Buntin and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) - [2022] AATA 2604

Buntin and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2022] AATA 2604 (16 August 2022)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2022/4353
Re:Mr Dean Buntin
APPLICANT

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

DECISION
Tribunal:Member R Maguire
Date:16 August 2022
Place:Brisbane

The decision under review is affirmed.
..............[SGD]..........................................................
Member R Maguire
Catchwords
MIGRATION – Non-revocation of mandatory cancellation of a Class BS Subclass 801 (Partner) visa- where Applicant does not pass the character test – whether there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision – consideration of Ministerial Direction No. 90 – breach of domestic violence orders – decision under review affirmed
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)
Cases
Afu v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1311
Apire and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] AATA 193
Bartlett and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2017] AATA 1561
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 500
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185
Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1166; (2016) 153 ALD 337
Marzano v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 66; (2017) 250 FCR 548
Minister for Home Affairs v Buadromo [2018] FCAFC 151
R v HBZ [2020] QCA 73
Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594
Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 348
YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466
Secondary Materials
Direction No 90 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA
Special Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland’s ‘Not Now, Not Ever: Putting an End to Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland report’ (28 February 2015)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member R Maguire
16 August 2022
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

By application made on 31 May 2022 the Applicant seeks the review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister (“the Respondent”) dated 30 May 2022 made pursuant to
s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”), not to revoke the decision made under s 501(3A) of the Act to cancel the Applicant’s Class BS Subclass 801 Partner (Permanent) visa (“the visa”).
Section 501CA(4) of the Act provides that the decision-maker may revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa if the person made representations within the relevant time period provided for in the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (28 days in accordance with reg 2.52), and the decision-maker determines that the Applicant passes the “character test”, or, as provided under s 501CA(4)(b), there is another reason why the mandatory cancellation should be revoked. The Minister accepted that the Applicant had made the necessary representations within the prescribed period.
Section 501(3A) of the Act is a mandatory cancellation power. It relevantly provides that the Minister (or his delegate) must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if, under
s 501(6)(a) of the Act the person has a substantial criminal record as defined by s 501(7). Relevantly, s 501(7) states:
(7) For the purposes of the character test, a person has a substantial criminal record if:
...
(c) the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more;...
The term “imprisonment” is defined to include any form of punitive detention in a facility or institution: s 501(12) of the Act.
The Applicant is a 32-year-old citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland born in 1990[1]. He first entered Australia when he was 18 years old on
1 July 2008, and has now lived in Australia for 14 years, having been out of the country for only two short periods totalling less than 100 days. He last entered Australia on
[1] Exhibit R1, Section 501 G-Documents, G15, page 108.
[2] Exhibit R1, Section 501 G-Documents, G35, page 213.
26 October 2010.[2]
On 16 August 2021, the Applicant was sentenced by Judge Chowdhury in the District Court of Queensland to two years’ imprisonment for one count of choking suffocation strangulation domestic relationship – domestic violence offence, and a further sentence of two years’ imprisonment for one count of unlawful stalking, the sentences were to be served cumulatively[3]. He was also sentenced in relation to a further 26 summary offences including 20 contraventions of a domestic violence order (DVO)[4].
[3] Exhibit R1, Section 501 G-Documents, G5, page 63.
[4] Exhibit R1, Section 501 G-Documents, G5, page 59 and Exhibit R3, at [4].
On 20 August 2021, whilst the Applicant was serving a term of imprisonment (that is, in actual criminal custody) the Respondent, pursuant to s 501(3A) of the Act, decided to mandatorily cancel the Applicant’s visa on the basis that he did not pass the character test (substantial criminal record) on the basis that s 501(7)(c) was satisfied, i.e., that he had been sentenced to 12 months or more imprisonment. Notice of this decision was given by hand to the Applicant on 20 August 2021.[5]
[5] Exhibit R1, Section 501 G-Documents, G36, pages 214-220.
In accordance with reg 2.52(2)(b) the Applicant was invited in accordance with
[6] Exhibit R1, Section 501 G-Documents, G9, pages 72-76.
s 501CA(3)(b) of the Act to make representations to the Minister about revoking the cancellation decision within 28 days after he had received the notice. The Applicant made representations to the Minister on 3 September 2021 within the period and in the manner specified.[6]
On 30 May 2022, the Respondent, acting pursuant to s 501CA(4) of the Act, decided not to revoke the visa cancellation decision made under s 501(3A) of the Act,[7] and the Applicant made the present application to this Tribunal for a review of that decision.[8] The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review this decision pursuant to s 500(1)(ba) of the Act.
[7] Exhibit R1, Section 501 G-Documents, G3, page 11-35.
[8] Exhibit R1, Section 501 G-Documents, G1, pages 1-8.
By operation of s 500(6L) of the Act, when an application is made to the Tribunal for a review of a decision under s 501CA(4) of the Act not to revoke a decision to cancel a visa, and the decision relates to a person in the migration zone, if the Tribunal has not made a decision within the period of 84 days after the day on which the person was notified of the decision under review in accordance with 501G(1), the Tribunal is taken at the end of that period to have made a decision under s 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (“AAT Act”) to affirm the decision under review. At the hearing, it was agreed that for the purposes of this review, and s 500(6L)(c), the 84th day is 22 August 2022. It was therefore open to the Tribunal to make a decision prior to midnight, on 22 August 2021.
ISSUES
Revocation of the mandatory cancellation of visas is governed by s 501CA(4) of the Act. Relevantly, this provides that:
(4) The Minister may revoke the original decision if:
(a)the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation; and
(b)the Minister is satisfied:
(i)that the person passes the character test (as defined by section 501); or
(ii)that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.
The Applicant has made the representations required by s 501CA(4)(a) of the Act.
As a starting point, it is necessary to refer to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia’s observations in Minister for Home Affairs v Buadromo:[9]
“…there has been some discussion in the authorities as to whether s 501CA(4) contains a residual discretion in the decision-maker by reason of the use of the word ‘may’ in the chapeau of the subsection, or whether the balancing of the factors favouring a refusal to revoke the cancellation is part of the one exercise of determining whether there is another reason the original decision should be revoked. The weight of authority in this Court favours the latter view…”[10]
[9] [2018] FCAFC 151.
