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
75An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 2: Biomedical markers and the assessment of chronological age
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.
77An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 2: Biomedical markers and the assessment of chronological age
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
79An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 2: Biomedical markers and the assessment of chronological age
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?
81An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 2: Biomedical markers and the assessment of chronological age
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
83An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 2: Biomedical markers and the assessment of chronological age
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
85An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 2: Biomedical markers and the assessment of chronological age
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.
87An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 2: Biomedical markers and the assessment of chronological age
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.
89An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 2: Biomedical markers and the assessment of chronological age
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.
91An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 2: Biomedical markers and the assessment of chronological age
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.
93An age of uncertainty
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
95An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 3: The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of biomedical markers for age assessment purposes
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.
97An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 3: The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of biomedical markers for age assessment purposes
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
99An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 3: The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of biomedical markers for age assessment purposes
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
101An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 3: The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of biomedical markers for age assessment purposes
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
103An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 3: The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of biomedical markers for age assessment purposes
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.
105An age of uncertainty
(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
Chapter 3: The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of biomedical markers for age assessment purposes
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
107An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 3: The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of biomedical markers for age assessment purposes
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
109An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 3: The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of biomedical markers for age assessment purposes
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
111An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 3: The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of biomedical markers for age assessment purposes
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
113An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 3: The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of biomedical markers for age assessment purposes
• 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
115An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 3: The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of biomedical markers for age assessment purposes
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
117An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 3: The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of biomedical markers for age assessment purposes
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
119An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 3: The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of biomedical markers for age assessment purposes
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.
121An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 3: The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of biomedical markers for age assessment purposes
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
123An age of uncertainty
(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
Chapter 3: The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of biomedical markers for age assessment purposes
• 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
125An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 3: The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of biomedical markers for age assessment purposes
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
127An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 3: The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of biomedical markers for age assessment purposes
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
129An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 3: The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of biomedical markers for age assessment purposes
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
131An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 3: The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of biomedical markers for age assessment purposes
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
133An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 3: The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of biomedical markers for age assessment purposes
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
135An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 3: The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of biomedical markers for age assessment purposes
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:
137An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 3: The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of biomedical markers for age assessment purposes
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
139An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 3: The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of biomedical markers for age assessment purposes
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
141An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 3: The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of biomedical markers for age assessment purposes
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
143An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 3: The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of biomedical markers for age assessment purposes
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.
145An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 3: The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of biomedical markers for age assessment purposes
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
147An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 3: The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of biomedical markers for age assessment purposes
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.
149An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 3: The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of biomedical markers for age assessment purposes
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),p62.53CommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions,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).
151An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 3: The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of biomedical markers for age assessment purposes
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.
153An age of uncertainty
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.
114PresidentoftheAustralasianPaediatricEndocrineGroupetal,CorrespondencetoHonCBowenMP,MinisterforImmigrationandCitizenship,19August2011,p1.
115PresidentoftheAustralasianPaediatricEndocrineGroupetal,CorrespondencetoHonCBowenMP,MinisterforImmigrationandCitizenship,19August2011,p1.
116FirstAssistantSecretary,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(20April2012),p178.
117SeniorAssistantDirector,CDPP,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(20April2012),p177;DeputyCommissioner,AFP,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(20April2012),p177.
118FirstAssistantSecretary,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(20April2012),p180.
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
Chapter 3: The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of biomedical markers for age assessment purposes
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.
155An age of uncertainty
154AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,p14.155ARPANSA,ResponsetoAGDre:humanimagingforagedetermination,Attachment–Emailfrom
PrincipalLegalOfficer,PeopleSmuggling,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,toAustralianHumanRightsCommission,6March2012.
156HonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,CorrespondencetoHonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,17February2011.
157FirstAssistantSecretary,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(20April2012),p185.
158FirstAssistantSecretary,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(20April2012),p185.
159HonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,31March2011.
160HonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,30June2011,p1.
161HonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,30June2011,p1.
162HonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,30June2011,p2.
