Albert Kevin Mills and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2012] AATA 753
•2 November 2012
[2012] AATA 753
Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION File Number
2012/1153
Re
Albert Kevin Mills
APPLICANT
And
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal Deputy President S D Hotop
Date 2 November 2012 Place Perth The decision under review is affirmed.
.................[sgd].......................................................
S D Hotop, Deputy President
CATCHWORDS
IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP – citizenship – applicant’s application for Australian citizenship refused on character ground – applicant arrived in Australia in 1967 – applicant has extensive criminal record in Australia from 1968 to 1999 – applicant convicted of manslaughter in 1999 and sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment – applicant has had no further convictions – Tribunal not satisfied that applicant now a person of good character – applicant not eligible to become Australian citizen – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth), s 21(4)(f)
CASES
Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Baker (1997) 73 FCR 187
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Australian Citizenship Instructions, Ch 10
REASONS FOR DECISION
Deputy President S D Hotop
2 November 2012
Introduction
Albert Kevin Mills (“the applicant”), who was born in September 1938 in Liverpool, England and is a citizen of the United Kingdom, has lived in Australia since August 1967. On 3 October 2011 he made an application to become an Australian citizen.
On 28 February 2012 a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (“the respondent”) decided to refuse the applicant’s application to become an Australian citizen on the ground that the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant was, at that time, a person “of good character” as required by s 21(4)(f) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth).
On 27 March 2012 the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate’s decision of 28 February 2012.
The Evidence
The evidence before the Tribunal comprised:
·the “T Documents” (T1–T29, pp 1–125) lodged by the respondent in accordance with s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth);
·supplementary documents filed by the respondent on 24 September 2012 (Exhibit R1);
·Exhibits A1–A9 tendered by the applicant; and
·the oral evidence of the applicant.
The Applicant’s Criminal History in Australia
The applicant’s recorded criminal history in Australia is as follows:
Court
Date
Offence
Result
Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions
26/08/1968
Driving under influence
Fine: $200; 1st Offence – MDL Disq Six months
Fremantle Police Court
30/01/1969
False name and address
$20
Fremantle Police Court
30/01/1969
No Motor Drivers Lic (suspended)
3 mths imp
Fremantle Police Court
24/06/1970
Unlawful possession
$10
Fremantle Police Court
20/10/1970
Reckless driving
$100 MDL susp 6 mths
Fremantle Police Court
25/11/1976
Fail to give way to vehicle
$50
Fremantle Police Court
25/11/1976
Fail to report accident
$50
Perth District Court of Western Australia
09/10/1980
Break enter and steal
2 yrs 6 mths imp min 15 mths before parole
Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions
01/10/1982
No seat belt (driver)
Fine: $40
Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions
01/10/1982
Refused breath test
Fine: $200; MDL disq six mths
Fremantle Police Court
07/08/1984
Drive under the influence of alcohol
$1000 MDL disq 2 yrs
Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions
07/08/1984
Hinder police
$80
Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions
01/03/1985
Breach of restraint order
1 dy imp
Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions
17/02/1987
Unlawful possession
$500
Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions
03/04/1987
Stealing (3 counts)
$300 ea chg
Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions
10/03/1988
No Motor Drivers Licence
Fine: $30
Perth District Court of Western Australia
06/12/1988
Stealing
$3500
Perth District Court of Western Australia
25/02/1992
Break enter and steal
12 mths imp
Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions
26/03/1993
Resist arrest
$100
Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions
26/03/1993
Requirement to submit sample of breath for analysis
Fine: $350: MDL disq 6 mths
Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions
04/06/1993
Driving under the influence
Fine: $1200; MDL disq life
Perth District Court of Western Australia
19/03/1999
Manslaughter
2 yrs 6 mths imp
(T23)
On 24 September 2003 the applicant’s disqualification from driving for life (which had been imposed on 4 June 1993) was removed. (T16, p 68)
The applicant’s recorded “traffic infringements” in the period 2007–2011 are as follows:
Offence Date/Time
Offence
Demerits
23-Mar-2010 11:20
Exceed speed limit in a speed zone by 10km/h but not more than 19km/h
2
01-May-2010 18:09
Exceed speed limit in a speed zone by 10 km/h but not more than 19 km/h
2
24-Jul-2010 20:13
Exceed speed limit in a speed zone by not more than 9 km/h
-
15-Aug-2010 09:41
Exceed speed limit in a speed zone by not more than 9km/h
-
(T22)
The Applicant’s Spent Convictions
On 28 December 2011 the District Court of Western Australia issued an Order, made on 22 December 2011 by Derrick DCJ under s 6(1) of the Spent Convictions Act 1988 (WA), that certain convictions incurred by the applicant be declared spent, as follows:
“ IT IS ORDERED that upon the application of 21 September 2011 heard on 22 December 2011, that the convictions described below be DECLARED SPENT pursuant to Section 6(1) of the Spent Convictions Act 1988:
1. False Name and Address Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions 1969
2. Unlawful Possession Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions 1970
3. Break Enter and Steal Perth District Court 1980
4. Hinder Police Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions 1984
5. Breach of Restraint Order Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions 1985
6. Unlawful Possession Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions 1987
7. Stealing Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions 1987
8. Stealing Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions 1987
9. Stealing Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions 1987
10. Stealing Perth District Court 1988
11. Break Enter and Steal Perth District Court 1992
12. Resist Arrest Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions 1993
13. Manslaughter Perth District Court 1999”.
(T26)
At the hearing of the applicant’s abovementioned application on 22 December 2011 Derrick DCJ said:
“ …
By notice of motion dated 21 September 2011, the applicant applies pursuant to section 6 of the Spent Convictions Act 1988 for an order that 13 of his prior convictions be declared spent. The convictions, the subject of the application, are set out in the notice of motion.
The applicant has filed in support of the application an affidavit sworn by him on 19 September 2011 and an affidavit sworn by a Ms Barbara Pember on 13 September 2011. Ms Pember is a friend and neighbour of the applicant, who has known the applicant for 20 years.
The Commissioner has filed in relation to the application an affidavit sworn by Ms Sunita Gilbanks on 14 September 2011. The affidavit sworn by Ms Gilbanks has annexed to it police records relevant to the convictions, the subject of the application. The application is not opposed by the respondent.
