MARITIME SAFETY - revocation of certificates of competency - whether the criteria prescribed by the regulations in relation to revocation on the initiative of the national regulator are met - whether applicant gave false or misleading information to the national regulator - whether applicant produced false documents to the national regulator - verification of foreign Standards of Training Certification and Watchkeeping certificate - insufficient evidence to establish revocation criteria - decision under review set aside and remitted to respondent for reconsideration.

Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)

Australian Maritime Safety Authority Act 1990 (Cth)

Marine Order 505 (Certificates of competency - national law) 2022 (Cth)

Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Act 2012 (Cth)

1. In this application the applicant seeks review of a decision by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority ('AMSA') to revoke three certificates of competency previously held by the applicant that allowed him to perform certain roles on vessels in Australian waters. AMSA contends that the discretion to revoke these certificates is available because the applicant provided to it information that was false or misleading. The information said to be false or misleading is a Standards of Training Certification and Watchkeeping ('STCW') certificate dated November 2002 ('2002 Certificate'). The discretion to revoke having been triggered, AMSA contend that the discretion to revoke should be exercised having regard to the applicant's honesty and the quality of performance in his roles on vessels.
2. Although I have grave concerns about the honesty of the applicant in his dealings with AMSA and others, I am not satisfied that the 2002 Certificate on which AMSA relies is false. The level of evidence submitted to establish that fact is inadequate. In those circumstances, the discretion is not triggered and the certificates of competency cannot be cancelled. As the applicant was not given proper notice of any broader case that AMSA wished to run, I am not prepared to consider exercising the discretion to revoke on any other ground.
3. In the absence of satisfaction that the discretion to revoke is triggered in the way contended for by AMSA, I must set aside the cancellation decisions. However, because of my other concerns, I have remitted the matter to AMSA for reconsideration of the question of revocation having regard to the findings in these reasons.
4. My detailed reasons for decision are set out below.

1. Prior to the decision of the delegate in May 2024, the applicant held three certificates of competency issued by AMSA. Certificates of competency are essentially a license that confirms that a person has the required training, experience, and skills to safely perform certain duties on a domestic commercial vessel in Australian waters.
2. Certificates of competency are issued, varied and revoked by AMSA under the Marine Safety (Domestic Commercial Vessel) National Law Act 2012 (Cth) ('National Law'). AMSA is established under the Australian Maritime Safety Authority Act 1990 (Cth) ('AMSA Act').
3. The applicant's certificates of competency were revoked on the basis that he had given information to AMSA that was false or misleading.
4. The three certificates revoked were:
   • Master vessel (a) a record of sea service, dated 26 May 2021, purportedly confirmed by the Spanish Navy; and

(b) Standards of Training Certification and Watchkeeping (STCW) certificates of competency purported to be issued by the Spanish Ministry of Development, dated 28 November 2002 and 1 April 2022.[1]

1. There was no explanation of the circumstances in which the applicant had 'provided' these documents. In relation to the record of service in the Spanish Navy, the delegate had specific circumstantial reasons for doubting the authenticity of a record of sea service provided by the applicant to AMSA on 16 June 2021.
2. In relation to the STCW certificates of competency, the delegate records that AMSA wrote to the Spanish Ministry of Transport on 13 and 22 December 2023 about the validity of the certificates of competency. AMSA received responses from the Spanish Ministry of Transport on 13 and 22 December 2023 and again on 1 March 2024. Based on the correspondence said to have been exchanged, the delegate made the following factual findings:

(a) The certificates of competency were not issued by the Spanish Ministry of Transport, and > > (b) Mr Miguel Jose Roure Lopez DNI 31861055 does not hold a valid STCW COC, and > > (c) The Spanish Ministry of Transport has formally advised AMSA that they have launched an investigation into the fraudulent use of these two certificates.

