BCDC and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

BCDC and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2022] AATA 2054 (30 June 2022)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number:2021/0604
Re:BCDC
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member J Rau SC
Date:30 June 2022
Place:Adelaide

The decision under review is affirmed.
............................[sgnd]............................................
Senior Member J Rau SC
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – mandatory cancellation of Class XB Subclass 200-Refugee Visa under section 501CA(4) - where Applicant does not pass the character test – Applicant has substantial criminal record – whether the discretion to refuse to grant the visa should be exercised – consideration of Ministerial Direction No. 90 – consideration of Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17 – decision under review is affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
CASES
MIEA v Singh (1997) FCR 288
Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 348
YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466
Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594
Afu v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1311
Ezegbe v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 216; 164 ALD 139
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 500
Minister for Home Affairs v Omar (2019) FCAFC 188
Ali v Minister for Home Affairs (2020) 278 FCR 627
GBV18 v Minister for Home Affairs (2020) 274 FCR 202
BCDC v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2021] AATA 1424
Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17
SECONDARY MATERIAL
Direction No 90 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member J Rau SC
30 June 2022
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The Applicant seeks a review of the decision by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs (“the Respondent”) made under section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) on 30 December 2020 and communicated to him on 21 January 2021, not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Class XB Subclass 200-Refugee visa (“the Visa”).
The Applicant lodged an application for review in this Tribunal on 29 January 2021. The matter was heard on 24 and 25 March 2021. On 14 April 2021, the Tribunal decided to affirm the delegate’s decision. The Tribunal published its reasons on 20 May 2021. The Applicant sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision in the Federal Court. By the Court’s decision dated 15 September 2021, the Tribunal’s decision of 14 April 2021 was quashed and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for determination.
The hearing was held on 14, 15 and 16 June 2022. The Applicant was represented by Mr McComber of Sentry Law, and the Respondent was represented by Ms Donald of Sparke Helmore Lawyers.
The Applicant gave evidence through a Kiswahili interpreter. Even allowing for this difficulty, his evidence was often rambling, evasive and non-responsive to questions. The Applicant did not present as a reliable historian. I formed the view that he was generally not a reliable witness. He has in the past, regularly consumed excessive amounts of alcohol. He accepted that this had impaired his memory of events, but he remained adamant that many things alleged against him did not happen. He rejected any suggestion that he might not recall them. He offered unsolicited apologies for his past behaviour on multiple occasions. At the same time, as will be set out below, he denied much of the wrongdoing for which he entered pleas of guilty, or which was the subject of police incident reports. On his version of the facts, his guilty pleas were based on poor legal advice. On his version of the facts, invariably the most serious complaints made to police by his former wife, his children, family associates and even observations recorded by police officers themselves, are not to be believed. He described many of these as “lies”. His expressions of regret are therefore, in his own terms, confined to essentially having drunk too much and argued with his wife. He denies any assaults or the making of threats. In these circumstances, when weighed against the uncontested factual basis of his guilty pleas, his expressions of remorse carry little weight.
Evidence was also given by his eldest daughter, (“A”.) by telephone. A said that she had could not clearly recall relevant events, despite being present. She stated on several occasions that she did “not want to be a witness between my mother and my father”. This is understandable, however in my view, she did not assist the Tribunal as she might have, partially for this reason. A is the only one of the Applicant’s children to still have a relationship with him, or to give a statement of support. Her father being deported would be her “worst nightmare”. She said it would “effect everybody, even my mum”. A stated that she is happy to support the Applicant if he is released into the community. A currently lives in Sydney with her partner and four young children and has done so since late 2020. A’s children are aged 8,6,4 and 2 years.
The Applicant had some contact with A’s children when he lived nearby, prior to his imprisonment. They would often have meals together and he played with the children. Between 28 March 2018 and 2 November 2018, he was in prison and had no contact. The Applicant has had no contact at all with his grandchildren since September 2019. He has never met his youngest grandchild and could only name the eldest child. He did not know any their ages or birthdays. He had no idea where they attended school. He has never had a role as a primary caregiver, or provider. If the Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s plans to reside in Perth if he were to be released in the community, he would only have electronic communication with A and his grandchildren.
Medical and other records were obtained and received into evidence. These are mainly QLD Corrective Services (“QCS”) materials[1] and International Health and Medical Services (“IHMS”) records.[2] No medical report as such was produced regarding the Applicant’s current physical or mental state. No medical or psychological expert was called. It seems that the Applicant has sustained some sporting injuries, for example to his shoulder. This has required treatment.[3] He produced no evidence of any ongoing physical incapacity. The Applicant has had some issues with mental health.[4] There is no detailed current medical evidence on this point.
[1] Exhibit 4, pp 551-698.
[2] Ibid, pp 708-798.
[3] Ibid pp 131, 149, 153, 162, 170 & 798.
[4] Ibid pp 598-9, 602, 604-5, 621 & 636.
The Applicant called a friend, Mr M to give evidence. Mr M gave evidence by telephone. The effect of Mr M’s evidence was that he had a high regard for the Applicant. He lives in Perth and would be happy to assist the Applicant with accommodation and employment if he were to be released into the community.
The Applicant also called Dr N. He gave evidence by phone. Dr N Presented evidence to the Tribunal regarding the current situation for returnees in the DRC. His evidence is discussed in some detail, later in this decision.
The Applicant was born in The Democratic Republic of Congo (“DRC”). He is a citizen of that country. He is 51 years of age. He is a member of the Nande tribal group.[5] He is a Christian.
[5] His Counsel explicitly abandoned any suggestion that this connection was relied upon in these proceedings.
The Applicant speaks Kiswahili and French. He considers himself to be a native French speaker. He has difficulty with spoken English. He claims not to be able to read English.[6]
[6] Exhibit 4, p 555.
On 15 December 2009, the Applicant was granted a Humanitarian Visa as a primary applicant. His wife and children were granted visas as secondary applicants.[7]
[7] See Annexure D.
On 3 February 2010, the Applicant and his family arrived in Australia. They settled in Toowoomba. The Applicant worked for the Toowoomba Regional Council for 6 months, a Toowoomba Abattoir for about one year and 3 months and on a chicken farm.[8] His employment record is intermittent with long periods on Centrelink. His limited language skills obviously limit his employment prospects.[9] The family relocated to Brisbane in 2016, and he says that was when his problems started.[10] The Applicant’s criminal history shows otherwise.
[8] Statement 24 March 2022, paras 16-17.
[9] Exhibit 4, p 600.
[10] Ibid, pp 783 & 253.
The Applicant has 8 surviving children, 4 boys and 4 girls. Two of his children were born here. Their ages range between 28 and 8 years. The Applicant has four children who are under 18 years of age. He has had no contact with them since the making of a protection order on 30 May 2016. This order expired on 29 May 2018. The Applicant has still not had contact with them since then, for fear of “making a mistake.”
The Applicant says that he did not drink alcohol until he came to Australia in 2010.[11] There is a clear correlation between his excessive consumption of alcohol and his subsequent offending behaviour since 2010. He has resisted engagement with QCS programmes to deal with this problem.[12]
[11] Statement 24 March 2022, para 19.
[12] See Exhibit 4, pp 609, 610, 611 & 625.
On 15 August 2011, the Applicant was arrested for drink driving in Toowoomba. He had a blood alcohol level of .142. His license was suspended.[13]
[13] Ibid, pp 409-410.
On 1 January 2012 the police were called by the Applicant’s wife to attend their home. He was reported to have been “drinking all day”. He was found to be in possession of a boning knife and had threatened to kill himself with it. An emergency examination order under the QLD Mental Health Act was made. He was admitted to hospital for a mental health assessment.[14] The Applicant has no recollection of this incident.[15]
[14] Ibid pp 413-415.
[15] Statement 24 March 2022, para 21.
On 15 April 2013, the Applicant committed an act of domestic violence. The particulars as set out in Police records are as follows:
……
At approximately 0001 hours, the respondent has returned home in an intoxicated state. The respondent has approached the lounge area where the aggrieved and some of the older children and witness … were watching a movie. The respondent has demanded some food. The aggrieved has prepared some food for him. The respondent has begun to verbally abuse the aggrieved. At this point witness … [Boyfriend of … has made an attempt to stop the respondent from abusing the aggrieved. The respondent has collected a kitchen fork and approached witness … in an aggressive manner. … has retrieved his laptop and retreated to outside the front of the dwelling. The respondent followed, still armed with a fork. … placed his laptop on top of a car where the respondent has taken the laptop, smashed it on the ground and stomped on it. … has left the address with … The respondent has returned inside the dwelling and the aggrieved has gone to bed with the baby … Approximately 15 minutes later, the respondent has entered the bedroom. The respondent has jumped on top of the aggrieved, grabbed her by the shirt and head butted her, causing a busted lip. The respondent has then punched the aggrieved 3x in the face striking the temple areas on both sides. During this attack, baby … has received a scratch to the left eyebrow. The aggrieved has retreated from the bedroom with the baby where child … has stopped the respondent. … has then contacted police. There are no previous DV incidents. Frequency of DV incidents: first instance. Severity of DV is severe. Weapons were involved, a kitchen fork. There were injuries, to the aggrieved. There was damage, to a laptop. Alcohol/Drugs were involved, Respondent affected by alcohol. Threats by Respondent to harm or abduct children: No. The child's level of involvement in the DV incident is: Was in view/hearing range of the incident.
Police attended the occurrence address where they were approached by the respondent who was wearing a suit. Several children followed the children out of the house and appeared upset, requesting police come inside the dwelling and look at their mother [the aggrieved]. Police spoke with the aggrieved and children who provided a version as per the MO. The respondent provided a differing version of events. No CCTV. No wilful damage or assault complaint forthcoming. Witnesses as nominated. Support link offered and accepted by the aggrieved. Written permission obtained for referral of any child (In accordance with Section 9.6.4 'Referral agencies'): No. Department of Communities (Child Safety Services) After Hours Service Centre have not been contacted. The DV incident was reported to police by the: child/children. Living conditions are: safe and sanitary. Police observed the children to be traumatised & okay. Any other info about the extent to which the DV incident (with any previous DV's) is impacting on children: unknown. School/day care arrangements: unknown. Current living arrangements are - the children: reside with both parents. Child's language is: Other. Childs cultural background is: Other. Aggrieved's language is: Other. Aggrieved's cultural background is: Other. Respondent's language is: Other. Respondent's cultural background is: Other. Concerns regarding mental health of; Child: No; Aggrieved: No; Respondent: No. No assault complaint was made. SOC not required.
……
This file has been assessed in accordance with the provisions of the ICM and SCAN Team Manual as implemented on 2 August 2010. As a result, this case has been referred to the Toowoomba Child Safety Regional Intake Team for screening. Once a response has been received from the Regional Intake Team, it will be determined if this matter will be referred to SCAN or an Information Coordination Meeting (ICM) is to be requested.
……
RIS SCREENING
The information received has been assessed using the Structured Decision Making Tools, Departmental Policies and Practices Guidelines and Procedures and professional judgement. The information has been recorded as a Child Protection Notification for the following reasons:
- The information provided indicates that a significant domestic violence incident has occurred between the mother and the father in the presence of the children. During this incident the mother has been punched several times by the father to the head and has also been head butted by the father whilst one year old (Blank) was lying beside her. This has resulted in the young child receiving a scratch to her left eyebrow. Given (Blank) is only one year of age she has no ability to self protect in such an instance and is considered highly vulnerable.
- It is acknowledged that all children were present during this incident and (Blank) has intervened and has also contacted police.
- The father was intoxicated during this incident and regularly threatens to kill the mother when he is in an intoxicated state.
Given the injuries to (Blank) the children's involvement and the severity of this incident it has been determined that the children are at an unacceptable risk of suffering serious physical harm as a result of their exposure to domestic violence. Although there is no reported pattern of domestic violence within the family to indicate ongoing emotional harm it is acknowledged that the children were reported to appear traumatised by the incident.
SCAN SCREENING
Advice has been received from the Toowoomba Child Safety Regional Intake Service that this matter has been recorded as a Child Protection Notification. Toowoomba QPS SCAN believes that this case requires the coordination of multi-agency actions to effectively assess and respond to the protection needs of the child. Subsequently a QPS SCAN referral will be completed and forward to the Toowoomba SCAN coordinator.
……
This matter was discussed at the Toowoomba Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect (SCAN) Team meeting on 24/04/2013. At this time the agencies recommended to provide assessments in relation to this matter. A recommendation was made by the SCAN Team that the respective agencies continue with their assessments in relation to this case. The matter is to be discussed by the SCAN Team again on 15/05/2013.
……
This matter was discussed at the Toowoomba Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect (SCAN) Team meeting on 15/05/2013. At this time the agencies recommended to provide assessments in relation to this matter. A recommendation was made by the SCAN Team that the respective agencies continue with their assessments in relation to this case. The matter is to be discussed by the SCAN Team again on 29/05/2013.
……
This matter was discussed at the Toowoomba Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect (SCAN) Team meeting on 29/05/2013. At that time the Department of Child Safety advised they had completed an assessment in relation to this matter. This assessment was formulated in accordance with the Department of Child Safety policy and procedure and has resulted in the matter being recorded on Department of Child Safety systems. However, the specific classification applied in this instance is ‘not substantiated, child not in need of protection’, indicating the Department of Child safety will not be conducting further investigations into this matter. As this information has been recorded and an assessment has completed, this matter is now closed to the Toowoomba SCAN team.
……
The involved persons are the Aggrieved, … and the Respondent, [BCDC] (24/06/70). The pair are a married couple of African nationality. The pair reside together at … and have seven children residing with them at the address. The children are as follows:- … At approximately 0000hrs on 15/04/13 the Respondent has returned home from an unknown location in an intoxicated state. The Respondent has approached the lounge area of the dwelling where the Aggrieved, … boyfriend … were located watching a movie. The Respondent has asked for some food and the Aggrieved has prepared some food for the Respondent. After receiving the food the Respondent has begun to verbally abuse the Aggrieved. … has attempted to intervene and prevent the abuse at which point the Respondent has turned on … The Respondent has grabbed a kitchen fork and moved towards … in an aggressive manner. has retreated into the lounge room and unplugged his laptop from the TV. … has then retreated from the dwelling via the front door. The Respondent has followed … outside. … place the laptop on top of his car which was parked in the driveway. The Respondent has grabbed the laptop and thrown it onto the ground causing it to smash open. The Respondent has then stomped on the laptop with his right foot. … has left the address in his vehicle with … and returned to his home address at this stage. The Respondent has returned to the dwelling and the Aggrieved and the children have retreated to their bedrooms thinking the drama was over. The Aggrieved has taken the baby … with her to sleep. Approximately 15 minutes later the Respondent has entered the room of the sleeping Aggrieved and … and jumped on top of the Aggrieved. The Respondent has grabbed the Aggrieved by the shirt with two hands and headbutted her, causing her lower lip to spilt and bleed. The Respondent then followed this with three strikes to the Aggrieved's face with closed fists. The strikes have hit the Aggrieved just above her eyes causing redness and swelling. During this violence the baby … has received a small scrape above her right eye by unknown means. The Aggrieved has retreated from the bedroom where … has prevented the Respondent from following her and immediately called the police. Upon arrival at the address police were greeted by the Respondent on the front driveway. He appeared well dressed and in a calm state. The Respondent stated to police that there was some trouble with his wife. Before the Respondent could continue several of the children came outside and appeared to be quite upset. The children told police to come inside and look at what the Respondent had done to their mother, the Aggrieved. Police entered the dwelling and sighted the Aggrieved who appeared dazed and bleeding from her bottom lip. The Aggrieved also had swelling, bruising and redness around both eyes. The Aggrieved advised police that she had been assaulted by the Respondent as detailed above. The children also confirmed that they heard screaming of both the Aggrieved and … coming from the bedroom whilst the incident was taking place. The children and … also confirmed that the Respondent had returned home at approximately 0000hrs in an intoxicated state. Police spoke further with the Respondent whose version of events contradicted those of the Aggrieved and the children. The Respondent stated that he had been home all night and had been drinking. When asked how the Aggrieved sustained a split lip the Respondent stated that he did not do it. He continued to say that when he entered the bedroom and approached the Aggrieved she has turned from him and run into a mirror causing the split lip.[16] When asked how the Aggrieved recieved the swelling and bruising around her eyes the Respondent had no explanation other than to say that it was not him who had caused it. When asked who did cause it, The Respondent could provide no explanation. The Respondent and the Aggrieved could not explain how … received the scrape above her eye. No complaint of wilful damage or assault are forthcoming at this stage. Supportlink was offered and accepted by the Aggrieved.
Police believe it is necessary and desirable to protect the Aggrieved by way of a Domestic Violence Protection Order. The Aggrieved, in this instance, has been physically assaulted by the Respondent while she slept with a one year old child present. Due to the cultural background of the pair the Respondent appears to display very controlling behaviour over the family. The Aggrieved and children confirmed that the Respondent drinks daily and when intoxicated becomes aggressive and verbally abusive towards the Aggrieved. The Respondent threatens to kill the Aggrieved regularly whilst in this state. It would appear that the behaviour of the Respondent has been increasing in severity over time with this instance being the first in which physical violence and damage have occurred. The Aggrieved also advised police that she is fearful of the Respondent and does not want him to contact or approach her.”[17]
[16] This is a different account that was given to the Tribunal. He said that she slipped on a concrete floor. A said that her mother told her that she had slipped in the bathroom.
[17] Exhibit 4, pp 417-422.