By reason of the definition of a serious conviction and a lesser conviction in section 9 and section 10(2) of the Act respectively, all of the convictions, the subject of the application, are serious convictions. Therefore the application is properly brought under section 6 of the Spent Convictions Act, which I will continue to refer to as ‘the Act’.
Further, the prescribed period for the bringing of the application, as defined in section 11, has expired. It follows that the pre-conditions to the court being able to exercise its discretion to declare the relevant convictions spent is enlivened.
Section 6(4) of the Act provides, so far as is relevant, that the making of an order declaring a conviction spent is at the discretion of the judge and that the discretion shall be exercised having regard to a number of factors that are specified in the section.
The purpose of the Act was considered by the full court of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in R v Tognini (2001) WACA 31, (2001) 22 WAR 291. Murray J, with whom Malcolm CJ and Wallwork J agreed, said at 296:
Ordinarily of course, a conviction remains on an offender’s record and is part of his or her history which the person carries into the future as a member of the community. The provisions of the Spent Convictions Act are clearly based on the proposition that after the conviction in time, when there has been no re-offending, a convicted person may be considered to be rehabilitated and deserving of relief from the effects of conviction in the way it is described in the Act so that the offender may put the offence behind them and function in the future without the need to disclose the conviction.
The above statement of Murray J was cited with the approval of McClure J in Brewer v Bayens (2002) WASCA 37 at 19.
I have read all of the papers filed in support and in relation to the application. A number of the offences, the subject of the application, were very serious, most obviously the two break and enter and stealing offences which the applicant was convicted of on 9 October 1980 and 25 May (sic) 1992 and the manslaughter offence, which the applicant was convicted of on 19 March 1999.
However, having regard to the circumstances of the applicant at the time of the commission of the offences, the circumstances of the commission of the offences, the fact that the applicant is now 73 years of age, the fact that the applicant has not committed any further offences since his release from prison in or about March 2000, the fact that the applicant is now rehabilitated and is contributing to society in a valuable way and that (sic) the fact that a decision not to declare the convictions spent will continue to cause him difficulties so far as travelling is concerned, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to grant the application.
I do not consider that in all the circumstances there is any public interest to be served in not making the order. Accordingly, I will make an order declaring that each of the convictions for the 13 offences specified in the notice of motion dated 21 September 2011 are spent.
…” (part of Exhibit A5)
The affidavit of Barbara Pember referred to in Derrick DCJ’s above-quoted remarks is in evidence (Exhibit A4) and states as follows:
“ 1. I know (sic) the Applicant Albert Mills for approximately 20 years.
2.The Applicant is a friend and neighbour. We share an interest in film and books, lending each other dvds and books.
3.I know the Applicant to be a kind hearted, trustworthy and sociable person.
4.I know the Applicant to be a generous and altruistic person. He has assisted me with home maintenance on many occasions; on occasion he has also visited me in hospital and transported me to and from hospital.
5.I am fully cognisant of the details of the offences for which the Applicant has been imprisoned.
6.I know the Applicant to be deeply remorseful for committing the criminal offences and I believe him to be a different man now than he was then. He is very much a community oriented individual and is a devoted father and grandfather.
7.Should he obtain a Spent Conviction I believe it will help him to travel overseas unimpeded and save him the humiliation he has experienced previously whilst engaging in overseas travel.”
The Sentencing Remarks of Williams DCJ on 19 March 1999
In sentencing the applicant in the District Court of Western Australia on 19 March 1999 in respect of his conviction of the offence of manslaughter, Williams DCJ said:
“ Yes, you may remain seated, Mr Mills. Mr Kevin Albert Allan Mills, you have had a judgment of conviction entered against you after being found guilty after trial by jury to one count of manslaughter. The facts are that on 1 May 1997 the deceased … was visiting Fremantle with his wife … He had been to the Workers’ Club in Fremantle and thence to the Buffalo Club.
Upon his admission to Fremantle Hospital later that evening his blood alcohol content was analysed at .27, so it’s apparent from that figure that the deceased had had a substantial amount of alcohol to drink, both that day and during the course of the night.
It’s the fact that you were also in Fremantle on that day and you also visited the Workers’ Club and thence to the Buffalo Club, but that was independently of the deceased and his wife. It would appear that both yourself and Mr C… arrived some time around about 6 o’clock and that the deceased and his wife arrived about that time.
There were a number of altercations between the deceased and Mr C… between that time and somewhere shortly prior to 9 o’clock. Mostly they appeared to be verbal exchanges between Mr C… and the deceased and did not appear to include yourself. On one occasion, which appears to be at about 8.30 at night, there was some physical involvement between the deceased and Mr C… when the licensee was obliged to intervene and separate the two of them and send them in different directions. The licensee, on your evidence, also had something to say to you at that time to the effect that you should mind your own business also.
It’s apparent that about half an hour after that, the deceased came to the area of the bar where you and C… were drinking. There was some physical activity between C… and the deceased and the deceased apparently made a step or two towards you, but not in an aggressive stance. The evidence is that his arms were merely at his side but, as the crown accepts – and I think it’s a fair description – the deceased was, to use the crown’s expression ‘in the face’ of the offender, that is, yourself, at that time.
You punched the offender (sic) with your right arm to the face. The offender (sic) fell straight back, hitting his head. He never regained consciousness. He was hospitalised and on a life-support system and died on 4 May 1997.
I turn to your antecedents. You are presently aged 60 years of age. You were born in Liverpool shortly before the start of the Second World War. Your father was killed during the war. You were brought up by your mother.
You qualified as a carpenter and joiner in the United Kingdom and emigrated to Australia in August 1967 with your then wife and four children. Tragically your wife died shortly after your arrival in Australia and you brought up the four children.
It is said by your counsel that you have no previous convictions for violence. It is the fact, however, that you don’t have an unblemished record. You have a conviction in this court in 1980 for breaking, entering and stealing, for which you were sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months. You have another conviction in this court as late as 1992 for breaking and entering and stealing, for which you received a term of imprisonment of 12 months. That is at a stage when you are over 50 years of age. Breaking and entering and stealing is usually recognised to be a young offender’s game but obviously it wasn’t in your case. It has often been said that offences of breaking and entering are, in any event, violent offences.