3. On this basis, the delegate decided that the STCW certificates of competency provided were false or misleading. No close analysis of the whether Spanish authorities had provided information in relation to one or both certificates was undertaken.
4. The delegate was satisfied that revocation was desirable on the basis that it was consistent with the development of a safety culture that will prevent, or mitigate the effects of marine incidents, and with providing an effective enforcement framework. The delegate also recorded that providing false or misleading information to a public official is a Commonwealth offence. Such an act is not consistent with the duties and obligations of a holder of a certificate of competency under the National Law.
5. It is worth noting at this point that the correspondence provided to the Tribunal did not establish that any inquiries were made in relation to the certificate of competency issued in November 2002. The queries documented in the T Documents all related to the certificate issued in April 2022.
6. On internal review, the delegate determined as follows:

In my view, [the applicant's] submissions in response to the show cause notice and in support of [his] application for internal review do not, when examined separately, and as a whole, rebut the original decision maker's finding that [he] provided false documents to AMSA, and that those documents misled AMSA to wrongly issue [his] certificates of competency.[2]

1. The decision under review was affirmed.
2. The applicant then sought review in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ('AAT'). Upon the passing of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) ('ART Act') the application was transferred for determination to this Tribunal.
3. When the respondent filed a statement of facts, issues and contentions it sought narrower findings than those of the original delegate. In particular, the respondent appeared not to press claims that the applicant had given AMSA the STCW certificate dated April 2022 ('2022 Certificate'). The reason for this appears to be that there is no evidence that the applicant provided the 2022 Certificate to AMSA. It came into AMSA's possession through a third party.
4. The respondent contended:

In 2022 the Applicant applied to AMSA for the relevant certificates of competency (the Applications):

• _On 10 January 2022 the Applicant applied for a Master The Applicant has put forward a number of contentions in support of the application for review but has provided no evidence to demonstrate that the documents provided to AMSA, in support of the Applications were not false or misleading.

  The Respondent submits that the Applicant obtained the relevant certificates of competency using false documents and the certificates should never have been issued as the Applicant did not meet the criteria to be granted the relevant certificates of competency.[4]

2. In opening submissions, AMSA pressed more limited claims to those set out in the delegates' decisions and in its written submissions. The only false document that it contended was given to it by the applicant was the 2002 Certificate. It did not press the submission that the record of service in the Spanish Navy was false, nor did it rely on the 2022 Certificate as a document given to it by the applicant. AMSA continued to submit, despite the absence of any evidence to support the proposition, that the applicant obtained the relevant certificates of competency using the 2002 Certificate. In closing submissions, AMSA's case appeared to expand again, suggesting that the 2022 Certificate was given to it through an agent by the applicant, but this was only faintly pressed.
3. The applicant to a limited degree stood by the authenticity of the documents. He gave sworn evidence that he obtained the STCW Certificates through the Spanish Navy as they were responsible for maintaining civilian competency registration for members including reserve members. He 'hoped' that they were authentic, but he had not obtained them directly from the Transport Ministry but through the Ministry of Defence. He emphasised that he had never submitted any of those documents in support of his applications for certificates of competency. He referred to the documents which established the circumstances in which they were provided. In the hearing, because AMSA had not given any indication that it was pressing any claim that the Navy Service document was false, the applicant gave no direct evidence about his Navy service. He did however question witnesses on the basis that he had a long service history in the Spanish Navy and provided documents to the Tribunal that he said established that fact.
4. At the end of the hearing the critical questions for determination were:

(a) What information did the applicant 'give' to AMSA? > > (b) Was that information false or misleading in the relevant sense? > > (c) If it was, should the discretion conferred by s 64 of Schedule 1 of the National Law be exercised to revoke the applicant's certificates of competency.

1. Certificates of competency are issued, varied and revoked under the National Law.
2. Section 64 relevantly provides:

(2) The National Regulator may revoke a certificate of competency on the National Regulator's initiative if the National Regulator is satisfied that:

(a) the criteria prescribed by the regulations in relation to revocation on the initiative of the National Regulator are met; and

(b) it is desirable to do so, having regard to the objects of this Law.

(3) Without limiting subsections (1) and (2), the National Regulator may revoke a certificate of competency if the National Regulator is satisfied that the holder of the certificate is not a fit and proper person to hold the certificate.

1. The relevant objects of the National Law are as follows:

(a) to form a part of a cooperative scheme between the Commonwealth, the States and the Northern Territory that provides a single national framework for ensuring the safe operation, design, construction and equipping of domestic commercial vessels;

(c) to facilitate the development of a safety culture that will prevent, or mitigate the effects of, marine incidents;

(f) to provide an effective enforcement framework.[5]

1. The regulations relevantly provide in Marine Order 505 (Certificates of competency - national law) 2022 (Cth) ('Regulations'):

(2) For paragraph 64(2)(a) of the national law, the criteria for revocation of a certificate of competency by the National Regulator on the National Regulator's initiative are that:

(a) it is necessary in the interest of marine safety or protecting the environment; or

(c) the person gave information to the National Regulator that was false or misleading;

(d) ...

