Boaza and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

Boaza and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2022] AATA 2645 (18 August 2022)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2022/4218
Re:Tupuna Albert Boaza
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member A Poljak
Date:18 August 2022
Place:Sydney

The decision under review is set aside and in substitution I find that the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s visa be revoked.
.................................[SGD].......................................
Senior Member A Poljak
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – visa cancellation under subsection 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – cancellation not revoked under subsection 501CA(4) – where the applicant has a substantial criminal record – where the applicant does not pass the character test – issue: is there another reason why the visa cancellation should be revoked? – Direction no. 90 considered – relevant law and material considered – decision under review set aside and substituted.
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Direction no. 90 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA
National Drug Strategy 2017-2026
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member A Poljak
18 August 2022

Mr Boaza, the applicant, was born in the Cook Islands and is a citizen of New Zealand. The applicant first arrived in Australia as a young child in 1997. He has departed and returned to Australia on multiple occasions, with his most recent arrival on 7 February 2013.
On 10 June 2014, the applicant was convicted of two counts of supply a prohibited drug, deal with property suspected proceeds of crime and goods in personal custody suspected being stolen (m/v); on 8 May 2018, he was convicted of destroy or damage property <=$2000 (DV)-T2; and on 26 June 2020, specially aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence-wound-SI.
On 27 July 2020, the applicant's visa was mandatorily cancelled under subsection 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) (visa cancellation). On 25 May 2022, a delegate of the Minister decided, pursuant to subsection 501CA(4) of the Act, not to revoke the decision to cancel the applicant's Special Category (Temporary) visa (the visa). This is the decision under review in these proceedings (decision under review).
Issues
The applicant does not dispute that he does not pass the character test as defined by subsection 501(6) of the Act.
The sole issue is for determination is whether there is another reason why the visa cancellation should be revoked, under subparagraph 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act.
Relevant Legislative Provisions
Subsection 501(3A) of the Act provides that the Minister must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test and is serving a full-time custodial sentence of imprisonment.
Subsection 501(6) defines the character test. Relevantly, a person does not pass the character test if the person has a “substantial criminal record” as defined by subsection 501(7). Paragraph 501(7)(c) provides that for the purposes of the character test, a person has a substantial criminal record if the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
Subsection 501CA(4) of the Act provides that the Minister may revoke the original decision if the Minister is satisfied that the person passes the character test as defined by section 501; or that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked. This is a discretionary power.
A decision under subsection 501CA(4) of the Act involves an assessment and evaluation of the factors for and against revoking the mandatory cancellation decision. A determination under subsection 501CA(4) must be carried out in accordance with any written directions given by the Minister under the Act: subsection 499(2A).
In considering whether to exercise the discretion in subsection 501CA(4) of the Act, the Tribunal is required by subsection 499(2A) of the Act to have regard to the Minister’s Direction relevant to section 501CA, Direction no. 90—Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (Direction 90).
The preamble to Direction 90 provides a framework for the guidance of decision-makers. Paragraph 5.1 comprises a statement of objectives. Paragraph 5.2 sets out 'Principles' that should inform the decision-makers exercise of discretion:
(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 measureable 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 guides decision-makers as to the exercise of the visa cancellation, refusal or revocation discretion. Relevantly in relation to considering revocation of a mandatory cancellation, it provides:
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 7 of Direction 90 states that decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. Generally, primary considerations should be given greater weight than the other considerations: paragraph 7(2).
Paragraph 8 of Direction 90 identifies the four 'Primary considerations', which the Tribunal must consider in determining a revocation request. They are (paragraph 8(1)-(4)):
·protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
·whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;
·the best interests of minor children in Australia; and
·expectations of the Australian community.
Paragraph 9 identifies other considerations which must be taken into account. Those other considerations listed are non-exhaustive, and are as follows (paragraph 9(1)):
·international non-refoulement obligations;
·extent of impediments if removed;
·impact on victims; and