The Applicant denies that he broke a laptop, punched his wife, or scratched his son’s face.[18] In his evidence, he said that he could not recall when he came home on that night, but it was his usual practice after work to “lead the kids in songs about God”. The Applicant stated that he was just having a conversation with his wife. He does not recall her having an injury and bleeding, but he recalls that she did slip on a concrete floor. A did confirm seeing her mother bleeding. She thought the blood came from her mother’s nose. A was in her bedroom at the time of her mother’s injury and so did not actually see how it was caused.[19] There was no laptop present according to the Applicant. A says that there was a laptop, and it was damaged, but that happened when her boyfriend accidently left it on top of his car, and later drove off. When it was put to the Applicant that in the earlier AAT matter, A had given evidence about a laptop, he said that he did not know, because she was speaking English and he didn’t understand. On another occasion, when asked about A’s evidence in the earlier AAT matter, he was able to recall that she supported his version of the facts, notwithstanding that she was speaking English. On yet another occasion, he was unable to recall her evidence because “it was so long ago”. His son’s scratch was, according to the Applicant, from an accident when the boy was learning to walk.
[18] Statement 24 March 2022, para 22.
[19] There was no mention of a mirror, as in the police report.
A Protection Order was made on 18 April 2013.[20] This order was expressed to be in force until 17 April 2015. This had the following conditions:
“THE RESPONDENT BE OF GOOD BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS THE NAMED PERSON AND NOT COMMIT ASSOCIATED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AGAINST THE NAMED PERSON AND SHOULD THE NAMED PERSON BE A CHILD/CHILDREN TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. NAMED PERSONS: [BLANK] (CHILDREN OF AGG).
THE RESPONDENT BE OF GOOD BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS THE AGGRIEVED AND MUST NOT COMMIT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AGAINST THE AGGRIEVED.”[21]
[20] Exhibit 4, p 424.
[21] Ibid, p 501.
On 30 September 2013, the Applicant was stopped by police. He was found to have a blood alcohol reading of 0.225. He was arrested and charged with drink driving.[22] An interlock device was ordered for his vehicle.
[22] Ibid, p 432.
On 31 August 2014, the Applicant was involved in an incident with police. QLD Police records state:
“Charge(s)
Charge 1 of 2 // [SOA] 6(1) Commit public nuisance
That on the 31^st day of August 2014 at Toowoomba in the Magistrates Courts District of Toowoomba in the State of Queensland one [BCDC] committed a public nuisance offence
and further
Charge 2 of 2 // [PPRA] 790(1) Assault or obstruct police officer
That on the 31^st day of August 2014 at Toowoomba in the Magistrates Courts District of Toowoomba in the State of Queensland one [BCDC] obstructed a Police Officer namely [Officer Q] in the performance of the officers duties
The facts in relation to this matter are as follows:
Facts of the charge 1 of 2
The defendant in this matter is [BCDC].
At approximately 9.50pm on Sunday the 31st day of August 2014 Police from Toowoomba Police Station were detailed to attend … in relation to an ongoing disturbance.
Police arrived in the street for the second time that evening where they spoke to a male person who identified himself as the primary occupier of …
Police established that a number of persons had been consuming alcohol inside the primary occupier’s residence before some ventured to the street smashing beer bottles and involving in a loud verbal argument.
During the course of investigation a male person known as [BCDC], the defendant now before the court, was identified to Police.
CHARGE 1 – PUBLIC NUISANCE
Upon speaking with the defendant, Police observed him to be unsteady on feet, had slurred speech and a strong smell of liquor about his person.
Police attempted to speak with the defendant which was met with raised voice and belligerence. Police repeatedly told the defendant to lower his voice whilst in public however he persisted.
At one point the defendant turned away from Police and moved towards the primary occupier who was standing close by.
Police then observed the defendant lunge towards the primary occupier and grab him by the shirt with his left hand. The defendant then motioned his right arm backwards and with a clenched right fist attempted to punch him. Police then intervened and restrained the defendant.
The defendant was then arrested for public nuisance and conveyed to a marked police vehicle.
… is a residential street which is in plain view of the public. Neighbouring residents had called Police communications in response to the disturbance that the defendant had caused.
CHARGE 2 – OBSTRUCT POLICE
Whilst at the police vehicle [Officer Q] conducted a search of the defendant’s person. During the search Police repeatedly told the defendant not to struggle against Officers.
Upon conclusion of the search, the defendant attempted to break free of the grasp of [Officer Q] and charge at another Officer with his left fist clenched and left arm raised shoulder height.
Subsequently the defendant was handcuffed, placed inside the rear of the police vehicle then diverted to his place of residence … At the address the defendants family members agreed to take the defendant into their care.
The defendant was then observed head-butting the rear left passenger side window in a repeated motion whilst he remained in the rear passenger compartment of the police vehicle.
Police have then opened the door to the vehicle in an attempt to remove the defendant to stop him injuring himself or damaging the window. The defendant then tensed up his body locking his legs in the vehicle foot well. Police then used force to remove the defendant.
As [Officer Q] removed the defendant’s handcuffs, the defendant struggled violently against the Officer which prompted the defendant’s family to withdraw their care.
The defendant was then re-handcuffed and transported to the Toowoomba Watch House. During the transport, the defendant managed to kick his feet out and connect with the rear window of the police sedan. Police have then had to stop the vehicle and use physical force to remove the defendant and restrain him on the roadway nature strip.
The defendant was then transported inside a police padded vehicle to the Toowoomba Watch House where he was subsequently charged in relation to these matters.
The defendant was later released on an undertaking of bail to appear before the Toowoomba Magistrates Court on 16 September 2014.
Note to Prosecutor:
The defendant’s traffic history is attached.
No complaints of assault were received by Police.”[23]
[23] Ibid, pp 426-427.
The Applicant has no recollection of this incident but does not dispute the police version of events.[24]
[24] Statement 24 March 2022, para 24.
In 2016 the Applicant and his family relocated to Ipswich.
On 30 March 2016, the Applicant was again apprehended by police when he was drink driving. His blood alcohol reading was 0.135. He was charged and his license suspended.[25]
[25] Exhibit 4, pp 436-438.
On 2 May 2016, the Applicant was involved in another incident of domestic violence. Police records state:
“Current incident:
On Wednesday the 3rd day of May 2016 the aggrieved attended Goodna Station in relation to a domestic violence incident that had an occurred when she arrived home about 9.00pm last night. She provided police with a statement of the incident. Police from Goonda Station attended the respondents address. Upon arrival police observed the respondent and other family members sitting in the yard drinking alcohol. Police took up with the respondent in relation to this matter. On Tuesday the 2nd day of May 2016 at approximately 9pm the aggrieved has arrived home with some friends. The respondent had been home drinking and when the aggrieved has arrived home the respondent has had a verbal argument with the aggrieved and one of the aggrieves friends over his belief that his wife is cheating on him. The aggrieved’ s friend has told the respondent to leave her friend alone. The respondent has then went and sat on the aggrieved’s other friend and put his hands around her neck. The aggrieved’s friend has pushed the respondent to the ground and left the house. The respondent has then went to the aggrieved had placed his hands around her neck. The aggrieved has pushed him off and went into her daughters room to hide. On Wednesday the 3rd day of May 2016 the respondent has got out of bed at 6.00am and had a conversation with the aggrieved in relation to last night’s incident. The respondent has made threats towards the aggrieve to kill her. Police did not observe any property damage at the residence. Police issued the respondent with a PPN authorised by M S/Con M. PENNICOTT at 3.40pm to appear in the Ipswich Magistrates court on the 9/05/2016.
To protect the aggrieved:
Police believe it is necessary and desirable to protect the aggrieved from the respondent due to his ongoing alcohol use, physical violence and belief that he is cheating on him. The respondent and aggrieved have a number of children together and will still be in contact, but have not made a decision on their relationship.”[26]
[26] Ibid, p 442.
The Applicant does not deny this incident.[27] In evidence however, he denied putting his hands around her neck or hitting her. He was unsure if he had threatened her.
[27] Statement, 24 March 2022 para 27.
The Applicant separated from his wife after this incident. Apart from time in prison or detention, he has had no fixed address since that date. He reports often sleeping in his car.[28]
[28] Ibid, para 28.
On 9 May 2016, a temporary Protection Order was granted by the Ipswich Magistrates Court.[29] This order prevented the Applicant from returning to his family home. Protection Orders have also prevented the Applicant seeing or contacting at least his younger children.[30]
[29] Exhibit 4, pp 513-515.
[30] Ibid, pp 1024-1028.
On 13 May 2016, the Applicant failed to report under a community supervision order.[31]
[31] Ibid, 397.
On 14 May 2016, there was another report of domestic violence. Police records state:
“Location: Dwelling. Subtype: House. Victim age: Female adult (over 18). Victim's prior actions: At home. Victim injuries sustained: No injury. Relationship to offender: Ex partner. Other behavior at scene: Unknown. No. of offenders/suspects: One. Free text keywords: ON THE NOMINATED TIME DATE AND PLACE THE NOMINATED SUSPECT HAS BREACHED A TEMPORARY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ORDER BY: 1. APPROACHED THE ADDRESS OF … 2. APPROACHED TO WITHIN 100METERS OF THE AGGRIEVED. . DV APPLICATION NO: QP1600766134. DV CONDITION BREACHED: 1. APPROACHED THE ADDRESS OF … 2. APPROACHED TO WITHIN 100METERS OF THE AGGRIEVED. PREVIOUS BREACH: NO. SEVERITY: MINOR. FREQUENCY: FIRST INSTANCE. ANY WEAPONS USED: NO. DAMAGE TO PROPERTY: NO. DRUGS AND/OR ALCOHOL INVOLVED: NO.”[32]
[32] Ibid, p 444.
The Applicant admits this breach of the order. He says that it was because he had nowhere else to sleep.[33] In evidence he admitted that he knew that he was in breach of the Protection Order, but he wanted to “mend matters”.
[33] Statement, 24 March 2022 para 29.
On 16 May 2016, QLD police records contain reference to yet another incident:
“Charge(s)
Charge 3 of 3 / / [PPRA] 790(1)&(2A)&47(9) Assault or obstruct police officer in public place while adversely affected by intoxicating substance - Domestic Violence Offence
That on the 16th day of May 2016 at Redbank Plains in the State of Queensland one [BCDC] obstructed a Police Officer namely [Officer S] in the performance of the officers duties and further the said [BCDC] committed the offence in a public place namely Hallets Road while the said [BCDC] was adversely affected by an intoxicating substance and the offence is also a domestic violence offence
The facts in relation to this matter are as follows:
Facts of the charge 3 of 3
The defendant in this matter is [BCDC] dob 1970
At about 3:30am on 16th May 2016 Police from Springfield attended in relation to a Breach of Domestic Violence Protection Order.
Upon arrival police TUW an AGG who stated the defendant had seen police arrive and had proceeded to run away and jump a fence at the rear of the property.
Police cordoned the area and using a police dog were able to track the defendant to an area of long grass.
The defendant initially refused to follow instructions from police to stay on the ground and not to move.
The defendant grabbed out at Police and suffered a minor bite by a police dog.
The defendant was restrained by officers arriving on the scene.
The defendant was highly intoxicated and provided a breath sample of 0.392
The defendant received first aid from medical professional before being transported to the Ipswich Watch house
…
Charge(s)
Charge 1 of 3 / / [DFVPA2012] 177(2)(b) Contravention of domestic violence order
That on the 14th day of May 2016 at Redbank Plains in the Magistrates Courts District of Ipswich in the State of Queensland one [BCDC] being a respondent against whom a domestic violence order had been made contravened the order namely the temporary protection order made on 9th May 2016 in the Magistrates Court at Ipswich and [BCDC] had been served with a copy of the order by a police officer namely [Officer M]
Charge 2 of 3 / / [DFVPA2012] 177(2)(b) Contravention of domestic violence order
That on the 16th day of May 2016 at Redbank Plains in the Magistrates Courts District of Ipswich in the State of Queensland one [BCDC] being a respondent against whom a domestic violence order had been made contravened the order namely the temporary protection order made on 9th May 2016 in the Magistrates Court at Ipswich and [BCDC] had been served with a copy of the order by a police officer namely [Officer M].
The facts in relation to this matter are as follows:
Facts of the charge 1 of 3
The defendant in this matter is [BCDC] dob 1970
On the 9th May 2016 Ipswich Magistrates Court granted a Temporary Protection order naming the defendant as the Respondent and … as the Aggrieved
At approximately 21.25hrs on the 14th of May 2016 police from Springfield Station attended … in relation to a Breach of a Domestic Violence Order.
Police took up with (AGG) who stated she had observed the defendant attended the address.
She stated that at around 20.30hrs on the 14th of May 2016 [BCDC] had attended … uninvited and asked her if he could sleep there. She stated that [BCDC] had stayed for around 30 minutes and that he left when she asked him to leave.
Police conducted checks and confirmed that the Temporary Order was current and that he was in breach of condition
(2) The respondent is prohibited
-form remaining at;
-entering or attempting to enter;
-approaching to within 100 meters of
the aggrieved’s usual place of residence situated at …
(3) The respondent is prohibited from contacting or attempting to contact or asking someone else to contact the aggrieved.
(4) The respondent is prohibited from following or *approaching the aggrieved when the aggrieved is at any place.
Police attempted but could not locate the defendant on the night in question.
On 16th May 2016 Police located the defendant after responding to … in response to a 000 call made by the AGG.
The defendant was transported to the Ipswich Watchouse.
Note to PROS:
The temp or was granted after the RESP tried to choke the AGG, he has threatened to burn down her church and accused her of being a witch. Both PPN and App to Vary included for your information
……
Facts of the charge 2 of 3
The defendant in this matter is [BCDC] dob 1970
On the 9th May 2016 Ipswich Magistrates Court granted a Temporary Protection order nameing the defendant as the Respondent and … as the Aggrieved
At approximately 0330hrs on the 16th of May 2016 police from Springfield Station attended … in relation to a Breach of a Domestic Violence Order.
Police observed the aggrieved … appearing visibly shaken.
… stated she had gone to bed the previous night at around 10pm. At around 3am on the 16/05/2016 she had woken up by the defendant standing in her bedroom next to her bed which scarred her. She stated that she had told the defendant that he could not be there and that he had to leave to which he responded that he wanted to sleep in her bed and called her a prostitute and told her that the reason for leaving him was so that she could sleep with other men.[34]
[34] In evidence, he accepted that this was possibly what had happened.
… further stated that the defendant got into her bed and[35] that she got scarred and pushed him away and ran off to another bedroom where her niece was sleeping to call for police. She stated that the defendant followed her in to the other room and took the telephone off her just as she had called 000 and asked for police.
[35] In evidence, he denied this saying that he only visited her.
… stated that she then watched the defendant run through the house and unlock the front door and go outside. She followed him out to get her phone back and told him to leave her alone. She stated that the defendant ran off when he saw police approach the house.
Police located the defendant in a grassed area behind the back fence of the aggrieved’s house and arrested the defendant.
Police conducted checks and confirmed that the Temporary Order was current and that he was in breach of condition
(2) The respondent is prohibited
-form remaining at;
-entering or attempting to enter;
-approaching to within 100 meters of
the aggrieved’s usual place of residence situated at…
(3) The respondent is prohibited from contacting or attempting to contact or asking someone else to contact the aggrieved.
(4) The respondent is prohibited from following or *approaching the aggrieved when the aggrieved is at any place.”[36]
[36] Ibid, pp 447 & 451-453.
The Applicant does not deny this incident. He eventually entered a plea of guilty. He knew that he was breaching the order. He was sentenced to 12 months’ probation.[37]
[37] Statement, 24 March 2022 para 29.
On 19 May 2016, the Applicant was alleged to have committed the offence of wilful damage. He was fined a total of $650. The Applicant does not recall this incident but does not deny it.[38]
[38] Ibid, para 30.
On 26 May 2016, the Applicant was charged with Contravention of a Domestic Violence Order (aggravated offence). He says that he did this because he had nowhere else to live.[39] On 10 January 2017 he entered a plea of guilty. He was convicted and sentenced to a nine month Probation Order.[40]
[39] Ibid, para 31.
[40] Exhibit 4, pp 397 & 470.
On 30 May 2016, a Domestic Violence Order was made by The Ipswich Magistrates Court. The Applicant (in these proceedings) was present in court. The order was to expire on 29 May 2018.[41]
[41] Ibid, p 461.
On 23 June 2016, the Applicant failed to report under a community supervision order.[42]
[42] Ibid, p 397.
On 27 June 2016, the Applicant was again involved in domestic violence.[43] This was reported to police on 5 July. The police record states:
“Location: Dwelling. Subtype: House. Victim age: Female adult (over 18). Victim's prior actions: Unknown. Victim injuries sustained: No injury. Relationship to offender: Ex partner. Other behaviour at scene: Unknown. No. of offenders/suspects: One. Free text keywords: THE RESPONDENT IN THIS MATTER IS [BCDC]. THE AGGRIEVED IN THIS MATTER IS … ON THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2016 AT IPSWICH MAGISTRATES A COURT A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ORDER WAS MADE AND THE RESP WAS PRESENT AT COURT. ONE OF THE CONDITIONS ON THE ORDER IS THE RESP IS TO BE OF GOOD BEHAVIOUR TO THE AGGR AND NOT COMMIT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AGAINST THE AGGR. ON THE 4TH DAY OF JULY 2016 THE AGGR HAS ATTENDED THE FRONT COUNTER AT GOODNA POLICE STATION TO REPORT A DV INCIDENT HAD OCCURRED. THE AGGR DOES NOT SPEAK ENGLISH AND ONLY SPEAKS SWAHILI. THE AGGR HAD HER FRIEND … WHO ALSO WITNESSED THE INCIDENT, ATTENDED THE STATION WITH HER AND INTERPRETED THE AGGRS VERSION IN ENGLISH FOR THE REPORTING OFFICER. THE AGGR REPORTED ON THE OFFENCE DATE AND TIME THE RESP’S BEST FRIEND … ATTENDED THE AGGR’S RESIDENCE WITH ANOTHER MALE PERSON WHERE THEY BECAME VERBALLY ABUSIVE TOWARDS HER, TELLING THE AGGR THEY NEED TO TAKE THE RESP BACK, ALLOW HIM IN THE HOUSE, COOK HIM FOOD AND GIVE HIM SEX AND TOLD HER THE RESP WILL END UP DEAD BECAUSE HE CANNOT SURVIVE AND HIS BLOOD WILL BE ON YOUR HANDS. A FURTHER ARGUMENT OCCURRED AND … MADE THREATS TOWARDS HER MALE FRIEND … WHO WAS ALSO PRESENT IF HE DID NOT CEASE HELPING THE AGGR. THE AGGR THREATEN TO CALL POLICE AND … AND THE UNKNOWN MALE LEFT. DV APPLICATION NO: QP1600766134. DV CONDITION BREACHED: RESP IS TO BE OF GOOD BEHAVIOUR TO THE AGGR AND NOT COMMIT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AGAINST THE AGGR. PREVIOUS BREACH: NO. SEVERITY: MINOR. FREQUENCY: THIRD INSTANCE. ANY WEAPONS USED: NO. DAMAGE TO PROPERTY: NO. DRUGS AND/OR ALCOHOL INVOLVED: NO..”[44]
[43] Ibid, p 455.
[44] Ibid, pp 455 & 456.

