JA v Commonwealth(Department of Defence)

[2014] AusHRC 72

© Australian Human Rights Commission 2014.

ISSN 1837-1183

The Australian Human Rights Commission encourages the dissemination and exchange of information presented in this publication.

All material presented in this publication is licenced under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence, with the exception of the Australian Human Rights Commission Logo.

To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/3.0/au.

In essence, you are free to copy, communicate and adapt the work, as long as you attribute the work to the Australian Human Rights Commission and abide by the other licence terms.

Design and layout Dancingirl Designs

Printing Masterprint Pty Limited

Electronic format

This publication can be found in electronic format on the website of the Australian Human Rights Commission: www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/index.html.

Contact details

For further information about the Australian Human Rights Commission, please visit www.humanrights.gov.au or email communications@humanrights.gov.au. You can also write to:

Communications Team Australian Human Rights Commission GPO Box 5218 Sydney NSW 2001

JA v Commonwealth (Department of Defence)

Report into arrest, detention, treatment in detention, interference with privacy and attacks on reputation

[2014] AusHRC 72

Australian Human Rights Commission 2014

iv

1 Introduction 3

2 Summaryoffindingsandrecommendations 32.1 Summaryoffindings 3

3 Summaryofrecommendations 4

4 ThecomplaintbyMrJA 44.1 Background 44.2 Findingsoffact 5

5 TheCommission’shumanrightsinquiry andcomplaintsfunction 55.1 Humanrightsrelevanttothiscomplaint 6

6 Detention 66.1 Wasthedetentionlawful? 66.2 Wasthedetentionarbitrary? 7

7 Righttobeinformedofreasonforarrest 8

8 Treatmentindetention 88.1 Solitaryconfinement 88.2 Lightincell 98.3 Adequacyofclothing,bedding,andheating 98.4 Contactwiththeoutsideworld 10

9 Interferencewithprivacyandattackon reputationandhonour 12

10 Findingsandrecommendations 1210.1Powertomakerecommendations 1210.2Considerationofcompensation 1310.3Recommendationthatcompensationbepaid 14

11 Apology 15

12 Defence’sresponsestomyconclusions andrecommendations 15

Contents

JA v Commonwealth (Department of Defence) • [2014] AusHRC 72 • 1

Australian Human Rights Commission

Level3,175PittStreet,SydneyNSW2000 GPOBox5218,SydneyNSW2001Telephone:0292849600 Facsimile:0292849611 Website:www.humanrights.gov.au

May2014

SenatortheHon.GeorgeBrandisQC Attorney-General ParliamentHouse CanberraACT2600

DearAttorney

Ihavecompletedmyreportpursuanttos 11(1)(f)(ii)oftheAustralian Human Rights Commission Act 1986(Cth)(AHRCAct)intoacomplaintmadebyMrJAagainsttheCommonwealthofAustralia–DepartmentofDefence(Defence).

Thecomplaintraisedissuesunderarticles9(1),9(2),7,10(1)and17(1)oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights(ICCPR).

Followingmyinquiry,IfoundthatMrJA’sdetentionwasnotlawfulinthathewasnotdetainedinaccordancewiththeprocedureestablishedbytheDefence Force Discipline Act 1982(Cth)(DFDA).IalsofoundthatMrJA’sdetentionwasarbitrarybecauseitwasnotnecessaryandnotproportionatetoDefence’slegitimateaimofapplyingmilitarydisciplineinaccordancewiththeDFDA.Asaresult,Ifoundthathisdetentionwasinbreachofarticle9(1)oftheICCPR.

InrelationtoeachoftheothercomplaintsraisedbyMrJA,IhaveeitherfoundthattherewasnotanactorpracticeoftheCommonwealththatwasinconsistentwithorcontrarytothearticlesoftheICCPRthathecomplainsabout,orIdecidednottoinquireintothecomplaintsonthebasisthattheyweremisconceived,lackinginsubstance,orcouldbemoreeffectivelyorconvenientlydealtwithbyanotherstatutoryauthority.

Byletterdated6January2014thelegalrepresentativeforDefenceprovidedaresponsetomyfindingsandrecommendations.AspartofthisresponseDefencehasconfirmedthatithasamendeditsprocedurestoensurethatmembersoftheDefenceForceswhoarechargedinaccordancewiths 95(2)oftheDFDAarechargedbyaproperofficerauthorisedinwriting.I have setouttheresponseinitsentiretyinpart12ofmyreport.

Pleasefindenclosedacopyofmyreport.

Yourssincerely

GillianTriggsPresident AustralianHumanRightsCommission

2

JA v Commonwealth (Department of Defence) • [2014] AusHRC 72 • 3

1 Introduction1. ThisisareportsettingoutthefindingsoftheAustralianHumanRightsCommissionandthereasons

forthosefindingsfollowinganinquirybytheCommissionintoacomplaintlodgedbyMrJAthathistreatmentbytheCommonwealthofAustralia–DepartmentofDefence(Defence)involvedactsorpracticesinconsistentwithorcontrarytohumanrightswithinthemeaningoftheAustralian Human Rights Commission Act 1986(Cth)(AHRCAct).

2. MrJAhasaskedthathenotbereferredtobynameinthisreport.IconsiderthatthepreservationoftheanonymityofMrJAisnecessarytoprotecthisprivacy.Accordingly,Ihavegivenadirectionpursuanttosection14(2)oftheAHRCActand havereferredtohimthroughoutthereportasMrJA.

2 Summary of findings and recommendations

2.1 Summary of findings

(a) Arrest

3. IdonotfindthatMrJAwasnotinformedofthereasonsforhisarrestorthechargesagainsthimas requiredbyarticle9(2)oftheInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR).

(b) Detention

4. IfindthatMrJAwasnotdetainedinaccordancewiththeprocedureestablishedbytheDefence Force Discipline Act 1982(Cth)(DFDA)inbreachofarticle9(1)oftheICCPR.

5. IfindthatMrJA’sdetentionwasarbitrarywithinthemeaningofarticle9(1)oftheICCPR.MrJA’sdetentionwasnotnecessaryandnotproportionatetoDefence’slegitimateaimofapplyingmilitarydisciplineinaccordancewiththeDFDA.

(c) Treatment in detention

6. IdonotfindthatDefence’streatmentofMrJAwhilsthewasdetainedbreachedhisrightnottobesubjectedtotortureortocruel,inhumanordegradingtreatmentorpunishmentwithinthemeaningof article7oftheICCPR.