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),p187.170FirstAssistantSecretary,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,Transcriptofhearing,Publichearingfor
Commonwealthagencies(20April2012),p188.171HonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,Australian
HumanRightsCommission,22August2011.172FirstAssistantSecretary,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,Transcriptofhearing,Publichearingfor
Commonwealthagencies(20April2012),p188.173FirstAssistantSecretary,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,Transcriptofhearing,Publichearingfor
Commonwealthagencies(20April2012),pp188–189.174FirstAssistantSecretary,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,Transcriptofhearing,Publichearingfor
Commonwealthagencies(20April2012),p189.175FirstAssistantSecretary,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,Transcriptofhearing,Publichearingfor
Commonwealthagencies(20April2012),p189.176FirstAssistantSecretary,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,Transcriptofhearing,Publichearingfor
Commonwealthagencies(20April2012),p189.
156
Chapter 3: The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of biomedical markers for age assessment purposes
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.
157An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 3: The Commonwealth’s understanding of the usefulness of biomedical markers for age assessment purposes
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.
159An age of uncertainty
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.
255FirstAssistantSecretary,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(20April2012),p185.
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.
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
163An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 4: The use of wrist x-ray analysis
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
165An age of uncertainty
• 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
Chapter 4: The use of wrist x-ray analysis
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.
167An age of uncertainty
• 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
Chapter 4: The use of wrist x-ray analysis
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.
169An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 4: The use of wrist x-ray analysis
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
171An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 4: The use of wrist x-ray analysis
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:
173An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 4: The use of wrist x-ray analysis
Q242Thatprocedurewasdone,todetermineyourage?
A242 THEINTERPRETER:Yes.
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?
A247 THEINTERPRETER:Yes.
Q248BecauseyouthoughtthatifyouwerecaughtbyAustralianauthorities,theywouldsendyouhome.
A248 THEINTERPRETER:Idon’tknow,becauseIneverbeenhere.SoIdon’tknow,becauseInever–Ineverbeenherebefore.
Q249WereyouawarethatAustralianauthoritieswouldsendchildrenhome,whowereundereighteenyears?
A249 THEINTERPRETER:No.
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.
175An age of uncertainty
A253 THEINTERPRETER:No.
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
Chapter 4: The use of wrist x-ray analysis
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
177An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 4: The use of wrist x-ray analysis
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
179An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 4: The use of wrist x-ray analysis
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.
181An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 4: The use of wrist x-ray analysis
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.
183An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 4: The use of wrist x-ray analysis
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
185An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 4: The use of wrist x-ray analysis
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
187An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 4: The use of wrist x-ray analysis
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.
189An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 4: The use of wrist x-ray analysis
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
191An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 4: The use of wrist x-ray analysis
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
193An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 4: The use of wrist x-ray analysis
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
195An age of uncertainty
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?
A101 THEINTERPRETER:Yes.
Q102Theresultsofthatwristx-rayindicatethatyouhaveattainedtheageofnineteenyears.
A102 THEINTERPRETER:That’sokay,whatever.
Q103Youunderstandthat,whathappenedyesterday?
A103 THEINTERPRETER:Yes,Idounderstand.
Q113Whatisyourdateofbirth?
196
Chapter 4: The use of wrist x-ray analysis
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?
A117 THEINTERPRETER:Yes.
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.
197An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 4: The use of wrist x-ray analysis
(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.
199An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 4: The use of wrist x-ray analysis
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
201An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 4: The use of wrist x-ray analysis
• 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
203An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 4: The use of wrist x-ray analysis
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
205An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 4: The use of wrist x-ray analysis
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
207An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 4: The use of wrist x-ray analysis
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
209An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 4: The use of wrist x-ray analysis
• [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
211An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 4: The use of wrist x-ray analysis
[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
213An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 4: The use of wrist x-ray analysis
• 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.
215An age of uncertainty
• 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
Chapter 4: The use of wrist x-ray analysis
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
217An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 4: The use of wrist x-ray analysis
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;
219An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 4: The use of wrist x-ray analysis
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
221An age of uncertainty
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.
16FirstAssistantSecretary,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(19April2012),p138.
222
Chapter 4: The use of wrist x-ray analysis
17FirstAssistantSecretary,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(19April2012),p138.
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).