·links to the Australian community, including:
ostrength, nature and duration of ties to Australia; and
oimpact on Australian business interests.
Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct
The Tribunal must have regard as a primary consideration to the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct. In this respect, paragraph 8.1(1) of Direction 90 states as follows:
When considering protection of the Australian community, decision-makers should keep in mind that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. In this respect, decision-makers should have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
Paragraph 8.1(2) of Direction 90 provides that decision-makers should also 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.
Nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct
With respect to the nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct, factors to be taken into account are set out in paragraph 8.1.1(1) of Direction 90. Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a)(i) of Direction 90 states that, without limiting the range of offences that may be considered very serious, violent crimes are viewed very seriously.
As conceded by the applicant, the applicant's conduct is viewed very seriously.
The applicant’s conviction for specially aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence-wound-SI is especially serious as this offence was violent in nature. An agreed facts sheet sets out the details of the offence and describes how the applicant and co-offenders forcefully entered the victim’s home. They rummaged around the house and asked the victim if he had any money. The victim was attacked while trying to defend himself and was later taken to hospital. At hospital it was noted that he suffered a wound to his forehead and left ankle requiring suturing; a right occipital acute scalp haematoma; bruising to his left knee, chest, and shoulder; and soreness to the right side of his body and lower back and neck. The agreed facts sheet does not specify which offender caused specific injury to the victim however it does record that the victim’s DNA was located on the index finger of gloves containing the applicant’s DNA. The victim’s DNA was also located on shoes and socks worn by the applicant, as verified by his DNA being located on the same items.
The applicant has attempted to portray his conduct and role in the offence as not being violent and said he only pushed the victim off his co-accused and tried to stop the victim from alerting the Police. In the Sentencing Assessment Report dated 4 June 2020, it recorded that the applicant stated, ‘his violent behaviour was an attempt to stop the victim alerting the neighbours or the Police’. On sentencing however, while Judge English did not specify exactly what role each offender played, she found that ‘[e]ach offender had an equal part to play in the offending’ and found all the offenders ‘chose to viciously assault [the victim] resulting in hospital attendance’.
The offence was committed while the applicant was subject to a s 9 bond from a previous offence. On sentencing Judge English called up the applicant’s s 9 bond and sentenced the applicant to a fixed term of imprisonment for one month. Regarding the substantive offence, of specially aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence-wound-SI, the applicant was sentenced to term of imprisonment of three years with a non-parole period of one year and six months.
The seriousness of the applicant’s conduct is reinforced by the sentences imposed on him. Sentences involving terms of imprisonment are the last resort in the sentencing hierarchy and any such sentence must be viewed as a reflection of the objective seriousness of the offences involved.
The applicant’s other criminal offending includes drug related offences. These are also considered serious as drug offending causes great harm to the community through injury, chronic conditions and preventable diseases, mental health problems, road trauma; violence and other crime, engagement in the criminal justice system, domestic and family violence; child protection issues and economic harms associated with healthcare and law enforcement costs; see National Drug Strategy 2017-2026.
On 10 June 2014, the applicant was convicted of supply a prohibited drug, deal with property suspected proceeds of crime and goods in personal custody suspected being stolen (m/v). The police fact sheet details that on 22 January 2014, the applicant was pulled over by the police. The police could smell a strong scent of cannabis emanating from the open driver’s window of the vehicle the applicant was seated in. The police questioned the applicant, and he informed the police that he had cannabis in his possession in a black bum-bag. The police conducted a search of the vehicle and found in the bum-bag 26 small clear plastic resealable bags containing cannabis totalling 35.5 grams, in the glove box the Police found 30 small clear plastic resealable bags containing cannabis totalling 40.9 grams, 3 small clear plastic resealable bags containing cannabis totalling 6.9 grams in a compartment below the steering wheel, $70 on top of the bum-bag and four mobile phones. As a result of the offence, the applicant received 175 community service order and a 2-year good behaviour bond.
On 7 March 2018, the applicant was convicted of supply a prohibited drug and received a suspended sentence on entering a s 12 good behaviour bond for 4 months.