4

7. IdonotfindthatDefence’streatmentofMrJAwhilsthewasdetainedbreachedhisrighttobetreatedwithhumanityandwithrespectfortheinherentdignityofthehumanpersonwithinthemeaningofarticle10(1)oftheICCPR.

(d) Interference with privacy, attacks on reputation

8. IhavedecidednottoinquireintoMrJA’sallegationsofbreachofarticle17(1)oftheICCPRpursuanttosections20(2)(c)(ii)and(vi)oftheAHRCAct.

9. IamoftheopinionthatMrJA’sallegationthatDefencearbitrarilyinterferedwithhisprivacycouldbemoreeffectivelyorconvenientlydealtwithbytheOfficeoftheAustralianInformationCommissioner(OAIC).IamoftheopinionthatMrJA’sallegationthatDefencehascommittedanunlawfulattackonhishonourandreputationislackinginsubstance.

3 Summary of recommendations10. InlightofmyfindingsregardingtheactsandpracticesofDefencethatwereinconsistentwith

Mr JA’s rights,Imakethefollowingrecommendations:

• thatDefencepayfinancialcompensationtoMrJAintheamountof$15 000tocompensatehimforbeingarbitrarilydetained;

• thatDefenceprovideaformalwrittenapologytoMrJAforthebreachofhishumanrightsidentifiedinthisreport.

4 The complaint by Mr JA4.1 Background11. Onorabout3December2008MrJAlodgedacomplaintwiththeCommission.

12. MrJAandDefencehavebothhadtheopportunitytoprovidesubmissionsinthismatter,includingtheopportunitytorespondtothepreliminaryviewoutlinedinformerPresidentBranson’sletterof28October2011whichsetouttheactsorpracticesraisedbythecomplaintwhichappearedtobeinconsistentwithorcontrarytohumanrights.Inotethattherehavebeenseveralattemptstoresolvethematterbyconciliation.

13. MyfunctionininvestigatingcomplaintsofbreachesofhumanrightsisnottodeterminewhetherDefencehasactedconsistentlywithAustralianlaw,butwhetherDefencehasactedconsistentlywiththehumanrightsdefinedandprotectedbytheICCPR.

14. ItfollowsthatthecontentandscopeoftherightsprotectedbytheICCPRshouldbeinterpretedandunderstoodbyreferencetothetextoftherelevantarticlesoftheinternationalinstrumentsandbyinternationaljurisprudenceabouttheirinterpretation.

2 Summary of findings and recommendations

JA v Commonwealth (Department of Defence) • [2014] AusHRC 72 • 5

4.2 Findings of fact15. Iconsiderthatthecomplaintarosefromthefollowingfactualcircumstances.

16. MrJAjoinedtheRoyalAustralianNavyon2April2007.HewasbasedatHMASCerberusandatthetimeoftheeventsformingthebasisofthecomplainthewas18yearsold.

17. Onorabout14April2008MrJAwasabsentwithoutleave.On21April2008CaptainSheldonWilliams,CommandingOfficerofHMASCerberus,issuedawarrantforMrJA’sarrest.

18. Atabout11.00pmon1May2008MrJAwasarrestedbyVictoriaPoliceanddeliveredintothecustodyofCaptainWilliams.MrJAwasadmittedtotheCerberusUnitDetentionCentre(CUDC)atabout11.18pm.

19. Byinstrumentdated2May2008CaptainWilliamsorderedthatMrJAbeheldincustodyawaitingahearingortrialbyaservicetribunal.DefenceprovidedalogtotheCommissionthatindicatesthatMr JAwaschargedon2May2008bynavalPoliceOfficer(PO)Robinsonand/orWarrantOfficer(WO)Atkinsonwithonecountundersection24oftheDFDA(AbsenceWithoutLeave).

20. Atabout2.30amon3May2008MrJAwastakentoFrankstonHospital.

21. Afterapproximatelyonehouratthehospital,MrJAwasdischargedandwasthendetainedattheHealthCentreCerberus(HCC).MrJAwasdetainedattheHCCfrom3Mayuntiltheafternoonof7 May2008.

22. Atapproximately3.20 pmon7May2008MrJAwasreturnedtotheCUDC.

23. Byinstrumentdated7May2008MrJAwassuspendedfromduty.Atabout12.30pmon8May2008MrJAwasreleasedfromtheCUDC.

5 The Commission’s human rights inquiry and complaints function

24. Section11(1)(f)oftheAHRC ActprovidesthattheCommissionhasafunctiontoinquireintoanyactorpracticethatmaybeinconsistentwithorcontrarytoanyhumanright.1

25. Section3(1)oftheAHRCActdefines‘act’toincludeanactdonebyoronbehalfoftheCommonwealth.Section3(3)providesthatthereferenceto,orthedoingof,anactincludesthereferencetotherefusalorfailuretodoanact.

26. ThefunctionsoftheCommissionidentifiedinsection11(1)(f)oftheAHRCActareonlyengagedwhereanactcomplainedofisnotonerequiredbylawtobetaken.2

27. Byinstrumentdated2May2008CaptainWilliamsorderedthatMrJAbeheldincustodypendinghearingofchargesbySummaryAuthority.IamsatisfiedthatCaptainWilliams’decisiontodetainMr JAwasanactoftheCommonwealthwithinthemeaningoftheAHRCAct.

6

5.1 Human rights relevant to this complaint28. Theexpression‘humanrights’isdefinedinsection3oftheAHRCActandincludestherightsand

freedomsrecognisedintheICCPR,whichissetoutinSchedule2totheAHRCAct.

29. ThearticlesoftheICCPRthatareofrelevancetothiscomplaintare:

• Article7(prohibitionontortureandcruel,inhumanordegradingtreatmentorpunishment);• Article9(1)(prohibitiononunlawfulorarbitrarydetention);• Article9(2)(righttobeinformedofreasonsforarrest);• Article10(1)(humanetreatmentofpeopledeprivedoftheirliberty);and• Article17(1)(prohibitiononunlawfulorarbitraryinterferencewithprivacyandunlawfulattacks onhonourandreputation).