223An age of uncertainty
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(20April2012),p179.59CommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealth
agencies(20April2012),p179.60CommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealth
agencies(19April2012),p64.61Minutes,Agedeterminationofpeoplesmugglingcrew,1March2011,Attachment–EmailfromPrincipal
LegalOfficer,AGD,toCommonwealthagencies,3March2011(AGDdocumentENG-AHRC-2).
224
Chapter 4: The use of wrist x-ray analysis
62Questiontimebrief,Asylumseekers–childpeoplesmugglers(QTB10-470),Attachment–EmailfromPrincipalLegalOfficer,PeopleSmugglingFinancialCrimeandBorderManagementSection,CriminalJusticeDivision,toOfficer,DepartmentofPrimeMinisterandCabinet,17November2010(DIACdocumentmail39646062).
63FirstAssistantSecretary,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(19April2012),p90.
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.
225An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 4: The use of wrist x-ray analysis
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).
227An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 4: The use of wrist x-ray analysis
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).
229An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 4: The use of wrist x-ray analysis
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.
231An age of uncertainty
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,12June2012.254HonNRoxonMP,Attorney-General,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,Australian
HumanRightsCommission,26June2012.255HonNRoxonMP,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.
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
235An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 5: Focused age assessment interviews
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.
237An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 5: Focused age assessment interviews
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
239An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 5: Focused age assessment interviews
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?
241An age of uncertainty
• 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
Chapter 5: Focused age assessment interviews
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
243An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 5: Focused age assessment interviews
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:
245An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 5: Focused age assessment interviews
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).
247An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 5: Focused age assessment interviews
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
249An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 5: Focused age assessment interviews
• 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
251An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 5: Focused age assessment interviews
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
253An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 5: Focused age assessment interviews
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).
36HonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,30June2011.
37HonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,30June2011.
38HonRMcClellandMP,Attorney-General,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,30June2011.
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).
42AssistantCommissioner,NationalManagerCrimeOperations,AFP,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,29May2012,p7.
43AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,pp14–15.44AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,p15.45DIAC,Responsetodraftreport,6July2012.46AustralianGovernment,Jointsubmission,Submission30,p11.
255An age of uncertainty
47AssistantCommissioner,NationalManagerCrimeOperations,AFP,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,29May2012,p8.
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
Chapter 5: Focused age assessment interviews
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.
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
259An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 6: Age enquiries in Indonesia
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.
261An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 6: Age enquiries in Indonesia
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:
263An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 6: Age enquiries in Indonesia
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
265An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 6: Age enquiries in Indonesia
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
267An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 6: Age enquiries in Indonesia
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:
269An age of uncertainty
• 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
Chapter 6: Age enquiries in Indonesia
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
271An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 6: Age enquiries in Indonesia
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
273An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 6: Age enquiries in Indonesia
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
275An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 6: Age enquiries in Indonesia
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
277An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 6: Age enquiries in Indonesia
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
279An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 6: Age enquiries in Indonesia
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).
8AssistantCommissioner,NationalManagerCrimeOperations,AFP,CorrespondencetoHonCBransonQC,President,AustralianHumanRightsCommission,29May2012,p4.
281An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 6: Age enquiries in Indonesia
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).
283An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 6: Age enquiries in Indonesia
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).
285An age of uncertainty
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).
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
289An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 7: Some further aspects of the treatment of the young Indonesians
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
291An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 7: Some further aspects of the treatment of the young Indonesians
• 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
293An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 7: Some further aspects of the treatment of the young Indonesians
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
295An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 7: Some further aspects of the treatment of the young Indonesians
• 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:
297An age of uncertainty
• 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
Chapter 7: Some further aspects of the treatment of the young Indonesians
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
299An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 7: Some further aspects of the treatment of the young Indonesians
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
301An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 7: Some further aspects of the treatment of the young Indonesians
(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:
303An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 7: Some further aspects of the treatment of the young Indonesians
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:
305An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 7: Some further aspects of the treatment of the young Indonesians
(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
307An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 7: Some further aspects of the treatment of the young Indonesians
(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
309An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 7: Some further aspects of the treatment of the young Indonesians
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
311An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 7: Some further aspects of the treatment of the young Indonesians
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:
313An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 7: Some further aspects of the treatment of the young Indonesians
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:
315An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 7: Some further aspects of the treatment of the young Indonesians
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.