You have another conviction for hindering the police and you have a conviction for breach of a restraining order and it is apparent from your convictions for driving under the influence, that – your first offence in 1968 and you finally lost your licence for life in 1993 – indicate that you have had a drinking problem over the years. It is said by your counsel that when your licence was suspended for life, that caused you to take stock and you have done something about your drinking in the meantime. I am told by your counsel that both of your sons have died in tragic circumstances and that as a result of all of that, since 1993 you have done your best to reduce your alcohol consumption.
It is said by your counsel that you had known the deceased for some 20 years. According to your counsel and your instructions, he has a reputation for being argumentative under the influence of alcohol. I am unable to say as to his reputation but I accept that on the evening in question he was certainly argumentative and certainly under the influence of alcohol, but in my view that does not excuse your behaviour.
It is said by your counsel that you put a notice in the paper offering your condolences and actually attended the funeral. That is some evidence of remorse but in my view – and I will say something about that later – the way that the trial was run does not indicate remorse on your part. It is said by your counsel that you own a unit in Palmyra and that if imprisoned, you will lose that accommodation.
The crown readily accepts, of course, that this is not a case of there being any intention to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm. Manslaughter cases cover a large range and this is not a case where you have been charged with a more serious offence and been convicted of a lesser one. You were charged with manslaughter and convicted of that. The crown accepts that there was never any intent to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm.
The crown’s submission is that the blow was a forceful one. In my view, on the description given by B… L…, that is a fair description. It is apparent from her evidence that it was one blow to the face, sufficient to cause injuries, both externally and internally, which were picked up on the post-mortem report, although not severe injuries. That caused the deceased to fall directly backwards, striking his head on what is said to be a concrete base under a thin carpet layer, causing head injuries from which the deceased died.
In my view the description of the blow as a forceful one is an appropriate description, although I bear in mind of course the fact that the deceased at the time you hit him or shortly thereafter, when his blood alcohol reading was taken, had a blood alcohol content of .27. It is apparent from B… L…’s evidence that at the time that he was struck the deceased was standing with his arms by his side, obviously not expecting a blow to be struck at that time, and additionally his reflexes in any event would have been substantially slowed by the amount of alcohol that he had.
It is apparent that shortly prior to striking him you told him to ‘piss off’ so I view it in the light that you were trying to get rid of somebody who was at the very least being a nuisance. I accept that you did not go looking for trouble and that you only delivered one blow. It is said by the crown that your defence of this matter does not indicate remorse on your part. Your evidence before the jury was that you did not strike a blow to the deceased. In my view that cannot of course be the fact and I have recited the facts as I find them and on which I am sentencing earlier in these sentencing remarks.
In my view it’s clear from the evidence and accepted by the jury that you did strike the deceased. In that respect, in my view that indicates an absence of remorse on your part. In considering the question of sentencing I am of the view that the only appropriate sentence is one of imprisonment. I have also considered the question of a non-custodial sentence, of a suspended sentence. In my view the matter is too serious for the sentence that I propose to give to be suspended.
The question arises as to the appropriate length of the sentence. All convictions for manslaughter are obviously serious offences. In my view this is at the lower end of the manslaughter scale. As I have said earlier, there was no intention to cause death or grievous bodily harm in the sense that you were not charged with any offences of that nature and the jury returned a lesser verdict. There was only one blow struck by you. It would appear that you had generally been minding your own business prior to the striking of that blow. Nevertheless, as I have said, I found that it was a forceful blow and led to very serious consequences for which on the jury’s verdict you are responsible.
In the circumstances I am of the view that the appropriate term of imprisonment is a sentence of 2 and a half years’ imprisonment. It wasn’t discussed but I don’t presume that parole is opposed, but in any event in my view there is no reason why you should not be eligible for parole and I order that you be eligible for parole.” (T24, pp 114–117; Exhibit R1)
The Applicant’s Evidence
The applicant tendered in evidence two undated statements which he had filed in this proceeding on 6 July 2012, and he confirmed that their contents are true and correct.
One of the abovementioned statements is as follows:
“ Arriving in Perth in the 60s was tantamount to stepping back in a time warp 50 years previous. The building trade was horrendous facilities did not exist. Even things that are taken for granted were non existent. No toilets, no washing facilities, no lunch rooms if you were lucky there may have been a cement shed. Holiday pay was unheard of as were sick pay compensation or pension schemes. Contractors employed on housing had to supply their own electricity and scaffolding. Getting paid was a nightmare the Builder could never be found on Fridays but haunted the site every other day. Being an employer wages had to be found for my workers sometimes I went weeks until payments settled . Total chaos but you had to keep going and make the best of a bad lot. The judicial system was also in total disarray. Police were getting convictions without evidence, just on verbals. Cases in wrongful imprisonment were rife, just recently look how decisions have been overturned. Micklebergs, Beamish, Penny, and the Mosman Park murder just to name a few. The sentencing in WA in the 60s was the same as England in the 1700s when you were transported to the colonies for stealing a loaf of bread. Nowadays the terms of imprisonment I received years ago now would be a fine, probation, suspended, or even a caution. That is how much times have changed. Years ago lawyers avoided several judges knowing that there was no chance of an acquittal even if you had Perry Mason as your defence. Judges Ackland and Pidgeon come to mind. Knowing the decision not to allow my application for citizenship rested on one man who in my opinion was biased and did not intend granting me citizenship from the beginning. Every interview that was arranged he required something new, ie Police clearance from the UK which impossible to get in time for interview, cancellation, when alternative meeting was agreed upon two days prior he demanded references from two reputable citizens without criminal records and had known me more than 20 years more cancellations. Besides having to furnish at least 5 different documents 1 of identity ie drivers licence, passport, gas bill, etc. I conformed with his requests. These continual cancellations mean that it is costing me more and more money in lawyers fees. Every avenue was fulfilled only to be informed that Mr Fitzgerald did not in his opinion did not think enough time had elapsed for me to have reformed. Even though it was 15 years since my last offence. It is my belief that I am an entirely different person now, and very family orientated doting on my grandchildren and great grandchildren. This is my home forget about drunken escapades and look at my contributions. Soon I will reach 74 years of and there is no chance that in my wildest dreams that I would ever offend. If you study my convictions there was no monetary gain, I am financially secure have a nice home unit, near new car and a stable relationship with a lady ten years my junior. This is plea from my heart. All my family live in Australia they are all citizens. Being the age that I am nobody can foretell how long that I will survive, that is one of the reasons that I desire to become an Australian citizen.” (sic) (Exhibit A1)