On 11 July 2016, the Applicant failed to report under a community supervision order.[45]
[45] Ibid, p 397.
On 19 July 2016, the Applicant was charged with Contravention of a Domestic Violence Order.
On 29 August 2016, he entered a plea of guilty and was convicted. He received a $300 fine.[46] He does not deny this incident.[47]
[46] Ibid, pp 397 & 461.
[47] Statement, 24 March 2022 para 32.
On 16 September 2016, the Applicant was charged with wilful damage of police property, assault or obstruct police in a public place while adversely affected by an intoxicating substance and being drunk in a public place.
On 11 October 2016, there was a further incident not directly involving the Applicant. The police records state:
“At approximately 2:00pm on the 11th day of October 2016 the reporting officer attended the AGGRs residence with a QPS PLO. Police TUW the AGGR to confirm the incident report details. The reporting officer observed that the AGGRs understanding of the English language had improved a lot and PLO BAPTIST was present to assist with the language barrier. The AGGR remembers the incident and told police she reported it be because she thought the RESP had told a mutual friend (listed in the report) to attend her place and harass her to try to get the AGGR and RESP back together.
The AGGR now believes it was her church that told to go to her place and speak to her about the relationship breakdown because they are Christian.
The AGGR stated she attends the same church with and they pray together and that the pastor was telling her that she needs to let the RESP back into her life because there is no such thing as divorce in their religion. AGGR stated at no point the RESP attended the address on the day and did not pass on any messages from the RESP and left the address when he was asked.
The AGGR stated she only reported the incident because she spoke to the PLO at the time who told her she should report it to police.
The interview with the AGGR was recorded by the reporting officer.
There is No condition which prevents the RESP having another person contact the
AGGR and this case it appears the RESP has had no involvement in this matter what so ever and the AGG is making no allegations of DV. The Reporting officer will be unbounding the report as the offence did not occur due to the above reasons.
PIR2 supp to follow.”[48]
[48] Ibid, p 458.
On 23 November he entered a plea of guilty for the 16 September incident. He was convicted and fined $400. A formal censure letter was issued.[49] He does not recall this incident but does not dispute the police account of events.[50]
[49] Exhibit 4, pp 397, 457 & 465-466.
[50] Statement, 24 March 2022 para 33.
On 19 December 2016, a Domestic Violence Order was made against the Applicant. This prevented him from being within 100 meters of where his former wife or children live or work. The order was to apply until 18 December 2018.[51]
[51] Ibid, pp 400, 404.
On 28 and 29 December 2016 the Applicant was charged with being drunk in a public place. A conviction was recorded.[52]
[52] Ibid, p 397.
On 30 March 2017, the Applicant was charged with assault or obstruct a police officer. He entered a plea of guilty.
He was convicted on 25 August 2017 for the incident on 30 March 2017 and fined $150.[53] He has no recollection of this incident and does not dispute the police account.[54]
[53] Ibid, p 397.
[54] Statement, 24 March 2022 para 34.
On 2 January 2018, the Applicant breached a DV order. This is recorded as follows:
“Agg is the daughter of the resp. The agg resides at … The resp has no fixed address. The resp was staying in the agg’s garage temporarily. 2/1/18 at 1200pm the resp was at the agg’s house when he has become heavily intoxicated. The agg has told the resp that he is not allowed to stay with her anymore and he is not welcome back due to his intoxication. The agg has asked several times for the resp to leave but he refused and would not leave the garage. Agg contacted Police to assist with the removal of the resp. The resp was picked up by a family member and taken to another location.”[55]
[55] Exhibit 4, pp 473-474.
The Applicant has a very poor memory of this incident.
On 2 February 2018, the Applicant breached the Domestic Violence Order.[56] The circumstances as set out in a statement of facts file in the District Court in Brisbane were as follows:
“3. The complainant in this matter is Child 5 (DOB 2001). She is the daughter of the defendant and former wife and was a named person on the Protection Order. She was aged 16 at the time.
4. At 9am on 2 February 2018, the complainant was walking back home after missing her school bus. She saw the defendant get out of a car out the front of her house. They said hello to each other and the complainant started walking to the front door. The defendant beat her to the front door, opened it and went inside.
5. The defendant went into the living room and asked if this was where the complainant now lives. She said yes and he called it an ugly house. The defendant left the house and drove away.
6. A few minutes later the defendant came back, opened the front door and went inside the house. He looked in the kitchen and went into the bedrooms. He pointed at the complainant's mother's room and asked if that was her mother's room. He asked three times and the complainant nodded. The defendant tried to open it but it was locked.[57]
7. The defendant opened the complainant's eldest brother's room and started talking to him. After that conversation the defendant left and drove away.
8. A few minutes later the defendant came back into the house and told the complainant to make him something to drink. The complainant made him a tea and asked where he lives now. He said he just stays in the car. He left after he drank the tea.
9. The complainant attended Upper Mount Gravatt Police Station that night and reported the matter to police.
10. The defendant contravened the Protection Order by entering the premises where former wife and her children live on 3 occasions.”[58]
[56] Ibid, p 400.
[57] In evidence the Applicant denied he did this.
[58] Ibid, pp 404-405.
The Applicant does not deny this incident.[59] In evidence however, he denied going there more than once.
[59] Statement, 24 March 2022 para 35.
On 17 February 2018, the Applicant again knowingly breached the order. The circumstances were as follows:
“11. The complainant in this matter is former wife, the aggrieved person on the Protection Order. She was aged 40 at the time.
12. At 7pm on 17 February 2018 the complainant arrived home from grocery shopping. She was feeling tired so she went to take a rest in her daughter's room. She heard a car stop outside her house and looked out the window and saw some men wearing no shirts. She didn't know who they were so she went back to bed.
13. The complainant's 6 year old daughter, came running in to the room and shut the door behind her. It did not close completely as there was something stuck in the door frame. The complainant asked why she had shut the door and her daughter replied that the defendant was in the house.
14. The complainant switched the light in the bedroom off and saw a shadow of someone passing by the door. She looked through the gap in the door and saw that the defendant was in the kitchen.
15. After the defendant walked around the kitchen, he went into the lounge room and spoke to the complainant's 24 year old daughter,. Child 1 asked why the defendant was there. The defendant screamed "For me to be satisfied I need to end her life. I don't care if I get locked up, I just need to kill her".
16. The complainant was frightened and feared for her life. She was shaking and crying but stayed quiet so that the defendant wouldn’t hear her.
17. The defendant searched the house for the complainant without success and then went outside. Child 1 followed him. The defendant went to his car which was parked in front of the house on the side of the road. He opened the car boot, picked up a knife and showed it to Child 1. Child 1 told the defendant that she was going to call the police. The defendant put the knife back in the car boot and entered the car through the back passenger door. There were three other people in the car at the time.
18. Police were called and attended soon after.
19. On 8 March 2018, police applied for a warrant for the arrest of the defendant.
20. The defendant contravened the Protection Order by entering the premises where former wife and her children live and by threatening former wife.
Detection and Arrest
21. At 11:50pm on 23 March 2018, the defendant was pulled over on Carowell Street, Acacia Ridge for a roadside breath test. The defendant was detained as a result of the roadside breath test and taken to Richlands Watchhouse for a further test.
22. Police checks revealed that the defendant was wanted on an arrest warrant and also wanted for questioning in relation to the first breach of domestic violence matter. Police executed the warrant and charged him in relation to the contravention of a domestic violence order. The defendant was not offered the opportunity to participate in a record of interview due to him being under the influence of alcohol. The defendant was remanded in custody.”[60]
[60] Exhibit 4, pp 405-406.
“Charge(s)
Charge 1 of 2 / / [DFVPA2012] 177(2)(a) Contravention of domestic violence order (aggravated offence)
That on the 17th day of February 2018 at Acacia Ridge in the State of Queensland one [BCDC] being a respondent against whom a domestic violence order had been made contravened the order namely the protection order made on 19th of December 2016 in the Magistrates Court at Ipswich and [BCDC] was present in court when the order was made
and further
Charge 2 of 2 / / [CC] 419(1)&(2)&(3)(a)&(3)(b)(i)&47(9) Enter dwelling with intent by break at night uses/threatens violence Domestic Violence Offence
That on the 17th day of February 2018 at Acacia Ridge in the State of Queensland one [BCDC] entered the dwelling of one … with intent to commit an indictable offence in the dwelling and the entry was by means of a break and the offence was committed in the night and [BCDC] threatened to use actual violence and the offence is also a domestic violence offence
The facts in relation to this matter are as follows:
Facts of the charge 1 of 2
The defendant/respondent in this matter is a [BCDC] a 47 year old male who resides at an address unknown to Police.
The victim/aggrieved in this matter is a … a 41 year old female who resides at an address known to Police.
The defendant/respondent and the victim/aggrieved know each other.
On the 19th of December 2016 a domestic violence order against the defendant/respondent was put in place at Ipswich Magistrates Court to protect the victim/aggrieved and the victim/aggrieved’s children. The defendant/respondent was present at court when the order was made.
The conditions of the domestic violence order state that the respondent;
1) be of good behaviour towards the aggrieved and not commit domestic violence against the aggrieved;
2) is prohibited from remaining at, entering or attempting to enter premises where the aggrieved lives or works;
3) is prohibited from locating, attempting to locate or asking someone else to locate the named person/s;
4) is prohibited from contacting or attempting to contact or asking someone else to contact the aggrieved;
5) is prohibited from following or approaching of the aggrieved when the aggrieved is at any place;
6) be of good behaviour towards the named person and not commit associated domestic violence against the named person;
7) be of good behaviour towards the named person and not commit associated domestic violence against the named person and not expose the child to domestic violence;
8) is prohibited from remaining at, entering or attempting to enter premises, or approaching to within 100m of the premises where the named person/s lives or works;
9) is prohibited from contacting or attempting to contact or asking someone else to contact the named persons;
10) is prohibited from attending at or going to within 100m of the school or other premises where a child of the named person or a child who usually lives with the named person attends for the purposes of education or child care.
This order and its conditions continue in force to and including the 18th of December 2018.
The facts in relation to Charge 1.
On the 17th of February 2018 the defendant/respondent parked his vehicle outside the victim/aggrieved’s dwelling, within 100m of her and her children.
The facts in relation to Charge 2.
On the 17th of February 2018 at approximately 7:00pm at night the defendant/respondent left his vehicle and entered the front door of the dwelling of the victim/aggrieved and proceeded to walk to the kitchen before going to the lounge room to talk to three of the victim/aggrieved’s children. The children questioned why the defendant/respondent was there. The defendant/respondent screamed, "For me to be satisfied I need to end her life. I don't care if I get locked up, I just need to kill her". At the time of this incident the victim/aggrieved was hiding in her daughter's bedroom unbeknownst to the defendant/respondent. She states that she was very fearful and scared for her life. The defendant/respondent then returned to his vehicle and left the address.
On the 17th of February 2018 at 7:54pm Police attended the address of the victim/aggrieved and took up with the victim/aggrieved and her eldest daughter who witnessed the event.
On the 19th of February 2018 the victim/aggrieved attended the Acacia Ridge Police station to give a formal statement.
The defendant/respondent has no fixed place of abode. Police have conducted extensive inquiries to multiple addresses and have been unable to locate the defendant/respondent. As a result, a warrant was applied for by [Officer K] for the defendant/respondent’s arrest.
……
He entered a plea of guilty on 4 March 2019.[61] A further Protection Order was made with effect until 4 March 2022.[62] The Applicant does not deny breaching the order but denies having made a threat to kill his wife.[63] His evidence to the Tribunal was in contrast to a notation made on 6 March 2019 in the QCS records where he is reported to have said “I just wanted to kill her”.[64] It is also to be contrasted with the statement of agreed facts filed in the QLD District Court regarding the 2 February and 17 February 2018 incidents.[65]
[61] Ibid, p 402.
[62] Ibid, pp 475-477.
[63] Statement, 24 March 2022 para 36.
[64] Exhibit 4, p 624.
[65] Ibid, pp 404-406.
He was charged with breaches of the Criminal Code (QLD) and an aggravated offence of breaching a Domestic Violence Order. He entered a plea of guilty on 4 March 2019. He was sentenced to a period of 2 years imprisonment. He became eligible for parole on 4 March 2019.[66] He had already served 224 days of pre-sentence custody.
[66] Ibid, p 402.
Between 14 December 2018 and 23 February 2019, the Applicant breached Bail conditions on several occasions.[67] He says “I believe that I failed to report because I was sick on those days “. He says he breached bail conditions by failing to reside at the required address between 25 December 2018 and 6 March 2019 because he was homeless. He accepts that he failed to comply with a police direction between 14 and 22 December 2018, but he does not recall what it was. He entered a plea of guilty for these breaches.[68]
[67] Ibid, p 542-546.
[68] Statement, 24 March 2022 para 38.
On 23 March 2018, the Applicant was apprehended by police driving without a license and with a blood alcohol level of 0.064.[69] The Applicant says that he did not know that his licence had been suspended.[70]
[69] Exhibit 4, pp 504-507.
[70] Statement, 24 March 2022 para 37.
On 16 August 2018, the Applicant was disqualified from holding a driver’s license for 6 months.[71]
[71] Exhibit 4, p 687.
On 7 March 2019, the Applicant was arrested and charged with an act of public nuisance. The stated facts are as follows:
“Charge(s)
Charge 1 of 2 / / [SOA] 6(1) Commit public nuisance
That on the 7th day of March 2019 at Durack in the Richlands Division of the Brisbane Magistrates Court District in the State of Queensland [BCDC] committed a public nuisance offence
Charge 2 of 2 / / [SOA] 10 Being intoxicated in a public place
That on the 7th day of March 2019 at Durack in the Richlands Division of the Brisbane Magistrates Court District in the State of
Queensland one [BCDC] was intoxicated in a public place namely Blunder Road Durack
The facts in relation to this matter are as follows:
Facts of the charge 1 of 2
Facts of the Charge:
The defendant in this matter is [BCDC] (Date of birth: 1970).
At approximately 03:15am on Thursday the 7th day of March 2019, Police were called to detailed to attend the corner of Blunder Road and Inala Avenue in Durack as members from Queensland Ambulance Service (QAS) had called urgent priority for assistance in relation to an intoxicated male wandering on the road and acting in an erratic and aggressive manner.
When Police arrived on scene, Police observed the defendant walking in the middle of Blunder Road Durack, stumbling not listening to the requests or commands of QAS. QAS staff advised the male to stop drinking and asked various questioned in relation to his health and wellbeing. These questions have spurred on erratic behaviour from the defendant which was observed by Police officers including walking further onto the middle of the road, after multiple requests to come and talk on the footpath. As Police approached the defendant, the defendant was mumbling to himself, incoherent and nonsensical with his words. Police attempted to talk to the defendant, and ask simple questions including “what is your name” which were not met with a rational response.
The defendant was observed by Police to be extremely intoxicated and had the strong smell of alcohol emitting from his breath, blood shot eyes, unstable on his feet, slurred speech and irrational ramblings. Upon further questioning with Police, the defendant stated “I am a guerrilla, I am a guerrilla fighter and really strong”. The defendant then proceeded to flex his pectoral muscles and commenced doing push ups in the middle of the road. Police asked the defendant to stop the behaviour multiples times and to have a conversation on the footpath which was unsuccessful.
As a result, of the disorderly, offensive and threatening behaviours exhibited by the defendant, the defendant was arrested for public nuisance and being intoxicated in a public place. The defendant was then transported to Richlands Watchhouse in relation to the current charges and other unrelated charges not before the court today.
Due to the defendant’s intoxication level he was kept in custody until he was coherent and had the cognitive capacity to rationalise what was taking place. Once released from custody the defendant was served with a Notice to Appear before the Richlands Magistrates Court on the 10th day of April 2019.
Note to PROS:
Crim, traffic and non-torum history attached.”[72]
[72] Ibid, pp 485-487.
On 6 September 2019, the Applicant again contravened a Protection Order. Police records state:
“Charge(s)
Charge 1 of 1 / / [DFVPA2012] 177(2)(a) Contravention of domestic violence order (aggravated offence)
That on the 6th day of September 2019 at Inala in the State of Queensland one [BCDC] being a respondent against whom a domestic violence order had been made contravened the order namely the protection order made on the 4^th day of March 2019 in the District Court at Brisbane and [BCDC] was present in Court when the order was made
The facts in relation to this matter are as follows:
Facts of the charge 1 of 1
Facts of the Charge
The defendant in this matter is [BCDC] (DOB: 1970)
The Aggrieved in this matter is …
The defendant in this matter is named as a Respondent in a Domestic Violence Protection Order made in the Brisbane District Court on the 4th of March 2019. The Protection Order names … as the Aggrieved. The Protection Order's first condition '(1) The respondent be of good behaviour towards the aggrieved and not commit domestic violence against the aggrieved.' The Protection Order’s forth condition ‘(4) The respondent is prohibited from contacting or attempting to contact or asking someone else to contact the aggrieved.’ The Protection Order's fifth condition '(5) The respondent is prohibited from following or approaching the aggrieved when the aggrieved is at any place.' The Respondent was present in Court when this Protection Order was made. The Protection Order is in force to and including the 4th of March 2022.
At approximately 7:40pm on the 6th of September 2019 at … the defendant yelled at the Aggrieved contravening his Protection Order. The Aggrieved provided a statement in relation to this matter.
The Aggrieved states that at 7:38 she received a phone call from her friend, … Due to this phone call the Aggrieved became concerned for her children and went to her daughter’s house at … Once at … the Aggrieved saw the defendant get out of a maxi-taxi and walk into her daughter’s house.
The defendant walked out of the house and approached the car the Aggrieved was in and stood at the driver’s window.
'I give you both two weeks. You both will be dead. I will take my children back. You are Mutusi, You don't believe my tribe. I will use my tribe to eliminate you. You are the enemy.'
The defendant has then stated similar words to 'You are a witch. You are a slut and a prostitute. Your private part is a rubbish bin.' These comments were directed at the Aggieved.
On the 7th of September 2019 Police took up with the defendant and arrested him for contravening his Domestic Violence Order. The defendant was conveyed to the Richlands Watch House.
The defendant stated to Police he wanted to interview but Police health checks showed that the defendant was too intoxicated.
The defendant was charged for contravening his Protection Order and remanded in custody to appear in the Richlands Magistrates Court on the 9th of September 2019.
Note to Pros: Notice to allege, criminal and traffic history attached.
……
1 x witness statement - The defendant approached the car the Aggrieved was in and said to the Aggrieved ‘I give you both two weeks. You both will be dead. I will take my children back. You are Mutusi, You don’t believe my tribe. I will use my tribe to eliminate you. You are the enemy.’ The witness will further state that the Respondent was speaking about the Aggrieved while the Aggrieved was present and said ‘You are a witch. You have bewitched my wife. You made my wife a slut and a prostitute. Pastor … private part is a rubbish bin.’[73]
[73] Ibid, pp 493-494, 691-693.