[10] Ibid, at [21], citing, inter alia, Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1166; (2016) 153 ALD 337 at [38] (North ACJ); Marzano v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 66;(2017) 250 FCR 548 at [31] (Collier J, with whom Logan and Murphy JJ agreed).
As provided in s 501CA(4)(b) of the Act, there are therefore two issues presently before the Tribunal:
·whether the Applicant passes the character test; and
·whether there is another reason why the decision to cancel the Applicant’s visa should be revoked.
If the Applicant succeeds on either ground, the weight of authority indicates that the Tribunal must find that the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa must be revoked.[11] The Tribunal will address each of these grounds in turn.
[11] Ibid.
DOES THE APPLICANT PASS THE CHARACTER TEST?
The character test is defined in s 501(6) of the Act. Under s 501(6)(a), a person will not pass the character test if they have “a substantial criminal record”. This phrase, in turn, is relevantly defined in s 501(7)(c), which provides that a person will have a substantial criminal record if they have “been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more”. In addition, and as an alternative, s 501(7)(d) provides that a person will have a substantial criminal record if the person “has been sentenced to two or more terms of imprisonment, where the total of those terms is 12 months or more.” Section 501(7A) provides that for the purposes of the character test, if a person has been sentenced to two or more terms of imprisonment to be served concurrently (whether in whole or in part) the whole of each term is to be counted in working out the total terms.
Evidence before the Tribunal,[12] establishes that the Applicant was sentenced to two separate sentences to be served cumulatively, each of a period of two years’ imprisonment in the District Court of Queensland on 16 August 2021. Moreover, the applicant conceded that he does have a substantial criminal record and does not pass the character test[13].
[12] Exhibit R1, G-Documents, G5, pages 58-64.
[13] Exhibit A1, at [17].
It is clear that this concession was properly made, as the custodial term imposed was “a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more”, and the Applicant does not pass the character test by virtue of his “substantial criminal record” as defined in s 501(7)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal therefore finds that the Applicant does not pass the character test pursuant to
s 501(6)(a) of the Act and that the Applicant therefore cannot rely on s 501CA(4)(b)(i) of the Act for the mandatory cancellation of his visa to be revoked.
The remaining question therefore is found in s 501CA(4)(b)(ii), namely whether there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.
IS THERE ANOTHER REASON FOR THE REVOCATION OF THE CANCELLATION OF THE APPLICANT’S VISA?
Ministerial Direction No. 90
In considering whether to exercise the discretion in s 501CA(4) of the Act, the Tribunal is bound by s 499(2A) to comply with any directions made under the Act. In this case, Direction No 90 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (“the Direction” or “Direction 90”) has application.[14] The Direction provides guidance for decision-makers on how to exercise the discretion in s 501CA(4) of the Act.
[14] On 1 April 2021, the former applicable direction, Direction No. 79 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s501CA, was revoked and was replaced by Direction 90.
Relevantly, the Direction states that:[15]
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.
[15] The Direction, paragraph 6.
The principles that are found in paragraph 5.2 of the Direction may be briefly stated as follows:
(1)Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia’s law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
(2)Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.
(3)The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
(4)Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non- citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time. However, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non- citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.
(5)Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen’s conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation. In particular, the inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence and the other types of conduct or suspected conduct mentioned in paragraph 8.4(2) (Expectations of the Australian Community) is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient in some circumstances, even if the non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
Paragraph 7(1) of the Direction provides that in applying the considerations (both primary and other), information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight. Paragraph 7(2) provides that primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations. Paragraph 7(3) provides that one or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.
Paragraph 8 of the Direction sets out four Primary Considerations that the Tribunal must take into account and they are:
(1)protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(2)whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;
(3)the best interests of minor children in Australia;
(4)expectations of the Australian community.
Paragraph 9 of the Directions sets out four Other Considerations which must be taken into account. These considerations are:
(a)international non-refoulement obligations;
(b)extent of impediments if removed;
(c)impact on victims; and
(d)links to the Australian community, including:
(i) strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia;
(ii) impact on Australian business interests
The Tribunal notes and emphasises the importance of these considerations being “other” considerations, as opposed to “secondary” considerations. As noted by Colvin J in Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection:[16]
“…Direction 65 [now Direction 90] makes clear that an evaluation is required in each case as to the weight to be given to the 'other considerations' (including non‑refoulement obligations). It requires both primary and other considerations to be given 'appropriate weight'. Direction 65 does provide that, generally, primary considerations should be given greater weight. They are primary in the sense that absent some factor that takes the case out of that which pertains 'generally' they are to be given greater weight. However, Direction 65 does not require that the other considerations be treated as secondary in all cases. Nor does it provide that primary considerations are 'normally' given greater weight. Rather, Direction 65 concerns the appropriate weight to be given to both 'primary' and 'other considerations'. In effect, it requires an inquiry as to whether one or more of the other considerations should be treated as being a primary consideration or the consideration to be afforded greatest weight in the particular circumstances of the case because it is outside the circumstances that generally apply.”
[16] [2018] FCA 594 at [23].
The Tribunal now turns to addressing these considerations.
In these reasons, passages in bold other than headings represent emphasis added by the Tribunal.
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
Following the mandatory cancellation of his visa, the Applicant made a Request for Revocation on 3 September 2021.[17] The Applicant provided hand-written reasons for revocation as follows:
[17] Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G9, pages 72--75.
1.“I understand that I have failed my character test and I am sincerely sorry for what I have done.
2.I have lived in Australia for 14 years.
3.I have four children who were all born here.
4.We call Australia home.
5.I have a lot of family here and support.
6.I have a new partner here.
7.I have a job to go to upon release.
8.I will submit more support letters as it becomes available.
9.I am doing all I can to rehabilitate myself.
10.I am accessing more support for issues that I have identified in myself and where I need help.”
Together with his request, the applicant submitted a letter[18] dated 25 August 2021 from the Parole Board Queensland acknowledging receipt of his application for parole on
[18] Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G10, page 76.
23 August 2021.
On 1 November 2021[19], Mrs J Samuta of Samuta McComber Lawyers wrote to the department requesting time to prepare evidence and submissions.
[19] Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G11, pages 77-79.
