Login / Join
Immigration Daily News OMARA Fails to Act In Serious Case, Offers Poor Excuses!!!Australian Immigration Daily News
Breaking Australian immigration news brought to you by Migration Alliance and associated bloggers. Please email help@migrationalliance.com.au
- Font size: Larger Smaller
- Hits: 7088
- 32 Comments
OMARA Fails to Act In Serious Case, Offers Poor Excuses!!!
There was a very disturbing story over the weekend in the Sydney Morning Herald concerning the alleged misconduct of a high-profile Sydney migration lawyer who recently died, Mr David Bitel.
The story was reported by Nick O’Malley and ran under the headline: “Death of lawyer David Bitel denies justice for rape victims”.
According to the story, Mr Bitel was, at one time, the president of the Refugee Council of Australia, chairman of the Australian Refugee Foundation and the Refugee Advice and Casework Service and the lead partner at the well—known Sydney law firm Parish Patience Immigration Lawyers.
The story goes on to say that at the time of his death in August of this year from cancer, Mr Bitel was facing 21 charges relating to the alleged sexual assault of 6 of his clients. The charges against Mr Bitel were brought in 2012. Again, according to the story in the Herald, three of the charges were for “sexual assault procured by non-violent threat”, nine were for “assault with an act of indecency”, and the remaining nine charges were for “sexual intercourse without consent”.
The story reports that two Sydney migration lawyers, Mark Tarrant and Brett Slater, were told by former clients of Mr Bitel that he had allegedly assaulted them in his offices. Additionally, the story recounts that clients had alleged that Mr Bitel had instructed them to give false evidence before the Refugee Review Tribunal, allegedly made representations to a client that he could get the client permanent residency in Australia if the client were to state that he was homosexual, and had allegedly said to a client that the client would get permanent residency if he were to agree to “sleep with” Mr Bitel.
Lawyers Tarrant and Slater reported the allegations that they had received from Mr Bitel’s former clients to the police, the Law Society of NSW, the NSW Legal Services Commissioner and the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority.
Although the charges were brought against Mr Bitel in 2012, and a court found after a contested committal hearing that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to convict, the prosecution had not gone to trial by the time of Mr Bitel’s death in August 2016. There is no explanation in the news article about why the charges had not gone to hearing for such a long time after the charges had been filed.
The article goes on to report that the Office of the NSW Legal Services Commissioner refused to comment on questions from Fairfax Media asking if it had “failed to take action” against Mr Bitel.
As for the OMARA, the Herald article states that OMARA rejected suggestions that any complaints had not been acted upon properly (the Herald article does not say whether the OMARA had sought to cancel or suspend Mr Bitel’s registration as a migration agent during the period from 2012, when the charges were filed, until his death. A statement from the OMARA is quoted in the news article which says that:
“Any allegation that relates to sexual assault is a matter for police investigation……OMARA does not have the power to suspend an agent while an investigation is ongoing and before specific findings have been made”
However, the statement from OMARA does not take into account that under section 290 of the Migration Act, the OMARA has a mandatory duty to refuse an application for renewal of an agent’s registration if the applicant is not a fit and proper person to give immigration assistance or not a person of integrity. Also, section 209 provides that in considering whether a person is fit and proper or a person of integrity, OMARA is required to consider not just whether an applicant has been convicted of a criminal offence, but also any criminal proceedings that the applicant is or has been subject to and that is relevant to the application (whether those proceedings have been adjudicated or not).
So, the apparent result in this case was that Mr Bitel was apparently allowed to continue being a registered migration agent for several years after these very grave charges of sexual assault and rape had been taken against him.
And apparently, based on the OMARA’s statement to the Herald, the OMARA thought there was nothing they could do about it in the form of disciplinary action.
Really? Really? OMARA says it didn’t have legal authority to sanction a migration lawyer/agent who was accused of literally raping his clients in his office even after the charges were bound over for trial?
Where is OMARA’s duty of care? Where is OMARA’s obligation to protect the public? Asleep at the switch? Sure sounds like it. Incredible and unjustifiable!!!
The comments of migration lawyer Mark Tarrant, who surely along with Brett Slater is one of the heroes of this story, where he is quoted in the Herald piece as saying: “Bitel’s victims could be forgiven for thinking that the legal profession was cheering a lawyer-rapist from the sidelines” certainly seem like they are right on the mark.
And why on earth would they think that? Not only did OMARA apparently do nothing, but incredibly enough, Mr Bitel was included in the 2014 – 2015 Best Australian Lawyers List (after the charges had been filed against him)!! And apparently, as recently as last week, according to the Herald article, Mr Bitel’s career was toasted at an event of the International Bar Association in Washington, D.C., with reference reportedly only made to Mr Bitel’s having had a “troubled few years” and no reference being made to his alleged victims.
You just cannot make this stuff up, or believe it, can you?
Hopefully, OMARA and the oversight authorities that supervise the legal profession will take a lesson from this case, and this article, and take steps to assure that they will vigilantly investigate and pursue serious allegations of this kind in the future, in a more timely manner!!!