317An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 7: Some further aspects of the treatment of the young Indonesians
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).
319An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 7: Some further aspects of the treatment of the young Indonesians
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.
321An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 7: Some further aspects of the treatment of the young Indonesians
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).
323An age of uncertainty
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.
116FirstAssistantSecretary,CriminalJusticeDivision,AGD,Transcriptofhearing,PublichearingforCommonwealthagencies(20April2012),p161.
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
Chapter 7: Some further aspects of the treatment of the young Indonesians
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.
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
327An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 8: Findings and recommendations
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:
329An age of uncertainty
• 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
Chapter 8: Findings and recommendations
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
331An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 8: Findings and recommendations
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.
333An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 8: Findings and recommendations
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.
335An age of uncertainty
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
Chapter 8: Findings and recommendations
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
337An age of uncertainty
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.
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.
341An age of uncertainty
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
Appendix 1: Case studies
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
343An age of uncertainty
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
Appendix 1: Case studies
‘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
345An age of uncertainty
May 2012
On17May2012,theAttorney-GeneralannouncesthatthreeIndonesiannationalsconvictedofpeoplesmugglingwillbereleasedfromprisonandreturnedtoIndonesia.45MediareportsconfirmthatAliJasminisoneofthesethreeindividuals.46
On18May2012,AlireturnshometoIndonesia.Sincefirstclaimingtobeachild,Alihasspent97daysinimmigrationdetentionand781daysinamaximumsecurityadultprison.
Case study 2: OSB051
• Apprehended:30December2009
• 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
Appendix 1: Case studies
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.’
347An age of uncertainty
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
Appendix 1: Case studies
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
349An age of uncertainty
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
Appendix 1: Case studies
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
351An age of uncertainty
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
Appendix 1: Case studies
On18May2012,OSB051returnshometoIndonesia.Sincefirstclaimingtobeachild,OSB051hasspent71daysinimmigrationdetentionand793daysinamaximumsecurityadultprison.
Case study 3: NTN031
• Apprehended:29December2009
• Charged:6October2010
• RemovedfromAustralia:26November2011
• Numberofdaysindetention:690days
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.
353An age of uncertainty
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
Appendix 1: Case studies
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
355An age of uncertainty
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
Appendix 1: Case studies
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
• Charged:14October2010
• RemovedfromAustralia:16November2011
• Numberofdaysindetention:631days
UntilFebruary2010,INN012livedwithhisaunt,hissister,andhisaunt’sfourchildreninAlorPantarBakalang,Indonesia.140Bothhisparentshavepassedaway.INN012beganworkingafterhecompletedprimaryschool.Heworkedanumberofcasualjobswhichhavenotprovidedhimwithmuchmoney–asadeckhandcarryingbagsofriceorcement,workingonhiscousin’sboatandalsohelpinghisauntcleanthehousewhilethefamilyfarmed.141Healsoworkedasamachineboyonsmallwoodenpowerboats,wherehecouldearnupto700000rupiah[A$74
357An age of uncertainty
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
Appendix 1: Case studies
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:
359An age of uncertainty
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
Appendix 1: Case studies
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
361An age of uncertainty
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
Appendix 1: Case studies
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
• Charged:7October2010
• RemovedfromAustralia:3December2010
• Numberofdaysindetention:245days
363An age of uncertainty
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
Appendix 1: Case studies
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
365An age of uncertainty
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
Appendix 1: Case studies
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.
367An age of uncertainty
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
Appendix 1: Case studies
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).
369An age of uncertainty
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
Appendix 1: Case studies
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.
371An age of uncertainty
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
Appendix 1: Case studies
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).
373An age of uncertainty
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
Appendix 1: Case studies
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).
375An age of uncertainty
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
Appendix 1: Case studies
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).
378
Appendix 2: Individuals of concern to the Inquiry
ThetablebelowcontainsinformationabouteachoftheindividualsofconcerntotheInquiry.ThedatacontainedinthistablewasprovidedbytheDepartmentofImmigrationandCitizenshipandtheAustralianFederalPolice.
