BNHW and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration)

[2018] AATA 2578

BNHW and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration) [2018] AATA 2578 (1 August 2018)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number:2018/2579           

Re:BNHW

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Home Affairs

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Dr Damien Cremean, Senior Member

Date:1 August 2018

Place:Melbourne

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

[sgd].......................................................................

Dr Damien Cremean, Senior Member

MIGRATION – decision not to revoke mandatory cancellation of visa – long history of offending – protection of community and community expectations – best interests of minor children – strength nature and duration of ties with Australia – international non-refoulement obligations – application of Jones v Dunkel -- decision affirmed

Legislation

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 499; 501; 501CA.

Cases

Ali v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 650
Ayoub v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCAFC 83
BCR16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 96
Casey v Repatriation Commission (1995) 39 ALD 34
McDonald v Director General of Social Security (1984) 1 FCR 354
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Re NDRW and Minister for Home Affairs [2018] AATA 2144
Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594.

Secondary Materials    

Ministerial Direction No. 65

REASONS FOR DECISION

Dr Damien Cremean, Senior Member

1 August 2018

Background

1. BNHW (the Applicant) makes application for review of a decision of a delegate of the Respondent, the Minister for Home Affairs (the Minister). The decision was made on 10 May 2018 under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) to refuse his application to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Class AH Subclass 101 Child (Migrant) Visa under s 501(3A) of the Act. His visa had been cancelled on 4 August 2017.

2. The Minister refused to revoke BNHW’s visa cancellation on the basis that he failed the character test under s 501(6)(a) of the Act as he has a substantial criminal record within the meaning of s 501(7)(c), and he was not satisfied that there was another reason why the original decision should be revoked given the nature and seriousness of his offending. The Minister found that there was an ongoing risk to the Australian community of BNHW’s re-offending, that the Australian community could be exposed to harm should BHNW re-offend in a similar fashion, and that the Australian community would expect that his visa would remain cancelled.

3. The discretion to cancel BNHW’s visa is guided by Ministerial Direction No. 65 (the Direction), which the Tribunal is bound to comply with in accordance with s 499(2A) of the Act.

4. Paragraph 8(1) of the Direction specifies that primary and other considerations must be taken into account when considering to exercise the discretion whether to, in these circumstances, revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa.

5. Paragraph 13(2) of Part C the Direction outlines the primary considerations which must be taken into account in deciding whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen’s visa. It provides the following are primary considerations:

   a)Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;

   b)The best interests of minor children in Australia;

   c)Expectations of the Australian community.

   These primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than other considerations, in accordance with paragraph 8(4) of the Direction

6. Paragraph 8(2) of the Direction specifies that in applying primary and other considerations, information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight.

7. As regards the risk of future criminal conduct, paragraph 6(2) of Annex A of the Direction states the grounds are enlivened if there is evidence suggesting that there is more than a minimal or remote chance that the person would engage in such conduct if allowed to remain in Australia.

8. Other considerations are set out in paragraph 14(1) of the Direction, and include, but are not limited to:

   ·International non-refoulement obligations;

   ·The strength, nature and duration of ties;

   ·The impact on victims; and

   ·The extent of impediments if removed.

   BNHW

9. BNHW is a national of Cambodia. He was born in a refugee camp in Thailand on 2 October 1980.

10. He arrived in Australia on 25 June 1996 aged 15, having been granted a Class AH Subclass 101 Child (Migrant) visa. He has remained in Australia since then.

11. BNHW initially lived with his biological mother, step-father and four siblings in suburban Melbourne. However his relationship with his mother soon deteriorated and by 1998 he was homeless and relying on street friends.

12. On 2 June 2017 BNHW was sentenced to an aggregate 12 months imprisonment by the Melbourne Magistrates Court on a number of charges(assaults) and a further aggregate 2 months imprisonment on other charges(burglaries and thefts) to be served concurrently. At the conclusion of his sentence he was immediately placed in detention.

13. On 4 August 2017 BNHW’s visa was cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Act and he was invited to make representations to the Minister to seek revocation of that cancellation decision. BNHW made representations to the Minister in accordance with the invitation and s 501CA(4)(a) on 24 August 2017. BNHW is seeking a review of the decision to not revoke the decision to cancel his visa.

14. Since shortly after arriving in Australia, and from the age of 17, BHNW has engaged in various criminal activities. His National Police Certificate is annexed to these Reasons in the Appendix.

    Principal Issues and Contentions

1. BNHW concedes, in both the written and oral submissions of his legal representatives, that he does not meet the character test in s 501(6) of the Act. I am satisfied that he fails the character test in s 501(6) of the Act as a result of his substantial criminal record as defined under s 501(7). The central issue in this matter is therefore, whether there is another reason the cancellation of his visa should be revoked.