Your take? The comments section is there for you!
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Comments
-
Tuesday, 27 September 2016Diana
If I were in your shoes I would be running as fast as my feet could carry me to change the name of my practice.
Guilt by association, perceived or real. Public perception. -
Tuesday, 27 September 2016
Seriously Diana, this is not a name that should be in existence any more. The name is now mud. Whatever happened back in the day when this company was established is now well and truly dead. You can't revive this business name. It has a stench around it. Get away from it. Rename your business and move forward. For your own sake.
-
Wednesday, 28 September 2016
This article is incredibly done in poor taste.
This man was ACCUSED of doing these things, he was not convicted of these offences on account of his death.
Migration Alliance is not in a position to judge, inform or write any opinionated articles about this man and the accusations he was fronting.
This man is now deceased and to write an article saying "OMARA should of done something" about an accusation is completely absurd. I can freely make rape claims to anyone in my office or on the street and have them arrested and put before the courts because that is how the system works, ONLY until you are convicted of the offence are you PROVEN guilty.
This article is downright ridiculous. -
Wednesday, 28 September 2016
In reference to the message above: an Australian court found that there was sufficient evidence on which a jury could convict.
OMARA has clear legal authority to suspend or cancel a person's registration under the Act when criminal charges are laid, there is no requirement for OMARA to defer action until the matter proceeds to trial.
I will leave it for others to decide whether this article was "ridiculous" or in "poor taste" or whether it is appropriate for OMARA to step in and exercise its regulatory powers when a person is bound over for trial on such grave charges. -
Wednesday, 28 September 2016
In reference to the message above: an Australian court found that there was sufficient evidence on which a jury could convict.
OMARA has clear legal authority to suspend or cancel a person's registration under the Act when criminal charges are laid, there is no requirement for OMARA to defer action until the matter proceeds to trial.
I will leave it for others to decide whether this article was "ridiculous" or in "poor taste" or whether it is appropriate for OMARA to step in and exercise its regulatory powers when a person is bound over for trial on such grave charges. -
Wednesday, 28 September 2016
Michael, this is done on advice from the DPP.
DPP usually don't drop cases because its not in the public interest.
it is up to a JURY to decide whether there is enough evidence to convict.
you are not in a position to say he is guilty or say something else should have happened. Your article flirts on the grounds of defamation, his family could bring an action against you or MA.
OMARA does not have the legislative powers to investigate these matters or have jurisdiction to decide guilt, it is a clear breach of the separation of powers doctrine.
Perhaps this is why OMARA did not intervene. -
Wednesday, 28 September 2016This is a terrible case.
i feel very sorry not only for the alleged victims but the family of Mr Bitel, who, on the heels of his untimely death now face an expose in the SMH.
Mr Bitel is entitled to the benefit of the doubt given that the matter was not tested before the District Court. Absent a conviction he is entitled to the benefit of the doubt attaching to his plea of not guilty.
I in no way suggest that the complaints do not have any basis in fact but absent the forensic process of cross examination the allegations remain untested.
This case of course has nothing to do with Parish Patience and it would be a very perverse outcome if the firm were to be in any way disadvantaged by these untested allegations.
The decision of the OMARA to in effect do nothing probably says more about the influence, prestige and profile of Mr Bitel.
I suspect they (OMARA)were afraid that they might have bitten off more than they could chew.
Finally, this case is a warning to all of us... conduct your self and your practice in a way that reflects the highest professional standards. Don't compromise on those standards.
Dignitas, Gravitas and Veritas these are good values to live by. -
Wednesday, 28 September 2016
Let the family bring an action of defamation against Michael Arch and MA. That would be fun. Pretty sure MA would have associations insurance to cover it. At the end of the day the payout comes from the insurer, who will fight the family. Then there's the cap on damages for defamation. Do you really think that bringing a defamation action is going to help the family REDUCE the amount of exposure? More like it will INCREASE the exposure and work counter to their intentions. BRING IT ON!
-
Wednesday, 28 September 2016
Considering you are hiding behind "defo lawyer" leads me to believe you dont want to put your name to trash talk.
if you considered using your real name i'm sure you wouldn't be saying these things.
your just a keyboard warrior. -
Wednesday, 28 September 2016
Emma, your views are appreciated. We appreciate all views on here, including Michael Arch's. Robust discussion is healthy. Thank you
-
Wednesday, 28 September 2016
There is nothing remotely "defamatory" in the article.
There is no comment or opinion in the article whatsoever concerning the innocence or guilt of the person concerned; care was taken in the preparation of the article to assure that the matters reported in the article in the Sydney Morning Herald are at this stage allegations, as the matters did not proceed to trial and were therefore not proven. Every single claimed factual matter that is related in the SMH is expressly referred to as being merely being "alleged".
The article makes no suggestion whatsoever as to "what OMARA should "of" ((sic) ("have") done". The exercise of OMARAs regulatory powers are a matter for the Authority to determine.