The other abovementioned statement is as follows:
“ This is a true statement from Albert Kevin Mills … Being born in 1938 I was naturally a war baby. In 1940 Liverpool where we lived suffered severe bombing because of the industrial waterfront connections. Consequently the whole family where evacuated to different parts of Gt Britain. Firstly I was transported to the Isle of Man then to Wales. It was almost seven years that the family had separated and reuniting was in comparison to meeting total strangers as we had all been sent to different places to ensure that there would be a survivor. The only accommodation available was partially demolished ruins. My Father was still a prisoner of war and was liberated in 1946. With his homecoming we were rehoused to a new suburb on the outskirts of Liverpool. This then gave us the opportunity to start afresh. Even though I had been christened Albert all my family and friends called me Kevin. Mainly because my Mother was a Roman Catholic and Albert was too Prostestant . Plus there were at least four other cousins and uncles with the name Albert Mills so it saved a lot of confusion. Also helped me when I got my driving licence in the name Kevin as nobody knew and could not use my name when they got caught for traffic offences. Had a good education a catholic school, going on to win a scholarship to a grammar school but unfortunately my Father passed on and my Mother could no longer afford the expense of the uniforms and text books. Returning to the Catholic school I still excelled finishing among the top three every year. When I was 13 I went to Technical College with the aid of a government grant. While attending I was fortunate to get the opportunity of getting an apprenticeship as a carpenter and joiner which in my day was the holy grail. During my apprenticeship I met my wife and when I was 18 and she was 17 we married and she gave birth to my eldest daughter who is now 55. We saved and purchased a home of our own which was unheard of in either of our families. Having a loving marriage and always fully employed we went on to have another three children, and eventually buying a larger house. Then in 1963 came worst winter in England’s history, every building site closed down with no foreseeable reopening. It was then I decided our future lay in Australia. My wife was very family orientated and would visit her Mum every day whereas I could not care as long as my children were there. We arrived in 1967 and went to Point Walter it was the grimmest days of our lives. We had left a beautiful house lovely weather for surroundings that were gruesome to say the least. Possibly it could have been the coldest WA had experienced. My wife hated it and was missing her family more than you could describe. I just got on with it found a job bought a car and waited to find alternative accommodation. After approx three we got a State Housing place it was ghetto. But I was coping my wife was becoming more depressed with each passing day, but I failed to see any telltale signs she suicided six weeks after our arrival. At that time there was no counselling. Being left with four children and all the funeral expense was a tremendous burden. It drained a large proportion of my savings but I still got on with it. At that time there were no Government handouts like there is now. After about two years we moved to Coolbellup it wasn’t the best but alright, by this I was drinking heavily and associating with the wrong people and getting involved in petty misdemeanours. All my problems were drink related and I was easily led. Thank God I was able to walk away from all that. In the last 15 years the only time I drink is on social occasions then it is only a couple of light beers. If that is not reformed then I do not know what is. My driving licence was restored all my previous convictions have been spent all by a District Court Judge who was convinced that I had served my sentence reformed and repented and deserved a fresh start. If you could witness the humiliation I suffer when I leave the country you would understand my request for citizenship. The good side to life is that I have taught at fifty apprentices to become Carpenters and some have gone on to become registered builders among these lads were aborigines, drug addicts, homeless. They were treated with respect and displayed an enormous amount which was reciprocal. Together we built hospitals, schools, churches, orphanages, transportables. There was nothing associated within the industry that we would not construct. They have all gone on to lead good lives thanks to my guidance and teachings. Doubt if there is anybody who is working in Immigration who could say the same thing.
Trying my hardest to give up by taking on huge Subcontract building Adventure World was one such job where I employed 17 men. But then my eldest son was found dead in his bed with his hands and feet bound while in custody at Canning Vale remand. A verdict of suicide was brought in but in my heart and soul I knew that the heavies of the horse racing industry were involved but had no proof. Consequently I fell off the wagon. Then six months later on the same date my youngest son was killed in a car smash. As you could imagine my world fell apart both my boys were champion jockeys. Now they were both deceased, my world fell to pieces but I kept going for my daughters sake. Both of my are Grandmothers now and admire me for my tenacity. They both have a real estate portfolio of close to three million dollars each. So that is a good section of my life. In my opinion and that of a huge circle of friends I have reformed this is my home, its my children, grand children, and great grand childrens home. All I am asking is to become a proud Australian and live out my remaining days in peace and be able to ravel without being treated like terrorist.” (sic) (Exhibit A2)
The applicant also gave oral evidence as follows:
·the contents of each of the abovementioned statements (Exhibits A1 and A2) are true and correct and he stands by them;
·his British passport is marked with a reference to his convictions and his experience when travelling has been that he is “treated like a terrorist” – he is “segregated” and interviewed about his convictions, and he has been embarrassed by this;
·if he is able to obtain an Australian passport, these problems will not occur in the future;
·he has lived in Australia for 45 years and his children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren are all Australian citizens;
·he has worked in the construction industry all his life, including the building of hospitals, orphanages and churches in Australia, and he has taught apprentices in the building trade;
·following his conviction of manslaughter, he served 10 months of his sentence of 30 months and he was then on parole for the remaining 20 months;
·his parole period expired in September 2001;
·after his release from prison he worked for a few more years as a carpenter in roofing work until 2003 when he turned 65 years of age, and he has been retired since then.
