Bonner and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) - [2023] AATA 3421

Bonner and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2023] AATA 3421 (23 October 2023)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2023/0369
Re:Ms Jessica Bonner
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Member McLean Williams
Date:23 October 2023
Place:Brisbane

The decision under review is set aside and substituted with the decision that the Visa Applicant satisfies the character test, on the basis that the Tribunal is not satisfied that, in the event the Visa Applicant were allowed to enter or to remain in Australia there is a risk that the Visa Applicant would engage in criminal conduct in Australia.
..................[SGD]..............
Member McLean Williams
Catchwords
MIGRATION – Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – Is the Tribunal satisfied that the Applicant passes the character test – Whether the Applicant would engage in the conduct identified in
s 501(6)(d)(i) – Ministerial Direction No. 99 – Application of the character test – Primary and other considerations – Reviewable decision set aside and substituted
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Act 2014 (Cth)
Cases
KLLV v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2016] AATA 896
Sadiq and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] AATA 80
Secondary Materials
Ministerial Direction No. 99 - Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA
Explanatory Memorandum, Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Bill 2014
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member McLean Williams
23 October 2023

The Review Applicant Ms Jessica Bonner is an Australian citizen, and is the daughter of

Ms Valerie Barnes (‘the Visa Applicant’).
The Visa Applicant is a 68-year-old citizen of the United Kingdom who has never previously travelled to Australia. Together with her husband (who is a retired police officer), the Visa Applicant owns property in the United Kingdom and in Spain, and they reside between these two countries, in retirement. The Visa Applicant and her husband also wish to be able to travel to Australia in order to visit their daughter and grandchildren.
On 20 September 2018 the Visa Applicant had applied for a Visitor (class FA) visa (‘the visa’) for purposes of visiting her daughter and grandchildren (G10/35).
On 15 July 2020 the Department issued the Visa Applicant with a Notice of Intention to Consider Refusal (‘NOICR’) under s.501(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘the Act’) (G12). The NOICR was issued on ‘character’ grounds, because the Visa Applicant has previously served a term of imprisonment in the United Kingdom.
Section 501(1) of the Act provides that the Minister ‘may’ refuse to grant a visa to a person if that person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the ‘character test’, and s.501(6)(d)(i) specifies that one of the grounds upon which a person will not pass the character test is if there is ‘a risk that the person would (i), engage in criminal conduct in Australia’. Use of the term ‘may’ in the provision has the obvious effect that the power of visa refusal becomes a discretionary matter.
A submission was made to the Department in response to the NOICR by the Visa Applicant. This was received in the form of an e-mail sent on 27 July 2020 (G13). In that e-mail, the Visa Applicant had said:
With ref to the above application, my conviction in August 2016 is the only criminal offence that I have been arrested for in my life, I have no other convictions including Road Traffic offences.
I pleaded guilty to the offence as there was no other choice, the aged complainant had given myself gifts during the twenty years I had cared for him, his family wanting no part of him.
During the late stages of his life his family took notice of him, he could not remember the gifts he had given me, and was persuaded by them to make a complaint.
A statement was taken from [the elderly complainant] and he died shortly after, the case was continued but obviously further questions in my defence could not be asked of him, and I was advised by my barrister to pleaded [sic] guilty to the offence.
The sentence was twelve months imprisonment, which was harsh. I actually served only ten weeks in prison, some four years ago.
My daughter and two grandchildren moved to Melbourne four years ago with her husband, they all are Australian citizens.
Prior to moving we would see our grandchildren weekly and would be in close contact. Due to the conviction we have not met our daughter or grandchildren in FOUR YEARS. We daily phone them but yearn to meet and comfort them. Unfortunately my daughter’s marriage has failed and she has become a one parent family, her husband has mental issues, he is undergoing treatment and many problems have arisen because of this.
My daughter has full custody of the children this has also meant that my grandson is now undergoing therapy because of the family issues. My daughter receives no support from her husband’s family either financially or in practical terms visits, help, etc.
My daughter works full-time and takes care of the children, run a household as well as issues from her estranged husband, she has had serious medical problems with brain scans and tests for cancer in the last two years that are ongoing at this present time.
Our family there need strong support from us and not being able to visit is emotionally upsetting for all, she really has no one to help her.
We have been waiting on this application for some years now, as can be seen we are in our late 60s, retired, own our homes in U.K. and Spain, we have good pensions, my husband is a retired police officer. We would have private medical insurance and offer no risk to the country whatsoever.
We are desperate to see our daughter and grandchildren, it has been a very long time.
Valerie Barnes
On 6 June 2022 a Delegate of the Minister refused the Visa Applicant the requested visa on grounds that the Visa Applicant did not pass the character test (G7), then citing s.501(6)(d)(i) as the basis for so concluding (‘the Delegate’s decision’).
On 19 January 2023 the Review Applicant applied to this Tribunal for a review of the Delegate’s decision, out of time (G2).
On 23 February 2023 - and with the consent of the Minister - the Tribunal extended the time for the making of the application for review, pursuant to section 29(7) of the