(e) ...

(f) ...

1. It is paragraph (c) that is relied upon by the respondent.

1. The following material was taken into evidence by the Tribunal:
   • Respondent's Tender Bundle, pages 1 to 180; and
   • Applicant's Tender Bundle, pages 1 to 587, consisting of 15 emails to the Tribunal and their attachments.[6]
2. Documents attached to the Respondent's Outline of Submissions filed 19 September 2025 were excluded on the basis that the applicant had not had sufficient opportunity to address the matters contained in those documents.
3. The respondent's stay application submissions had documents attached. These were admitted into evidence.

1. Before setting out my findings of fact, I note that the respondent did an inadequate job in assembling the T Documents. It is clear from evidence filed by the applicant that not all of the relevant documents were assembled and provided by the respondent in the T Documents as required by s 23 of the ART Act. Consequently, it was difficult on the material provided by AMSA to work out when and in what circumstances material was provided to it by the applicant and what material was relied upon for the purpose of issuing the applicant's certificates of competency. The deficiency in the T Documents was never remedied by the filing of further evidence on these critical issues. Offers were made in closing submissions to provide the Tribunal with more material concerning the consideration of the applicant's applications for certificates of competency but at that late stage, it would have been procedurally unfair to allow fresh material to be admitted. The material should have been included in the T Documents and further information about how material was considered should have been provided to assist the Tribunal to meet its statutory objectives set out in s 9 of the ART Act.
2. In the absence of a complete set of documents and any evidence from those officers involved in the processing of the applicant's applications, it has been necessary to piece together the facts from the smattering of documents included in the T Documents and the evidence provided by the applicant.
3. Relying on the applicant's evidence however is also fraught with difficulty. The applicant's English is quite good, but far from perfect. He relied on an interpreter during some parts of the hearing. The material he has submitted is voluminous and disorganised but far more comprehensive than the documents offered up by the respondent.
4. The difficulties in reaching definite factual conclusions are compounded by the fact that I have significant doubts about the honesty of the applicant. The reasons for these doubts include the following.
5. One of the critical questions in this case is the authenticity of the documents provided to AMSA that set out the applicant's experience at sea. To establish authenticity the applicant needed to explain why when AMSA made inquiries of the proper authority in Spain, no record of the 2022 Certificate that was in AMSA's possession was found. The applicant in his evidence described numerous bureaucratic processes in Spain that prevented him from getting official confirmation of his civilian qualifications. I am not satisfied the evidence was truthful. The processes the applicant described would frustrate the system of international verification of experience as it applies to sailors who rely on military service in Spain. For that reason, I find it difficult to believe that the processes described by the applicant reflect the reality.
6. It is also notable how difficult the applicant found establishing that he had served in the Spanish Navy for more than twenty years. He produced an inconclusive payslip that established that he was working in the Spanish Ministry of Defence but did not establish Navy service. He relied on a US witness who could only confirm that the applicant had attended his retirement dinner from the US Marines in a Spanish military uniform. He had never dealt with the applicant in any military capacity, nor had he ever seen the applicant in the company of anyone else serving in the Spanish military. Following very leading questions from the applicant, he confirmed that he had been shown a document stating that the applicant had been promoted and that he had seen a photograph that could have been taken inside an army base. None of this was very convincing.[7]
7. The other witness supporting the claim was from Norway, but due to time zone issues no attempt was made to contact that witness. The witness statement itself was probably truthful as far as the witness knew, but while it confirmed some involvement of the applicant in the Spanish military it went nowhere towards establishing the extensive experience at sea with the Spanish Navy that the applicant claimed.
8. It is remarkable that the applicant could not find a single member of the Spanish Navy who could testify that he was indeed in the Navy. Nor could he find a photo of himself in uniform on a ship or in the company of other serving members of the Spanish military, nor could he get any official record (apart from the payslip with redactions, and a highly redacted document regarding a medical examination) that confirmed his service.
9. Despite my doubts, I am not in a position to make a positive finding that the applicant was not telling the truth when he gave evidence of his navy service. However, it should be said that despite having more than a year to assemble evidence to establish his military service, the thinness of what was produced is noteworthy.
10. In these circumstances, I will limit my affirmative fact finding to what can be established by reference to the documentary material filed and any uncontroversial evidence from the applicant. I have also relied upon the affidavit of John Gates who provided a useful outline of the process for verifying SCTW Certificates.[8]
11. My findings of fact are as follows.
12. The applicant came to Australia in 2019.
13. In May 2021, he began to take steps to get certificates of competency under the National Law.
14. On 16 June 2021, the applicant filled out and submitted an AMSA Form 771 entitled 'Near Coastal Sea Service Record'. In that form he recorded sea service in the Spanish Navy. He submitted with that form a two-page document purportedly from the Spanish Ministry of Defence confirming that he had completed 5398 days of sea service as deck officer.[9]
15. The document was submitted in support of an application for a Master Is this the document are you talking about ? [sic][14]