The Applicant admits breaching the intervention order on that day but says that it was accidental. He denies making threats to his wife or her new partner.[74] This contradicts his reported statement to QCS as mentioned above.[75]
[74] Statement, 24 March 2022 para 42.
[75] Exhibit 4, p 624.
On 7 September 2019 the Applicant was arrested and returned to prison for breaching his parole.
On 1 November 2019 the Applicant entered a plea of guilty in respect of the breach on 6 September 2019. He was sentenced to an additional term of 6 months imprisonment.[76]
[76] Statement, 24 March 2022 para 43.
The Applicant now asserts, in respect of his guilty pleas that:
“There have been occasions on which I plead guilty to criminal offences (particularly contraventions of domestic violence orders) on the basis of a set of facts which I did not agree with. This is because I admit that I breached the order by attending former wife’s house, or coming within 100 metres of her, but deny that I made threats against her. My lawyer told me that I should plead guilty because I would be convicted at trial even on my own version of events and would not get the benefit of a plea of guilty to get a shorter sentence. I did not understand at the time, and I was not advised by my lawyer, that pleading guilty to these offences on the facts alleged would mean that I could not contest them later, including if my visa was cancelled (I did not even know my visa could be cancelled at that time).”[77]
[77] Ibid, para 44.
On 23 June 2020 the Applicant entered Immigration Detention in Brisbane. On 16 September 2020, he was transferred to Christmas Island.
Since entering detention, the Applicant has completed online courses dealing with drug and alcohol abuse, domestic violence and anger management.[78]
[78] Ibid, para 48-49.
Prior to this time, the Applicant had shown a reluctance, even under parole supervision, to engage in a positive way with alcohol treatment services, or DV services.[79]
[79] Exhibit 4, pp 603, 609-11, 624 & 625.
Annexed hereto and marked “B” a QLD Police Service Traffic Record document generated on 21 September 2016.[80]
[80] Ibid, p 525.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Section 501(1) of the Act provides that:
“The Minister may refuse to grant a visa to a person if the person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test. “
There are two issues presently before the Tribunal:
·whether the Applicant does not satisfy the Tribunal that the Applicant passes the character test; and if so;
·whether the Tribunal considers that the discretion in section 501(1) of the Act to refuse to grant the Applicant a visa should be exercised.
Does the Applicant Pass the Character Test?
The character test is defined in s 501(6) of the Act. Under s 501(6)(a), a person will not pass the character test if they have “a substantial criminal record”. This phrase, in turn, is relevantly defined in s 501(7)(c), which provides that a person will have a substantial criminal record if they have “been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more”.
On 4 March 2019, the Applicant was sentenced by the District Court of Queensland to a term of imprisonment of 2 years.
The Applicant properly concedes that he does not pass the character test.[81] The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has a “substantial criminal record” and, therefore, he does not pass the character test. The Tribunal must consider whether “there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked”.
[81] Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, para 2(b).
In considering whether to exercise this discretion, the Tribunal is bound by s 499(2A) to comply with any directions made under the Act. In this case, Direction No 90 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (“the Direction”) has application.[82]
[82] On 15 April 2021, the former applicable direction, Direction No. 79 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s501CA, was revoked and was replaced by Direction 90.
When previously before the Tribunal, Direction 79 was relevant. This was replaced on 15 April 2021 with Direction 90. There are material differences between Direction 79 and Direction 90, particularly in relation to the significance to be given to instances of family violence as defined, for example, Clause 8.2.
For the purposes of deciding whether to refuse or cancel a non-citizens visa or whether or not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen’s visa, paragraph 5.2 of the Direction contains several principles that must inform a decision maker’s application of the considerations identified in Part 2 where relevant to the decision.
The principles that are found in paragraph 5.2 of the Direction may be briefly stated as follows:
(1)Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia’s law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
(2)Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.
(3)The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
(4)Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non- citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time. However, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non- citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.
(5)Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen’s conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation. In particular, the inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence and the other types of conduct or suspected conduct mentioned in paragraph 8.4(2) (Expectations of the Australian Community) is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient in some circumstances, even if the non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
Paragraph 6 of the Direction provides that:
Informed by the principles in paragraph 5.2, a decision maker must take into account the considerations identified in sections 8 and 9, where relevant to the decision.
Paragraph 8 of the Direction sets out four Primary Considerations that the Tribunal must take into account and they are:
(1)protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(2)whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;
(3)the best interests of minor children in Australia; and
(4)expectations of the Australian community.
Paragraph 9 of the Direction sets out five Other Considerations which must be taken into account. These considerations are:
a)international non-refoulement obligations;
b)extent of impediments if removed;
c)impact on victims; and
d)links to the Australian community, including:
i)strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia; and
ii)impact on Australian business interests.
I note the importance of the Other Considerations being “other” considerations, as opposed to “secondary” considerations. As noted by Colvin J in Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection:[83]
“…Direction 65 [now Direction 90] makes clear that an evaluation is required in each case as to the weight to be given to the 'other considerations' (including non‑refoulement obligations). It requires both primary and other considerations to be given 'appropriate weight'. Direction 65 does provide that, generally, primary considerations should be given greater weight. They are primary in the sense that absent some factor that takes the case out of that which pertains 'generally' they are to be given greater weight. However, Direction 65 does not require that the other considerations be treated as secondary in all cases. Nor does it provide that primary considerations are 'normally' given greater weight. Rather, Direction 65 concerns the appropriate weight to be given to both 'primary' and 'other considerations'. In effect, it requires an inquiry as to whether one or more of the other considerations should be treated as being a primary consideration or the consideration to be afforded greatest weight in the particular circumstances of the case because it is outside the circumstances that generally apply.”[84]
[83] [2018] FCA 594.
[84] Ibid, [23].
OFFENDING HISTORY
The Applicant’s criminal record as produced by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission is outlined at Annexure C.
The Applicant’s offending commenced in August 2011, shortly after his arrival in Australia and continued until his most recent arrest and incarceration on 7 September 2019. This history is set out in detail above.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 1 – PROTECTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY
In considering this Primary Consideration 1, paragraph 8.1 of the Direction requires decision-makers to keep in mind the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. Decision-makers should have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that this country confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, that they will respect important institutions and that they will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
In determining the weight applicable to Primary Consideration 1, paragraph 8.1(2) of the Direction requires decision-makers to give consideration to:
a)The nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date; and
b)The risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
The Nature and Seriousness of the Applicant’s Conduct to Date
When assessing the nature and seriousness of a non-citizen’s criminal offending or other conduct to date, paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction specifies that decision-makers must have regard to a number of factors. I will now turn to addressing these considerations.
Sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction provides that without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, violent and/or sexual crimes; crimes of a violent nature against women or children (regardless of the sentence imposed); or acts of family violence (regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed) are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community.
The Applicant has serious convictions for family violence. Police records suggest a pattern of conduct commencing in April 2013 and continuing, in total disregard for intervention orders and even parole conditions, up to his final imprisonment on 7 September 2019. Even on his own version of the facts, his behaviour demonstrates a lack of insight into the impropriety of his conduct, disregard for the feelings of others, including his children and a total disregard for the law of this country. If one accepts the facts to be as alleged by the prosecution, and/or the agreed facts upon which pleas of guilty were entered by the Applicant, the facts are even more shocking. They include violence, abuse and threats to kill.
The Tribunal must have regard to the Applicant’s entire record. This is set out in detail above and in Annexures B and C.
Having regard to all these matters, the Applicant’s offending must be regarded as extremely serious.
Sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction provides that without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are considered by the Australian Government and the Australian community to be serious:
(i)causing a person to enter into or being party to a forced marriage (other than being a victim), regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed;
(ii)crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community (such as the elderly and the disabled), or government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties;
(iii)any conduct that forms the basis for a finding that a non-citizen does not pass an aspect of the character test that is dependent upon the decision-maker’s opinion (for example, section 501(6)(c));
(iv)where the non-citizen is in Australia, a crime committed while the non-citizen was in immigration detention, during an escape from immigration detention, or after the non-citizen escaped from immigration detention, but before the non-citizen was taken into immigration detention again, or an offence against section 197A of the Act, which prohibits escape from immigration detention.
I note that the Applicant’s minor children have at least been witnesses, if not actual victims of the Applicant’s family violence. As children are vulnerable members of the community, this is a very serious matter.
Sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction directs a decision-maker (subject to sub-paragraphs (a)(ii), (a)(iii) or (b)(i) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction) to the sentence(s) imposed by the Courts for a crime or crimes of a non-citizen/applicant. The imposition of a custodial term is regarded as the last resort in any reasonably and correctly applied sentencing process. Custodial terms are viewed as a reflection of the objective seriousness of an applicant’s offending.
The Applicant has been sentenced to two separate terms of imprisonment. The second involved a breach of parole. The Applicant has shown a consistent disregard for the laws of this country in relation to family violence, compliance with court orders, appropriate and non-violent interactions with police officers and use of a motor vehicle while intoxicated. This is very serious.
Sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction points a decision-maker to the frequency of a non-citizen’s offending and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness.
The Applicant has been a serial offender since 2011. His most recent conviction arose from a breach of parole. The Applicant has not responded in a positive way to the repeated instances of lenience being shown to him, over many years, by the Courts. He was given an explicit warning about the possible consequences of his continuing misconduct on 8 May 2019, to the effect that further offending may result in his deportation to DRC:[85]
“PPO identified a discrepancy in thought as his alcohol use is linked to his offending behaviour. PPO asked him to reflect about how misusing alcohol can lead him to offending behaviour which in turn can put at risk his place in the community. [BCDC] was able to identify that if continues drinking, he is likely to breach his DVO again, which will breach his COP, go to jail and get deported to Congo. [BCDC] therefore appears to have a sound understanding of the consequences of his actions.”[86]
Opportunities to engage with supportive services, even when directed to do so by parole officers, have been disregarded or not taken seriously. This amounts to an entrenched disregard for the law. The breach of parole in 2019 is in my view, a very serious escalation in the Applicant’s offending behaviour.
[85] Exhibit 4, p 605.
[86] Ibid.
Sub-paragraph (e) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction concerns itself with an examination of the cumulative effect of an Applicant’s repeated offending.
The cumulative effect of the Applicant’s behaviour has been extremely serious for his family. He has wasted the time of police, he has been violent towards them, he has consumed the resources of correctional services and the Courts. His driving offences suggest that he has frequently been a risk to himself and others on the roads. It is perhaps only good fortune that has prevented him causing serious injury or death. This is again, very serious.
Sub-paragraph (f) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction points to an inquiry as to whether a non-citizen has provided false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending.
This is not relevant in this case.
Sub-paragraph (g) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction looks for evidence about whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned about the consequences of further offending in terms of the non-citizen’s migration status.
Whether “formal” or not, the Applicant was warned about the potential consequences of re-offending. It made no difference.[87]
[87] Ibid.
I do not consider factors 9 (f) and (g) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction apply to the Applicant’s offending or circumstances. The rest of the relevant sub-paragraphs of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction, in their totality, weigh extremely heavily against revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
The Risk to the Australian Community Should the Applicant Commit Further Offences or Engage in Other Serious Conduct
Paragraph 8.1.2(1) provides that in considering the need to protect Australian community (including individuals, groups or institutions) from harm, decision-makers should have regard to the Government’s view that the Australian community’s tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.
Paragraph 8.1.2(2) provides that in assessing the risk that may be posted by the non-citizen to the Australian community, decision-makers must have regard to, cumulatively:
(a)the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct;
(b)the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account (i) information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen re-offending; and (ii) evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence; and
(c)where consideration is being given to whether to refuse to grant a visa to the non-citizen - whether the risk of harm may be affected by the duration and purpose of the non-citizen’s intended stay, the type of visa being applied for, and whether there are strong or compassionate reasons for granting a short stay visa.
Nature of harm should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct
The assessment of the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community were the Applicant to engage in further criminal or other serious conduct, is properly informed by the nature of his offending to date, including any escalation in his offending. This assessment is also informed by the provision in the Direction which stipulates that the Australian community’s tolerance for harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases.

