20 While initially the Magistrate seems to have thought he had no power to enter upon the immunity question, he appears ultimately to have done so, and to have decided the question against the applicant. He was right to have entertained the claim to immunity. For the applicant it was claimed that the two WHO documents are authenticated as required by s 150(1)(e) of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth). This provides that the imprint of a seal on a document which purports to be the imprint of "the seal of a body … or a body corporate, established by a law of … a foreign country" is presumed to be the imprint of that seal and to have been duly sealed as it purports to have been sealed. A "seal" includes a "stamp". This provision does not assist the applicant. While WHO is doubtless a body, it is not established by the law of a foreign country, but by the States that are parties to the "Constitution of the World Health Organization". See World Health Organization Act 1947 s 5, First Schedule. Even if the documents are authenticated as claimed, they are not in my view admissible in evidence. For the applicant it was contended that they are admissible under s 19(6) of the Act. But that only applies to a documents authenticated in the manner described in sub‑s (7). The other source of admissibility is said to be s 55 of the Evidence Act 1958 (Vict). But the persons who purport to have signed the documents were not called as witnesses, and there is no evidence that it was not reasonably practicable to secure their attendance. See sub‑s (5)(b).
21 The Magistrate was correct in declining to admit the WHO documents, and in acting on the Minister's Certificate. See Duff v The Queen (1979) 28 ALR 663 at 695. Even if the WHO letters were admissible, I would not have acted on them. The letters are unsatisfactory in several respects, and little weight can be attached to them. The Director‑General named in the first letter is not the same person as the Director‑General named in the second. The Brundtland letter is dated eighteen months after the Topping letter. The WHO seals on the two letters are different, notwithstanding that both purport to come from the head office of WHO. The Brundtland letter refers to "claims made by Mr Ulrich Christoph Eberhard Freiherr Von Arnim to be a representative of WHO", and, it seems, claims as to his entitlement to use the WHO name and emblem. Finally, there is no evidence that the conditions attached to the Topping accreditation have been accepted.