6 Detention6.1 Was the detention lawful?30. MrJAclaimsthathisdetentionfromtheeveningof1May2008until8May2008wasunlawful.

31. ThepowertodetainMrJAarosefromsection95oftheDFDA.Section95oftheDFDArelevantlystates:

(2) Whereapersonhasbeendeliveredintothecustodyofacommandingofficer,thecommandingofficeroranofficerauthorized,inwriting,bythecommandingofficershall,unlessthepersonhasbeenarrestedinexecutionofawarrantundersection88,beforetheexpirationoftheperiodof24hoursafterthepersonhasbeendeliveredintothecustodyofthecommandingofficer,eitherchargethepersonwithaserviceoffenceorreleasethepersonfromcustody.

32. On1May2008MrJAwasarrestedbymembersofVictoriaPolicepursuanttoawarrantissuedundersection90oftheDFDAandwasdeliveredintothecustodyofCaptainWilliams,thecommandingofficerofHMASCerberus.

33. On2May2008MrJAwaspurportedlychargedwiththeserviceoffenceofAbsenceWithoutLeaveundersection24oftheDFDAbyeitherWOAtkinsonorPORobinson.NeitherWOAtkinsonorPORobinsonwasthecommandingofficeroranofficerauthorizedinwritingbythecommandingofficerwithinthemeaningofsection95(2)oftheDFDA.NeitherWOAtkinsonnorPORobinsonwere‘officers’withinthemeaningoftheDFDA.

34. DefencenotesthatWOAtkinsonandPORobinsonweremembersauthorisedtochargedefencememberswithserviceoffencesundersection87oftheDFDA.However,MrJAwasnotchargedundersection87oftheDFDA.

35. IfindthatMrJAwasnotproperlychargedwithaserviceoffencebecausehewasnotchargedbythecommandingofficeroranofficerauthorizedinwritingbythecommandingofficerinaccordancewithsection95(2)oftheDFDA.Accordingly,IfindMrJA’sdetentionfrom1May2008until8May2008wasnotinaccordancewiththeproceduresestablishedbylaw,namelytheDFDA,withinthemeaningofsection9(1)oftheICCPR.

5 The Commission’s human rights inquiry and complaints function

JA v Commonwealth (Department of Defence) • [2014] AusHRC 72 • 7

6.2 Was the detention arbitrary?36. MrJAalsoclaimsthathisdetentionwasarbitrary.DefencedeniesthatMrJA’sdetentionwas

arbitrary.DefencestatesthatMrJAwasdetainedbecausehehadabscondedfrombaseonanumberofoccasionsinthepastandDefencewasconcernedthatMrJAwouldnotremainonbasewhilstitpreparedforhearingthechargebroughtagainsthimandinvestigatedotherabsencerelatedpotentialcharges.DefencenotesthattheDFDAprovidesthatinmostcircumstances,ahearingbeforeaservicetribunalshallbeheldinthepresenceoftheaccusedperson.3

37. DefenceclaimsthatMrJA’sdetentionintheHCCfrom3May2008until7 May 2008wasreasonableandnotarbitrarybecausemedicalpractitionershadrecommendedthatMrJAremainunderclinicalobservationduringthistime.

38. DefenceclaimsthatMrJA’sdetentionfromtheafternoonof7May2008untiltheafternoonof8May2008wasnotarbitraryforanumberofreasons.ItclaimsMrJAwasreasonablyconsideredaflightriskifreleasedfromcustody,thatthreechargesagainsthimhadbeenfullypreparedandwerereadytobeheardandthatVictoriaPolicehadinformedDefencethatitintendedtoarrestMrJAon8May2008inrelationtocertainciviliancharges.DefencealsoclaimsthatMrJA’sdetentioninthisperiodwasnotarbitrarybecauseMrJAwasreturnedtotheCUDCfromtheHCClateintheafternoonof7 May2008anditwasthereforeunlikelythatthemilitarychargesagainstMrJAwouldbeabletobeheardonthatday.

39. Underinternationallaw,toavoidbeingarbitrary,detentionmustbenecessaryandproportionatetoa legitimateaimoftheCommonwealth.4

40. Iacceptthat,insomecircumstances,pre-trialdetentionmaybenecessarytoensurethepresenceofanaccusedattrial.However,DefencestatesthatittooknoactiontoprogressthemilitarychargesagainstMrJAfromthetimehewastakentoFrankstonhospitalintheearlyhoursof3May2008.

41. DefencestatesthatMrJAwasdetainedinFrankstonHospitalfrom3May2008until7May2008becausemedicalpractitionershadrecommendedthatheremainunderclinicalobservation.However,MrJAcouldhaveremainedunderclinicalobservationbuthavebeenreleasedfromdetention.

42. Further,Defenceadvisesthaton5May2008SeniorConstableFoxinformedWarrantOfficerAtkinsonthatVictoriaPoliceintendedtoarrestMrJAinrelationtocertainciviliancharges.TheinformationbeforemesuggeststhatDefencesuspendedanyactiontoprogressthemilitarychargesagainstMr JAwhenitwasadvisedthatMrJAwouldbechargedwithcivilianoffences.

43. ThereissomeinformationbeforemetosuggestthatDefenceintendedtoholdMrJAincustodyfora periodofeightdaysfromthetimethathewasfirstdetained.

44. NotestakenbySeniorConstableAndrewFoxofVictoriaPoliceon1May2008state:

S/TGaryAtkinson(warrantofficer)[JA]arrestedreAWOLFridaynotgoodfornavy.[JA]willbeincustodyfor7days.

45. NotestakenbySeniorConstableFoxon6MaystatethatMrJAwas:

DueforreleasefromnavyjailFri9th(orThurs8th)

46. Inotethatundersection95(5)oftheDFDA,eightdaysisthemaximumperiodoftimethatapersonmaybeheldincustodybeforethecommandingofficerisrequiredtoreportinwritingtoasuperiorofficerandtheDirectorofMilitaryProsecutions,hisorherreasonsforthedelayindealingwiththecharge.

8

47. Forthereasonsoutlinedabove,IamsatisfiedthatMrJA’sdetentionwasarbitrarywithinthemeaningofsection9(1)oftheICCPRfromthemorningof3May2008whenhewastakentoFrankstonhospital.IamsatisfiedthatDefencetooknoactiontoprogressthehearingofthechargebroughtagainsthimfromthisdate.