2. At the hearing, Ms Liang, of Clayton Utz appeared on behalf of the Minister. She contended that the primary considerations of the protection of the Australian community and the community expectations outweigh the other considerations, and submitted that the decision under review should be affirmed.

3. Mr White of Counsel appeared on behalf of BNHW. Conversely, he submitted that considering all the evidence before the Tribunal, the decision under review should be set aside, and the discretion in s 501CA(4) should be exercised in BNHW’s favour on the basis of the relevant considerations.

   Hearing

4. At the hearing, the Applicant elected to call no evidence. The respondent did not call any witnesses.

5. By way of documentary evidence the Tribunal had before it the G-Documents and Summonsed Documents submitted by the Respondent, which were received into evidence.

6. Supporting documents were also filed by the Applicant, and were received into evidence.

7. In light of the Applicant calling no evidence the Respondent submitted that it would be relying on the doctrine in Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 and calling upon the Tribunal to draw adverse inferences from this circumstance.

8. Mr White, on the other hand, opposed the application of the rule in Jones v Dunkel and sought to argue that  although Jones v Dunkel is a rule of evidence, the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)(the AAT Act). In any event he said the rule had no application to the case sought to be advanced on behalf of BNHW.

9. In addressing these submissions, I turn to consider the Federal Court’s judgment in McDonald v Director General of Social Security (1984) 1 FCR 354. Woodward J articulated, at 356 that with respect to determining matters, the Tribunal makes reference to:

   …the statues under which it is operating, or in considerations of natural justice or common sense, [rather] than in the technical rules relating to onus of proof developed by the courts.

10. Section 2A of the AAT Act states that in carrying out its functions:

    the Tribunal must pursue the objective of providing a mechanism of review that is            fair, just, economical, informal and quick.

11. Section 33(1)(b) of the AAT Act states that the proceedings of the AAT:

    shall be conducted with as little formality and technicality, and with as much expedition....as a proper consideration of the matters before the Tribunal permit.

12. Moreover, s 33(1)(c) states:

    the Tribunal is not bound by the rules of evidence but may inform itself on any matter in such manner as it thinks appropriate.

13. In relation to s 33 of the AAT Act, Hill J in Casey v Repatriation Commission (1995) 39 ALD 34 stated (at 38)

    …s 33 of the AAT Act means what it says. The fact that material may be inadmissible in accordance with the law of evidence does not mean that it can not be admitted into evidence by the tribunal or taken into account by it. The criterion for admissibility of material in the tribunal is not to be found within the interstices of the rules of evidence but within the limits of relevance.

14. I should note also that the Tribunal’s function as an executive body does not preclude it from adopting the principles and procedures of a court.

15. In all the circumstances I am satisfied that Jones v Dunkel does apply in proceedings in the Tribunal and that I may apply it on this review to draw adverse inferences where appropriate from the Applicant’s failure to call any evidence.

    ANALYSIS

    PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS

    Protection of the Australian community

16. The Direction relevantly provides at paragraph 13.1(2) that when considering the protection of the Australian community, decision-makers should have regard 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.

    Nature and seriousness of the conduct

17. As mentioned previously, it was conceded by Mr White that BNHW failed the character test in s 501(6) of the Act. His position, in summary, was that s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) gives a broad discretion and that there are factors in this case justifying an exercise of discretion in favour of BNHW to set aside the decision under review. He mentioned, in particular, BNHW’s history of homelessness and drug taking and his intellectual disability.

18. On the other hand, Ms Liang placed emphasis on BNHW’s lengthy criminal history and, considering she said the nature and seriousness of his conduct over the years, submitted that the decision under review should be affirmed.

19. I am satisfied that BNHW’s lengthy criminal history constitutes a substantial criminal record as defined in s 501(7) of the Act; which in turn is constituted by serious offending which, by the Direction (paragraph 13.1.1(1)(a)), must be viewed very seriously.

20. Of particular concern is that BNHW’s criminal conduct has occurred over a 20 year period and is constituted by occasions of assault including family violence, assault police possess prohibited weapon, possess unregistered firearm and resist police. Over that same period there are also numerous convictions for theft, burglary, possess proceeds of crime criminal damage, drug and alcohol offences including traffick heroin.