TheCommissionhasendeavouredtoensurethattheinformationcontainedinthistableisaccurate.However,largelyduetosomeinconsistenciesintheoriginaldataprovided,weareunabletoguaranteeitsaccuracyineverycase.
379An age of uncertainty
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
Appendix 2: Individuals of concern to the Inquiry
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
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
381An age of uncertainty
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
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
Appendix 2: Individuals of concern to the Inquiry
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
WIL042 Discontinued 26/04/10 1/05/10 21/05/10 20/01/11 17/06/11 13/07/11 290 148 438
WIL024 Discontinued 26/04/10 1/05/10 21/05/10 20/01/11 17/06/11 13/07/11 290 148 438
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
383An age of uncertainty
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
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
X-rayed & removed without charge
2/04/09 9/04/09 28/04/09 – – 15/05/09 36 NIL 36
DRU002
X-rayed & removed without charge
2/04/09 9/04/09 28/04/09 – – 15/05/09 36 NIL 36
CAN050
X-rayed & removed without charge
31/01/10 31/01/10 11/03/10 – – 7/05/10 96 NIL 96
GIR041
X-rayed & removed without charge
16/02/10 16/02/10 1/04/10 – – 24/08/10 189 NIL 189
384
Appendix 2: Individuals of concern to the Inquiry
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
HAM046
X-rayed & removed without charge
18/02/10 23/02/10 1/04/10 – – 11/11/10 261 NIL 261
INN013
X-rayed & removed without charge
20/02/10 23/02/10 8/04/10 – – 16/08/10 174 NIL 174
JDT047
X-rayed & removed without charge
24/02/10 28/02/10 8/04/10 – – 12/08/10 165 NIL 165
MAN048
X-rayed & removed without charge
3/03/10 7/03/10 8/04/10 – – 16/08/10 162 NIL 162
NED054
X-rayed & removed without charge
6/03/10 6/03/10 12/04/10 – – 24/08/10 171 NIL 171
GEE080
X-rayed & removed without charge
2/04/10 7/04/10 6/05/10 – – 11/11/10 218 NIL 218
KRM055
X-rayed & removed without charge
13/05/10 13/05/10 11/11/10 – – 20/12/10 221 NIL 221
MOI046
X-rayed & removed without charge
16/05/10 23/05/10 12/11/10 – – 20/12/10 211 NIL 211
BOM061
X-rayed & removed without charge
12/06/10 18/06/10 7/09/10 – – 9/04/11 295 NIL 295
BOM064
X-rayed & removed without charge
12/06/10 18/06/10 12/11/10 – – 20/12/10 185 NIL 185
CRO033
X-rayed & removed without charge
14/06/10 18/06/10 12/11/10 – – 20/12/10 185 NIL 185
CRO036
X-rayed & removed without charge
14/06/10 18/06/10 12/11/10 – – 20/12/10 185 NIL 185
385An age of uncertainty
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
JAM075
X-rayed & removed without charge
2/07/10 2/07/10 25/01/11 – – 16/03/11 257 NIL 257
OTF049
X-rayed & removed without charge
13/07/10 17/07/10 21/12/10 – – 13/01/11 180 NIL 180
EAS055
X-rayed & removed without charge
3/12/09 9/12/09 14/01/10 – – 12/03/10 93 NIL 93
BAI033
X-rayed & removed without charge
25/11/10 2/12/10 20/04/11 – – 30/06/11 210 NIL 210
GRD044
X-rayed & removed without charge
13/12/10 16/12/10 18/05/11 – – 9/06/11 175 NIL 175
LMN006
X-rayed & removed without charge
19/12/10 26/12/10 19/04/11 – – 30/06/11 186 NIL 186
PAL078
X-rayed & removed without charge
7/01/11 18/01/11 10/02/11 – – 7/04/11 79 NIL 79
ASH049
X-rayed & removed without charge
16/03/11 21/03/11 10/05/11 – – 9/06/11 80 NIL 80
BAZ137
X-rayed & removed without charge
17/03/11 21/03/11 31/03/11 – – 5/05/11 45 NIL 45
CLA060
X-rayed & removed without charge
21/03/11 25/03/11 8/04/11 – – 18/05/11 54 NIL 54
JSS023
X-rayed & removed without charge
28/04/11 1/05/11 15/06/11 – – 18/11/11 201 NIL 201
JSS024
X-rayed & removed without charge
28/04/11 1/05/11 16/06/11 – – 6/01/12 250 NIL 250
386
Appendix 2: Individuals of concern to the Inquiry
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
PRK056
X-rayed & removed without charge
30/05/11 3/06/11 26/09/11 – – 18/11/11 168 NIL 168
YND048
X-rayed & removed without charge
26/07/11 30/07/11 26/09/11 – – 28/10/11 90 NIL 90
LEA009
X-rayed & removed without charge
25/12/2009 4/1/2010 1/04/10 – – 12/08/10 220 NIL 220
YAL048
X-rayed & removed without charge
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
ALI056 Not x-rayed & removed
18/11/10 23/11/10 – – – 18/02/11 87 NIL 87
387An age of uncertainty
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
ALI054 Not x-rayed & 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
Appendix 2: Individuals of concern to the Inquiry
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
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
SIR057Not x-rayed & removed
6/11/11 15/11/11 – – – 9/12/11 24 NIL 24
SIR058Not x-rayed & removed
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
WEE062 Not x-rayed & removed
22/11/11 22/11/11 – – – 8/01/12 47 NIL 47
WEE084 Not x-rayed & removed