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975
(Cth), until 19 January 2023 (G5).
This application for review to the Tribunal is now made pursuant to s.500(1)(b) the Act, which allows applications to be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) for review of decisions made under s.501.
Issues for Determination on the Hearing of this Review:
The issues for consideration during this review are:
(a)whether the Visa Applicant passes the character test; and, if not,
(b)whether the discretion embodied within s.501(1) of the Act should be exercised to refuse to grant the visa, having regard to the guiding considerations set out in Ministerial Direction No. 99 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (‘the Ministerial Direction’).
LEGISLATIVE REGIME
The Character Test:
Pursuant to s.501(1), the Minister ‘may’ refuse to grant a visa to a person if the Minister is not satisfied that the person passes the character test.
So far as is relevant for present purposes, the character test is expressed in s.501(6), in these terms:
(6)For the purposes of this section, a person does not pass the character test if:
…
(d)In the event the person were allowed to enter or to remain in Australia, there is a risk that the person would:
(i) engage in criminal conduct in Australia
[Emphasis not in the original, yet included here by the Tribunal]
The Ministerial Direction:
Reviews under s.500(1)(b) need to be conducted in light of the Ministerial Direction promulgated in accordance with the power to issue such directions, given under s.499 of the Act.
Paragraph 5.2 of the Ministerial Direction provides that the principles enunciated therein serve as a guiding framework within which decision-makers must approach the task of deciding whether to refuse a visa under s.501. Decision-makers must take into consideration both the ‘Primary’ Considerations and the ‘Other’ Considerations expressed in the Ministerial Direction when deciding whether or not to refuse to grant a visa.
The Primary Considerations enunciated in the Ministerial Direction are:
(1)protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(2)whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;
(3)the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia;
(4)the best interests of minor children in Australia; and
(5)the expectations of the Australian community.
The ‘Other’ considerations expressed in the Ministerial Direction include, yet are not limited to:
(1)legal consequences of a decision under either s.501 or s.501CA;
(2)extent of impediments if removed;
(3)impact on victims; and
(4)impact on Australian business interests.
Does the Visa Applicant pass the character test?
Section 501(1) of the Act empowers the Minister to refuse to grant a visa if the person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test.
Section 501(6)(d)(i) – as has been expressed to be the basis for refusing a visa for the Visa Applicant in this case – specifies that a person does not pass the character test if, in the event that the person were allowed to enter or remain in Australia, ‘there is a risk that the person would engage in criminal conduct’.
The question of whether there is such a risk entails an evaluative judgement. In