7 Right to be informed of reason for arrest48. MrJAclaimsthathewasnotinformedofthereasonthathewasarrestedordetained.

49. Defencestatesthattothebestofitsknowledge,MrJAwasinformedbyVictoriaPoliceuponhisarrestthathewasbeingarrestedforthemilitaryoffenceofAbsenceWithoutLeave.Defencefurtherstatesthaton2May2008MrJAwaschargedwithAbsenceWithoutLeaveandwasservedtherelevantpaperwork.Defence’sclaimissupportedbythedetentionlogwhichindicatesthatat8.34on2May2008MrJAwaschargedwith‘s24AWOL’.Further,inhiscomplaintMrJAstates‘IwasarrestedonthegroundsofanallegedwarrantformyarrestforAWOL’.

50. Basedontheinformationbeforeme,IcannotbesatisfiedthatMrJAwasnottoldwhatoffencehehadbeenchargedwithandwhyhewasbeingdetained.Accordingly,IfindthattheexistenceoftheactorpracticethatisallegedtobecontrarytoMrJA’shumanrightshasnotbeenestablishedwithinthemeaningofsection29(3)(b)(i)oftheAHRCAct.

8 Treatment in detention51. MrJAmakesanumberofallegationsofbreachofarticles7and10oftheICCPRinrelationtohis

detentionintheCUDC.Eachoftheseallegationsisconsideredbelow.

52. TheUnitedNationsHumanRightsCommitteehasindicatedthatthethresholdforestablishingabreachofarticle7ishigherthanthethresholdforestablishingabreachofarticle10.5

53. Inhumantreatmentmustattainaminimumlevelofseveritytocomewithinthescopeofarticle10(1)oftheICCPR.Whethertreatmentbreachesarticle7orarticle10dependsonallthecircumstancesofthecase,suchasthenatureandcontextofthetreatment,itsduration,itsphysicalandmentaleffectsand,insomeinstances,thesex,age,stateofhealthorotherstatusofthevictim.6

8.1 Solitary confinement54. MrJAclaimsthathewasdetainedinsolitaryconfinementinaverysmallcellintheCUDC.

55. DefencedeniesthatMrJAwasdetainedinsolitaryconfinement.DefencestatesthatasMrJAwastheonlydetaineeintheCUDCattherelevanttime,hiscelldoorwouldhavebeenleftopenatalltimes,allowinghimaccesstothecourtyardarea.Insupportofitsclaim,DefencereferstothedetentionlogwhichindicatesthatwhenMrJAwasfirstassessedasthreateningself-harmlateontheeveningof2May2008,hewasfoundoutsidehiscellinthecourtyard.

56. Solitaryconfinementmustcontinueforaconsiderableperiodoftimebeforeitwillmeetthethresholdforabreachofarticle10andforalongerperiodbeforeitwillamounttoabreachofarticle 7.7 ItappearsthatMrJAwasdetainedinCUDCfrom11.18 pmon1 May 2008until2.35 amon3 May 2008(approximately27hours)andfrom3.20 pmon7 May2008until12.30 pmon8 May 2008(approximately21hours).

6 Detention

JA v Commonwealth (Department of Defence) • [2014] AusHRC 72 • 9

57. ThereisinsufficientinformationbeforemetosupportMrJA’sclaimthathewasheldinsolitaryconfinement.Inanyevent,evenifIweresatisfiedthatMrJAhadbeendetainedinsolitaryconfinement,Iamnotsatisfiedthatdetentionfortwonon-continuousperiodsof27and21hoursmeetsthelevelofseveritynecessaryforabreachofarticles7or10.Forthesereasons,IfindthattheexistenceoftheactthatisallegedtobecontrarytoMrJA’shumanrightshasnotbeenestablishedwithinthemeaningofsection29(3)(b)(i)oftheAHRCAct.

8.2 Light in cell58. MrJAclaimsthatthecellinCUDCinwhichhewasdetainedhadnonaturallightandtheartificial

lightinthecellwasconstantlyon.

59. DefencedeniesMrJA’sclaim.Defenceallegesthatnaturallightentersthecellsviaasmallskylightintheceilingofthecell.InsupportofitsclaimsDefencereferstotheADFDetentionCentreInspectionReportdated13November2008completedbytheDefencePoliceTrainingCentrewhichstatesthattheCUDCcells‘havegoodnaturalandartificiallightingandventilation’.DefencehasalsoprovidedacopyoftheADFMinimumIndividualCellrequirementswhichstatesthatcellsaretohave‘naturallighting(skytube,skylightorsimilar)’.Defenceclaimsthattheartificiallightinginthecellsisturnedonduringthedayandturnedoffatnight.

60. TheUnitedNationsHumanRightsCommitteehasinvitedStatesPartiestoindicateintheirreportstheextenttowhichtheyareapplyingtheStandardMinimumRules.8AtleastsomeoftheseprincipleshavebeendeterminedtobeminimumstandardsregardingtheconditionsofdetentionthatmustbeobservedregardlessofaStateParty’slevelofdevelopment.9Rule11relatestotheprovisionoflightingtoprisonersinareaswheredetainedpersonsarerequiredtoliveorwork.

61. MrJAwasnotrequiredtoliveorworkintheCUDCcellinwhichhewasdetained.Asnotedabove,hewasdetainedthereforapproximately27hourson1 Mayuntil3 May2008andthenapproximately21hourson7and8May2008.

62. ThereisnoinformationbeforetheCommission,asidefromMrJA’sassertion,tosupporthisclaimthattheCUDCcellinwhichhewasdetaineddidnothavenaturallight.Conversely,thereismaterialbeforetheCommissionwhichsuggeststhattheCUDCcellshaveadequatenaturalandartificiallight.

63. InrelationtoMrJA’sclaimthatthelightinhiscellwasleftonconstantly,itisunclearbaseduponthematerialbeforetheCommissionwhetherthisinfactoccurred.InotethatDefencedeniesthisallegationandclaimsthatthelightwasturnedoffatnight.Forthereasonsoutlinedabove,IfindthattheactorpracticethatisallegedtohavebreachedMrJA’shumanrightshasnotbeenestablishedwithinthemeaningofsection29(3)(b)(i)oftheAHRCAct.

8.3 Adequacy of clothing, bedding, and heating64. MrJAallegesthatwhenhewastakenintodetention,hiscivilianclothesweretakenawayfromhim

andhewasnotgivenadequatereplacementclothing.MrJAalsoclaimsthaton1or2May2008heaskedforanadditionalblanketandwasnotgivenone.MrJAalsoclaimsthatthecellhewasheldindidnothaveheatingandthathewasrequiredtosleeponaconcreteblock.