On 10 December 2021, Ms Samuta again wrote[20] to the department enclosing submissions and copies of documents listed in the submissions[21], and requested further time to submit further evidence.
[20] Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G13, pages 87-103.
[21] Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G13, pages 104-106.
Documents submitted by Ms Samuta included:
a)A Statement of Attainment dated 9 October 2019 from TAFE Queensland[22] pertaining to working safely in the Construction industry;
[22]   Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G16, page 109;
b)A Certificate of Completion of the SSI-Explore Program, a Drug-Arm course[23];
[23]   Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G17, page 110.
c)A Verification of Employment at Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre confirming[24] that the applicant had been employed as a Groundsman and Senior Industry Worker, and was as at 19 October 2019, still currently employed as a Senior Industry Worker;
[24]   Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G18, page 111.
d)A photocopy of an Anger Management Workbook[25];
[25]   Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G19, pages 112-120
e)A page from Family Drug Support[26];
[26]   Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G20, page 121.
f)A birth certificate for a son born in 2012 and several pages of children’s drawings and writings[27];
[27]   Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G20, page 122-133.
g)Copies of Australian citizenship certificate of Ms J L Kenny, and Mr W Bunton, as well as an Australian passport in the name of Ms E S L Bunton, and a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island passport in the name of
Mr M D R Buntin[28];
[28]   Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G21, pages 134-137.
h)A letter dated 6 October 2010 addressed to Mr W Bunton from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship advising of the grant of a permanent visa to himself and Ms J L Kenney, Mr J P Buntin, and Ms E S L Bunton[29].
i)A visa grant notice dated 18 February 2014 in favour of Mr M D Buntin[30];
j)A typed signed undated character reference from Ms N Bunton (NB) discussed further below[31];
k)A three page typed signed character reference from Ms E Bunton (EB) dated
1 December 2021 discussed further below[32];
l)A one page typed signed character reference from Ms K Petzler, discussed further below[33];
m)A one page typed signed character reference dated 16 November 2021 from Mrs P and Mr K Wright discussed further below[34];
n)A one page typed signed character reference dated 20 November 2021 from
Mr R Bowen discussed further below[35];
o)Pathology request forms[36].
[29]   Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G21, pages 138-140.
[30]   Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G21, page 141.
[31]   Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G22, page 142-143.
[32]   Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G22, pages 144-146.
[33]   Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G22, page 147.
[34]   Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G23, page 148.
[35]   Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G23, page 149.
[36]   Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G24, pages 150-151.
Character reference – Ms N Buntin (NB)

In her character reference[37] NB stated that she had known the applicant for 23 years, initially as a family friend and then marrying his uncle. NB described a positive loving family, and good social, and employment history on the part of the applicant prior to his being exposed to illegal substances. She blamed his substance misuse for emotional dysregulation, poor impulse control, and unfortunate decision-making skills. NB described the applicant as an extremely pleasant and polite individual, and an enthusiastic and helpful person. She said his children are his world and he is extremely passionate about ensuring that he is there for them and can help guide them through life. NB said it would be detrimental to his children not to have their father by the side. She expressed the view that he was remorseful, and had the drive and determination to build a better future for himself and his children. She expressed the view that his risk of reoffending was “extremely low”, and he was ready to be an upstanding member of the community again.
[37] Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G22, page 142-143.
NB said that all of the applicant’s immediate family and most of his extended family reside in Australia. She said he had little connection with Scotland and it would be detrimental to his mental health, and make him a high risk candidate for depression which could result in suicidal ideation. She also said his physical health required ongoing assistance and he needed his family, particularly his mother (who was “instrumental: in supporting his wellbeing”) and siblings to maintain his wellness. She pledged to assist him with his rehabilitation in Australia. She described the applicant as kind, caring, and compassionate, and a person of integrity. He had skills and attributes that would be of great benefit to Australia.
Character reference – Ms E Buntin (EB)
In her statement[38], Ms E Buntin (EB), the applicant’s half-sister, said that the applicant had a tumultuous childhood suffering from the lack of his own father, and this created a psychological problem for him, even though he had the benefit of her father, Mr W Buntin. EB spoke glowingly of the applicant as the “most supportive, enthusiastic, upbeat and determined individual that I have ever met in my life.” She said the applicant worked 5 to 6 days a week and not only provided for his own family, but also supported her and her own son (V) to him he served as a father figure. She said the applicant and V had a “beautiful bond”, and V called the applicant “almost every day”. V has more contact with the applicant than he does with his own father.
[38] Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G22, pages 144-146.
EB described the applicant as being “very hands-on” and “very involved” with the lives of his own children, for whom he provided well. She said he had taught his own children discipline and respect. She described how the applicant was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis [MS] about five years prior to her statement and how this had led to a rapid decline in his own mental health. She said depression was a major factor in his life. She feared that his deportation would lead to a further decline in his mental health. She said he had attempted to suicide in the past, and that being in Scotland with no contact with his family and children would really destroy him.
EB said that since his release from prison, the applicant had taken the initiative to better his mental health, and investigate drug rehabilitation programs. She believed that the applicant wanted to see his children grow and rebuild his relationship with them. She also stated that it would bring great depression to herself and her family if the applicant were to be deported. She said she presently suffered from mental health concerns, and his removal from her life would impact negatively upon her.
EB said that the applicant was genuinely apologetic for his mistakes, and was now in a new relationship and he and his partner both seemed incredibly happy. She expressed the view that with her support and the support of their parents, the applicant could rebuild his relationship with his children and live a happy and fulfilled life.
Character reference Ms K Petzler (Ms Petzler)
In her statement[39], Ms Petzler said that she is of aboriginal descent, and is in a relationship with the applicant’s brother; Mr J P Buntin, and that the applicant is part of her family although she had not met the applicant in person. She said that Mr J P Buntin and the applicant had a “special bond… like what twins do”. The stress of the applicant possibly having to return to Scotland had affected them both adversely, and Mr J P Buntin who had been diagnosed with schizophrenia had needed medication changes. She spoke positively of the applicant’s prospects of rehabilitating himself she said the applicant only had his grandparents in the United Kingdom, and Australia had been home to the rest of his family for more than decade.
[39] Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G22, page 147.