KLLV v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration)
[2016] AATA 896 at [51], the Tribunal found that ‘as long as the risk [that the person would engage in criminal conduct in Australia] is real and [is] not fanciful or remote, then the subsection is engaged.’ This formulation of the test is now also embodied in clause 6(2) in ‘Attachment A’ to the Ministerial Direction, which states:
6Risk in regards to future conduct (section 501(6)(d)):
(1) A person does not pass the character test if, in the event that the person were allowed to enter or remain in Australia, there is a risk that the person would engage in any of the conduct specified in section 501(6)(d) of the Act. The types of conduct specified are discussed below.
(2) The grounds are enlivened if there is evidence suggesting that there is more than a minimal or remote chance that the person, if allowed to enter or to remain in Australia, would engage in conduct specified in section 501(6)(d) the Act.
(3) It is not sufficient to find that the person has engaged in conduct specified in paragraph 501(6)(d) of the Act in the past. There must be a risk that the person would engage in the future in the specified conduct set out in section 501(6)(d) the Act.
[Emphasis not in the original, yet has been included here, by the Tribunal]
As can be seen from clause 6(2) in Attachment A, the ground will be enlivened if ‘there is more than a minimal or remote chance’ of the conduct in question occurring. The Tribunal’s decision in Sadiq and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] AATA 80 at [123] suggests that a low risk of reoffending is sufficient to engage the provision. However, a ‘low’ risk (Sadiq) is still something more than either a ‘minimal’ or ‘remote’ risk.
The Respondent Minister now submits that the clear legislative intent is that the threshold is whether there is ‘a’ risk. Here, the Respondent Minister submits that the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Act 2014 (Cth) specifically removed the word ‘significant’ from s.501(6)(d), thus – at least it is it submitted – now leaving the requirement as no more than ‘a’ risk.
The Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the introduction of the Migration Amendment (Character and General Visa Cancellation) Bill 2014 provides the following explanation of the amendment (at [46]):
The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the threshold of risk that a decision maker can accept before making a finding that the person does not pass the character test in relation to paragraph 501(6)(d) of the Migration Act. The intention is that the level of risk required is more than a minimal or trivial likelihood of risk without requiring the decision-maker to prove that it amounts to a significant risk.
[Emphasis not in the original, yet again included here, by the Tribunal]
The Tribunal does not accept the submission of the Respondent Minister as now summarised in paragraph 22 (above) to the effect that the threshold for exercise of the discretion is now set so low as to require no more than ‘a’ risk of further specified criminal conduct by the Visa Applicant in Australia. That submission runs contrary to the clear wording in the Ministerial Direction. Clause 6(2) in Attachment A to the Ministerial Direction – as is then only further confirmed by the Explanatory Memorandum – makes it absolutely clear that there must be more than a minimal or remote – or ‘trivial’, being another consanguine expression, as now used in the Explanatory Memorandum – chance that, if allowed to enter or to remain in Australia, the Visa Applicant would be a risk of engaging in the conduct specified in paragraph 601(6)(d). Viewed in this light, it cannot sensibly be contended that ‘a’ risk (in the sense of any risk whatsoever) is sufficient. The risk is one that needs to be more than either minimal or remote (or ‘trivial’) before the discretion to refuse a visa on character grounds is sensibly enlivened.
The Visa Applicant’s criminal history in the United Kingdom:
On 24 August 2016, the Visa Applicant was convicted in the United Kingdom on three counts of make false representation to make a gain for self or another or cause loss to other/expose other to risk and was sentenced to a concurrent term of 12 months imprisonment, however only actually being required to serve 12 weeks in custody