4. On 23 June 2021 the applicant had a further email exchange with AMSA. AMSA provided more information about what would be required to be issued with a Certificate of Competency for a Master Less than 24 Meters Near Coastal. It identified the need to complete a training course with a Registered Training Organisation as well as the sea service required.[15]
5. At this point the applicant became aware that he could not rely on any overseas service unless he had already received a positive AMSA sea service assessment. He decided not to proceed with the application based on his overseas service.
6. At that time, the applicant was working with the Queensland Marine Rescue Service and was accumulating relevant experience in Australia.
7. In early 2022 the applicant submitted an application for Certificates of Competency for Master, less than 24 meters Near Coastal, and Marine Engine Driver Grade 2 Near Coastal. The applicant has provided evidence that he submitted a record of sea service that consisted only of sea service in Australia to support these applications.
8. On 17 February 2022 and 10 March 2022, AMSA issued those Certificates of Competency.
9. There is no evidence before me as to what AMSA considered prior to issuing those certificates. There is no basis for inferring that AMSA relied on either the applicant's record of Spanish Navy service or the 2002 Certificate in deciding to issue the Certificates of Competency although there may be evidence available to AMSA of this fact.
10. On 14 November 2022 the applicant applied for a Master 45m Near Coastal Certificate of Competency. This was granted by AMSA on 7 April 2023. Again, there is no evidence that AMSA relied on the applicant's Spanish Navy service or the 2002 Certificate in deciding whether to issue the Certificate of Competency.
11. On 13 December 2023 Barry Barnes, a director of a Registered Training Organisation, Maritime Career Training, contacted AMSA. Mr Barnes sought to verify the authenticity of the 2022 STCW Certificate of Competency submitted to him by the applicant. Maritime Career Training wanted to employ the applicant as an instructor. Maritime Career Training advised that it wanted to 'confirm that these [documents provided by the applicant] satisfy AMSA's maritime qualification requirement for Miguel to be approved by AMSA to deliver Certificate of Safety Training'. The applicant accepted in evidence that he provided the document to Mr Barnes.
12. An AMSA witness provided this explanation of how STCW Certificates are issued and verified.

STCW certificates are required by the STCW Convention, which sets the

standards of competence and certification for seafarers operating internationally.

Both Australia and Spain are signatories to the STCW Convention.

The STCW Convention requires parties to make available information on the

status of certificates of competency, and related endorsements and dispensations

to other parties and companies which request verification of the authenticity and

validity of certificates produced to them by seafarers seeking recognition of their

Most countries which are a party to the STCW Convention provide an electronic

means of verification, where STCW certificate details may be entered to a web

portal. Both Australia and Spain provide electronic verification methods for STCW

certificates. However, where a certificate cannot be verified through a portal,

parties will seek to contact the relevant overseas administration directly.

Spanish administration responsible for verifying STCW certificates

In Spain, the relevant government administration responsible for verifying STCW

certificates is the "Ministry of Transport, Mobility and Sustainable Mobility"

(Ministry of Transport) or, in Spanish, the "Secretaría de Estado de Transportes,

This is confirmed by information published by the International Maritime

Organization (IMO). The IMO is responsible for ensuring that the STCW Convention is implemented and kept up to date and publishes contact details of various administrations to facilitate certificate verification.