Character reference Mrs P and Mr K Wright (Mrs and Mr Wright)
In their character reference[40], Mrs and Mr Wright said they had known the applicant for the past 11 years and were close friends of the family. They attested to his honesty and warmth and the fact that he loved his children immensely. Notwithstanding some unfortunate life choices, the applicant was at the core “a good person who can contribute positively to both his family and the wider community in general”. They expressed the view that removing him from his young children’s environment would have a negative effect on all concerned as he could offer them the love and attention of a devoted father.
[40] Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G23, page 148.
Character reference Mr R Bowen (Mr Bowen)
In his character reference, Mr Bowen, an Australian citizen and mine worker, described himself as a good friend of the applicant him he had known for almost 12 years. Mr Bowen described how the applicant had been very supportive of him following the breakdown of Mr Bowen’s relationship. He spoke glowingly of the applicant’s personal traits, and said he “always seemed to have a good head on his shoulders”. Mr Bowen said it would affect him and his family deeply if the applicant’s visa remained cancelled. He expressed confidence that the applicant would build and learn from his mistakes. Mr Bowen provided an open invitation for the applicant to live with him in counsel and stay as long as he would like to give him the best possible chance of rehabilitation.
On 14 December 2021, Ms Samuta wrote to the department enclosing a supplementary Evidence Bundle comprising:
(a)A Personal Circumstances Form provided by the applicant dated
10 December 2021[41];
[41]    Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G26, pages 157-175.
(b)A written statement of the applicant dated 13 December 2021[42];
(c)A written statement from Ms J L Kenney, the applicant’s mother dated
13 December 2021[43];
(d)Items of correspondence between Ms Kenney and Narcotics Anonymous[44];
(e)Relapse Prevention plan for the applicant[45];
(f)A letter of support from Ms C Kenney dated 10 November 2021[46];
(g)A letter of support from Mr W Buntin dated 30 November 2021[47];
(h)A letter of support from Mr M Buntin dated 1 December 2021[48];
(i)An undated letter of support from Mr J Buntin[49].
[42]   Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G27, page 176-183.
[43]   Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G28, pages 184-188.
[44]   Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G29, pages 189-190.
[45]   Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G30, page 191-192.
[46]   Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G31, pages 193-194.
[47]   Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G31, pages195-196.
[48]   Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G31, pages 197-199.
[49]   Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G31, pages 200-201.
Personal Circumstances Form
In his Personal Circumstances Form[50] dated 10 December 2021, (“PCF”) the Applicant gave his place of birth as Livingston, Scotland, and his citizenship as United Kingdom. He did not identify as an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. He gave his parents’ citizenship at birth as United Kingdom, and current citizenship as dual, United Kingdom and Australia. His parents had been permanent residents since 6 October 2010.
[50] Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G26, pages 157-175.
The applicant stated he first arrived in Australia in 2008 at Brisbane, and said he did not hold a current passport. He provided no details of people with whom he travelled to Australia. He provided an address at Thorneside where he intended to live if returned to the community. He gave his relationship status as separated, and provided no details of a spouse or partner, or other information pertaining to a spouse or partner, or the likely impact of a negative visa outcome.
The applicant disclosed his four minor children under 18 years of age, born in 2012, 2014, 2017, and 2018, being, in order R (a son), A (a daughter) Z (a son) and I (a daughter). The children all lived with his former wife who shall be referred to as LAI at an address in Eden’s Landing. When asked to provide details of court orders that pertained to his minor children, the applicant crossed the “No” box.
The applicant described his relationship with his minor children[51]. The applicant said that he had been in R’s life daily, taking him to and from school and helping with his homework, “doing everything a father should do”. He took him to play football on weekends.
[51] Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G26, page 164.
The applicant described his daughter A as being “a daddy’s girl”, and said they did the paintings together, played and sat in the garden and sang songs together. They spent time together before R got home from school.
The applicant said that when he had been diagnosed with MS, he was told his treatment might render him infertile, and if they wished to have children they should have them immediately. He said he and Z did whatever they could together as a family, and he taught Z to walk and talk.
The applicant described his daughter I as “a miracle” as he had been told he was infertile due to his chemotherapy, but his wife fell pregnant six months later. The DVO was put in place while I was still young, and he had missed out on a lot of her younger life.
The applicant also said that he had a relationship with a minor niece (S) and a minor nephew (V) but he did not initially provide their names. The applicant said the nephew, V did not have a father in his life, and looked up to him, and used to see him every weekend.
The applicant said he had only met S a couple of times as his brother lives in Ipswich and does not have a driver’s license. They are in contact at Christmas and New Year’s which they celebrate as a family.
The applicant said that a negative decision would mean his children would not have a father in their life, and this would have a mental health impact on them, as they would grow up without a role model. The applicant said his ex-wife had informed his mother that she was intending to seek mediation so that he could have contact with their children. He said he would participate in the mediation if it is set up by his ex-wife, but he could not do more than that as he did not want to breach the protection order. He said if mediation failed he planned to start proceedings in the Family Court to get contact with, and partial custody of the children. He said that if he is deported, he did not believe his ex-wife would facilitate sending the children back to Scotland.
As for his nephew, the applicant said a negative decision would break V’s heart. He also said that because S only knows him as an uncle, it would leave her confused about where her uncle had gone.
The Tribunal notes that V is presently six years old, and that S is currently three years old.
The applicant also listed his stepfather, mother, two brothers and one sister all of him reside in Australia and are either permanent residents or dual citizens. He also listed three uncles, three aunts and six cousins all of whom are resident in Australia. The applicant listed two grandparents as living in Scotland, and two cousins, living in Scotland and Ireland.
When asked to describe the impact of a negative visa decision on family members, the applicant stated[52]:
“It would impact my mum, dad, siblings, aunts and uncles. We are a tightknit family unit. There is a lot of love between us. Being removed would create mental health concerns for them, and impose a heavy emotional toll due to the sudden creation of this void. It would kill my mom if I was deported. She has been really stressed by this process. She has told me she cannot do it anymore as it is very stressful for her and is impacting her physically. It would destroy my stepdad to. Emotionally, it would have an impact on the whole family – but for him, he has also had the stress of watching what this is doing to my mom which would surely impact him.”
[52] Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G26, page 168.