On 8 May 2018, the applicant was convicted of destroy or damage property <= $2000 (DV)- T2. The sentencing remarks record that the applicant claimed his younger sister rang him and stated that the applicant’s stepfather had hit her across the mouth. The applicant attended his stepfather’s home and banged on a door in anger, causing the door damage. The applicant received a s 9 good behaviour bond for 12 months.
Risk of Reoffending
In the Sentencing Assessment Report dated 4 June 2020, the applicant was assessed at a low risk of reoffending. At hearing, the applicant said there was a 0% chance of him reoffending because he has seen how hard it is for his partner and his son.
While the applicant appears to have expressed remorse, I am not satisfied that he has taken full responsibility for his conduct. At hearing, the applicant attempted to downplay his involvement in his criminal offending and attempted to place blame on his co-accused. Regarding the drug related offences in 2014, the applicant stated that the drugs were not for supply but for his own personal use. He said he did not know the drugs were in the car, just in the bum-bag. As for the recent violent offences, the applicant stated that he did not participate in the assault and only pushed the victim off his co-accused.
The applicant’s criminal history also reveals a disregard of judicial orders and law enforcement. The records show that the applicant breached his community service order and bonds imposed by the Court. To date the applicant has only completed 26 hours of his 175 hours (cumulative) of community service. This reflects poorly on the applicant’s ability to abide by the law.
At hearing, the applicant addressed his previous drug use and accepted that it contributed to his offending conduct. There is no evidence to demonstrate that the applicant has undertaken any medical treatment or educational courses to address the applicant’s past drug use. But I also note that there is no evidence that the applicant is currently using drugs nor that he used drugs since his incarceration of while on bail.
I do note that the applicant has undertaken behavioural and work-related programs whilst in custody.
In the Sentencing Assessment Report dated 4 June 2020, it was noted that at the time of the offence, the applicant was unemployed and experiencing financial hardship as he was struggling to pay his son’s medical costs. He said he has become “desperate”. At hearing, the applicant reiterated that prior to committing the offence of specially aggravated break and enter and commit serious indictable offence-wound-SI, his son’s medical bills “were piling up” as he was out of work. While little can be done about the applicant’s financial circumstances regarding his son’s medical costs, I do note that the applicant has a solid work history in Australia with very limited periods of unemployment. The applicant also has a job offer waiting for him should he be released from immigration detention. The applicant’s son also has an extensive plan in place through the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIS). This does give me some confidence that the applicant has measures in place upon his release to reduce similar circumstances arising in the future which contributed to his offending.
On balance, I find that there is a risk that the applicant may reoffend. Of concern is that the applicant’s most recent convictions were of a violent nature and as such, any risk is significant and could involve significant physical, financial, and psychological harm to members of the Australian community. Additionally, as already stated, drug related offences also cause great harm to the Australian community.
This consideration significantly weighs in favour of not revoking the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s visa.
Family Violence
Paragraph 4(1)(e) of Direction 90 defines family violence includes ‘intentionally damaging or destroying property’. The applicant’s conviction on 8 May 2018, of destroy or damage property <= $2000 (DV)- T2 involved family violence as the applicant damaged his stepfather’s door. This consideration also weighs against revoking the cancellation of the applicant’s visa.
The best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision
Paragraph 8.3(1) of Direction 90 requires the Tribunal to decide whether revocation is, or is not, in the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision.
The applicant and his partner, Ms Taime Lani Papera have a severely disabled son together (Child X). At the time of hearing, he was 5 years old. Child X has bilateral Cerebral Palsy functioning at a GMFCS V and MACS V level characterised by central hypotonia and peripheral hypertonia. There is significant medical evidence in these proceedings detailing the medical condition and issues for Child X, including treatment plans and rehabilitation assessments. It is plain that Child X has significant needs and currently has funding supports and plans in place through the NDIS.
In a Cerebral Palsy Rehabilitation Review dated 4 February 2021 (Review), it is noted that issues for Child X include:
1.    Bilateral polymicrogyria around the Sylvian fissures expanding to the frontal and parietal regions with partial agenesis of corpus callosum.
2.    Epilepsy manifesting in infantile spasms, tonic seizures and possible myoclonic jerks.
3.    Cortical visual impairment.
4.    Hip subluxation.
5.    Global developmental delay.
6.    Accumulation of mucus with need to clear her mouth to limit aspiration occurring.
7.    Increasing spasticity.
8.    Gastrostomy fed due to unsafe swallow with a fundoplication performed.
9.    Intermittent constipation managed with Movicol.
10. Known to paediatric dentistry.
11. On ketogenic diet which has been beneficial for seizure control.