Process by which AMSA verifies STCW certificates with Spain

Staff in the Seafarer Certification Team follow a straightforward process to check

the authenticity of an STCW Certificate, when this is required.

This involves using the Spanish web portal, and if no certificate is found,

reference to an AMSA internal document titled "STCW Overseas Authenticity

Contacts" is made. This document is regularly updated to align with the contact

information published by the IMO for the purpose of verifying certification.

Using the published contact details, a written request seeking verification is sent to the Spanish Ministry of Transport via email.[16]

1. Following receipt of the request from Mr Barnes, a Seafarer Certification Officer wrote by email to the Spanish Ministry of Transportation asking for confirmation of the authenticity, validity and correct detail of the 2022 certificate:

Certificate Grade: II/1 & II/2.3& II/3.5 (Navigation Management)

1. The Directorate General of Merchant Marine responded on 13 December 2023. It advised:

The certificate submitted is not valid, it was not issued by the Spanish administration. Mr Miguel Jose Roure Lopez DNI31861055 does not hold a valid STCW COC.

We will initiate an investigation of the use of a fraudulent COC.

1. I am satisfied that 2022 Certificate is a forgery and that it was given to Mr Barnes by the applicant knowing that it was not genuine. The best evidence of that is the fact that Spanish authorities charged with maintaining the register have no record of it. I do not accept the applicant's explanation that this is the result of complex administrative procedures adopted by the Spanish Military when civilian qualifications are involved.
2. I am satisfied that the 2022 Certificate is a slightly modified copy of the 2002 Certificate for the following reasons. Both documents have the same certificate number. The documents both have the same typographical error, where the word 'merchant' is spelt 'mercant' in the English translation. The signature of the Spanish official on the two documents is identical even though they purport to have been issued 20 years apart. I find it difficult to believe that Jesus Talavera Gomez, whose signature both documents bear, was head of the Spanish STCW Unit for 20 years. Further the official stamp on both documents falls in precisely the same part of the word 'issued' notwithstanding that the documents were supposedly issued 20 years apart. I have considered whether the applicant's claim that the Ministry of Defence holds a delegation and the electronic signature necessary to issue documents on behalf of the Ministry of Transport explains the precise correspondence between the two documents and I am satisfied that it does not. There are too many parts of the two documents that are precisely identical to support the conclusion that they are the product of separate administrative processes.
3. I also reject the applicant's claim that the reason the Ministry of Transportation has no record of him having been issued with an STCW certificate is because the identification number used needed additional numbers and letters as a consequence of his military service to accurately reflect his ID number. The applicant has had time and the opportunity[17] to correct these kinds of errors and confirm the authenticity of the 2022 Certificate but has failed to do so. I am satisfied that the 2022 Certificate is not genuine and is the product of tampering with the 2002 Certificate.
4. On 15 December 2023, AMSA advised Mr Barnes that it was unable to verify the authenticity and validity of the document provided. AMSA refused Maritime Career Training's request to add Mr Miguel Jose Roure Lopez as an instructor at Maritime Career Training.
5. In January 2024, a report was made to AMSA raising concerns about the applicant's qualifications and experience. It included allegations that the applicant was in fact a solicitor in London who had engaged in fraud and had no navy experience at all and had secured his qualifications by falsifying his experience. It was also alleged that the applicant had submitted job applications to vessel operators with experience falsified and been involved in a number of incidents that cast doubt on his competence. The material was presented to the Tribunal by AMSA in a highly unusual way. AMSA tendered emails which were attachments to submissions made in the context of a stay application. The emails had been anonymised, so the identity of the complainant is unknown. No affidavit confirming the truth of the claims was ever filed. Attached to the emails are some incident reports. The incidents described do not on their face demonstrate any lack of competence or care on the part of the applicant but do demonstrate lack of care and competence on the part of other marine operators. The applicant contends that the complaints are motivated by jealousy on the part of a former SeaLink employee.
6. For whatever reason AMSA have decided not to lead evidence to substantiate these serious allegations. I am not in a position to test their veracity. I have disregarded them for the purposes of my decision.
7. On 22 February 2024, the applicant was involved in a contact between two vessels after making an error in the length of anchor chain required to securely anchor his vessel.
8. In May 2024, the revocation decisions were made and the review process proceeded from there.