When asked to explain his criminal history and risk of reoffending and factors that he wanted the decision-maker to take into account, and courses or programs in which he had participated the applicant stated[53]:
“I was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis [MS] in 2017. I was perfectly healthy one day, and the next day I wake up feeling numb. I ignored it the issues I was having for a while, but then it spread to the left side of my face and I went to the doctor.
My symptoms changed in severity. I felt fatigued, had memory loss, concentration issues, and altered sensation issues. I had reduced interest in normal activities. I was not in the right mental state, as I had been told I could wake up and be paralyzed. I was then diagnosed with depression. The MS and depression changed my whole character, and I went to a dark place. I lost my job in 2018. This caused financial stress for us that resulted in arguments that would never have normally happened. My marriage broke down and I became homeless. I got involved with the wrong social connections, as the people I met while I was homeless resulted in my heavy substance abuse. The substance abuse numbed me and impacted my decision-making ability, which I believe led to my offending.
…
The only course I could get into in prison was the SSI – Explore course that I did. At the moment, I cannot access more courses as I am in a hotel awaiting transfer to a detention centre. I put in for a transfer but it was declined. Right now, the only course available to me is an anger management one that I am currently doing. I want to do DVO courses, more drug and alcohol courses, anger management courses, a PPP parenting course and whatever else I need to do. I will also be starting Suboxone [Subutex].
…
My risk of reoffending in the community is zero because I won’t be using drugs. I understand that my marriage is over, but I have four beautiful kids who deserve more. I want my kids to know that I love them and I want to be in their life. I am to seek support from my MS, my drug addiction, and my mental well-being. I aim to find employment and to fight to have my kids in my life [but I will go through this the correct way through mediation or the Family Courts.”
[53] Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G26, page 170.
The applicant said he was supposed to be on parole but because he went to immigration detention he was never given the details of his parole conditions.
The applicant listed what appears to be essentially full-time employment with different employers at various locations between 2008 and 2018, and said he did casual work 4 days a week from 2018 until when he went to prison. The applicant said he had been employed in Australia and had contributed by income tax. He also used to regularly assist the homeless in the community, and had rescued many animals and donated toys to organization that help others in need.
When asked to detail any hardship that might be caused to members of the Australian community if he were to be removed from Australia, the applicant said it would cause hardship to his children who are Australian citizens. They would not have a father in their life and already have a fear of never seeing him again.
The applicant said he suffered multiple sclerosis and depression. He listed Baclofen as medication for back spasms caused by multiple sclerosis and Advanza for depression and sleep. The applicant said that he was currently being treated by Dr P Bailey at the Gold Coast University Hospital. He said he was on monthly blood and urine tests to monitor his immune system and determine if the multiple sclerosis is attacking his organs.
The applicant expressed concerns or fears that returning to his country of citizenship. He said that if he had to return to Scotland he would not be able to afford support such as a house, and he would be going back to nothing. He would also have the heartache of being separated from his family and children. He said he feared losing contact and support from his family, and it would be harmful to his mental health which is a risk to his physical health given his multiple sclerosis.
The applicant said he did not face any criminal charges or convictions in his country of citizenship. He said that his mental physical and financial well-being would all be a struggle in Scotland. He said his treatment is not available in Scotland because he is on a chemotherapy trial which ends in 2023 or 2024.
The applicant said that he would like to highlight that he has been a main carer for his children in the past, and he is scared of losing his children and the detriment caused by this to them. He acknowledged that he had done wrong and said he wanted to be a better person so that he could coparent his children and have his family circle around him.
Further statement of the applicant
The applicant provided a signed typed 88 paragraph eight page statement dated 30 December 2021[54].
[54] Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G27, pages 176-183.
The applicant provided a more detailed history of his regular employment in Australia at paragraph six of this statement. He then went on to describe how he completed a Prepare to work safely in the construction industry course – also known as a White Card through TAFE Queensland in 2019.
The applicant described an early childhood where his biological father was absent due to his drug addiction, and had died when the applicant was nine years old. He said he had idolized his biological father, and became rebellious after his death, particularly against his stepfather. He said he did not really care if he lived or not and began smoking marijuana and taking ecstasy. He said his behaviour got so bad that he was taken away from his family and placed with a foster family for a year. He said that during this time he did not know if he was going back to his own family and he felt alone without his siblings.
The applicant said that he used illicit drugs daily from when he was 10 years old (i.e. 2000) until he came to Australia in 2008. He attributed this to wanting to forget what was happening in his day-to-day life. He said the illicit drugs masked his feelings, emotions, and what he had been through in foster care.
The applicant said that he married his ex-wife in 2011 and converted to Islam in order to be accepted by her family at that time. He was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (“MS”) in 2017 and soon after was diagnosed with depression also. As time passed his MS systems worsened, he became fatigued, suffered memory loss and concentration issues and pain. His ability to move was impacted and some days he was unable to stand or kept falling over when he was standing due to the numbness in the left side of his body.
At paragraph 20-23 of his statement, the applicant said:
“20. When my marriage went through a rough patch in 2017, I started using crystal methamphetamine [”ice”] again. I had previously used ice in Australia about eight years ago, but I had quit for about four years prior to relapsing in 2017. After I started using ice again I began using it daily without LAI knowing.
21. I lost my job in 2018 because I could not perform satisfactorily for reasons I believe were a direct result of my MS symptoms and depression. My job loss caused LAI and I financial stress.
22. The financial stress resulted in arguments that LAI and I would never normally have had.
23. When our marriage broke down in August 2019 and the Protection Order was varied to include a no contact order, I ended up homeless. While I was homeless I came to meet individuals who were involved in drugs and I began using drugs heavily.”

The applicant acknowledged his most recent convictions:
“24. On 16 August 2021 I was convicted of:
a. Choking suffocation strangulation domestic relationship – domestic violence offense; and
b. Stalking;
and sentenced to two years of imprisonment for each offense to be served cumulatively [eligible to apply for parole on 16 August 2021 as the result of 601 days spent in presentence custody].”
The applicant expressed remorse for his family violence offending and its impact on his
ex-wife and his children. It also led to his removal from the lives of his children. The applicant gave an assurance that he would, if released into the community, not commit any further family violence offending because he had moved on from his old life and had no intention of going near his ex-wife unless a court order permitted. He nevertheless expressed the hope to arrange custodial rights to his children through the courts or mediation.