This consideration is not relevant and therefore neutral.
This Other Consideration (d), paragraph 9.4.2 of the Direction, weighs slightly in favour of revocation
Findings: Other Considerations
The application of the Other Considerations in the present matter can be summarised as follows:
(a)international non-refoulement obligations: neutral
(b)extent of impediments if removed: weighs heavily in favour of revocation;
(c)impact on victims: neutral.
(d)links to the Australian community including the strength, nature, and duration of ties to Australia: weighs very slightly in favour of revocation; and
(e)the impact on Australian business interests: neutral
CONCLUSION
It is necessary to weigh up all of the primary and other considerations.
Primary consideration 1 weighs very heavily against revocation.
Primary consideration 2 weighs heavily against revocation.
Primary consideration 3 weighs slightly in favour of revocation.
Primary consideration 4 weighs heavily against revocation.
Other considerations, a, c and e are neutral.
Other consideration (b), weighs heavily in favour of revocation.
Other consideration (d), weighs very slightly in favour of revocation.
In my view, the proper application of the Direction favours the Tribunal not exercising the discretion to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa. I do not find that there is “another reason” pursuant to s501CA (4)(b)(ii) to revoke the original decision.
DECISION
The decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and eighty two (182) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member J Rau SC.

...........................[sgnd]...............................
Legal Administrative Assistant

Dated:   30 June 2022

Date of hearing: 14, 15 & 16 June 2022

Advocate for the Applicant:

Joel McComber

Sentry Law

Advocate for the Respondent:
Mia Donald

Sparke Helmore Lawyers

Annexure A – List of Exhibits

Exhibit no.

Lodged by

Document

1

Respondent

Amended Statement of Facts, Issues, and Contentions

2

Applicant

Further Statement of Facts, Issues, and Contentions

3

Applicant

Statement of Facts, Issues, and Contentions

4

Respondent

Remittal Bundle (pages 1-1070)

5

Applicant

Applicant’s Further Statement

6

Applicant

Bundle of Documents – Applicant’s Further Submissions:

1.   Applicant’s Further Submission Regarding Plaintiff M1 (19.05.2022)

2.   Statement from Dr N (19.05.2022)

7

Applicant

Bundle of Documents (295 pages)

8

Respondent

Further Bundle of Documents (pages 1071-1354)

Annexure B – QLD Police Service Traffic Record

Offence/Actn Date

Description/Court

Details

Result Date

Result

11/11/2016

Interlock Period Until 10/11/2018

-

-

-

11/08/2016

Interlock Period Until 10/08/2018

-

-

-

11/05/2016

Cumulative Disqualification Until 10/11/2016

-

-

-

11/05/2016

Disqualification Until 10/08/2016

-

-

-

30/03/2016

Immediate Suspension – QLD Licence Until 11/05/2016 (Immed Suspension)

-

-

-

30/03/2016

Drive Etc – M/V Over Mid but not Over High A/Limit

Ipswich MC

On all charges with driving a motor vehicle other than as allowed under an interlock condition vehicle not fitted with prescribed interlock

Probation 18 Mnths

0.135 BAC

11/05/2016

DISQ 6 Months Convicted and Disqualified

30/03/2016

Drive Fail to Wear Seat Belt

Sper MC

3 PTS

27/05/2016

$353.00

Enforcement Order (Sper)

30/03/2016

Interlock Driver Drive M/V not Fitted with Prescribed Interlock

Ipswich MC

On all charges with drink drive Mid Range

Probation 18 Mths

11/05/2016

DISQ 3 Months Convicted and Disqualified

13/05/2015

Interlock Period

11/05/2016

DISQ 3 Months

Convicted and Disqualified

13/11/2013

Cumulative Disqualification Until 12/05/2015

-

-

-

01/10/2013

Immediate Suspension – QLD Licence Until 13/11/2013 (Immed Suspension)

-

-

-

30/09/2013

Drive Etc-M/V- Under Influence of Liquor (Over High A/Limit)

Toowoomba MC

Probation 18 Mths

0.225 BAC

13/11/2013

DISQ 18 Months

Convicted and Disqualified

Annexure C - Applicant’s Offending History

Court

Court Date

Offence

Court Result

Toowoomba Magistrates Court

16/09/2014

Commit Public Nuisance (on 31/08/2014), Assault or Obstruct Police Officer (on 31/08/2014)

On all charges - no conviction recorded. Fined $600.00

Ipswich Magistrates Court

30/05/2016

Contravention of Domestic Violence Order (on 14/05/2016), Contravention of Domestic Violence Order (16/05/2016), Assault or Obstruct Police Officer in Public While Adversely Affected by Intoxicating Substance – Domestic Violence Order Offence (16/05/2016)

On all charged – no conviction recorded – probation period of 12 months

Ipswich Magistrates Court

30/06/2016

Commit Public Nuisance (on 19/05/2016)

No conviction recorded – fined $400.00

Ipswich Magistrates Court

29/08/2016

Contravention of Domestic Violence Order (on 19/07/2016)

Conviction recorded – fined $300.00

Ipswich Magistrates Court

23/11/2016

Being Intoxicated in a Public Place (on 16/09/2016), Assault or Obstruct Police Officer in Public While Adversely Affected by Intoxicating Substance (16/09/2016), Wilful Damage of Police Property (on 16/09/2016)