(G8/32-33). The Visa Applicant informed the Tribunal that she was in fact released from prison after having served only ten weeks in custody.
No independent account of these offences, or any sentencing remarks, have been provided to the Tribunal by the Respondent Minister. In the circumstances the Tribunal accepts in its entirety the version of events that has been provided by the Visa Applicant.
According to the Visa Applicant, over a period of several years she had been caring for an elderly invalid neighbour, who had been abandoned by his own family. Over the years, the same elderly neighbour had also gifted her with two cheques, which were cashed by the Visa Applicant.
The Visa Applicant informed the Tribunal that in the very late stages of her neighbour’s life, members of his family suddenly re-emerged, and started to take a renewed interest in him and commenced to visit. Those family members also discovered that in the past, their elderly relative had written two cheques made out to the Visa Applicant, and they had encouraged their elderly relative to lodge a complaint with the police.
Subsequently, the Visa Applicant was charged with fraud. The elderly neighbour had provided police with a statement to the effect that he had been confused and housebound at the time of his having signed the cheques. The elderly neighbour then died before proceedings against the Visa Applicant could be finalised before the court. After the death of the complainant the UK Crown prosecution service indicated that it was intent to proceed with the charges against the Visa Applicant, even notwithstanding the death of the complainant. The Visa Applicant says that she received legal advice at that stage that she should plead guilty as it would be a case of ‘her word against that of the deceased’ and in circumstances in which she had ‘drawn a bad judge’, and where her now entering a contrary plea would entail further legal costs and delay; as well as the risk of a far higher penalty in the event of her conviction at the end of a trial in which she had entered a plea of not guilty. In those circumstances the Visa Applicant says that she acquiesced to her legal advice, and entered a plea of guilty.
In the circumstances just described the sentencing judge in the United Kingdom accepted the version of events given by the deceased neighbour (G9/34). The offending is described as having occurred over a period of about 3 ½ years, between 16 November 2007 and

21 June 2011 (G8/32-33).
The Respondent Minister now contends that the Visa Applicant ‘has provided no evidence of having undertaken any rehabilitation since her convictions’ and, despite her having pleaded guilty, the Visa Applicant ‘continues to minimise the extent of her offending’, and claims that the victim was ‘persuaded to make a complaint’, and that the reason she had entered a guilty plea was only because the victim had died prior to the hearing, and that in all the circumstances her term of imprisonment was harsh (G13/53). The Respondent Minister then submits that ‘these are not statement[s] of a person who has insight into the impact of their offending such that they are of no risk of offending again’ (SFIC para 19.4).
The Respondent Minister also submits that it was an offence committed against an elderly neighbour and that ‘[o]ffending of this kind presents a greater risk to the Australian community given there exists a broader pool of vulnerable victims against whom the Applicant might offend’ (SFIC para 19.5), and that ‘protective factors such as the Applicant’s family’ have not prevented the Applicant from offending in the past (SFIC para 19.6). In all of the circumstances, the Respondent Minister submits that the Tribunal should be satisfied that the Visa Applicant ‘does not pass the character test’ and that the power to refuse the visa in s.501(1) is enlivened.
Ordinarily the Tribunal would be satisfied that the Applicant could not pass the character test because of the effect of s.501(7)(c), solely by reason of her having been given a head sentence of twelve months or more for the index offending. Yet, in this specific case, the Visa Applicant has been assessed[1] in the decision now under review to have failed the character test because of s.501(6)(d)(i) – by reason of her presenting as a risk of engaging in further similar criminal conduct in Australia, in the event that she were allowed to enter or remain in Australia. In these precise circumstances the Tribunal is bound to apply clause 6 in Annex A[2] to the Ministerial Direction, which requires that the Tribunal direct its mind to the question as to whether the Applicant presents as more than a minimal or remote chance of further offending if granted a visa to either enter or remain in Australia.
[1] G7, paragraph 5.
[2] G17, p.101.
The Tribunal is quite unpersuaded in all the circumstances that a claimed failure by the Applicant to produce evidence of her having undergone rehabilitation; or because of her explanation of the circumstances of the offence now gives rise to a sound basis for determining that the Applicant presents as more than a minimal or remote chance, if allowed to enter or remain in Australia, that she would engage in conduct specified in s.501(6)(d) of the Act. In the Tribunal’s assessment, based on the available evidence, the suggestion that the Applicant as a 68 year old retiree would engage in similar conduct in Australia during a short stay on a visitor visa is minimal and remote, to the extent that the very suggestion of it is the product of fanciful thinking. The risk is now so small as to be trivial, and inconsequential.
Protection of the Australian community:
Nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s conduct