The applicant stated his ex-wife had told his mother that she was intending to start mediation so that he could see the children. The applicant said that if necessary he would apply to the Family Court to access his children.
The applicant stated that he had a new partner; Ms S J Lancaster, and upon his release into the community he would initially live with his parents, and then share his time between his parents and his partner.
The applicant acknowledged his drug offences in 2010 and 2020, but said he would not be committing further drug offenses if released into the community because he will not be on drugs. He said he was trying to get involved in rehabilitation courses, and living with his mother would remove him from previous associates who contributed to his drug use.
The applicant explained his nondrug offenses at paragraph 38 to 41 as follows:
“38. My National Criminal History Check also includes:
a. Assault or obstruct police officer (on 15/10/2013) for which I was fined $100 but had no conviction recorded; and
b. Assault or obstruct police officer (on 13/07/2015) for which I was not further punished and had no conviction recorded; and
c. Possession of a Knife in a Public Place (on 16/06/2020) for which I was not further punished and had no conviction recorded.
39. For the knife offense please pulled me over and I was found with a Barman’s friend. A Barman’s friend is a bottle opener with a 1 inch blade on it. It fell off my lap when the police pulled me over because my friend that was in a car with me had been drinking.
40. In relation to the Assault or Obstruct offences, I obstructed police by continuing to drive after the police had flashed their lights at me. On both occasions I had continued to drive so that I could get off the main road.
41. If I am released back into the community, I will not commit this type of offences again because I have too much at stake in my life to risk charges like these again.”
In addressing his risk of reoffending, the applicant pointed to limited opportunities to participate in rehabilitation, but said he had completed the SSI-Explore Program on
24 January 2020, and also had been employed at Arthur Gorrie Correctional Center as a groundsman and a senior industry worker, and had started an anger management course.
The applicant expressed a desire to do courses in domestic violence, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, anger management and parenting, as well as joining Narcotics Anonymous and QNADA, a family drug counselling service.
The applicant assessed his risk of reoffending if released back into the community as “zero because I wouldn’t be on illicit drugs.”
The applicant acknowledged that his marriage was over, and that both he and his ex-wife were in new relationships. His ex-wife regularly took their children to his mother’s for visits.
Upon release the applicant planned to seek support for his MS, drug addiction, and mental health. He also intended to seek employment and seek access to his children via the court if necessary.
The applicant described a close knit immediate and extended family all of whom were Australian citizens or permanent residents, resident in Australia. He expressed concern about the mental health of his family members in light of the emotional toll his deportation would have on them. In particular he feared his deportation would “just about kill my mum”, who had told him that the stress was affecting her mentally and physically. He also said his deportation would impact directly on his father who would have to watch what the process was doing to his mother.
At paragraphs 61 to 64 of his statement, the applicant essentially repeated what he had said earlier[55] .
[55] Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G26, page 164.
The applicant described the impact of the Protection Order as follows:
“65. My children are currently covered by a Protection Order, so I cannot have contact with them without their mother agreeing to it in writing (which she has not done). I really want to be in their lives and to coparent them, but I want to go about it the right way, so I will go through the Family Court.”
The applicant expressed the hope that if he is allowed to remain in the community, he wants to get a job and house so that he can coparent his children with his ex-wife. He expressed concern that if he is deported, his children will not have a father in their lives and this would have a mental impact on them. He said he lost his biological father when he was young, and it impacted on him in many ways. He did not want his children to suffer like he did.
The applicant expressed concern about post-deportation contact with his children at paragraph 68 as follows:
“68. I believe that I will not be able to see them again if I am deported because even if the Protection Order is varied or expires, I do not believe that LAI would facilitate my children visiting me in Scotland or any contact with my children. Given the geographical separation, the costs of travel are also significant particularly for four children who would need to travel with an adult.”
The applicant also discussed his relationship with his minor nephew V aged six and his minor niece S aged two. He said that prior to his incarceration V would come over every weekend and play with his children at their home. He was currently in touch on a regular basis through FaceTime. He believed his deportation would break V’s heart as he is an emotional child. The applicant said he had only met S a couple of times but was getting to know her more via FaceTime, and his deportation would leave her confused.
The applicant discussed impediments to his returning to Scotland. He expressed concerns about its harmful impact on his mental and physical health, particularly his MS. He could not afford a house in Scotland and would struggle emotionally.
The applicant said he does have elderly pensioner grandparents in Scotland but they could not give him much support. He felt he could only stay with his grandparents for up to a week, and after that he would probably be homeless. He said he speaks to his grandparents about three times a year and his relationship with them is not as close as it is with his family.
The applicant feared that he might have a mental breakdown in Scotland, as he would not be able to cope.
The applicant said he had been a participant in an MS trial in 2018 and using annual doses of chemotherapy, which he had found helpful for his MS, slowing it down, and stopped him from experiencing the worst of what he had experienced before, such as falling over and not being able to stand due to numbness. He said his MS was still progressing and he was having monthly blood and urine tests to monitor his progression for the duration of the trial, and to see if he needed further chemotherapy, which would be provided to him as part of the trial. He expressed concern that this MS trial is not available in the United Kingdom and that he would lose access to this treatment.
The applicant expressed concern that the additional stress and depression following deportation could impact the progression of his MS, and his ability to obtain work.
The applicant said he had been the main carer for the children prior to the Protection Order, and he hoped to achieve a 50:50 custody arrangement.
Statement of Ms J L Kenney (Ms Kenney, Applicant’s mother) [56]
[56] Exhibit G1, Section 501 G documents, G28, pages 184-188.
The applicant’s mother, Ms Kenney provided a signed four page statement dated

13 December 2021.
Ms Kenney described her family’s immigration to Australia between 2007 and 2012. She described how she had divorced the applicant’s father when the applicant was very young, and he and his siblings had had minimal contact with their biological father, who died from an overdose when the applicant was nine years old.
Ms Kenney said she had married Mr W Buntin who treated her children as his own around the time that the applicant was 2 ½ years old.
Ms Kenney said the applicant’s biological father’s death had a significant impact on the applicant who could not understand or overcome his grief. He turned against his stepfather, and turn to illicit drugs and demonstrated uncontrollable and risky behaviours, yet remained “loving and caring”. He was placed in foster care for his own safety.