21. A most troubling offence committed by BNHW is the one I have mentioned above when on 2 June 2017 he was sentenced to an aggregate of 12 months imprisonment by the Melbourne Magistrates Court for assault committed on his partner when he hit and punched her and attempted to choke her after putting her into a headlock. In his sentencing remarks, Magistrate Dwyer emphasised the seriousness of the offending, stating:

    …the assaults you subjected her to were serious. You attempted to choke her after putting her in a headlock. Domestic violence or violence in family scenarios or couples scenarios is very serious and in additional [sic] breaching family violence orders and notices are also very serious matters because the courts take intervention orders and the protection of people to be a very important right and safety issue and the court's orders need to be upheld.

22. On the same date he was sentenced by the Court to a further aggregate of 2 months imprisonment (to be served concurrently) for what the Magistrate said were a series of offences which saw BNHW enter people’s homes and ransack and steal their belongings.

23. Furthermore, the circumstances surrounding BNHW’s offence of obtain property by deception committed on 11 August 2016 are also concerning. This involved BNHW entering the hospital room of a patient recovering from heart surgery and stealing his wallet from his bedside table. The contents of the wallet were subsequently used to purchase various goods. This is particularly alarming as the patient was in a physically vulnerable state and was unable to respond to or prevent the offence from occurring. I consider this in particular in light of paragraph 13.1.1(1)(b) of the Direction, which states that crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community are serious.

    Risk to Australian community of re-offending

24. Mr White submitted that drug use appears to be a factor in much of BNHW’s offending, as does homelessness.

25. However, BNHW not having been called to give evidence I am quite unable in the circumstances to make any finding that BNHW has seen the error of his ways and, if released into the community, would no longer engage in criminal activity. Nor do I have anything on file in the way of a report by a professional which would support a finding that, for instance BNHW is only a low risk so far as committing offences in the future is concerned. Nothing else in the way of an assessment of his risk to the community has been provided to the Tribunal.

26. I am satisfied, given the nature and seriousness of his offending and its frequency that I cannot rule out the possibility of BNHW re-offending should he be released into the community.

27. Nor do I regard that risk as remote or distant. For almost all of the time he has been in Australia BNHW has been offending and engaged in criminal behaviour. Despite formal warnings being given to him, which he knew about and understood, I find he has continued to offend. I assume that BNHW has no family members who can speak favourably on his behalf, certainly none were called, and that he has no strong family ties to keep him away from the life of crime he has been pursuing until being jailed and then detained. Indeed, during the hearing Mr White submitted that BNHW has had difficulties forming positive relationships and also has difficulty understanding the consequences of his actions.

28. In all the circumstances, I consider that the risk of BNHW re offending if released into the community is real and substantial and, given the nature and seriousness of his offending to this point, I consider the community is exposed to the risk of harm if he is released. In particular, given the nature and seriousness of his offending in recent times I consider anyone close to him or nearby in a domestic context is in danger.

29. For the reasons set out above, I consider the protection of the Australian community to be a consideration which weighs strongly against the revocation of the cancellation of BNHW’s visa.

    Expectations of the Australian community

30. Paragraph 13.3 of the Direction relevantly states:

    The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has breached, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they will breach this trust or where the non-citizen has been convicted of offences in Australia or elsewhere, it may be appropriate to not revoke the mandatory visa cancellation of such a person. Non-revocation may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences are such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not hold a visa. Decision-makers should have due regard to the Government’s views in this respect.

31. As outlined above, there is a general expectation of the community that non-citizens will obey Australian laws while in Australia.

32. Given the nature of the offending of BNHW from 1998 to 2017, its nature and its frequency (including various burglaries, thefts and offences against police members and the occasion of stealing from a patient in hospital) and the fact that the Applicant had received four warnings from the relevant Department of the potential consequences of his offending, I find that the consideration of the expectations of the Australian community weighs against revocation of the cancellation of BNHW’s visa. In reaching this conclusion, I have taken into account the Applicant’s early life history in a refugee camp in Thailand and in Cambodia. In my view, the Australian community is entitled to expect, and would expect, protection from BNHW, and that his visa would and should remain cancelled.

33. Additionally, in reiterating the sentencing remarks of Magistrate Dwyer on 2 June 2017 domestic violence or violence in family scenarios is very serious and remains a forefront issue in contemporary Australian society. Given the strong emphasis there is in Australia currently against family violence, it is reasonable to conclude that the Australian community would not and does not tolerate violent behaviour, particularly if it is directed at family members.

    Best interests of minor children

34. I am given to understand in the materials that BNHW may have a son aged about 17 years and in such circumstances it is proper to ask whether I should  find that it is in the best interests of minor children in Australia to affirm the decision under review despite BNHW’s criminal record.