In cross-examination the applicant gave evidence as follows:
·he arrived in Australia with his wife and four children in August 1967 when he was aged 28 years;
·he did not have any criminal convictions in the United Kingdom before emigrating to Australia and he has provided a UK police clearance to this effect (T1, p 5);
·his wife committed suicide about six weeks after they arrived in Australia;
·he was working in the building industry and he and his workmates would drink and “with drink there’s trouble”;
·his first conviction in Australia was for drunken driving about one year after he arrived in Australia;
·he subsequently committed other crimes involving “drunken escapades” including the offence of break, enter and steal he committed in 1980;
·he was also drunk when he committed the break, enter and steal offence in 1992;
·none of his offences was “malicious” or involved “monetary gain”;
·Judge Derrick regarded his criminal history as “petty enough” to make a spent convictions order;
·he is remorseful for “being such a little scallywag”;
·as regards his manslaughter offence in 1997, he had had “about two beers”, the victim was drunk and “ran at” him, “a blow was struck”, and “that was the end of it”;
·he was remorseful for the manslaughter – he went to the victim’s funeral, he bought a wreath, and he gave his condolences to the victim’s widow;
·the victim had been “belting” another man who was then unconscious, he told the victim to stop, the victim then turned on him, and he punched the victim in a “reflex reaction”;
·at the time he thought that the victim had “run into (his) shoulder” and he does not recall punching the victim;
·the victim should not have been on the Club premises where the incident occurred because he was not a member;
·he stayed on the premises after the incident, an ambulance came and took the victim to hospital where he was placed on life support which was ultimately switched off;
·he is now a different person – he does not go to pubs or get into trouble, he is a “family man”, and he has done voluntary work and volunteered for medical research purposes over the last few years;
·he did some courses on anger management and alcohol abuse while in prison, as well as some educational courses;
·it is “very hard” for him to accept remorse about the death of the victim of his manslaughter offence because he regards it as “an unfortunate accident”;
·“of course” he is “sorry” for having taken a person’s life away from him and he wishes that that event was “never ever in [his] past”;
·he now knows that, “more than anything”, he wants to be an Australian citizen – he is a changed man and he deserves it.
Character References in the T Documents
A Statutory Declaration of Barbara Lorna Pember, dated 23 January 2012, states as follows:
“ I, BARBARA LORNA PEMBER of … Palmyra in the State of Western Australia, Justice of the Peace, make the following declaration under the Statutory Declarations Act 1959:
1.I have known Albert Mills for approximately 20 years.
2.Albert and I met as neighbours in the Over 55 Village where we reside. Albert lives two doors down from me and I see him almost every day.
3.I am aware that Albert is applying for Australian Citizenship and I am happy to support his application with this declaration. I am aware of Albert’s past but believe that is all behind him and that he deserves to be granted Citizenship at this time in his life.
4.I have always found Albert to be a gentleman and pleasant to be around.
5.Albert and I have become good friends over the last 20 years and he is always undertaking any odd jobs around my Unit which may be required.
6.Albert can always be found helping the other residents of the Village as well. If anyone needs assistance with maintenance of their Unit or with any type of work, Albert is always there with a smile.
7.Albert’s commitment to his daughters and grandchildren is exceptional. He goes to his daughter’s farm in Donnybrook and assists with whatever work needs to be done.
…” (T28)
A Statutory Declaration of Mark Leslie Darbyshire, dated 20 January 2012, states as follows:
“ I, MARK LESLIE DARBYSHIRE of … Willagee in the State of Western Australia, Prison Officer, make the following declaration under the Statutory Declarations Act 1959:
1.I have known Albert Mills since 1997.
2.I first met Albert through mutual friends and we became friends after talking and discovering that we came from similar areas of England. I socialise with Albert on a fortnightly basis during football season and whenever we attend gatherings with mutual friends.
3.I am aware that Albert is applying for Australian Citizenship and I am happy to support his application with this declaration. I am also aware of Albert’s past and believe that is all behind him and that he deserves to be granted Citizenship at this time in his life.
4.Prior to his retirement Albert was a hardworking tradesperson and now keeps himself busy with social activities.
5.I have always found Albert to be a kind and generous person, willing to provide assistance and advice whenever asked.
6.Albert has indicated to me that he deeply regrets what occurred in the past and I believe that he is very remorseful about everything that occurred.
…” (T29)
Additional Material
The applicant tendered in evidence (inter alia) the following material:
·a letter (undated) from Kerry Boughton, Research Manager, WA Lung Research, which states as follows:
“ Mr Albert Mills has been attending our research clinic at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital since 2005. During this time he has been involved in four different medication trials and has contributed significantly in helping understand new treatments for COPD. Albert has always attended his appointments as scheduled and has been punctual. He has always followed the prescribed guidelines and instructions for each trial and completed study assessments effectively.
Albert has always been polite and pleasant and it has been a pleasure to work with him over this period of time.
…” (Exhibit A6);
·a letter, dated 25 November 2012 (sic), from Meagan Shorten, Manager, Clinical Trials, Lung Institute of Western Australia Inc, which states as follows:
“ We would like to confirm that Mr Albert Mills … participated in our Clinical Trials program from 1 September 2009 until 25 February 2010.
During this time we found Mr Mills a keen participant in the trials. He attended all of his appointments and we found him a pleasure to deal with.
We wish him well in the future.” (Exhibit A7);
·a letter, dated 17 September 2012, from Professor Marina Wallace, Colorectal Surgery, South Metropolitan Area Health Service, which states as follows:
“ This is to confirm that Mr Mills participated in the voluntary colorectal screening programme here at Fremantle Hospital the results of which have assisted in promoting colorectal cancer screening for the general population.” (Exhibit A8).
The applicant also lodged with the Tribunal, on 25 October 2012 (subsequent to the hearing), a letter, dated 12 October 2012, from Penny Kelly, Administration and Project Coordinator, School of Public Health, Curtin University, which states as follows:
“ Mr Albert Mills has previously completed volunteer work for the School of Public Health at Curtin University.
Albert has always been a punctual staff member who completed the tasks asked of him. He has been of good character and always helpful.
…”
The respondent did not oppose the tender of that letter in evidence and the Tribunal has marked it as Exhibit A9.
Relevant Legislation
Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)
The Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (“the Act”) relevantly provides:
“ 21 Application and eligibility for citizenship
(1) A person may make an application to the Minister to become an Australian citizen.