1. Regulation 20(2)(c) relied upon by AMSA requires a finding that the applicant gave information to the National Regulator that was false or misleading.

1. I am not satisfied that the applicant gave AMSA the 2022 Certificate. The applicant gave that document to Mr Barnes and Mr Barnes gave it to AMSA without the applicant's knowledge or permission. In giving it to AMSA Mr Barnes was not acting as agent for the applicant, nor did Mr Barnes receive it as agent for AMSA. The documents were provided by Mr Barnes to AMSA so that AMSA could 'confirm that [the documents] satisfy AMSA's maritime qualification requirement for Miguel to be approved by AMSA to deliver our Certificate of Safety Training'. The document was obtained by Mr Barnes and then provided to AMSA for Maritime Career Training's purposes, not as agent for the applicant or AMSA. I am therefore satisfied that it was not given to AMSA by the applicant. As a consequence, notwithstanding that the document is false, its supply to AMSA cannot trigger the exercise of the discretion to revoke.

1. On the evidence available I am satisfied that the applicant gave to AMSA the 2002 Certificate and the document setting out his Spanish Navy service. For the purposes of triggering the discretion, it may not matter that these documents were given in the context of an application that was not pursued rather than in support of the certificates of competency that are being revoked. However, that is not an issue I need to determine. I will proceed on the basis that if these documents are false, the giving of them to AMSA will be sufficient to support the exercise of the discretion. It is therefore necessary to consider whether the evidence before me establishes that they are false.
2. In relation to the Spanish Navy service document, AMSA have not pressed for a finding that the document contains false information. Even if it had, there is not sufficient evidence before me to satisfy me that that it is the case. While I have my doubts about the applicant's claims to having served for an extended period in the Spanish Navy, more than suspicion is required before making a finding that a person has fabricated their life story and duped others into supporting false claims.
3. In relation to the 2002 Certificate I again have suspicions as to its authenticity but I have not been provided with evidence that would adequately support a finding that it is false. There is nothing in the evidence which indicates that specific inquiries were made in relation to the 2002 Certificate. The 2002 Certificate expired prior to AMSA making any inquiries about it. That may be sufficient to explain the fact that Spanish authorities made no reference to it when responding to the inquiry about the 2022 Certificate. I am not willing to draw the inference that merely because the 2022 Certificate was forged, that the 2002 certificate was also forged. The evidence provided by AMSA is not adequate to reach such a serious finding.
4. In the absence of a finding that the 2002 Certificate is false, the threshold for the exercise of the discretion is not reached. No decision to revoke can be made.

1. The respondent urged me to consider alternative bases for making a revocation decision. While such a course would be open to me if the applicant was given notice that such a case would be brought against him, alternatives were only proposed in closing submissions. It would be procedurally unfair to the applicant to devise a new basis for revoking his Certificates of Competency at this stage of proceedings.
2. There is however material before me that suggests that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold the certificates of competency that he does. The fact that the applicant provided a false document to a third party while pursuing work as a trainer reflects adversely on him and may justify revocation on that basis. Such a revocation however should not occur without AMSA getting its evidence into proper form and the applicant being given a proper opportunity to respond to each of the allegations that AMSA wishes to put against him.
3. It is a serious matter to take away a person's livelihood, which revoking certificates of competency undoubtedly does, and particularly so when it is done on the basis of a fraud allegation. Judging by the way it has run its case to date, AMSA appears not to have appreciated the need for adequate evidence that the legal thresholds are met before taking such a drastic step. The orders I propose to make will give AMSA an opportunity to make a new decision on this matter in a fair and timely way.
4. I am not satisfied that the necessary threshold for me to exercise the discretion in Regulation 20 has been reached. Consequently, it is necessary to set aside the revocation decisions under review. Pursuant to s 105(c)(ii) of the ART Act I remit the matter to the decision-maker for reconsideration in accordance with the recommendations contained in these reasons. In particular, that AMSA consider revoking the certificates of competency on the basis that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold the certificates having regard to the fact that he gave the 2022 Certificate to Mr Barnes and having regard to other information provided in relation to his competence and honesty.

Applicant's representative Self-represented litigant

Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 13 December 2024

Submissions on stay application filed 13 December 2025 and attachments 1 to 4.