35. This was not a matter which I gather Mr White was actively pressing but it was addressed by Ms Liang nonetheless.

36. There is little I can say in the absence of any evidence being called and I have little on which I may make any findings of fact. In his statutory declaration to the Tribunal, BNHW states he believes the child in question is his son, but he is not sure, as no DNA test was ever done. Moreover, in his Response to the Department’s Notice of Intention to Consider Visa Cancellation, BNHW states that he has not had contact with the child since 2008 and is not in contact with the child’s mother.  

37. It is evident to me however that if BNHW does have a biological son and he has not kept in contact with him, it is reasonable to conclude that the revocation of a mandatory cancellation of BNHW’s visa is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the child’s best interests. In any event, as pointed out by Ms Liang the child, if he exists, may no longer be a minor or may be approaching that age.

38. For these reasons I have little or no basis to make a finding that is in the best interests of minor children in Australia for BNHW to remain here.

    OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

    Strength, nature and duration of ties

39. There can be no doubt that BNHW has ties with Australia. He came to Australia in June 1996 and has lived here since then, that is, for over 20 years. He has not left Australia. The Respondent accepts that BNHW has a mother, siblings and stepfather in Australia. However, as stated by Mr White during the hearing, BNHW became homeless in Australia within 6 months of his arrival. There is no evidence which demonstrates that BNHW continued to remain in contact with his family after becoming homeless or at any point since then. He has been homeless for much or most of his life in Australia. .

40. Furthermore, BNHW’s ties with Australia are much stronger than his ties with Cambodia.  Not only has BNHW lived here for over 20 years, he may have fathered a child here. But as I have stated he has not remained in contact with his son, if he has one, or with his family in Australia.  I am not informed about any relatives he may have in Cambodia.

1. BNHW owns no real or other property in Australia that I was told about and has no job actually waiting for him should he be released into the community, although he has some support from Jesuit Social Services(Perry House).

2. No evidence was given to me about any ongoing or permanent romantic relationships BNHW may have in Australia. I am not informed about friendships he may have.

3. The nature of BNHW’s ties with Australia seem to be therefore entirely based on him simply living here and based on nothing else.

4. In the circumstances I am not satisfied I can proceed to make a finding that the strength, nature and duration of his ties with Australia are such that they outweigh considerations based on his criminal history supporting non-revocation.

   International non-refoulement obligations

5. In considering whether to set aside or affirm the decision under review I am asked by Mr White to take into account international non-refoulement obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol (the Refugees Convention), the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

6. Ms Liang submitted that international non-refoulement obligations do not arise in this case. I was referred to the decision of Flick J in Ali v Minister forImmigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 650 (see especially at [30]). His Honour in that case refers to Full Court authority in BCR 16 v Minister forImmigration and Border Protection (2017) 248 FCR 456 to which I was also referred. Moreover, in accordance with the judgment of Colvin J in Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594, the consideration of non-refoulement should not be treated as a secondary consideration in applying the Direction.

7. I cannot agree that non-refoulement does not arise as an issue in this case. See the decision in Re NDRW and Minister for Home Affairs [2018] AATA 2144.

8. A non-refoulement obligation is an obligation not to forcibly return, deport or expel a person to a place where they will be at risk of a specific type of harm. See paragraph 14.1(1) of the Direction.

9. It must be acknowledged that if BNHW must return to Cambodia, life will be different for him and not without its challenges.

10. Mr White submitted that a non-refoulement obligation would be breached if BNHW is sent back to Cambodia, given particularly his history of drug taking (being currently on a methadone program) and homelessness. He further submitted that despite his criminal record there are sufficiently compelling circumstances in his case which should weigh in his favour.

11. Moreover, Mr White submitted that I can be sufficiently satisfied that BNHW does have a mild intellectual disability and that he in effect has special and personalised needs for social support, and would be even further on the fringes of society if returned to Cambodia. He submitted that BNHW should therefore be seen as a vulnerable man.

12. Furthermore, Mr White submitted I cannot be satisfied that if BNHW is sent back to Cambodia that he will not be at risk of a specific type of harm arising from these special circumstances.

13. Information was given to me about reported conditions in Cambodia.  The UN Human Rights Council Special Rapporteur, for example, has said in reference to Cambodia in a report dated 27 July 2017 that the rights of persons with psychosocial or mental health conditions is particularly worrying and that there is very little professional support available in the country for those with mental health conditions. Further, a Human Rights Watch report of 12 January 2017 reports on the Prey Speu detention centre in Phnom Penh where (either there or at one of 7 other centres) apparently undesirable people are detained or housed and such persons it is said include the homeless, those who use drugs and those who have a mental disability  

14. There is moreover a report on file from The Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture Inc dated 3 December 2002 which states that BNHW’s extreme vulnerability would make his survival in Cambodia very tenuous. It further states that he has no supportive connection with any individual or service in Cambodia and would have to survive in isolation.