…
Person aged 60 or over or has hearing, speech or sight impairment
(4)A person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person:
(a) is:
(i)aged 60 or over at the time the person made the application; or
(ii)aged 18 or over at the time the person made the application and is suffering from a permanent loss or substantial impairment of hearing, speech or sight at that time; and
(b) is a permanent resident:
(i)at the time the person made the application; and
(ii)at the time of the Minister's decision on the application; and
(c) understands the nature of the application at the time the person made the application; and
(d) satisfies the general residence requirement (see section 22) or the special residence requirement (see section 22A or 22B), or has completed relevant defence service (see section 23), at the time the person made the application; and
(e) is likely to reside, or to continue to reside, in Australia or to maintain a close and continuing association with Australia if the application were to be approved; and
(f) is of good character at the time of the Minister's decision on the application.
…
24Minister's decision
(1)If a person makes an application under section 21, the Minister must, by writing, approve or refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.
Note: The Minister may cancel an approval: see section 25.
(1A)The Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen unless the person is eligible to become an Australian citizen under subsection 21(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) or (8).
(2)The Minister may refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen despite the person being eligible to become an Australian citizen under subsection 21(2), (3), (4), (5), (6) or (7).
…
Offences
(6)The Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen at a time:
(a)when proceedings for an offence against an Australian law (including proceedings by way of appeal or review) are pending in relation to the person; or
(b)when the person is confined to a prison in Australia; or
(c)during the period of 2 years after the end of any period during which the person has been confined to a prison in Australia because of the imposition on the person of a serious prison sentence; or
(d)if the person is a serious repeat offender in relation to a serious prison sentence — during the period of 10 years after the end of any period during which the person has been confined to a prison in Australia because of the imposition of that sentence; or
(e)if the person has been released from serving the whole or a part of a sentence of imprisonment on parole or licence — during any period during which action can be taken under an Australian law to require the person to serve the whole or a part of that sentence; or
(f)if the person:
(i) has been released by a court from serving the whole or a part of a sentence of imprisonment; and
(ii) has been so released because the person gave a security, with or without sureties, by recognizance or otherwise, that the person will comply with conditions relating to the person's behaviour;
during any period during which action can be taken against the person under an Australian law because of a breach of a condition of that security; or
(g)if, in respect of proceedings for an offence against an Australian law in relation to the person:
(i) a court does not impose a sentence of imprisonment on the person; and
(ii) the court releases the person because the person gives a security, with or without sureties, by recognizance or otherwise, that the person will comply with conditions relating to the person's behaviour;
during any period during which action can be taken against the person under an Australian law because of a breach of a condition of that security; or
…”
Relevant Policy
Australian Citizenship Instructions
The Australian Citizenship Instructions, published by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, relevantly state (in Chapter 10):
“ The term ‘good character’ is not defined in the Act. Decision makers must therefore be guided by the ordinary use of the words in making assessments.
…
An applicant may be presumed to be of good character unless there is evidence to the contrary. In most cases, such evidence would be in the form of a serious criminal record. However, general conduct and associations may also be relevant. If there is evidence to suggest that an applicant may not be of good character, the applicant should be given the opportunity to respond to this evidence. An applicant's behaviour does not have to be faultless, but the aggregate of their qualities must be weighed against ordinary community standards of behaviour.
…
Assessing good character involves:
• establishing whether or not an applicant has a criminal record, and the nature of that record, if any
• establishing whether or not an applicant may have been involved in crimes against humanity, without having criminal convictions, through having undertaken military or similar service or having held a position of authority in a country that has experienced conflict and serious human rights abuses
• establishing whether or not there is other information relevant to the issue of character
• according procedural fairness to the applicant where there is credible, relevant, and adverse information which the decision maker intends to take into account and
• considering the full circumstances relating to the relevant matters, including any comments by the applicant, character references, and other evidence of the applicant's behaviour.
A list of factors to which consideration should be given is at Attachment A – Character summary. They include:
• the seriousness of any offences against ordinary community standards:
• crimes of violence, sexual abuse, drug trafficking, major fraud, harassment, stalking, armed robbery, crimes against children and other crimes which have incurred a prison sentence or sentences totalling 12 months or more are ordinarily considered to be serious, and should be given due weight in an assessment
• alternatively, less serious offences would be reflected by the leniency of a sentence and, possibly, in the remarks of the sentencing Judge. Decision makers may wish to obtain the comments made by the Judge in sentencing the applicant
• association with persons or organisations alleged to have committed crimes against humanity
• offences committed prior to the grant of a permanent visa that were concealed from the visa decision maker should not normally be given less weight. The fact of deliberate concealment may be an indicator of a continuing lack of good character.
• whether or not an offence(s) committed overseas would be regarded as an offence in Australia. For example, a person charged with political offences in one country may not be considered guilty of a crime in Australia.
• whether there are any on-going obligations in relation to the sentence received, such as a good behaviour bond. Section 24(6) provides that an application for citizenship by conferral must not be approved during such periods.
• whether an offence was a one-off occurrence that can now be considered ‘out of character’, or part of an ongoing pattern of behaviour which would suggest that the applicant is not of good character. Where the offence was not out of character, consider whether the applicant has been rehabilitated (see below).
• whether there were any extenuating circumstances relating to the offence. For example, an offence committed under periods of temporary psychological disturbance (including involuntary effects of medication, post-natal depression, battered wife syndrome) or under duress may be given less weight than if these circumstances did not exist. The onus is on the applicant to provide evidence supporting a claim of extenuating circumstances.
• the applicants age at the time the offence(s) were committed. If the applicant committed the offence(s) at a young age, they may be given less weight depending on the nature of the crime and the applicant's subsequent record. It may be possible that the person has matured and become more law-abiding than as a youth, and that offences from that period in their life are less indicative of their current character than their actions as an adult.
A person's behaviour as evidenced by a criminal record is relevant to the assessment of character. Appropriate weight must be given to a person's behaviour immediately prior to the making of a decision.
A reasonable amount of time will need to have passed since the applicant has been free of obligation to the court to establish a pattern of good behaviour and thus justify a conclusion that a person is now of good character.
The applicant's behaviour since commission of a serious crime can in part be evidenced by the existence or otherwise of subsequent convictions. Other relevant factors that may be taken into account include whether or not the applicant has stable employment, their status in the community, involvement in activities indicating contempt/disregard or respect for the law or human rights.
The onus is on the applicant to demonstrate that there has been a change in their character since last offending.