10

65. DefenceagreesthatMrJAwasrequiredtochangeoutofhiscivilianclothes.DefencestatesthatMr JAwasgivenstandardissueoverallsandboots.DefenceagreesthatMrJAwasnotgivenanysocksbutstatesthatthisisbecausesockscanbeusedforself-harmandarenotaNavyissuerequirement.DefenceagreesthatMrJAwasnotgiventhermalunderwearandadvisesthatthermalunderwearisnotaNavyissueitem.

66. InrelationtoMrJA’sallegationaboutinadequatebedding,Defenceclaimsthatdetaineesareprovidedwithsheets,pillowsandtwoblanketsasstandardissue.ThedetentionlogindicatesthatMr JArequestedanextrablanketat11.29on2 May 2008andthathereceivedthisextrablanket.

67. InrelationtoMrJA’sallegationaboutalackofheatingintheCUDCcell,DefenceclaimsthattherewasaheaterinthecellanditwasoperationalatthetimethatMrJAwasinthecell.

68. InrelationtoMrJA’sclaimsaboutbeingrequiredtosleeponaconcreteblock,DefencestatesthatMrJAsleptonamattressthatwasplacedonaconcretemoulding.ThephotographsprovidedbyDefenceofthecellinwhichMrJAwasdetainedsupportsthatsuchbedsexistintheCUDCcellsasdoestheADFCentreInspectionReportsdated7December2007and13November2008.

69. TheSMRsrequirethatpersonsindetentionareprovidedwithappropriateclothingandbedding.10

70. InotethatMrJAstatesthathewascoldwhilstdetainedatCUDC.BasedonthematerialbeforetheCommission,itisunclearwhethertheheatingwasturnedoninthecellinwhichMrJAwasdetainedwhilehewasdetainedthere.

71. ThematerialbeforetheCommissionindicatesthatDefenceprovidedMrJAwithstandardnavyissueoveralls,beddingandthathewasgivenanextrablanketwhenheaskedforone.Basedontheinformationbeforeme,IfindthatanactorpracticethatiscontrarytoMrJA’shumanrightshasnotbeenestablishedwithinthemeaningofsection29(3)(b)(i)oftheAHRCAct.

8.4 Contact with the outside world72. MrJAclaimsthat:

• hewasnotadvisedthathecouldseeklegalrepresentation• hewasnotallowedtomakephonecalls• hewasnotallowedtoreceivevisitors• hisparentsweren’ttoldwherehewas.

73. DefencedeniesthatMrJAwasnotadvisedthathewasentitledtoseeklegalrepresentation.DefencestatesthatadviceabouttherighttolegalrepresentationisastandardpartofthepolicecautionprovidedtoindividualswhoarearrestedandVictoriaPolicewouldhaveadvisedMrJAthathewasentitledtoseeklegalrepresentation.

74. DefencealsoclaimsthatWOAtkinsonprovidedthisadvicetoMrJAaspartofthecautiongiventoMrJAwhenhewaschargedwithAbsenceWithoutLeaveon2May2008.ThedetentionlogindicatesthatMrJAwascautionedandchargedon2May2008andthatheunderstoodthecautionandcharge.WarrantOfficerAtkinsonstatesthatifMrJAhadaskedtoseealawyer,thisrequestwouldhavebeennotedinthedetentionlog.

75. Basedontheinformationbeforeme,IamnotsatisfiedthatMrJAwasnotinformedofhisrighttoseeklegalrepresentation.Accordingly,Ifindthattheexistenceofanactorpracticehasnotbeenestablishedwithinthemeaningofsection29(3)(b)(i)oftheAHRCAct.

8 Treatment in detention

JA v Commonwealth (Department of Defence) • [2014] AusHRC 72 • 11

76. MrJAclaimsthathewasnotallowedtocontacthisfamilywhilsthewasdetainedbyDefence.Defenceagreesthaton6May2008MrJAwasrefusedpermissiontocallhissisterandthathismobilephonewasconfiscatedatthistime.DefencestatesthatMrJAmadenootherrequeststocontacthisfamily.

77. DefencenotesthattheCUDCStandingOrdersstate:

Telephonecallsareaprivilegeandaregrantedtoadetaineeasarewardfortheireffort.TheOIC[officerincharge]hasapprovedthatallSUA[service-memberunderarrest]...mayhaveafreelocalorSTDphonecallonadmissiontoinformarelativeorclosefriendoftheirlocationandpostaladdressofHMASCerberus.Itisconsideredtobeintheinterestsofdetaineesandbeneficialtorelativesandfriendstobeawareofthelocationofdetainees,toeliminateanxietyontheirpart.

78. Defencealsostatesthattheroutineforadmittingadetaineeincludesmakingadetaineeawareofhisorhercustodialprivileges,whichincludemakingtelephonecallstofamilyandfriends.DefenceclaimsthatasthestandardprocedureswerefollowedinrelationtoMrJA,hewouldhavebeenadvisedthathewasallowedtomakeaphonecall.

79. Thedetentionlogindicatesthaton5May2008MrJAwasfoundusinganunauthorisedmobilephone.DefenceclaimsthatinpatientrecordsfromtheHCCshowthaton7May2008MrJAhadatelephoneconversationwithhismotherandthatalsoon7May2008hisbrothercalledwhilsthewasatapsychiatristappointmentandamessagewasleftonMrJA’sbedaskinghimtoreturnhisbrother’scall.On8MayMrJAreceivedacallfromhisfather.

80. Inrelationtovisits,thedetentionlogindicatesthaton2May2008MrJAwasvisitedbyChaplainSykesintheCUDCandon4May2008MrJAreceivedtwoseparatevisitsfromfourunauthorisedvisitors.

81. IacceptthatDefenceplacedsomelimitationsonMrJA’sabilitytocontacttheoutsideworldduringtheeightdaysthathewasdetainedbyconfiscatinghismobilephoneandrefusinghimpermissiontotelephonehissister.However,theinformationbeforemesuggeststhatMrJAcouldhavemadeatelephonecalltoadvisehisfamilyofhiswhereaboutsifhewishedto.Further,MrJAhadcontactwithhisfamilytowardstheendofhisperiodofdetention.

82. IamnotsatisfiedthattherefusaltoallowMrJAtousehismobilephonereachedtheminimumlevelofseveritynecessarytoestablishabreachofarticle7or10oftheICCPR.Ifindthattheactorpracticeisnotinconsistentwithorcontrarytoahumanrightwithinthemeaningofsection29(3)(b)(ii)oftheAHRCAct.