15. This last report of the Foundation was prepared a long time ago and was prepared at a time before BNHW was to receive 3 further formal warnings when, despite those, he continued to offend. The report was expressed to be Confidential so I cannot say whether BNHW saw it or not. But evidently the formal warnings had no effect on his behaviour.

16. In relation to the reports and the factor of mental disability or impairment, I have already expressed my view above that I do not consider I am bound to accept that BNHW suffers a mental disability or impairment. Without being able to make a positive finding that he does suffer one, arising from the failure to call evidence I have mentioned, the Reports of the Special Rapporteur and of Human Rights Watch seem to be undermined. Consequently, the concession (of sorts) of the Minister that based on those reports the provision of services to people with disability and drug use may have some inadequacies lacks utility to that extent.

17. As regards the reports and the factor of drug use, I have some information before me given on behalf of the Minister that suitable arrangements exist or are being made in Cambodia to deal with this issue. For example, the Respondent pointed to the existence of 7 government and 3 private drug treatment centres and 170 community based drug treatment centres throughout Cambodia, as well as a national NGO which arranges for transportation for recovering drug addicts to receive methadone maintenance treatment in Phnom Penh.

18. I do not consider that in a matter of this kind I am required to go into a detailed analysis of those arrangements or indeed of conditions generally in Cambodia. See Ayoub vMinister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCAFC 83 at [28], where it was held by Flick, Griffiths and Perry JJ that:

    An exercise of the statutory power conferred by s 501 of the Migration Act does not require the same analysis to be undertaken as would be required if an application for a protection visa is made and s 36 is invoked.

19. I have some concern that if he returns to Cambodia BNHW may be homeless and if so may attract the attention of authorities but I am unclear about what the effect of this may be.  I am not told of any formal policy of the government there on homelessness.

20. I am satisfied however on the materials presented to me, in the absence of evidence being called, that the risk of harm to the Applicant in Cambodia is vague and speculative and is not something I can make a finding about insofar as it is based on BNHW’s mental or intellectual condition. I cannot make a finding that by being returned to Cambodia he will be exposed to a real risk of harm whether by reason of homelessness or otherwise.

21. I am not in a position therefore to make a finding that returning BNHW to Cambodia would or will constitute a breach of a non-refoulement obligation.

    Extent of impediments if removed

22. In considering paragraph 14.5(1)(a) of the Direction, BNHW is 37 years of age. There is, however, the issue of BNHW’s ability to access medical or other assistance, in Cambodia, given the apparent state of his health and the need to continue on a methadone program arising from his long standing drug addiction.

23. I am not sufficiently informed about conditions in Cambodia to make a finding about medical conditions there. I have only some information at my disposal. There is no dispute that the Cambodian health care system may not be up to Australian standards. Medical conditions there may not be the equal of those in Australia, but they will or may be conditions which all Cambodians experience.

24. If BNHW is returned to Cambodia he may well find himself homeless. This is of concern of course and I have considered homelessness above but I would add that there may be many others in Cambodia in the same position. The Respondent has acknowledged that if returned to Cambodia, BNHW would experience language barriers, speaking little Khmer, as per paragraph 14.5(1)(b) of the Direction. In considering paragraph 14.5(1)(c), he has not had contact with his family in Cambodia since 2007. Moreover, given BNHW’s history of drug use and dependence, his ability to relocate should he be returned to Cambodia would be affected.

25. Nevertheless, these in my view are considerations which weigh in favour of the exercise of discretion to revoke the cancellation of the visa.

    CONCLUSION

26. I am satisfied that BNHW fails the character test as conceded and that I may view his lengthy criminal record as involving serious offending. Indeed, aspects of his criminal record I am satisfied I may view very seriously.

27. Given the nature of his offending, I consider the Australian community is entitled to expect protection from BNHW from the kinds of conduct he has engaged in which constitute his criminal history. He was described in submissions to me as a violent man particularly of recent times and I do not disagree.

28. Again, given the nature of his offending, its frequency and its seriousness, I am satisfied the Australian community deserves to be and should be protected from such conduct and I am satisfied there is a risk that such conduct will or may occur again if BNHW is released into the community. Those close or nearby to him are in special need of protection.

29. Having taken into account primary and other considerations, and applying Suleiman v Ministerfor Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594, I am not satisfied any consideration is such as to reasonably require a finding that BNHW’s visa cancellation should be revoked.