The applicant's present reputation in the community should also be considered. The applicant could demonstrate a good reputation in the community by providing references from reputable Australians, particularly employers (but not family members), attesting to their good character and whether they support the application for citizenship.
Decision makers are entitled to give substantially more weight to statutory declarations than to other statements. Declarations from character referees that acknowledge the person's criminal background, and attest to a change in character since, should be given considerable weight.” (T5, pp 28–29)
Consideration
The meaning of “good character”
In Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422 the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia considered the meaning of the phrase “good character” in the Migration Act 1958 and the Migration Regulations 1994. Davies J (with whose reasons R D Nicholson J agreed) said (at 425):
“ … the term ‘good character’ is not precise in its denotation. In one sense, it refers to the mental and moral qualities which an individual has. In another sense, it refers to the individual’s reputation or repute: see The Oxford English Dictionary, meanings 11, 12 and 13; The Macquarie Dictionary, meanings 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Necessarily, when decisions are made in Australia under the Act in relation to persons who are overseas, greater attention tends to be given to objective facts and to reputation or repute rather than to a detailed analysis of the person’s inherent qualities. I do not suggest that, in the context, ‘good character’ refers to reputation and repute as such. It does not. But criminal convictions or the absence of them and character references are likely to be an important source of primary information. If there is a criminal conviction, the decision-maker will have regard to the nature of the crime to determine whether or not it reflected adversely upon the character of the applicant. If the conviction was in the past, the decision-maker will turn his attention to whether or not the applicant has shown that he has reformed. If persons speak well of the applicant, the decision-maker will take that into account.”
Lee J said (at 431–432):
“ Unless the terms of the Act and Regulations require some other meaning be applied, the words ‘good character’ should be taken to be used in their ordinary sense, namely, a reference to the enduring moral qualities of a person, and not to the good standing, fame or repute of that person in the community. The former is an objective assessment apt to be proved as a fact whilst the latter is a review [of] subjective public opinion … A person who has been convicted of a serious crime and thereafter held in contempt in the community, nonetheless may show that he or she has reformed and is of good character. … Conversely, a person of good repute may be shown by objective assessment to be a person of bad character. (citations of authorities omitted).”
In Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Baker (1997) 73 FCR 187 the Full Federal Court said (at 197):
“ The words ‘good character’ in the section should, as Lee J pointed out in Irving (at 431-432), be understood as ‘a reference to the enduring moral qualities of a person’. Conduct may make those qualities visible, but it should never be confused with them. In each case, having had regard to the conduct, the Minister or other decision-maker must still come to a further conclusion, whether or not to be satisfied that the person is of good character.”
Is the applicant presently a person “of good character”?
There is no evidence before the Tribunal which indicates that the applicant was not a person of good character prior to the commencement of his criminal record in August 1968. Accordingly, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant was a person of good character up until that time.
There is, however, substantial evidence before the Tribunal in the form of the applicant’s criminal record in Australia, comprising convictions of 24 offences over the period commencing in August 1968 and ending in March 1999, which calls into question the nature of his character during that period. In the Tribunal’s opinion, the applicant had ceased to be a person of good character by 1980 when he committed, and was convicted of, his first serious offence, namely, breaking, entering and stealing, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for two years and six months. The Tribunal notes that the applicant thereafter continued to offend periodically until 1997, including the commission of the serious offence of breaking, entering and stealing for which he was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment in February 1992, and the commission (in 1997) of the very serious offence of manslaughter for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for two years and six months in March 1999. In the Tribunal’s opinion, the applicant, having lost his good character by 1980, thereafter continued to be not of good character throughout the period of his subsequent offending.
It is common ground, however, that the applicant has not been convicted of any offence since his conviction of manslaughter in March 1999 and that there are presently no pending proceedings for any offence relating to him. The question for the Tribunal’s determination is whether, in the period since the applicant became “free of obligation to the court” in September 2001, he has reformed such that the Tribunal can now be satisfied that he is presently a person “of good character” within the meaning, and for the purposes, of s 21(4)(f) of the Act.
The Tribunal notes that Derrick DCJ, in his reasons for making an Order on 22 December 2011 declaring that 13 of the applicant’s convictions (including his convictions of breaking, entering and stealing in 1980 and 1992 and his conviction of manslaughter in 1999) are spent, referred to (inter alia) “the fact that the applicant is now rehabilitated and is contributing to society in a valuable way …” (see paragraphs 8 and 9 above). His Honour did not elaborate, in his reasons, upon the basis on which he made those findings but presumably it included the affidavit of Barbara Pember dated 13 September 2011 (set out in paragraph 10 above). In that affidavit, Ms Pember (inter alia):
·referred to the applicant as “a friend and neighbour” whom she had known for about 20 years;
·described the applicant as “kind hearted”, “trustworthy”, “sociable”, “generous”, “altruistic”, “community oriented”, and “a devoted father and grandfather”;
·stated that she was “fully cognisant of the details of the offences for which the applicant has been imprisoned”;
·stated that she knew the applicant “to be deeply remorseful for committing the criminal offences …”.
Similarly, in her statutory declaration of 23 January 2012 in support of the applicant’s application for Australian citizenship (set out in paragraph 17 above), Ms Pember (inter alia):
·stated that she was “aware of [the applicant’s] past”;
·stated that she had always found the applicant to be “a gentleman and pleasant to be around”;
·referred to the applicant’s willingness to do maintenance odd jobs for her and for other residents of the retirement village in which they live;
·described the applicant’s “commitment to his daughters and grandchildren” as “exceptional”.
The Tribunal also notes Mark Darbyshire’s statutory declaration of 20 January 2012 in support of the applicant’s application for Australian citizenship (set out in paragraph 18 above) in which he (inter alia):
·stated that he met the applicant in 1997 and had since socialised with him and their mutual friends on a regular basis;
·stated that he was “aware of [the applicant’s] past”;
·described the applicant as “a hardworking tradesman” prior to his retirement and stated that he had always found him to be “a kind and generous person, willing to provide assistance and advice whenever asked”;
·stated that the applicant had indicated to him that he “deeply regrets what occurred in the past” and that he believed that the applicant was “very remorseful about everything that occurred”.