On all charges conviction recorded – fined $400.00 – in default imprisonment

Ipswich Magistrates Court

10/01/2017

Contravention of Domestic Violence Order (Aggravated Offence) (on 26/05/2016)

Conviction recorded – probation (9 months)

Ipswich Magistrates Court

25/08/2017

Assault or Obstruct Police Officer (on 30/03/2017)

Conviction recorded – fined $150.00

Ipswich Magistrates Court

13/11/2017

Wilful Damage

Conviction recorded – fined $250.00

Caboolture Magistrates Court

16/01/2019

Breach of Bail Condition

Conviction recorded – fined $200.00

Caboolture Magistrates Court

06/02/2019

Contravene Direction or Requirement (between 14/12/2018 and 22/12/2018)

Conviction recorded – fined $100.00

Brisbane District Court

04/03/2019

Contravention of Domestic Violence Order (Aggravated Offence) (on 02/02/2018)

Conviction recorded – sentenced to 6 month imprisonment

Brisbane District Court

04/03/2019

Contravention of Domestic Violence Order (Aggravated Offence) (on 17/02/2018)

Conviction recorded – not further punished

Brisbane District Court

04/03/2019

Enter Dwelling with Intent at Night Uses/Threatens Violence – Domestic Violence Offence

Conviction recorded – sentenced to two years imprisonment

Richlands Magistrates Court

10/04/2019

Commit Public Nuisance (on 07/03/2019), Being Intoxicated in a Public Place (on 07/03/2019)

On all charges conviction recorded – fined $900.00

Caboolture Magistrates Court

17/04/2019

Breach of Bail Condition (between 25/12/2018 & 05/03/2019) and Breach of Bail Condition (between 23/02/2019 and 02/03/2019)

On all charges – conviction recorded

Richlands Magistrates Court

01/11/2019

Contravention of Domestic Violence Order (Aggravated Offence) (on 06/09/2019)

Conviction Recorded – sentenced 6 months

Richlands Magistrates Court

01/11/2019

Breach of Probation Order Imposed on 17/04/2019 (Breach of Bail Condition x2)

For Breach of Orders – Conviction Recorded – fined $600.00

On all charges – conviction recorded – sentenced 1 month imprisonment

Annexure D – UNHCR Material
“F2008/029226- interviewed applicants at the IOM office in Kampala, Uganda on 04 December 2008 ,with the aid of a Swahili language interpreter supplied by IOM. Interpreters name Eric Buhendwa Gubandja
Interview preamble conducted (see details below of points discussed):
During the interview it is important that you tell the truth. If you do not ,your applicant will be refused.
If you do not understand anything that I say, please tell me and I will rephrase the question.
Everything that you say today will be held in confidence and will not be told to anyone outside the Australian Embassy and Australian Government.
If you would like to have a rest or a break during the interview you can.
Please tell me if you would like to do so.
I am sorry that I have to ask you personal questions but this is the nature of your application. I do not mean to cause offence or embarrassment.
The purpose of my questions is to clarify certain points or to gain a better understanding of your claims.
Do you understand everything that I have said to you? YES
Do you have any questions that you would like to ask before you start the interview? NO.
You will be given an opportunity to ask me any question at the end of the interview. If you have any questions during the interview please ask. Interpreter
You must keep everything you hear today confidential and must not tell anyone anything that you hear today.
You must translate what I say and only what I say. If the applicant does not understand what is translated you are to tell me.
Those Present at Interview:
8 persons of Congolese origin - presented for interview
PA stated his/her relationships to the secondary applicants as follows:
A2 son
A3 son
A4 daughter
A5 son
A6-wife
A7-daughter
A8-son
PA stated h~ family composition as follows:
Father: who died, but he could haveLast seen-2006
Mother: is 70 yearsCurrently living in CongoLast seen-2006
Siblings-Confirmed from RRF Folio page 18
Where is he? Congo
Last seen? 2006
Is he married? Yes
Does he have children? one
Are there any Children not included in application?
Child 6 -he disappeared
How old is he? He was 3,
So when was he born? Feb 5, 2003
Child 4 -she died
When was her birthday? 8 Aug 1999
What happened to him? One day we were taking breakfast in the morning we are mused to stay in the compound, after some time he just was playing near the gate, then he left and we didnt know at what time we left. When we tried to ask, one neighbour said he say him leaving the gate. We asked people in the stores nearby and they said they did not see him
What steps have you taken to find him? We went to the police and they said they would check on him and they would call us, but up to know we have no information
What happened to Child 4? One day she caught a headache and we took her to the dispensary close to us and when they test her they found she had a fever and gave us drugs to reduce her temperature but the next day she woke up very weak and we decided to take her to the big hospital and on the way she died.
When was this 3 June 2006
Are there any Dependents not included in application? no
First wife? yes
A2 stated her family composition as follows:
Father: age 73 Currently deceased Last seen-1986
Mother: 60 Currently living in Congo Last seen-2006
Siblings-Confirmed from RRF Folio pages 16-18
Where are they? A lives in Rwanda, BB in Kenya, the rest in Congo
Last seen? 2006
All of them? Except for the one in Rwanda
What about BB? Living together here
So when was the last time you saw her? March 2007
Are there any Children not included in application?
Are there any Dependents not included in application?
First husb?“ d? yes
Pregnant? .
Child 1- Are you pregnant? no
QUESTIONS:
Applicants claims humanitarian claims:
Former wife-Did you work in the pharmacy with your husband? No because I am working with my brother in the pharmacy
Your family has 2 pharmacies? We had 1 pharmacy
Did your husband work there? No
After your brother was kidnapped in March 2006, what happened to her? They came also to kidnap me
Where was your husband? He was in Bukavu selling fish
Where were you taken? In the same province of Goma, but to a place called Ndosho
What type of place were you taken to? It was a bush kind of prison where they used to take people
Were there other prisoners there? I found 2 people, I was the third one
How long were you there for? 1 day
What hospital did they take you to? Hospital Docs
Is that the same as Goma hospital? They are different because Goma is a general hospital and Docs is special for women who are raped and broken bones.
In your file it says you were taken to Goma hospital is that wrong? Docs is a hospital in Goma, but there is a general hospital in Goma too.
How long were you in the hospital? 1 day
How did you get out of the hospital? At that time, my husband was called because of the situation and he came he just came home and found that they had killed his young brother and people told him that his brother was killed because you and your wife weren't there, so go pick up your children and wife
So how did you get out of the hospital? The husband came with the children and they told me that people were looking for us, and [incomprehensible]
[BCDC]-How was the husband able to walk in and take her out? He came and found the children and he did not tell them where they were going, but when they reached the gate of the children and told them to wait out, he entered like coming on visit and he told her the children were outside, so come great them, when they reached out they went together.
Child 1 -did soldiers ever come to your house? In Goma?
Yes? Yes
Who was in the house when they came? The young brother of my father, and the young sister of my mother
Who else? My young brothers and sisters
Did they hurt your uncle? We were in one room with my aunt sleeping there and my uncle he was in another room, so we heard the gun shot, after that we heard loud force of the door and then we heard noise of people in the room.
So all the brothers and sisters were in one room with the aunt? Me and my young sisters with my auntie
So who was in the room with your uncle? He was alone
Where were your brothers? We were all in the room together
Did you stay in the room the whole time? We were in the room, we stayed there, but we heard the noise, asking him where is the father and mother, so the uncle says he doesn’t know, this is when we heard the shoot and the noise finished.
Did you see the soldiers? I didn’t see the soldiers, but I heard the noise, when we heard no more talking that is when we went and found that the uncle is killed already
[BCDC] -Where did you go after you picked up your wife from the hospital? X took her and we started to Kisoro
On foot or in a car? We were in a car
Then what? We took a bus to Kampala
How did you cross the border? We passed to the small way in the gardens, which is different to the border
When did you arrive in Uganda? 17 March 2006
Where do you live now? We live in Sambia, Kampala
In a house? Yes
Is it just 8 of them? Yes
How do you pay rent? I work to repair fridge
Did you ever live in the refugee camp? No
Do you have any letters or documents from UNHCR? Yes
Can I see them? Yes
10-notes they showed her Ugandan ID cards and a card from Actionaid
DECISION:
Satisfied that all secondary applicants are members of the family unit as per Reg 1.12.
PAs claims of discrimination were consistent with those as outlined on RRF
Applicants advise they that have not participated in any armed conflict or participated in any wars/fighting/killing.? No
On balance, satisfied applicant is the subject persecution in their home country and there are compelling reasons for the grant of the visa (subject to PIC) .
Claims credible.
Counselled applicants that if their circumstances change - marital status, pregnancy, death etc, they must notify the AHC. Advised that failure to do so may result in adverse outcome or delays to their application.
Completed Forms
Application to proceed to PIC
7903
Senior Visa Officer, Nairobi, Kenya
4 December 2008
=================================> (NDRYDEN) 08-DEC-2008
NOTES FROM UNHCR RRF COPIED BELOW:
4 . REFUGEE IM
Background information
The applicant is a Congolese refugee man aged 38, born in Goma, North Kivu, DRC. He hails from Nande ethnicity and professes Christian faith. The applicant is married and has seven children. The applicant’s father is deceased whereas his mother and brother are residing in DRC. The applicant lives in Uganda with his wife and six children while the whereabouts of one child (aged 5 years old) is unknown following his disappearance in December 2006 in Kampala, Uganda. The applicant is not affiliated to any military or political group.
Summary of the claim
The applicant was living with his family in Goma where he was engaged in fish trade while the applicant’s wife was managing a pharmacy in Goma, together with her brother: NM. In the course of his business, the applicant used to travel to Bukavu to sell the fish.
On 11 March 2006, the applicant’s brother-in-law; NM, went to Kitchanga village to sell medicine but he did not return. Following his brother in-law’s disappearance, the applicant and his wife tried to search for him but failed to find him. Later the applicant’s wife learnt that NM was arrested by unidentified soldiers and driven off to an unknown destination. On 13th March 2006, unidentified soldiers stormed into the applicant’s pharmacy and abducted his wife. During the attack, the applicant was on a business trip in Bukavu. Following the abduction, the applicant’s wife was taken to military barracks situated in the forest in Ndosho area. Upon reaching the Barracks, she was taken to a small house where she was confined for a night. While in detention, she was falsely accused of supplying drugs to the Mayi Mayi rebel group. She was brutally beaten all over her body with a whip and intensely interrogated on the false accusation levelled against her. In the course of the interrogation, she informed the soldiers that she was selling medicine to anyone who went to her pharmacy to purchase medicine. Despite her response, the soldiers continued to beat her up. Thereafter, two soldiers repeatedly raped her in turns. She was deprived of food, beddings and sanitation facilities. Owing to the physical and sexual assault, the applicants wife became seriously ill and the following day on 14 March 2006, she was taken to Goma hospital for treatment by the soldiers following instructions from a government soldier who was visiting the camp and saw the applicants state of health. The applicant does not know whether the barracks were controlled by the rebels or government soldiers.
While in the hospital, some unidentified soldiers went to the applicant’s house and found their young children as well as his sister-in-law (BB) and brother (KK). During the visit, the soldiers intensely interrogated the applicants’ children, sister-in-law and brother on the whereabouts of the applicant and his wife. Amid the interrogation, they informed them that the applicant had gone to Bukavu for business while the whereabouts of the applicant’s wife were unknown to them. Following their response, the soldiers shot the applicants brother (KK) and he died on the spot. The soldiers departed following the killing.
On 14 March 2006, the applicant received a phone call informing him of the disappearance of his brother-in-law and the abduction of his wife. On 16 March 2006, the applicant returned home from his trip and upon his arrival, he found a funeral procession taking place and was saddened to learn that his younger brother had been killed by the unidentified soldiers. Consequently, the applicant became afraid of his continued safety and security in DRC and decided to flee. The applicant went to Goma hospital and collected his wife who at the time was not being guarded by any soldier. The applicant, his children, wife and sister-in-law BB fled to Bunagana where they crossed the border into Uganda. The arrived in Uganda on 17 March 2006 and on 26 June 2006, they were granted refugee status by the Ugandan government.
The testimony of the applicant’s wife:
The applicant’s wife mentioned above was interviewed separately and she gave similar narration of her reasons for flight. Her statements tallied with the applicant’s testimony shown above.
Credibility assessment
The applicant’s testimony and that of his wife were credible, plausible and consistent in all material points. Their statements were also in line with the generally known facts about DRC.