30. I am satisfied that the nature and seriousness of BNHW’s offending is such as to outweigh any considerations arising in his favour out of non-refoulement obligations or out of impediments he may or will experience returning to Cambodia.

31. In all the circumstances I am satisfied the decision under review should be affirmed.

85.     I certify that the preceding 84 (eighty-four) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the written reasons herein of Dr Damien Cremean, Senior Member

[sgd]......................................................

Associate

Dated  1 August 2018

Date(s) of hearing

19 July 2017

Counsel for the Applicant

Solicitors for the Applicant

Mr Andrew White

Ms Sanja Nenadic, Refugee Legal

Solicitors for the Respondent

Ms Jiadi Liang, Clayton Utz

APPENDIX

Applicant’s National Police Certificate

Court	Date	Offence	Court Result
Melbourne Magistrates Court	2 June 2017	Recklessly cause injury criminal damage (intent damage/destroy) unlawful assault Contravene family violence safety notice Burglary (5 charges) Att. Burglary Contra-fam violence final Intervent ordr Commit indictable offence whilst on bail Theft (4 charges) Deal property suspected proceed of crime Theft Obtain property by deception (10 charges) Attempt to commit indictable offence Negligently deal with proceeds of crime	On each charge: aggregate 12 months imprisonment. Concurrent Aggregate 2 months imprisonment. Concurrent.
Pending charge	21 December 2016	Contravene fv final ivo criminal damage (intent damage/destroy)	At the date of issue, these charges have not been determined by a court. This cannot be regarded as a finding of guilt against the individual named above.
Melbourne County Court	07 May 2015	Contravene community correction order	Proven
Melbourne Magistrates Court	29 April 2015	Dishon u/take in retention stolen goods Commit indictable offence whilst on Bail Granted Possess heroin	86.     Aggregate 36 days imprisonment. Concurrent. Aggregate 36 days imprisonment. Concurrent.
Melbourne Magistrates Court Sitting	01 August 2014	Contravene suspended sentence order	Proven
Melbourne Magistrates Court	01 August 2014	Dishonestly receive stolen goods Deal property suspected proceed of crime Possess heroin Breach re 13/08/2013 Burglary (2 charges) Theft (2 charges)	87.     Aggregate 21 days imprisonment. Concurrent. With conviction, adjourned to 01/02/2016. Suspended sentence wholly restored. The restored term to be served is 6 months imprisonment.
Melbourne Magistrates Court	13 August 2013	Burglary (2 charges) Theft (2 charges)	88. Aggregate 6 months imprisonment. Concurrent. Sentence is wholly suspended under section 27 of the Sentencing Act 1991. 89.     Operational period is 12 months.
Melbourne County Court	12 July 2013	Traffick heroin (2 charges) Deal property suspected proceed of crime (2 charges)	Convicted community corrections order for 18 months.
Dandenong Magistrates Court	30 August 2011	Burglary (2 charges) Theft Possess drug of dependence (not named) Go equipped to steal/cheat	Aggregate 12 months imprisonment. Concurrent. Aggregate 12 months imprisonment. Concurrent.
Sunshine Magistrates Court	01 June 2010	Traffick drug of dependence Deal property suspected proceed of crime	Aggregate 1 month imprisonment. Concurrent. Aggregate 1 month imprisonment. Concurrent.
Melbourne Magistrates Court	17  December 2008	90.     Traffick heroin 91.     Deal property suspected proceed of crime (3 charges) 92.       93.     Possess  controlled weapon  without excuse 94.       95.     Handle/receive/retention stolen goods 96.       97.     Deal property suspected proceed of crime 98.       99.     Burglary 100.      101.      102.      103.      104.    Theft 105.      106.      107.      108.      109.    Fail to answer Bail Granted  (2  charges)	12 months imprisonment. period to be served part concurrently  is 6 months. On each charge: 3 months imprisonment. period to be served part concurrently  is  2 months. 1 month imprisonment. cumulative. 3 months imprisonment. period to be served part concurrently  is  2 months 3 months imprisonment. Concurrent. 110.    Aggregate 18 months imprisonment. 111.    base sentence. pay compensation $423.00 112.    Aggregate 18 months imprisonment. Base sentence. 113.    Aggregate 3 months imprisonment. Cumulative. as [BNHW].
Melbourne Magistrates Court	28 August 2007	Burglary (4 charges) theft (3 charges) att. Burglary Poss proh weapon w/o exemption/approvaI	Aggregate 12 months imprisonment. Concurrent 1  month  imprisonment.