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
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
391An age of uncertainty
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
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
395An age of uncertainty
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
397An age of uncertainty
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
Appendix 5: The use of statistical evidence in the context of section 236B of the Migration Act
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
399An age of uncertainty
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
Appendix 5: The use of statistical evidence in the context of section 236B of the Migration Act
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.
401An age of uncertainty
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
Appendix 5: The use of statistical evidence in the context of section 236B of the Migration Act
(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
403An age of uncertainty
__________________________________________________________________________________
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
Appendix 5: The use of statistical evidence in the context of section 236B of the Migration Act
27InQantas Airways Ltd v Gama[2008]FCAFC69,BransonJstated(at139):‘Thecorrectapproachtothestandardofproofinacivilproceedinginafederalcourtisthatforwhichs140oftheEvidenceActprovides.Itisanapproachwhichrecognises,adoptingthelanguageoftheHighCourtinNeat Holdings,thatthestrengthoftheevidencenecessarytoestablishafactinissueonthebalanceofprobabilitieswillvaryaccordingtothenatureofwhatissoughttobeproved–and,Iwouldadd,thecircumstancesinwhichitissoughttobeproved.’FrenchandJacobsenJJagreedwithBransonJonthispoint.
405An age of uncertainty
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
407An age of uncertainty
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
Appendix 6: Responses to Inquiry report – Attorney-General’s Department, Australian Federal Police and Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
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
409An age of uncertainty
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
Appendix 6: Responses to Inquiry report – Attorney-General’s Department, Australian Federal Police and Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
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
411An age of uncertainty
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
Appendix 6: Responses to Inquiry report – Attorney-General’s Department, Australian Federal Police and Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
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
413An age of uncertainty
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
Appendix 6: Responses to Inquiry report – Attorney-General’s Department, Australian Federal Police and Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
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
415An age of uncertainty
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
Appendix 6: Responses to Inquiry report – Attorney-General’s Department, Australian Federal Police and Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
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.
This recommendation is a matter for the Government.
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
417An age of uncertainty
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
Appendix 6: Responses to Inquiry report – Attorney-General’s Department, Australian Federal Police and Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
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.
419An age of uncertainty
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.
This recommendation is a matter for the Government.
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
Appendix 6: Responses to Inquiry report – Attorney-General’s Department, Australian Federal Police and Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
422
Appendix 6: Responses to Inquiry report – Attorney-General’s Department, Australian Federal Police and Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
423An age of uncertainty
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
Appendix 6: Responses to Inquiry report – Attorney-General’s Department, Australian Federal Police and Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
- 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
425An age of uncertainty
- 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
Appendix 6: Responses to Inquiry report – Attorney-General’s Department, Australian Federal Police and Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
- 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
427An age of uncertainty
- 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