Analysis of the refugee claim
UNHCR has carefully assessed the applicant’s case and established that the applicant and his wife have a well-founded fear of persecution on grounds of imputed political opinion pursuant to Article l (A) 2 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol. As shown above, the applicant’s family was attacked by unidentified soldiers on false accusation of selling medicine to the Mayi Mayi rebels. Owing to the accusation, the unidentified soldiers abducted the applicant’s wife and held her in captivity for one night. During time, the applicant’s wife was brutally beaten and repeatedly raped by the unidentified soldiers. Further, the unidentified soldiers killed the applicant’s brother when they failed to find the applicant and his wife.
Presently, it is highly probable that the applicant and his wife would be subjected to the same persecution as before by the unidentified soldiers because of the false accusations levelled against them by the unidentified soldiers. It is noted that various rebel groups and government forces continue to be active in eastern DRC are subjecting civilians to serious human rights abuses with impunity.
Further the applicant’s wife meets the definition of a refugee on grounds of membership of a particular social group (woman) as stipulated in the 1951 Geneva Convention. As a woman, the applicant’s wife is more susceptible to sexual and gender violence as well as abduction in eastern DRC where she originates from should she return to DRC now or in the foreseeable future. It is well documented that women in eastern DRC are continuing to face persecution in the form of rape, and other forms of sexual violence at the hands of various armed factions and government forces. It is noted that majority of these women have no avenues through which they can seek redress for the violation of their fundamental right to physical integrity. This assertion is corroborated by the country of origin information outlined above.
Exclusion Assessment
The applicant’s case was assessed by UNHCR in order to determine whether the applicant and his wife committed or engaged in any activities that would bring them within the scope of the Exclusion clause. Upon conclusion of the assessment, it was submitted that the applicant and his wife did not commit or engage in any excludable acts as defined under Article 1 F of the 1951 Geneva Convention and the 1967 Protocol thereof. Although the applicant’s wife was abducted by unidentified soldiers and held in captivity for one night, she did not engage in any military training or combat while in captivity.
5.NEED FOR RESETTLEMENT
(see Resettlement Handbook, Chapter 4)
Survivor of violence and torture
The applicant and his wife are survivors of violence. As shown above, the applicant’s brother was killed by unidentified soldiers in DRC when they failed to find the applicant and his wife. In addition, the applicant’s wife was abducted by unidentified soldiers and held in captivity for a night, while in captivity, she was subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. She was brutally beaten and repeatedly raped by the soldiers. She denied sanitation facilities, beddings and deprived of food. Given the trauma of having been subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in DRC, it is highly probable that the applicant has psychological problems stemming from their experiences. The applicant and his wife have not received any counseling to help them cope with what happened to them in DRC.
It is observed that people who have undergone the sort of treatment experienced by the applicant can benefit from counseling and from the provision of a safe place to recover which does not keep alive the memories of her experience. Uganda cannot offer the sort of services or environment. For some, recovery from the ill-treatment is delayed until such an environment is found, but with access to appropriate support and counseling recovery is possible and is expected to aid a persons prospects of integration.
Legal and Physical Protection Needs
Pursuant to the Resettlement Handbook, a refugee should be promoted for resettlement if there is a threat to physical safety or human rights in the country of refuge analogous to that considered under the refugee definition and rendering asylum untenable. The threat to human rights need not be by the Government of the country of asylum. The threat may be by other groups where the host country is not willing or able to provide effective protection.
The applicant and his family are confronted with security problems in Uganda. On 4 April 2007, the applicant’s wife was beaten by unknown persons in Kampala and she does not know the motive for the assault. The following day, her son was assaulted at home by unidentified man and to date he bears a scar on his face.
It is unknown whether the two incidents were related or not.
On 5 December 2006, the applicant’s son: Child 6 (aged 5 years), disappeared from home in Kampala. On the day of the applicant’s son’s disappearance, his son was seen playing in front of the applicant’s house with other children from the neighbourhood. Shortly thereafter, the applicant’s son could not be seen in the vicinity and the applicant’s wife who was at home at the time became afraid and began searching for their son in the neighbourhood but failed to find him. The applicant was not at home at the time as he had gone to work. The applicant’s wife then contacted the applicant and he came home immediately and they intensified their search but the search was unsuccessful. Consequently, they reported the incident to the Local Area Chairman, and the local police but they also failed to find the applicants son. The applicant and his wife also made several announcements over the radio, but they have not received any information to date.
The applicant believes that his son could have been abducted and sacrificed by a neighbour who was known to be practicing witch craft. Two weeks after the incident, the said neighbour was suspected of abducting two other children in the neighbourhood and sacrificing them. Following the suspicion, the said neighbour was apprehended and detained for a short while before being released. The corpses of the said two children were found buried in the neighbourhood with their heads missing.
Owing to the disappearance of the applicant’s son, the applicant and his family live in constant fear that the same fate would befall his remaining children. It is noted that child abduction and child sacrifices in Kampala is a common occurrence and the government has taken some minimal steps to address the problem. In light of the foregoing, it is clear that the safety and security of the applicant and his family cannot be guaranteed in Uganda.[117]
[117] This issue of safety in Uganda as at 2008 was not specific to the Applicant.
Voluntary Repatriation
The applicant and his family have been found to have a well-founded fear of persecution in their country of origin and cannot be expected to repatriate. In addition, they do not wish to do so. The applicant’s fear of persecution is credible as confirmed by the generally known facts about DRC and the country of origin information.[118]
[118] This view was formed based on the known facts as they were in 2008.
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing and after careful consideration of the case, UNHCR has determined that the applicant and his family are in continued need of international protection and neither voluntary repatriation nor local integration are viable options for them. The wellbeing of the applicant and his family require a secure living environment that is conducive to the pursuit of their protection needs. Resettlement to a third country remains the only feasible durable solution that will preserve their human rights and guarantee their protection. Accordingly, UNHCR recommends the applicant and his family for resettlement in a third country.
6.SPECIAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
The applicant and his wife would benefit from counselling in the third country of resettlement in order to recover from their past traumatic experiences.
The applicant’s son Child 2 is suffering from asthma and eye problem and he would benefit from medical treatment in the resettlement country.
7.ADDITIONAL REMARKS
The applicant and his wife got married traditionally in DRC. On 28 September 2008, they regularised their marriage in Kampala, in line with the teachings of their church (Zion Ministries International) following the ordination of the applicant’s wife as a pastor.”[119]
[119] Ibid, pp 810-817.

[2022] AATA 2054

30 June 2022

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction

Natural Justice

Exhibit no.	Lodged by	Document
1	Respondent	Amended Statement of Facts, Issues, and Contentions
2	Applicant	Further Statement of Facts, Issues, and Contentions
3	Applicant	Statement of Facts, Issues, and Contentions
4	Respondent	Remittal Bundle (pages 1-1070)
5	Applicant	Applicant’s Further Statement
6	Applicant	Bundle of Documents – Applicant’s Further Submissions: 1. Applicant’s Further Submission Regarding Plaintiff M1 (19.05.2022) 2. Statement from Dr N (19.05.2022)
7	Applicant	Bundle of Documents (295 pages)
8	Respondent	Further Bundle of Documents (pages 1071-1354)

Offence/Actn Date	Description/Court	Details	Result Date	Result
11/11/2016	Interlock Period Until 10/11/2018	-	-	-
11/08/2016	Interlock Period Until 10/08/2018	-	-	-
11/05/2016	Cumulative Disqualification Until 10/11/2016	-	-	-
11/05/2016	Disqualification Until 10/08/2016	-	-	-
30/03/2016	Immediate Suspension – QLD Licence Until 11/05/2016 (Immed Suspension)	-	-	-
30/03/2016	Drive Etc – M/V Over Mid but not Over High A/Limit Ipswich MC On all charges with driving a motor vehicle other than as allowed under an interlock condition vehicle not fitted with prescribed interlock Probation 18 Mnths	0.135 BAC	11/05/2016	DISQ 6 Months Convicted and Disqualified
30/03/2016	Drive Fail to Wear Seat Belt Sper MC	3 PTS	27/05/2016	$353.00 Enforcement Order (Sper)
30/03/2016	Interlock Driver Drive M/V not Fitted with Prescribed Interlock Ipswich MC On all charges with drink drive Mid Range Probation 18 Mths	11/05/2016	DISQ 3 Months Convicted and Disqualified
13/05/2015	Interlock Period	11/05/2016	DISQ 3 Months Convicted and Disqualified
13/11/2013	Cumulative Disqualification Until 12/05/2015	-	-	-
01/10/2013	Immediate Suspension – QLD Licence Until 13/11/2013 (Immed Suspension)	-	-	-
30/09/2013	Drive Etc-M/V- Under Influence of Liquor (Over High A/Limit) Toowoomba MC Probation 18 Mths	0.225 BAC	13/11/2013	DISQ 18 Months Convicted and Disqualified

Court	Court Date	Offence	Court Result
Toowoomba Magistrates Court	16/09/2014	Commit Public Nuisance (on 31/08/2014), Assault or Obstruct Police Officer (on 31/08/2014)	On all charges - no conviction recorded. Fined $600.00
Ipswich Magistrates Court	30/05/2016	Contravention of Domestic Violence Order (on 14/05/2016), Contravention of Domestic Violence Order (16/05/2016), Assault or Obstruct Police Officer in Public While Adversely Affected by Intoxicating Substance – Domestic Violence Order Offence (16/05/2016)	On all charged – no conviction recorded – probation period of 12 months
Ipswich Magistrates Court	30/06/2016	Commit Public Nuisance (on 19/05/2016)	No conviction recorded – fined $400.00
Ipswich Magistrates Court	29/08/2016	Contravention of Domestic Violence Order (on 19/07/2016)	Conviction recorded – fined $300.00
Ipswich Magistrates Court	23/11/2016	Being Intoxicated in a Public Place (on 16/09/2016), Assault or Obstruct Police Officer in Public While Adversely Affected by Intoxicating Substance (16/09/2016), Wilful Damage of Police Property (on 16/09/2016)	On all charges conviction recorded – fined $400.00 – in default imprisonment
Ipswich Magistrates Court	10/01/2017	Contravention of Domestic Violence Order (Aggravated Offence) (on 26/05/2016)	Conviction recorded – probation (9 months)
Ipswich Magistrates Court	25/08/2017	Assault or Obstruct Police Officer (on 30/03/2017)	Conviction recorded – fined $150.00
Ipswich Magistrates Court	13/11/2017	Wilful Damage	Conviction recorded – fined $250.00
Caboolture Magistrates Court	16/01/2019	Breach of Bail Condition	Conviction recorded – fined $200.00
Caboolture Magistrates Court	06/02/2019	Contravene Direction or Requirement (between 14/12/2018 and 22/12/2018)	Conviction recorded – fined $100.00
Brisbane District Court	04/03/2019	Contravention of Domestic Violence Order (Aggravated Offence) (on 02/02/2018)	Conviction recorded – sentenced to 6 month imprisonment
Brisbane District Court	04/03/2019	Contravention of Domestic Violence Order (Aggravated Offence) (on 17/02/2018)	Conviction recorded – not further punished
Brisbane District Court	04/03/2019	Enter Dwelling with Intent at Night Uses/Threatens Violence – Domestic Violence Offence	Conviction recorded – sentenced to two years imprisonment
Richlands Magistrates Court	10/04/2019	Commit Public Nuisance (on 07/03/2019), Being Intoxicated in a Public Place (on 07/03/2019)	On all charges conviction recorded – fined $900.00
Caboolture Magistrates Court	17/04/2019	Breach of Bail Condition (between 25/12/2018 & 05/03/2019) and Breach of Bail Condition (between 23/02/2019 and 02/03/2019)	On all charges – conviction recorded
Richlands Magistrates Court	01/11/2019	Contravention of Domestic Violence Order (Aggravated Offence) (on 06/09/2019)	Conviction Recorded – sentenced 6 months
Richlands Magistrates Court	01/11/2019	Breach of Probation Order Imposed on 17/04/2019 (Breach of Bail Condition x2)	For Breach of Orders – Conviction Recorded – fined $600.00 On all charges – conviction recorded – sentenced 1 month imprisonment