83. DefenceagreesthatitdidnotinformMrJA’sfamilythathehadbeenadmittedtoFrankstonhospitalandtransferredtotheHCC.DefencesubmitsthatitwasundernoobligationtoinformMrJA’sfamilyofhisadmissiontohospitalandtheHCC.DefencestatesthatthehospitalandtheHCCarenot‘institutionsforthetreatmentofmentalaffections’andthatMrJAwasnotsufferingfroma‘mentalaffection’.DefencealsoclaimedthatitwouldhavebreachedthePrivacy Act 1988(Cth)(PrivacyAct)haditdisclosedMrJA’spersonalinformationtohisfamilywithouthisconsent.

84. TheSMRsprovideguidanceonthecontactthatindividualsshouldbeallowedtohavewiththeirfamily.Particularly,SMR44(1)providesthatadetainedperson’sfamilyshouldbeinformedifheistransferredto‘aninstitutionforthetreatmentofmentalaffections’.

85. IacceptthatneitherFrankstonHospitalnortheHCCare‘institutionsforthetreatmentofmentalaffections’.Further,itappearsthatMrJAwasnotincapacitatedsuchthathecouldnothaveinformedhisfamilyofhistransfertoFrankstonhospitalandtotheHCC.

12

86. Fromtheinformationbeforeme,IamnotsatisfiedthatDefence’sfailuretoinformhisfamilythathehadbeentransferredtoFrankstonhospitalandtheHCCreachedtheminimumlevelofseveritynecessarytoabreachofarticle7or10oftheICCPR.Ifindthattheactorpracticeisnotinconsistentwithorcontrarytoahumanrightwithinthemeaningofsection29(3)(b)(ii)oftheAHRCAct.

9 Interference with privacy and attack on reputation and honour

87. Byletterof12April2013MrJAindicatedthathewishedtoamendhiscomplaint.

88. MrJAclaimsthatDefencehasarbitrarilyinterferedwithhisprivacyandunlawfullyattackedhishonourinitsletterdated18April2012inresponsetoformerPresidentBranson’spreliminaryviewof theallegedbreachesofhumanrightsraisedbyMrJA.

89. IhaveacceptedthisallegationasanamendmenttoMrJA’scomplaint.

90. MrJAclaimedthatDefencearbitrarilyinterferedwithhisprivacybyprovidingmedicalinformationaboutMrJAtotheCommission.

91. IhavedecidednottoinquireintoMrJA’sallegationthatDefencearbitrarilyinterferedwithMrJA’sprivacypursuanttosection20(2)(c)(vi)oftheAHRCActasIamoftheopinionthatthesubjectmatterofthisallegationcouldbemoreeffectivelyorconvenientlydealtwithbytheOAIC.MrJAallegesabreachofthePrivacyAct.TheOAICisresponsibleforadministeringthePrivacyAct.

92. InotethattheICCPRprovidesprotectionagainstunlawfulattackstohonourandreputation.Defence’sresponsetoformerPresidentBranson’spreliminaryviewsetsoutthecircumstancesinwhichDefenceclaimsthatMrJAcametobetakentoFrankstonhospitalandtotheHCC.Defencehascommittednounlawfulactindoingso.Giventhis,IamsatisfiedthatthisallegationislackinginsubstanceandIhavedecidednottoinquireintoitpursuanttosection20(2)(c)(ii)oftheAHRCAct.

10 Findings and recommendations10.1 Power to make recommendations93. Where,afterconductinganinquiry,theCommissionfindsthatanactorpracticeengagedinbya

respondentisinconsistentwithorcontrarytoanyhumanright,theCommissionisrequiredtoservenoticeontherespondentsettingoutitsfindingsandreasonsforthosefindings.11TheCommissionmayincludeinthenoticeanyrecommendationforpreventingarepetitionoftheactoracontinuationofthepractice.12

94. TheCommissionmayalsorecommend:

• thepaymentofcompensationto,orinrespectof,apersonwhohassufferedlossordamage;and

• thetakingofotheractiontoremedyorreducethelossordamagesufferedbyaperson.13

8 Treatment in detention

JA v Commonwealth (Department of Defence) • [2014] AusHRC 72 • 13

10.2 Consideration of compensation95. Thereisnojudicialguidancedealingwiththeassessmentofrecommendationsforfinancial

compensationforbreachesofhumanrightsundertheAHRCAct.

96. However,inconsideringtheassessmentofarecommendationforcompensationundersection35oftheAHRCAct(relatingtodiscriminationmattersunderPartII,Division4oftheAHRCAct),theFederalCourthasindicatedthattortprinciplesfortheassessmentofdamagesshouldbeapplied.

97. Iamoftheviewthatthisistheappropriateapproachtotaketothepresentmatter.Forthisreason,so farasispossibleinthecaseofarecommendationforcompensation,theobjectshouldbetoplacetheinjuredpartyinthesamepositionasifthewronghadnotoccurred.

98. Notwithstandingthisimportantdistinction,thedamagesawardedinfalseimprisonmentprovideanappropriateguidefortheawardofcompensationforabreachofart9(1).Thisisbecausethedamagesthatareavailableinfalseimprisonmentmattersprovideanindicationofhowthecourtshaveconsidereditappropriatetocompensateforlossofliberty.

99. Theprincipalheadsofdamageforatortofthisnatureareinjurytoliberty(thelossoffreedomconsideredprimarilyfromanon-pecuniarystandpoint)andinjurytofeelings(theindignity,mentalsuffering,disgraceandhumiliation,withanyattendantlossofsocialstatus).14

100. IntherecentcaseofFernando v Commonwealth of Australia (No 5),15SiopisJconsideredthejudicialguidanceavailableonthequantumofdamagesforlossoflibertyforalongperiodarisingfromwrongfulimprisonment.SiopisJreferredtothecaseofNye v State of New South Wales:16

…theNye caseisusefulinonerespect,namely,thatthecourtwasrequiredtoconsiderthequantumofdamagestobeawardedtoMrNyeinrespectofhislossoflibertyforaperiodofsome16monthswhichhespentinLongBayGaol.Indoingso,consistentlywiththeapproachrecognizedbySpigelmanCJinRuddock (NSWCA),theCourtdidnotassessdamagesbyapplicationofadailyrate,butawardedMrNyethesumof$100,000ingeneraldamages.ItisalsorelevanttoobservethatinNye,thecourtreferredtothefactthatforaperiodoftimeduringhisdetentioninLongBayGaol,MrNyefearedforhislifeatthehandsof otherinmatesofthatgaol.17

101. SiopisJnotedthatfurtherguidanceonthequantumofdamagesforlossoflibertyforalongperiodarisingfromwrongfulimprisonmentcanbeobtainedfromthecaseofRuddock (NSWCA).18Inthatcaseatfirstinstance,19theNewSouthWalesDistrictCourtawardedtheplaintiff,MrTaylor,thesumof$116 000indamagesinrespectofwrongfulimprisonment,consequentuponhisdetentionfollowingthecancellationofhispermanentresidencyvisaoncharactergrounds.