It was recorded in the review that over the last year, Child X has had three to four episodes of mucus blocking his airway leading to aspiration pneumonia.
A Cerebral Palsy Alliance Service Plan Review dated 5 March 2021, recorded that Child X is a non-verbal communicator and consumes all food and fluids via gastrostomy tube. He requires specialised seating to maintain an upright position. He has regular reviews at Children’s Hospital Westmead. The review stated that Child X:
...has ongoing functional goals and support needs for multiple areas. He does not understand much of spoken language and uses vocalisations, facial expression and body language to communicate. [X] is starting to learn to use switches to communicate. He is completely dependent on his mother for all activities of daily living and self-care.
At hearing, the applicant explained that since Child X was born it has been very difficult. He said Child X gets very ill frequently requiring hospitalisation. During the first two years of his life, the applicant said he an Ms Papera were always in and out of hospital.
While I note that the applicant has been in custody and immigration detention for a long period of time, the applicant has been in contact with Ms Papera and his son every day via video calls and telephone. While in custody Ms Papera and X also visited him on weekends, however COVID-19 has limited in person contact. The applicant explained that it has been very difficult as he hasn’t been able to touch or hug his son.
Ms Papera has provided written statements in these proceedings and gave evidence orally at hearing. At hearing, she expressed how difficult it has been on her not having the applicant with her to help with Child X and to provide her with emotional support. Ms Papera described how it had been very tough on her during the times that the applicant was offending and going in and out of custody. She said she calls the applicant every day and finds it helps, particularly when Child X is very upset as Child X recognises the applicant’s voice and it calms him down. Ms Papera said that although she talks to the applicant every day, it is not enough. She said she would not be able to live without the applicant helping her, particularly with the physical demands of caring for Child X. At present she said she takes care of Child X all by herself and she needs a break. Ms Papera is currently employed and lives with her mother. She said she works night shifts during which time her mother watches Child X. Ms Papera cares for her son during the day. She explained how fortunate she was that work was understanding as Child X was often in hospital, requiring her to take time off from work. Ms Papera said that in the past when the applicant was present, it was also a great financial help as during these times he would work so she could stay with Child X in hospital. In a written statement, Mr Papera describes that as Child X gets older, daily tasks are getting harder because he is at the weight that he needs to be handled by two people.
It is plain on the available evidence that the applicant’s son has significant medical needs. Given his disabilities he requires full time care which is often physically demanding. The applicant clearly cares for his son. Prior to his incarceration he offered a lot of support physically, financially, and emotionally. Since his incarceration, he has attempted to provide continued support for Ms Papera and his son through daily contact, but this is entirely insufficient. It would be in the best interests of the applicant’s son if the mandatory cancellation decision is revoked. This is accepted by the respondent.
This consideration should be given significant weight in favour of revocation.
The expectations of the Australian community
Paragraph 8.4 provides:
(1) The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia.
…
(4) This consideration is about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole, and in this respect, decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government's views as articulated above, without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case.
The applicant’s criminal offending plainly does not meet the expectations of the Australian community that as a non-citizen he will obey the laws of this country. I am satisfied that the Australian community would expect that the applicant should not hold a visa. This primary consideration weighs against revocation of the mandatory cancellation decision.
Other Considerations
Other considerations are set out in Direction 90, at paragraph 9(1). The applicant has not made any claims in relation to non-refoulement obligations, nor is there any evidence of any relevant impact on the victim or Australian business interests. As such, the considerations that are relevant in this case are: the strength, nature and duration of the applicant's ties to Australia; and the extent of impediments if removed.
Strength, nature and duration of ties
Paragraph 9.4.1(1) of the Direction requires that, in assessing this consideration, decision-makers must have regard to:
a) how long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether the non-citizen has arrived as a young child, noting that:
i. less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and
ii. more weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community.
b) the strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.
The applicant arrived in Australia at a young age and has resided in Australia for over 25 years. The applicant has contributed to the Australian community through his work in construction, namely pick and packing, steel fixing and formwork.