Melbourne County Court	24 October 2006	Proh person possess unreg firearm Possess controlled weapon without excuse	7 months  imprisonment 2 months imprisonment concurrent. 4 months of sentence concurrent with sentence now serving.
Melbourne Magistrates Court	01 August 2006	Att. Burglary go equipped to steal/cheat Burglary (2 charges) theft (3 charges) intentionally damage property att. Burglary knowingly deal with proceeds of crime Handle/receive/retention stolen goods knowingly deal with proceeds of crime	On each charge: aggregate 9 months imprisonment. Concurrent Aggregate 9 months imprisonment. Concurrent. On each charge: aggregate 9 months imprisonment. Concurrent
Dandenong Magistrates Court	15 February 2006	Act/threaten sec/good order-police gaol	With  conviction, fined $50.00
Melbourne Magistrates Court	03 November 2005	Burglary Theft	Aggregate 2 months imprisonment. Concurrent. Aggregate 2 months imprisonment. Concurrent. Pay compensation $2420.00
Dandenong Magistrates Court	19 May 2005	Burglary Theft 114.    go equipped to steal I/cheat 115.    traffick heroin (2 charges) use heroin	Aggregate 12 months imprisonment. Concurrent.
Dandenong Magistrates Court	19 May 2005	116.    Handle/receive/retention Stolen goods (3 charges) deal property suspected proceed of crime. Possess heroin	On each charge: aggregate 12 months imprisonment. Concurrent. Aggregate 12 months imprisonment. Concurrent.
Dandenong Magistrates Court	10 August 2004	Burglary Theft (5 charges) burglary (5 charges) unlawful assault	4 months imprisonment. Concurrent. On each charge: 117.   Aggregate 6 months imprisonment. 118.   Concurrent. as [BNHW].
Melbourne Magistrates Court	30 January  2004	Burglary (3 charges) Theft (5 charges) go equipped to steal/cheat (2 charges) 119.    handle/receive/retention stolen goods possess property being proceeds of crime (2 charges)	Aggregate 12 months imprisonment. Concurrent. Aggregate 12 months imprisonment. Concurrent.
Dandenong Magistrates Court	19 September 2003	Burglary	2  months imprisonment. concurrent.
Melbourne Magistrates Court	08 May 2003	120.    Burglary 121.    possess controlled 122.    weapon without excuse 123.    poss proh  weapon w/o 124.    exemption/approval	On each charge aggregate  9 months imprisonment. Concurrent. 125.    sentence of imprisonment to be served by way of a combined  custody  and 126. treatment order under section 18 of the sentencing ACT 1991. 127.    the period to be served in custody is 6 months and the balance to be served in the community
Melbourne Magistrates Court	08 May 2003	128.    Assault police 129.    resist police (2 charges) bring money to  vie 130.    -proceeds of crime 131.    theft from motor vehicle att. Theft from motor vehicle 132.    traffick heroin 133.      134.      135.    Possess property being proceeds of crime (2 charges) 136.      137.      138.      139.      140.      141.      142.      143.    Breach of suspended sentence  order 144.      145.      146.    Breach re 02/10/2002 burglary  (2  charges) 147.    theft (2 charges)	148.    Aggregate 9 months imprisonment. Concurrent. 149.    sentence of imprisonment to be served by way of a combined custody and 150. Treatment order under section 18 of the sentencing ACT 1991. 151.    the period to be served in custody is 6 months and the balance to be served in the community 152.      153.    On each charge: aggregate 9 months imprisonment. Concurrent. 154. Sentence of imprisonment to be served by way of a combined custody and treatment order under section 18 of the Sentencing Act 1991. 155.    the period to be served in custody is 6 months and the balance to be served in the community 156.      157.    Proven 158.      159.      160.    Suspended sentence wholly restored.  The  restored term to be served is 6 months imprisonment.
Melbourne Magistrates Court	02 October  2002	Burglary  (2 charges) theft (2 charges) Breach of suspended sentence order 161.	162.    Aggregate 9 months imprisonment concurrent. 163.    sentence  is partially 164. Suspended under section 27 of the sentencing ACT 1991. Term to be served is 3 months imprisonment for 12 months. 165.      166.      Proven
Melbourne Magistrates Court	02 October 2002	167.    Breach re 23/04/2002 burglary 168.    theft 169.    use heroin possess heroin traffick heroin 170.    possess property being proceeds of crime fail to answer Bail Granted	171.    Suspended sentence wholly restored.  The restored term to be served is 3 months imprisonment.