Submissions in reply to applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions filed 31 January 2025

Respondent's Outline of Submissions filed 19 September 2025 and attachments A and B

Email of 8 November 2024, attaching

• Written submissions dated 5 November 2024
• request for stay order form dated 11 November 2024

Email of 26 November 2024 attaching written submissions dated 26 November 2024

Email of 13 January 2025, attaching

• Written submissions dated 13 January 2025
• Extract from AMSA's entitled 'Qualifying near coastal sea service'
• Timesheets dated October 2022 to April 2023
• Email chain between applicant and AMSA dated 16 June 2021-23 June 2021
• Form entitled 'On Board Sea Service Record'
• Translated document entitled 'Central Criminal Records Registry'
• Letter from Kath Wilson dated 12 March 2023
• Letter from Jay Cox, undated
• Letter from Barry Watson, undated.
• Email from Legal Aid Qld dated 19 December 2024

Second email of 13 January 2025, attaching further written submissions dated 13 January 2025

Email of 13 February 2025 attaching:

• Written submissions dated 13 February 2025
• Email from John Wilson dated 13 March 2023
• Untranslated document signed by El Captain de Navio, Agregado de Defensa
• Untranslated email from Constantino Cid Alvarez of the Defence Attaché's Office.
• Certificate III in Maritime Operations (Master up to 24 meters Near Coastal) dated 16 December 2021
• Certificate III in Maritime Operations (Marine Engine Driver Grade 2 Near Coastal) dated 31 January 2022
• Certificate IV in Maritime Operations Master up to 35 meters Near Coastal

Email of 17 March 2025 and attaching:

• Written submissions dated 17 March 2025.
• Untranslated email from 'Juana Garcia de Alarcon Hernandez
• Untranslated document entitled 'Justificante de Registro en Unidad Tramitadora'
• Untranslated payslip dated April 2019
• Form entitled 'Marine Engine Driver Grade 2 Coastal Task Book' dated 6 September 2024.

Second email of 17 March 2025 attaching further written submissions of 17 March 2025.

Email of 20 March 2025 and attaching:

• Written submissions dated 20 March 2024
• Revocation decision of AMSA dated 20 May 2024

Second email of 20 March 2025 attaching:

• Further written submissions dated 20 March 2025
• Email from AMSA dated 25 March 2024
• Applicant's response to 'show cause' notice from AMSA, dated 15 April 2025

Email of 25 May 2025 attaching:

• Written submissions dated 25 May 2024
• Letter from AMSA to applicant dated 26 March 2024
• Revocation decision of AMSA dated 20 May 2024
• Email chain between applicant and AMSA dated 27 May 2021 to 16 June 2021.
• Document entitled 'On Board Sea Service Record'

Email of 25 May 2025, attaching written submissions dated 20 March 2025

Email of 27 May 2025 with attachments:

• Certificate III in Maritime Operations (Master up to 24 meters Near Coastal) dated 16 December 2021
• Certificate III in Maritime Operations (Marine Engine Driver Grade 2 Near Coastal) dated 31 January 2022
• AMSA form 419
• AMSA form 426
• Extract from AMSA's website entitled 'Country eligibility for certificates of recognition
• Document entitled 'On Board Sea Service Record'
• Document entitled 'Master A13

Emails of 12 September 2025 attaching affidavit of applicant, made 12 September 2025

Emails of 12 September 2025 attaching annexures to the affidavit of the applicant, marked documents 1 to 27.

Email of 12 September 2025 attaching screenshots of 'Marine Rescue Queensland' Portal.

Email of 12 September 2025 with attachments:

• 2023-2024 tax return
• 2024-2025 tax return
• Undated letter from Barry Watson

Undated letter of Barry Watson filed with Tribunal on 23 September 2025.

[3] Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions filed 13 December 2024, [14].

[6] The contents of the tender bundles are particularised at Annexure A to these reasons.

[7] Although I should make clear I had no doubts about the honesty of the witness, only his ability to verify the applicant's claims of being in the navy

[8] Affidavit of John Gates sworn 19 September 2022 (Respondent's Tender Bundle, pages 178 to 180).

[13] Mercant Captain rather than Merchant Captain

[16] Affidavit of John Gates made 19 September 2025, [5]-[12].

[17] Including time spent recently sailing on the Mediterranean.