However, I do consider the statement by OMARA as reported by the SMH to the effect that it has no power to act unless a person is actually convicted of an offence to be legally correct. As I have pointed out in the main body of the article, section 290(d) of the Migration Act provides expressly that the OMARA is obliged, when considering whether an applicant for registration is a fit and proper person and/or a person of integrity, to consider "whether any criminal proceedings that the applicant is the subject of and that the Authority considers is relevant to the application". Therefore, in my opinion the assertion said by the SMH to have been made by OMARA is plainly not correct as a matter of law.
It is also my opinion that if the legislation grants the OMARA the power to impose a disciplinary sanction in specific circumstances, then the OMARA does have an obligation to consider whether those powers should be used. I do not consider that OMARA's position that it is powerless to act when criminal charges have not yet been determined to be an accurate characterisation of the Authority's powers, nor do I consider the OMARA's position on this issue, if accurately reported by the SMH, to be one that serves the public interest. -
Wednesday, 28 September 2016
You use words like "rape" in your article.
OMARA has no duty of care.
OMARA cannot protect you from "rapists". If OMARA wanted to protect us from rapists, they should issue everyone with a "condom" suit to wear around just for this.
OMARA is not in a position to stop someone from practising Migration Law on the basis of unresolved court proceedings. "fit and proper" would fall along the lines of whether there is a conviction or admission of guilt. Mr Bitel plead not guilty. OMARA had no jurisdiction to cancel registration or put a freeze because his matter was still before the courts. (FOI OMARA records if you wish, they explain it in detail).
Mr Bitels hearings were stood down numerous times due to cancer treatment, he knew he was going to die and the court was advised early on that he was terminal.
This is a cheap shot because you know he is deceased and whilst you think you can get away with dragging his name through the mud, you best be aware that karma is a bitch. -
Wednesday, 28 September 2016
Well, if Karma is a bitch then I can only guess Bitel, even though he is dead, is receiving his karma right now. I feel sorry for his family to be honest.
-
Wednesday, 28 September 2016
are you wearing your OMARA condom?
-
Wednesday, 28 September 2016
-
-
Wednesday, 28 September 2016
Everyone has told me how childish people are on Migration Alliance.
I now believe them.
There is a reason why MA is not a stakeholder with the DIBP and a reason why it does not appear in any government gazettes.
Simply, MA are full of morons and are intent on not being competent and diligent in their work and their publications.
I am going to make my concerns with the OMARA and MIA concerning the conduct of people here. Your all a joke. -
Wednesday, 28 September 2016
Emma Bilano
I find your comments most disparaging of all those associated with MA. I dont know you and least of all which high and might high moral ground you are pontificating from. You sound like a new born puppy in need of some comforting soppy. Check your facts about MA and the credibility of people associated with MA, a non funded voluntary association of agents of ALL caliber. Learn not to generalize and categories all with a single stroke.
Robert K Chelliah
Marn 9254011
Member of MA. -
Wednesday, 28 September 2016
It seems as though karma has already played a big part in this process. His death may have been brought on by this sorry episode. Although I suspect the complainants are feeling further disappointment.
21 charges brought against someone is compelling.
It is very concerning is that he was lorded as a great immigration lawyer, held in best esteem by his cohort: chairman this - head of that - best such and such - leader of peoples rights etc etc. But the high-level lawyer's club sits on a throne of lies. More interested in form than substance.
Immigration blog
Dear Michael,
Indeed, the story was disturbing, left people to wonder and raise questions.
As the article mentioned Parish Patience, I am compelled to make some comments to all your readers. I am a half owner of “ Parish Patience “ which is being registered as a trademark with IP Australia. The name originated from the surnames of two partners of a law firm back in 1888. Over the years, there are many structure changes, however, the name has largely been associated with law practice. Over the years, thousands of people, especially legal professionals have worked for and contributed to the good name of “Parish Patience “.
I used to work with David Bitel at his Pitt Street Office and with some great people. Following a split nearly two years ago and to further differentiate us from Mr. David Bitel trading as Parish Patience Lawyers, and now incorporated as Parish Patience Bitel, I have used the name “ Parish Patience Legal and Migration” and our office has been located at Level 3, 123 Clarence Street Sydney NSW 2000 since December 2015. Our contact phone number is 0434 236 236, or 02 82976700. We have solicitors and migration agents working in our office. Our website address is Parishlaw.com.au and facebook address is facebook/ParishPatience.
I am hoping my comments will provide some clarifications in terms of the name of Parish Patience, so that clients and employees of Parish Patience Legal and Migration will not be adversely affected by the article and other media comments.
Regards
Diana Tong | Director, MARN 9359088
Parish Patience Legal & Migration Services
Level 3, 123 Clarence Street, Sydney NSW 2000
Direct Line: 8297 6767 | P: (02) 8297 6700 | F: 8297 6777
M: 0434 236 236 or 0412 666 989 | E: diana@parishlaw.com.au
Visit our website: www.parishlaw.com.au
www.facebook.com/parishpatience