Sunshine Magistrates Court	23  April 2002	172.    Burglary theft 173.    use heroin possess heroin 174.    possess property being proceeds of crime 175.    fail to answer Bail Granted 176.      Traffick  heroin	177. Aggregate 3 months imprisonment. Concurrent sentence is wholly suspended under section 27 of the Sentencing Act 1991 for 3 months. 178. Aggregate 3 months Imprisonment. Concurrent. Sentence is wholly suspended under section 27 of the Sentencing Act 1991 for 3 months.
Dandenong Magistrates Court	31 August 2001	179.    Use heroin 180.    failure to comply with undertaking order (2 charges) 181.    fail to answer bail theft of a motor vehicle Possess heroin	182.    Aggregate 3 months imprisonment. Concurrent. 183.      184.      185.      186.      187.      188.    Aggregate 3 months imprisonment. Concurrent.
Dandenong Magistrates Court	14 August 2001	189.    Burglary 190.      191.    Theft (3 charges) retention of stolen goods 192.    Burglary (3 charges) attempt to commit indictable offence 193.    Go equipped to steal/cheat	194.    9 months imprisonment. concurrent. 195.      196.      197.      198.    On each charge: 199.    4 months imprisonment. Concurrent. 200.      201.      202.    9 months imprisonment. Concurrent. 203.      1 month imprisonment. concurrent
Dandenong Magistrates Court	14 August 2001	Possess property being proceeds of crime	4 months imprisonment. Concurrent as [BNHW].
Dandenong Magistrates Court	05 March 2001	Burglary theft (2 charges) use heroin Go equipped to steal/cheat possess regulated weapon Traffick heroin Burglary	Aggregate 6 months imprisonment. Concurrent. On each charge: aggregate 6 months imprisonment. Concurrent. Aggregate 6 months imprisonment. Concurrent. Aggregate 6 months imprisonment. Concurrent.
Pending Charge	25 August 2000	Theft-from shop (Shopsteal)	At the date of issue, this charge has not  been determined by a court. This cannot be regarded as a finding of guilt against the individual named above.
Melbourne Magistrates Court	03 August 2000	Theft Possess money – being proceeds of crime	With conviction, adjourned to 26/07/2001. With conviction, adjourned to  26/07/2001
Melbourne Magistrates Court	27 July 2000	Criminal damage (intent damage/destroy) Assault with weapon Unlawful assault possess heroin use heroin	With conviction, adjourned to  26/07/2001
Melbourne Magistrates Court	29 June 2000	Possess heroin use heroin possess suspected stolen goods Possess regulated weapon possess prescribed weapon  w'out exempt'n	On each charge: 3 months  detention  in a youth training centre On each charge: 3 months  detention  in a youth training centre
Melbourne Magistrates Court	28 April 2000	Traffick heroin (2 charges)	With conviction, adjourned to  22/12/2000
Melbourne Magistrates Court	28 April 2000	Known thief loiter in public place Possess money - being proceeds of crime	With conviction, adjourned to 22/12/2000. With conviction, adjourned to 22/12/2000.
Dandenong Magistrates Court	14 July 1999	Handle/receive/dispose of stolen goods (4 charges) Go equipped to steal/cheat	On each charge: 2 months detention in a youth training centre. 2 months detention in a youth training centre
Dandenong Magistrates Court	03 May 1999	Failure to comply with cbo Fail to answer Bail Granted Theft Att. to obtain property by deception	Convicted and fined $50. With conviction, fined an aggregate  of $500.00 with $53.00 statutory costs. With conviction, fined an aggregate  of  $500.00 with $53.00 statutory costs. With conviction, fined an aggregate  of  $500.00 with $53.00 statutory costs as [BNHW]
Dandenong Magistrates Court	04 February 1999	Traffick heroin Handle/receive/retention stolen goods Obtain property by deception  (6 charges) Burglary (3  charges) Theft (2 charges)	Convicted and a community based order for 12 months to perform 150 hours of unpaid community work over 12  months. Convicted and a community based  order for 12 months to perform 150 hours  of unpaid community work over 12  months. On each charge: convicted and a community based order for 12 months to perform 150 hours of unpaid community work over 12  months. Pay compensation $200.00
Dandenong Magistrates Court	04 Feb 1999	Theft Theft Possess heroin Fail to answer Bail. Granted	Convicted and a community based order for 12  months to perform 150 hours of unpaid community work over 12  months. pay compensation $300.00 Convicted and a community based order for 12 months to perform 150 hours of unpaid community work over 12  months. pay compensation $500.00 Convicted and a community based order for 12  months to perform 150 hours of unpaid community work over 12  months. Convicted and discharged
Dandenong Magistrates Court	28 August 1998	Burglary- intent to steal theft	Without conviction, adjourned to 27/08/1999.