102. MrTaylorwasdetainedfortwoseparateperiods.Thefirstwasfor161daysandthesecondwasfor155days.Inthatcase,becauseMrTaylor’sconvictionswereinrelationtosexualoffencesagainstchildren,MrTaylorwasdetainedinastateprisonundera‘strictprotection’regimeandnotinanimmigrationdetentioncentre.ThedetentionregimetowhichMrTaylorwassubjectedwasdescribedasa‘particularlyharshone’.

103. TheCourtalsotookintoaccountthefactthatMrTaylorhadalongcriminalrecordandthatthiswasnothisfirstexperienceofalossofliberty.Hewasalsoconsideredtobeapersonoflowreputewhowouldnothavefeltthedisgraceandhumiliationexperiencedbyapersonofgoodcharacterinsimilarcircumstances.20

14

104. Onappeal,intheNewSouthWalesCourtofAppeal,SpigelmanCJconsideredtheadequacyofthedamagesawardedtoMrTaylorandobservedthatthequantumofdamageswaslow,butnotsolowastoamounttoappellableerror.21SpigelmanCJalsoobservedthat:

Damagesforfalseimprisonmentcannotbecomputedonthebasisthatthereissomekindof applicabledailyrate.Asubstantialproportionoftheultimateawardmustbegivenforwhathasbeendescribedas“theinitialshockofbeingarrested”.(Thompson; Hsu v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1998]QB498at515.)Asthetermofimprisonmentextendstheeffectuponthepersonfalselyimprisoneddoesprogressivelydiminish.22

105. AlthoughinFernando v Commonwealth of Australia (No 5),SiopisJultimatelyacceptedtheCommonwealth’sargumentthatMrFernandowasonlyentitledtonominaldamages,23HisHonourconsideredthesumofgeneraldamageshewouldhaveawardedinrespectofMrFernando’sclaimifhisfindingsinrespectoftheCommonwealth’sargumentonnominaldamageswerewrong.Mr Fernandowaswrongfullyimprisonedfor1,203daysinanimmigrationdetentioncentre.

106. SiopisJacceptedMrFernando’sevidencethathesufferedanxietyandstressduringhisdetentionand,also,thathewastreatedfordepressionduringandafterhisdetentionandtookthesefactorsintoaccountinassessingthequantumofdamages.

107. HisHonouralsonotedthatMrFernando’sevidencedidnotsuggestthatinimmigrationdetentionhewassubjectedtotheharsh‘strictprotection’regimetowhichMrTaylorwassubjectedinastateprison,northatMrFernandofearedforhislifeatthehandsofinmatesinthesamewaythatMr NyedidwhilsthewasdetainedatLongBayGaol.Takingallofthesefactorsintoaccount,SiopisJstatedthathewouldhaveawardedMrFernandoinrespectofhis1,203daysindetentionthesumof$265 000.24

10.3 Recommendation that compensation be paid108. IhavefoundthatMrJA’sdetentionwasnotinaccordancewiththerequirementsofsection95(2)of

theDFDAandwasarbitrary.

109. IconsiderthatMrJA’sdetentionwasarbitraryfromthetimethathewasplacedintheHCCintheearlyhoursof3May2008untilhisreleaseon8May2008becauseIamoftheviewthatDefencedidnotprogressthepreparationofthechargeandpotentialchargesagainstMrJAfromthistime.

110. MrJAallegesthatDefencehascommittedarangeofcriminaloffencesandcivilwrongs.IhaveconfinedmyconsiderationofcompensationtodeterminingtheamountappropriatetocompensateMrJAforDefence’sbreachofarticle9(1)oftheICCPRonly.

111. MrJAallegesthattheamountofcompensationawardedtohimshouldtakeintoaccountanamountrepresentingaggravatedandexemplarydamages.

112. IhavenotfoundthatDefencehasengagedinconductthatcouldgroundanawardofaggravatedorexemplarydamagesandmyrecommendationdoesnotreflectanallowanceforsuchconduct.

113. MrJAclaimsthathehassustainedapsychiatricinjuryasaresultofbeingdetainedbyDefencefrom1May2008to8May2008.However,therearenomedicalreportsbeforemethatevidencesuchaninjury.Notwithstandingthis,IacceptthatMrJAwouldhaveexperiencedsomedistressasaresultofhisdetention.

114. Assessingcompensationinsuchcircumstancesisdifficultandrequiresadegreeofjudgment.TakingintoaccounttheguidanceprovidedbythedecisionsreferredtoaboveIconsiderthatpaymentofcompensationintheamountof$15000isappropriate.

10 Findings and recommendations

JA v Commonwealth (Department of Defence) • [2014] AusHRC 72 • 15

11 Apology115. Inadditiontocompensation,IconsiderthatitisappropriatethatDefenceprovideaformalwritten

apologytoMrJAforthebreachofhishumanrightsidentifiedinthisreport.Apologiesareimportantremediesforbreachesofhumanrights.They,atleasttosomeextent,alleviatethesufferingofthosewhohavebeenwronged.25

12 Defence’s responses to my conclusions and recommendations

116. On12December2013,IprovidedanoticetoDefenceunders29(2)(a)oftheAHRCActsettingoutmyfindingsandrecommendationsinrelationtothecomplaintsdealtwithinthisreport.

117. Byletterdated6January2014,thelegalrepresentativesforDefenceprovidedthefollowingresponsetomyrecommendations.PartsofthisresponsehavebeenredactedattherequestofDefencebecausetheyrelatetosettlementdiscussionsbetweentheparties.

YouhaveinvitedtheDepartmentofDefence(Defence)toprovideyouwithinformationconcerningtheactionithastaken,oristaking,asaresultofthefindingsandrecommendationsoutlinedinthePresident’snoticeandthenatureofanysuchaction.

