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: 7096
- 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
-
Wednesday, 28 September 2016*you're
-
Wednesday, 28 September 2016
Bitel was not touched by OMARA because he was so high profile . An ordinary low profile suburban agent would have been ripped to shreds....and destroyed immediately
The Minister must replace all staff in Professional Standards with a highly competent team ...not afraid to admit mistakes , reform and act at all times in the interests of the public and profession . Another disaster within Professional Standards which is again swept under the carpet . Shame on the CEO and Minister -
Thursday, 29 September 2016
You are all left wing morons.
-
Thursday, 29 September 2016
In relation to the suggestion by Emma Bilano that my original article was potentially "defamatory" I would note that it is a basic principle of libel law that a person who has died cannot maintain an action for defamation.
More to the point, there was no intention whatsoever on my part to drag the name of the person who was the subject of the article "through the mud". I did not know this person and had never heard of him before I saw the article in the SMH this past Sunday. It is of course a matter for the Courts to assess the question of his innocence or guilt, a judicial function that obviously cannot now be completed.
The point of the article was principally to focus on OMARA's suggestion that it does not have power to impose sanctions on a registered migration agent until criminal charges are finally determined. In my view, that is simply not a correct characterisation of OMARA's authority under the legislation. In my view those powers should be used to protect the public and it appears to me that there was a clear failure on OMARA's part in this case (and I would suggest there was potentially a failure on the part of the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner as well).
Lastly, I would note that the tenor and content of some of Ms Bilano's comments are highly inappropriate. The circumstances of this case are of obvious interest to persons who are working in the migration industry and to persons who may be seeking the services of a registered migration agent or migration lawyer. In my view, it is important for there to be transparency about the activities of OMARA and the effectiveness of OMARA in regulating the migration advice industry. These matters can and should be able to be discussed in a courteous, polite and respectful manner. -
Thursday, 29 September 2016
Michael,
Your persistent slander on a dead individual is appalling.
You also allege OMARA did not intervene contrary to the legislation that binds them, you are not in position to assert what a regulatory body can or cannot do.
I have not made any inappropriate comments at all, you have used the words such as "rape" in your article.
It does not matter whether you can quote defamation law in NSW, regardless of whether or not an action can be brought, you are still regulated by the OMARA and such, a complaint to that body about your conduct and MA's conduct in this matter would see that you are held accountable for your actions. -
Thursday, 29 September 2016
Emma Biliano - you can't slander a dead person. That's the law.
-
Thursday, 29 September 2016
You can slander a dead a person.
You just cant seek relief according to the law.
You are an idiot, Helen. -
Thursday, 29 September 2016DEFAMATION ACT 2005 - SECT 10
No cause of action for defamation of, or against, deceased persons
10 No cause of action for defamation of, or against, deceased persons
A person (including a personal representative of a deceased person) cannot assert, continue or enforce a cause of action for defamation in relation to:
(a) the publication of defamatory matter about a deceased person (whether published before or after his or her death), or
(b) the publication of defamatory matter by a person who has died since publishing the matter. -
Thursday, 29 September 2016
This defamation issue is irrelevant. In any event, it is not defamatory. The MA article is stating facts available from Court reporting. Just because the subject had serious criminal charges pending against them, and any reporting on this is not favourable to them, does not make it defamation.
The real issue of concern is why did OMARA and OLSC fail to act?
Why did the Law Council and Migration Law Committee support him?
Why did the Court give him his passport back so he could travel to Bangladesh during the proceedings?
What happens to the complainants now? -
Thursday, 29 September 2016
the comments above are precise and correct ....Why did OMARA fail to act for such a long period ??? Can you imagine any agent who was not high profile being allowed to renew his registration for so long ??Complete double standards within Professional Standards .........their needs to be a complete change of management and culture within Professional standards. Michael you are brilliant professional.....this article is truly EXPLOSIVE as it confirms beyond doubt current Professional Standards management has lost ALL credibility
-
Thursday, 29 September 2016
Michael , This story you have exposed it truly explosive Please get in contact with the SMH journalist and ask him to raise the questions of OMARA and OLSC failure to act in another article. The thought of Professional Standards providing a pathetic and useless excuse in failing to act for so long reveals COMPLETE DOUBLE STANDARDS . Professional Standards have some extremely serious questions to answer . OMARA routinely ignore agents and their concerns so only the MA and another SMH article can place Professional Standards under the microscope .
Immigration blog
precisely because he was such a huge figure did Professional Standards protect him . Any suburban agent would have been shredded in minutes ....double standards and some very serious issues within Professional Standards management !!!!