Ms Kenney said that the applicant’s diagnosis with multiple sclerosis five years earlier changed his life impacting his moods, lifestyle and family life. He had battled stress anxiety and depression, and attempted suicide. His MS induced mental health decline “resulted in him using illicit substances, losing his employment, his marriage breakdown, and becoming homeless…”
Ms Kenney described the applicant as a caring, considerate, and supportive person. She expressed fear that her grandchildren would lose their father who had been a “fantastic father prior to his offending”. She described his involvement with the children prior to the no contact order, and his desire to rebuild his relationship with the children. She expressed fear that his deportation would result in complete separation of the applicant and his children, and this would have a negative psychosocial impact on them. She said the children had sent him cards and messages whilst he was in prison, and had been at first excited at the prospect of his release, and then devastated that this did not eventuate. She was concerned the children would very much grieve for their father if he is deported.
Ms Kenney expressed concerns that the applicant’s deportation would cause much anxiety and heartbreak for her whole family. His only relatives in Scotland are his elderly grandparents. His grandmother is waiting on a hip replacement, and his grandfather is busy caring for the grandmother so could not support the applicant.
Ms Kenney expressed concern that the applicant would have a break down and end up homeless in Scotland.
Ms Kenney said the applicant’s visa cancellation has had an enormous impact on her personally. She has developed anxiety and feels nauseous most of the time. She’s become emotional and lost weight. Her migraines have increased in frequency and severity resulting in increased medication. Her moods have become low, and it has affected her relationship with her husband and the applicant’s siblings. She feared his deportation would destroy her.
Ms Kenney said if the applicant is allowed to remain in Australia he will come back to a supportive environment which will include living with her and her husband. She has already assisted him to locate the Sobriety App, connect with Narcotics Anonymous, and she has located a QNADA Family Drug Support Group in Nundah and would attend with him.
Ms Kenney said the applicant had spoken about getting on the Subutex program beginning on 21 December 2021. If released, he would be away from the negative social circle that he knew before. He was looking into employment and liaising with health supports. She echoed the applicant’s statements about getting a house, coparenting acknowledging his marriage was over, and the establishment of a new relationship. She said he had taken responsibility for what had occurred, and accepted that he had addiction and mental health issues. She planned to continue support for her son, and to investigate a support group for family and friends using Zoom meetings.
Letter from Ms C Kenney (CK) dated 10 November 2021[57]
[57] Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G31, pages 193-194.
CK stated that she was the applicant’s aunt, and had known him for 25 years due to her de facto relationship with his uncle; Mr D Kenney. She said the applicant had a difficult time owing to issues with his biological father, which she believed impacted his mental status. She continued to believe he is a genuinely good person. CK said his past mistakes were not typical of his behaviour, and she felt that his former partner had contributed to them. She said he was truly remorseful and could continue to be a good father to his four children. She said the applicant had done voluntary work assisting the homeless, and had a good heart.
CK confirmed that all of the applicant’s immediate family reside in Australia with only his two elderly grandparents in Scotland. She believed he needed the support of his family to help him deal with his MS issues and this could not be expected of his grandparents.
CK said the emotional and mental impact on the applicant, his children and his family would be huge if he is not granted permission to stay. She spoke from firsthand experience of the mental struggles that a child can face with only one parent, especially from young age. She said it would be unlikely that the applicant would ever see his children again if he is not allowed to remain in Australia, and described “the incident” as being out of character for him.
Letter from Mr W Buntin (WB) dated 30 November 2021[58]
[58] Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G31, pages195-196.
WB the applicant’s stepfather described how he and his wife and family had immigrated to Australia. He described the applicant as “an active little boy” whose life turned a dramatic corner when his biological father passed away, even though there was minimal contact between them. He described how the applicant started showing resentment towards him, and the applicant’s behaviours of hanging around with all the boys and using illicit drugs led to him being placed in foster care for a period of time. Over time he had rebuilt his relationship with the applicant.
WB described the applicant’s ostracism from his ex-wife’s family because of religious differences which the applicant ultimately attempted to resolve by converting to Islam. He described their marriage as “up and down”, and his ex-wife as “very dominant”, and said she often berated the applicant and spoke down to him in front of the family.
WB said he never saw the applicant show any negative behaviour towards his children. His mental health plunged after his MS diagnosis, and he commenced using ice, lost his employment, his marriage, and then became homeless. He spoke of the applicant’s desire to make himself a better person and father.
WB said that the stress of having the applicant in the Immigration Detention was unbearable for the family, and his wife had not been herself, was losing weight and was emotional. He thought she was suffering depressive symptoms, and had had to take a break from work. He expressed fear that the outcome of this case would break the family. He expressed fears that his wife might never get over losing the applicant, and he expressed concern for the welfare of the applicant, his mother, and sister. He pledged the family’s support for the applicant and said they all wanted him to be part of their lives and the lives of his children.
Letter from Mr M Buntin (MB) dated 1 December 2021[59]
[59] Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G31, pages 197-199.
MB said he was the applicant’s eldest brother, and had only “very vague memories of my biological father due to minimal contact with him.” He said that whilst he had no emotion at the passing of his biological father, the applicant was “the complete opposite”.
MB described the applicant as a child as being “a fun-loving mischievous sibling”, who still shared a special bond with his “baby” sister (EB). MB generally echoed the evidence of others regarding the applicant’s response to the death of his biological father, and his subsequent behaviour towards WB. He said the applicant’s behaviour improved after a few months in foster care. He painted a glowing picture of the applicant as a loving father, and a decent citizen who on one occasion assisted an elderly man to change a tyre on his vehicle. He said the applicant was “in no way a bad person”. He said the applicant was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 2016, and thereafter deteriorated physically and mentally, attempting to commit suicide a couple of times. He described his illicit drug use, job loss, marital breakdown, and homelessness.
MB expressed concern about the negative impact of the applicant’s deportation on the family as a whole, and on their mother in particular. His deportation would be highly damaging to everyone especially his children. He believed the applicant was committed to make himself a better person, and was remorseful for his past conduct.
Letter from Mr J Buntin (JB)[60]
[60] Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents G31 pages 200-201.