Changes to procedures

Weconfirmthat,duringthecourseofthismatter,DefencehasamendeditsprocedurestoensurethatmembersoftheDefenceForceswhoarechargedinaccordancewiths95(2)oftheDefence Force Discipline Act 1982(DFD Act)arechargedbyaproperofficerauthorisedinwriting.Arevisedformhasbeendevelopedforthispurpose.

WealsoconfirmthattheDirectorofMilitaryDisciplineLawhasreviewedtheexistingguidanceon Dealing with an arrested personintheAustralianDefenceForcesDiscipline Law Manual.

Theguidancehasbeenamendedtoprovideadditionalinformationandtomaketherequirementsofsub-section95(2)oftheDFDActclearer.

Therevisedguidanceandformhavebeenpublishedelectronically.TheDirectorofMilitaryDisciplineLawhasnotifiedServiceHeadquarterslawyers,ServiceCommandlawyersandtheMilitaryLawCentreoftheamendmentsthroughtheDirectorGeneralAustralianDefenceForceLegalServiceUpdate.

Asprovidedforunders95oftheDFDAct,itistheresponsibilityofCommandingOfficers,theDirectorofMilitaryProsecutionsandanyrelevant‘superior authority’tomonitorthecircumstancesbywhichamemberoftheDefenceForcesisdetained,andtoensurethatthememberisdealtwithwithoutdelayhavingregardtothecircumstancesofanindividualcase.

16

Compensation

DefencehassoughttoresolvethismatterwiththeassistanceoftheAustralianHumanRights Commission(AHRC)bywayofanagreedsettlement.…

Mr[JA]didnotacceptDefence’ssettlementoffer.

HavingregardtothefindingsandrecommendationsoutlinedtheinthePresident’snotice,DefencewouldalsoliketorestateitsofferofsettlementtoMr[JA].…

WenotetheCommonwealth’sobligationsconcerningthehandlingofmonetaryclaimsundertheLegal Services Directions 2005(LSDs),andinparticularthefollowingitemsofAppendix C:

(a) Item2,whichrequiresasettlementtobemadeonthebasisthatthereisatleasta meaningfulprospectofliabilitybeingestablished;and

(b)Item6,whichrequiresthatthetermsofasettlementinvolvingamonetarysumshouldordinarilyrequiretheclaimanttosignarelease.

Inordertosatisfytheserequirements,DefencerequiresMr[JA]toexecuteadeedofreleaseontermsconsistentwiththoseprovidedtoMr[JA]previously.

118. IreportaccordinglytotheAttorney-General.

ProfessorGillianTriggsPresidentAustralianHumanRightsCommission

May2014

12 Defence’s responses to my conclusions and recommendations

JA v Commonwealth (Department of Defence) • [2014] AusHRC 72 • 17

1 Section3(1)oftheAHRCActdefineshumanrightstoincludetherightsrecognisedbytheICCPR.2 SeeSecretary, Department of Defence v HREOC, Burgess & Ors(1997)78FCR208.3 Section139Defence Force Discipline Act 1982(Cth).4 Van Alphen v Netherlands CommunicationNo305/1988UNDocCCPR/C/39/D/305/1988,A v Australia Communication

No 560/1993UNDocCCPR/C/59/D/560/1993,C v AustraliaCommunicationNo900/1999UNDocCCPR/C/76/D/900/1999.5 MNowak,UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights CCPR Commentary(2nded,2005)[247]-[248].6 Brough v AustraliaCommunicationNo1184/2003UNDocCCPR/C/86/D/1184/2003,Vuolanne v FinlandCommunication

No 265/1987UNDocCCPR/C/35/D/265/1987.7 MNowak,UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights CCPR Commentary(2nded,2005)[245].8 UNHumanRightsCommittee,GeneralComment21(Replacesgeneralcomment9concerninghumanetreatmentofpersonsdeprived

ofliberty)(10April1992)at[5].9 UNHumanRightsCommittee,Mukong v Cameroon,CommunicationNo.458/1991,UNDocCCPR/C/51/458/1991(1994)at[9.3];

Potter v New Zealand,CommunicationNo.632/1995,UNDocCCPR/C/60/D/632/1995(1997)at[6.3].Seealso,UNHumanRightsCommittee,ConcludingObservationsontheUnitedStates,UNDocA/50/40(3October1995)at[285]and[299].

10 SeeforexampleSMRs17and19.11 AHRCActs29(2)(a).12 AHRCActs29(2)(b).13 AHRCActs29(2)(c).14 Cassell & Co Ltd v Broome(1972)AC1027,1124;Spautz v Butterworth & Anor(1996)41NSWLR1(ClarkeJA);Vignoli v Sydney

Harbour Casino[1999]NSWSC1113(22November1999),[87].15 [2013]FCA901.16 [2003]NSWSC1212.17 [2013]FCA901at[121].18 Ruddock v Taylor (2003)58NSWLR269.19 Taylor v Ruddock(unreported,18December2002,NSWDistrictCourt(MurrellDCJ)).20 Taylor v Ruddock(unreported,18December2002,NSWDistrictCourt(MurrellDCJ))[140].21 Ruddock v Taylor[2003]58NSWLR269,279.22 Ruddock v Taylor[2003]58NSWLR269,279.23 ThecourtawardednominaldamagesofonedollarfortheunlawfuldetentionofMrFernandobecauseasanon-citizen,oncehe

committedaseriouscrime,hewasalwaysliabletohavehisvisacancelled:Fernando v Commonwealth of Australia (No 5)[2013]FCA901[98]-[99].

24 Fernando v Commonwealth of Australia (No 5)[2013]FCA901[139].25 DShelton,Remedies in International Human Rights Law (2000)151.

FurtherInformationAustralian Human Rights Commission

Level 3, 175 Pitt Street SYDNEY NSW 2000

GPO Box 5218 SYDNEY NSW 2001 Telephone: (02) 9284 9600

Complaints Infoline: 1300 656 419General enquiries and publications: 1300 369 711TTY: 1800 620 241Fax: (02) 9284 9611Website: www.humanrights.gov.au

For detailed and up to date information about the Australian Human Rights Commission visit our website at: www.humanrights.gov.au

To order more publications from the Australian Human Rights Commission download a Publication Order Form at: www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/index.html or call: (02) 9284 9600 fax: (02) 9284 9611 or email: publications@humanrights.gov.au

Australian Human Rights Commissionwww.humanrights.gov.au