The applicant’s immediate family members, except his father, are in Australia including his son, mother, and half-sister. The applicant’s sister has provided a statement in support of the applicant on behalf of herself and their mother. The applicant also has extended family in Australia including aunts, uncles, cousins, nieces/nephews. The applicant’s relatives Newtown Teiotu, Lisa Teiotu, Alen Teiotu and Alex Poto have provided statements in support of the applicant.
While I do accept the applicant’s separation from his family and friends in Australia may be difficult, it would not be permanent in the sense that there are no restrictions, other than perhaps financial and current (temporary) travel restrictions, preventing them from visiting the applicant in New Zealand in the future. They may also maintain contact via telephone, video and other electronic means.
I consider the most significant factor relevant to this consideration is the applicant’s relationship with Ms Papera and his son. As already stated, the applicant’s son is severely disabled and has extensive needs. Despite some inconsistent evidence about the current state of the applicant’s relationship with Ms Papera, it is plain on the bulk of the evidence and that given orally at hearing that the applicant and Ms Papera are in a relationship. They have a strong desire to keep their family together and to care for their son together upon the applicant’s release. They have been together since high school and have both stated at hearing that their relationship has been consistent. While they have faced some extreme challenges over the years, I am convinced that Ms Papera and the applicant are a couple and rely heavily on each other for financial, emotional and physical support. The future wellbeing of Ms Papera, who bears the very demanding role of caring for and looking after all aspects of their disabled-son’s life, is a considerable factor weighing in favour of revocation. As already stated, the applicant’s daily contact with his son and Ms Papera by telephone and/or video is not sufficient.
For these reasons, the applicant’s strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia favours revocation of the mandatory cancellation decision.
Extent of impediments if removed from Australia
The Direction provides, at paragraph 9.2, that:
(1) Decision-makers must consider the extent of any impediments that the non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account:
a) the non-citizen’s age and health;
b) whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and
c) any social, medical and/or economic support available to them in that country.
The applicant is an adult and is apparently in good health generally.
The applicant is a citizen of New Zealand and as such, the relevant country the applicant would be removed to is New Zealand. There are no evident language or cultural barriers for the applicant in New Zealand, given its broad social, political, and economic similarity to Australia. There is nothing to suggest that the applicant would not have available to him in New Zealand the equivalent social, medical or economic support available to other citizens.
The recent NDIS plan dated 26 May 2021 and the Cerebral Palsy Rehabilitation Review dated 4 February 2021, provides significant detail and insight into the needs of the applicant’s son. He has numerous specialists and medical professionals involved in his extensive care. As Ms Papera explained, while New Zealand may have similar medical care to Australia, it would be incredibly difficult to “start again”. All Child X’s care and support plans are all set up in Australia and are very complex. It is plain that should the applicant be removed to New Zealand; it would be extremely difficult for Ms Papera and their son to follow. As Ms Paper stated, all of their supports are set up here in Australia. I consider the circumstances of this case to be outside of the norm and find that this consideration significantly weighs in the applicant's favour.
Decision
The primary considerations of the protection of the Australian community, family violence, and the expectations of the Australian community weigh in favour of not revoking the visa cancellation decision. However, in this case, the primary consideration of the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision is a significant consideration. Together with the other relevant considerations, namely the extent of impediments if removed and the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia, I am persuaded that these considerations outweigh the competing primary considerations in this case.
The decision under review is set aside and in substitution I find that the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s visa be revoked.

I certify that the preceding 61 (sixty-one) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member A Poljak

.................................[SGD].......................................
Associate
Dated: 18 August 2022

Date(s) of hearing: 1 August 2022

Solicitor for the Applicant: Mr F Nikjoo, Nikjoo Lawyers

Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms C Lewis, AGS

[2022] AATA 2645

18 August 2022

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Natural Justice

Remedies

Date(s) of hearing:	1 August 2022
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Mr F Nikjoo, Nikjoo Lawyers
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Ms C Lewis, AGS