The Respondent Minister contends that the nature of the Visa Applicant’s offending conduct should be regarded as ‘serious’ given that:
(a)it was committed against a vulnerable elderly member of the community, who by the Applicant’s own admission was a person who was socially isolated and relied upon the Applicant for support (G9/34);
(b)the amount defrauded was sizeable, being £28,000 (approximately AUD $51,800); and
(c)the Applicant was sentenced to a term of actual imprisonment, which should be viewed as a reflection of the objective seriousness of the offences involved.
The Tribunal considers that these are considerations that are more ordinarily applicable in the case of visa cancellation/deportation assessments, and are not matters directed to the necessary question arising under s.501(6)(d)(i) which directs attention to the question whether there is evidence that there is more than a minimal or remote chance that the Visa Applicant would engage in the conduct specified. There is no evidence of this kind now before the Tribunal. Although the Tribunal accepts that any offence that attracts a head sentence of twelve months or more is objectively serious; in and of itself that categorisation is not evidence of there being ‘more than’ a minimal or remote chance of the Visa Applicant engaging in similar further conduct, if granted a visitor visa to visit her daughter and grandchildren in Australia.
Risk to the Australian community
These considerations are traversed in paragraph 8.1.2 of the Ministerial Direction. The Respondent Minister submits (SFIC para 27) that for the reasons set out in paragraph 19 of the Minister’s Statement of Facts Issues and Contentions, the Applicant’s risk of reoffending should be regarded as an ‘unacceptable’ risk, and that overall, there is insufficient evidence for the Tribunal to be satisfied that it can rule out the possibility of the Visa Applicant engaging in further similar criminal conduct in Australia such that the Minister contends that the protection of the Australian community now ‘weighs at least moderately in favour of refusing the visa’.
Once again, the assessment of the question of risk to the Australian community is a matter that must be considered from the perspective required by paragraph 6(2) in Annex A to the Ministerial Direction, such that the question is whether there is any evidence suggesting that there is more than a minimal or remote chance that the Visa Applicant if now allowed to enter or to remain in Australia, will engage in conduct of the kind now specified in section 501(6)(d) of the Act. There is no such evidence.
Family violence
This primary consideration is not relevant.
Strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia
Under paragraph 8.3 (1) of the Ministerial Direction decision-makers are required to consider the impact of any decision on the Applicant’s immediate family members in Australia.
The Visa Applicant’s daughter is an Australian citizen, and resides in Australia, as are her two children, the Visa Applicant’s grandchildren. The Visa Applicant’s daughter is a single parent, who works full-time, and has indicated in oral evidence before the Tribunal that she would greatly benefit from the assistance of her mother (and father) visiting to provide support and assistance with her two children; as well as support for herself while she is experiencing some ‘health scares’ (G14/54).
The other limb of this consideration (paragraph 8.3(4)(a) of the Ministerial Direction) requires decision-makers to consider the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant’s ties to Australia. As the Applicant has never herself lived in, or even visited Australia, this aspect of Primary Consideration Three is not relevant.
Overall, the Respondent Minister accepts that this Primary Consideration weighs in favour of granting the visa, yet submits that it does not outweigh Primary Consideration One which it is claimed weighs significantly in favour of refusing the visa.
The Tribunal agrees that the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia weighs in favour of granting the Visa Applicant the requested visa. However the Tribunal rejects the Minister’s submission that this Primary Consideration is now outweighed by Primary Consideration One. In the Tribunal’s assessment, Primary Consideration One barely warrants a mention, given that there is no evidence before the Tribunal suggesting the Visa Applicant to be more than a minimal or remote chance of engaging in conduct in Australia of a kind as specified in s.501(6)(d)(i) of the Act.
Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision
As already indicated in earlier passages of these reasons, the Visa Applicant has two grandchildren in Australia, aged 7 and 13. The mother of those children (the Visa Applicant’s daughter) has separated from her husband, and the father of the children only sees the children every second weekend (G14/54), such that for the remainder of the time the Visa Applicant’s daughter is a sole parent, who is also required to work full-time, and who has no other family support in this country. Evidence from the Visa Applicant’s daughter indicates that she is struggling and would benefit from the support and assistance of her parents visiting Australia periodically.