Although the Tribunal has had regard to the evidence referred to in paragraphs 28–30 above, the lack of detail in that documentation relating, in particular, to the awareness of Ms Pember and Mr Darbyshire regarding the applicant’s criminal history, and to the nature and extent of the applicant’s rehabilitation, has caused the Tribunal to give limited weight to that evidence. Unfortunately, neither Ms Pember nor Mr Darbyshire gave oral evidence and, accordingly, the somewhat vague and superficial contents of the abovementioned affidavit and statutory declarations remain unexplored.
As regards the applicant’s own evidence, the Tribunal has no difficulty in accepting that he is sorry that he caused the death of another person in May 1997 (the subject of his conviction of manslaughter in March 1999) in the sense that he wishes that it had never happened. The Tribunal, however, has serious reservations as to whether the applicant is presently, or has ever been, truly remorseful for having caused that person’s death. In his sentencing remarks on 19 March 1999 Williams DCJ noted that the applicant, in his evidence at trial, falsely denied that he had struck the deceased and that that false denial indicated a lack of remorse on his part. In his evidence before the Tribunal the applicant described the deceased’s death as “an unfortunate accident”, and he reiterated that it was “very hard” for him to feel remorse about that person’s death because it was “accidental”.
Having regard to the applicant’s evidence, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the applicant has sought to minimise the seriousness of the offence of manslaughter of which he was convicted in March 1999 and has not fully accepted responsibility for committing that offence. The Tribunal, furthermore, is not satisfied that the applicant is unreservedly remorseful for having committed that offence.
The applicant has also, in the Tribunal’s opinion, sought to minimise the seriousness of his criminal record generally. The Tribunal notes in this connection that, in one of his abovementioned statements (Exhibit A1 – set out in paragraph 13 above), the applicant asserted that the sentences of imprisonment which he had received in the past “now would be a fine, probation, suspended, or even a caution”. In his oral evidence he described himself as a “scallywag” and his criminal offending as “petty”, referring to the spent convictions order made by Derrick DCJ in December 2011. The Tribunal notes, however, that, in his reasons for making that order, Derrick DCJ described the two offences of breaking, entering and stealing, of which the applicant was convicted in October 1980 and February 1992, and the offence of manslaughter, of which he was convicted in March 1999, as “very serious”. Although Derrick DCJ accepted that the applicant “is now rehabilitated”, the Tribunal, having regard to the applicant’s evidence, is not satisfied that he has fully accepted responsibility for his offending, including his serious offending; nor is the Tribunal satisfied that he is unreservedly remorseful for that offending.
There is some independent evidence before the Tribunal which supports the proposition that the applicant is presently a person of good character, in particular:
·the transcript of Derrick DCJ’s reasons for making the spent convictions order on 22 December 2011 and the affidavit of Barbara Pember in support of the applicant’s application for that order, dated 13 September 2011 (Exhibits A5 and A4 respectively);
·two character references in the form of statutory declarations by Barbara Pember and Mark Darbyshire (T28 and T29, respectively); and
·three letters which confirm that the applicant has, in recent years, voluntarily participated in various medical research clinical trials (Exhibits A6, A7 and A8), and a further letter which confirms that he has done voluntary work for the School of Public Health at Curtin University (Exhibit A9).
There is, furthermore, the applicant’s own evidence that he is now “a different person” from the person he was when he was offending and that he does not now go to pubs or get into trouble and is a “family man”. Moreover, in his statement (Exhibit A1), the applicant stated:
“ … forget about drunken escapades and look at my contributions. Soon I will reach 74 years of and (sic) there is no chance that in my wildest dreams that (sic) I would ever offend.”
The Tribunal accepts (there being no evidence before it to the contrary) that the applicant has, apart from committing various traffic infringements (see paragraph 7 above), been law-abiding in the period from September 2001 (when he became “free of obligation to the court”) to date. The Tribunal also accepts that he worked as a carpenter for about two years after that date until he retired when he turned 65 years of age in September 2003 and that he has been making a useful contribution to the community since his release from prison on parole in 2000. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has recently turned 74 years of age and it is prepared to accept that he is unlikely to re-offend in a serious manner.
In determining whether the applicant is presently a person “of good character”, the Tribunal is not prepared to disregard his criminal record and have regard only to his “contributions” in the last 12 years, as the applicant urged it to do. The appropriate approach for the Tribunal to take is to consider, having regard to the whole of the evidence before it and giving due weight to the various parts of that evidence, whether it is satisfied that the applicant is presently a person “of good character” in the sense that he possesses “enduring moral qualities” that are an essential component of good character: see Irving at 431–432 (per Lee J); Baker at 197.
Having regard to the whole of the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is presently rehabilitated to the extent that it can properly be said that he is now a person of good character. The Tribunal has reached that conclusion on the basis that it is not satisfied that the applicant is unreservedly remorseful, and has accepted full responsibility, for his serious criminal offending, including the very serious offence of manslaughter of which he was convicted in March 1999. In the Tribunal’s opinion, those considerations reflect adversely on the applicant’s character and provide a more reliable indication of the true nature of his character than his good conduct during the last 12 years since his release from prison and the opinions of his two character referees. Furthermore, the applicant’s assertions of bias on the part of former members of the judiciary, contained in one of his statements (Exhibit A1 – set out in paragraph 13 above), in the Tribunal’s opinion, also reflect poorly on his character.
Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is presently a person “of good character” within the meaning, and for the purposes, of s 21 (4)(f) of the Act.
Conclusion
The Tribunal concludes, therefore, that para (f) of s 21(4) of the Act is not satisfied in the applicant’s case. It follows that the applicant is not eligible to become an Australian citizen under s 21(4) of the Act. It is common ground that subss (2), (3), (5), (6), (7) and (8) of s 21 of the Act are inapplicable in this case.
Accordingly, pursuant to s 24(1A) of the Act, the applicant’s application under s 21 of the Act to become an Australian citizen must not be approved.
Decision
For the above reasons, the decision under review is affirmed.
I certify that the preceding 42 (forty-two) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Deputy President S D Hotop. ................[sgd D Brodie]........................................................
Administrative Assistant
Dated 2 November 2012
Date of hearing 15 October 2012 Representative of the Applicant In person Representative of the Respondent Mr A Gerrard
Office of the Australian Government Solicitor
0
3
0