The Respondent Minister contends (SFIC para 36), that while it is ‘open’ for the Tribunal to find the grant of the visa is in the best interests of these minor children, this consideration should only be given limited weight ‘where the children are cared for by their parents who fulfil the primary parental role… [and] the relationship between the Applicant and her grandchildren is nonparental…. [in circumstances where] there has been a lengthy period of the Applicant being physically absent from the children’s lives, and the contact she has had, has been able to [be (sic)] facilitated by electronic means (G14/53)’. That submission is rejected by the Tribunal. It is a boilerplate incantation that has not been adapted for the circumstances of the case under present examination, such as to be of no useful assistance to the Tribunal during an exercise of the discretion now required in light of clause 6 of Annex A to the Ministerial Direction.
The Tribunal determines that the best interests of minor children in Australia impacted by the decision is a factor that now weighs very heavily in favour of a decision to grant the Visa Applicant the requested visa.
Expectations of the Australian community
The Respondent Minister submits (SFIC para 37) that, in accordance with paragraph 8.5(1) of the Ministerial Direction, regard must be had for the principle that 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, the Australian community (as a norm) expects the government (and the Tribunal standing in the shoes of government decision-makers) to not allow such a person to enter Australia; such that overall, this factor ‘should be found to weigh heavily against the Applicant, even if the Tribunal concludes that the Applicant does not pose a “measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community”’ (SFIC para 39). The Tribunal rejects the submission. The Tribunal has determined that there is no evidence of any risk of the Visa Applicant engaging in conduct of a kind specified in section 501(6)(d) the Act. In consequence the character test is not enlivened, such that this Primary Consideration is not applicable. Even if it were otherwise, such that the Tribunal were to be required to find that the expectations of the Australian community weigh heavily against a decision to grant the Visa Applicant the requested visa, the Tribunal determines that the heavy weight that might theoretically attach to this Primary Consideration is still outweighed by the weight attaching to other considerations, including Primary Considerations, that now weigh in favour of granting the Visa Applicant the requested visa.
Other considerations
Legal consequences of decision
The Visa Applicant is currently offshore, and has not made any representations regarding the legal consequences of a decision under ss.501 or 501CA. As such, this consideration therefore weighs neutrally.
Extent of impediments if removed
The Visa Applicant is currently residing in the United Kingdom, and has not articulated any impediments to her ability to continue to reside in the United Kingdom, or to travel to her other home, in Spain. Accordingly this consideration now weighs neutrally.
Impact on victims
There is no evidence before the Tribunal on this issue. Accordingly this consideration also weighs neutrally.
Impact on Australian business interests
The Applicant has made no submissions in relation to this consideration, and in all the circumstances of this case the Tribunal considers that it weighs neutrally.
Conclusion
The Tribunal concludes that the grounds in s.501(6)(d)(i) are not enlivened as there is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that if the Visa Applicant were to be allowed to enter or remain in Australia there is more than a minimal or remote chance of the Visa Applicant engaging in conduct of a kind specified in s.501(6)(d)(i) of the Act. The chance of the Applicant engaging in any conduct of that kind in Australia is assessed by the Tribunal as negligible, and as now being so remote as to be fanciful. The character grounds in s.501 of the Act are therefore not enlivened, and even if these were engaged, the Tribunal determines that the considerations weighing in favour of granting the visa now considerably outweigh those that might support a review decision upholding the refusal of the requested visa.
The correct and preferable decision is to grant the Visa Applicant the requested visa.
DECISION
The decision under review is set aside, and is substituted by the decision of the Tribunal that the Visa Applicant passes the character test, on the basis that the Tribunal is not satisfied that, in the event the Visa Applicant were allowed to enter or to remain in Australia, there is a risk that the Visa Applicant would engage in criminal conduct in Australia.

I certify that the preceding 55 (fifty-five) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member McLean Williams

.....................[SGD].....................
Associate

Dated: 23 October 2023

Date of hearing: 20 June 2023

Applicant: By Video

Solicitors for the Respondent: Mr Chris West
Sparke Helmore Lawyers

Date of hearing:	20 June 2023
Applicant:	By Video
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Mr Chris West Sparke Helmore Lawyers