JB wrote that he was the close brother of the applicant, and supported the reinstatement of his visa. He recounted the family history of growing up in Scotland and moving to Australia. JB said he personally had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, and did not know how he would cope if the applicant did not remain in Australia. He blamed his biological father’s passing for both his and his brothers mental health deterioration.
JB said that the applicant was a hands-on father, and spoke glowingly of his interactions with the applicant’s own children, their nephew, and his daughter. He described the applicant as a great asset to the family and society, and hard-working family man who is caring and respectful to others.
JB said that the applicant had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis at a time when he was living with the applicant and his wife, who he said spoke down to and disrespectfully towards the applicant, worsening his state of mind. He expressed strong confidence that the applicant would not reoffend. He said the applicant’s children had a right to be in a relationship with their father. Removing the applicant from Australia was a potential death sentence for him, and would be detrimental to the mental health of everyone in the family.
On 16 December 2021, Samuta McComber Lawyers forwarded a signed letter dated

15 December 2021 from Ms S J Lancaster.
Letter of Ms S J Lancaster (Ms Lancaster) dated 15 December 2021[61]
[61] Ibid, G32, pages 203-204.
Ms Lancaster identified herself as the applicant’s partner, and said she was willing and capable of being a support person to help him not to reoffend. She also said she was someone who would be greatly affected should his visa not be reinstated.
Ms Lancaster said she had known the applicant for over 10 years, having dated briefly, and then lost contact. She did not say precisely when they resumed contact, but said she had been visiting him at the Immigration Center in Brisbane as much as possible. She described the applicant as kind and compassionate extremely caring, and determined. She said the applicant had been very honest with her about everything in his past including his mental and physical health conditions, and the steps he has taken and will take to improve his life.
Ms Lancaster believed she was more than capable of supporting the applicant to become the best man he can be. She said she lived a happy and stable life on the Sunshine Coast, and the applicant would spend half of his time residing with her, and half with his mother. She said she had a full-time job, is good friends with his mother and family and was well placed to assist him. She repeated his immediate family and children all live in Australia, and that he himself has lived in Australia for the majority of his life and has always been a contributing member of society while working full time. She expressed concern for her physical and mental health and also that of her family and friends in the event that he is deported.

The Tribunal has had regard for a ticket to attend a function called “Man2Man: Men’s engagement in ending Family Violence”[62], and further evidence of the applicant’s efforts to engage in on line courses[63].
[62] Exhibit R1, Section 501 G documents, G33, pages 205-208.
[63] Ibid, G34 pages 209-212.
The Tribunal has had regard for the applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (“SFIC”)[64], and his accompanying unsigned typed and undated statement[65]. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has conceded[66] that he has a substantial criminal record and does not pass the character test and the only issue before the Tribunal is whether there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa.
[64]   Exhibit A1.
[65]   Exhibit A1.1.
[66]   Exhibit A1, at [17] – [19].
The Tribunal has had regard for Exhibit A1.1 in which the applicant reiterated his life story, including his painful childhood, his cannabis use between the ages of 10 and 18 years his move to Australia and subsequent marriage, conversion to Islam, and Multiple Sclerosis diagnosis in 2017, and the ensuing health, marital, and employment issues which arose. He also spoke of his drug use, imprisonment and detention in the Brisbane Immigration Transport Accommodation (BITA). The applicant acknowledged the finality of his relationship with his ex-wife, and referred to his new relationship, his rehabilitation commitment, efforts and plans. He also mentioned that his ex-wife was facilitating regular FaceTime contact with his children, and had discussed co-parenting arrangements with him. He also referred to how his two elder children were missing him.
The applicant spoke of the best interests of his children, and the emotional, psychological, and psychosocial hardships he would face if returned to Scotland, away from his entire family and his own children. The applicant said the was on a drug being trialled for MS treatment, and said that the drug is only available in Australia. He said he also suffered depression and was being treated with Avanza and Melatonin to assist with insomnia.
The applicant said his likelihood of re-offending is low, and that he had no prior family violence or violent crimes, and was not an unacceptable risk to the Australian community.
The Tribunal has also had regard for the various pages comprising anger and stress management and domestic violence related work-books and materials[67], and documents evidencing the applicant’s[68] search for domestic violence courses.
[67] Exhibits A4 and A5.
[68] Exhibits A6 and A7.
The Tribunal has also had regard for the Psychologist’s presentencing report from Dr T Gee dated 9 January 2015[69] which recorded that the applicant showed no signs of schizophrenia despite family history[70].
[69] Exhibit R2, Tender Bundle, R1, pages 1-6.
[70] Ibid, page 2.
Applicant’s history of offending and other serious conduct
The Applicant’s criminal history and other serious conduct is informed by the following documents:
a)
Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission Check Results Report dated

9 October 2021;[71]
[71]    Exhibit R1, G Documents, G4, pages 55-57.
b)Transcript of proceedings of the Queensland District Court of Queensland dated 16 August 2021;[72]
c)
Verdict and Judgment Record of District Court of Queensland dated

16 August 2021[73];
d)Driver Licence History of Queensland Government dated 15 June 2022[74];
e)Documents produced under summons by the Queensland Police Service[75];
f)Extract of documents produced under summons by the Beenleigh District Court[76];
g)Extract of documents produced under summons by the Director of Public Prosecutions[77].
[72]    Ibid, G5, pages 58-64.
[73]   Exhibit R1, G Documents, G6, pages 65-67.
[74]   Exhibit R2, Tender Bundle, R2, pages 7-11.
[75]   Ibid, R3, pages 12-245.
[76]   Exhibit R2, Tender Bundle, R4, pages 246-254.
[77]   Ibid, R5, pages 255-259.
Recent Criminal offending
The sentencing remarks[78] of Judge Chowdhury DCJ in the District Court of Queensland on 16 August 2021 were as follows:
[78] Exhibit G1, G Documents, G5, pages 58-64.
HIS HONOUR: Right. Stand up, please, Mr Buntin. You have pleaded guilty on one indictment to strangulation in a domestic setting, and on the second indictment for unlawful stalking with the circumstance of aggravation that you contravened a court order. You have also pleaded guilty to a large number of summary offences: three of breach of bail; one of possession of a dangerous drug; one offence of possession of drug utensils; one of unlawful possession of a knife; 16 contraventions of a domestic violence order; and a further four offences of contravention of a domestic violence order.
At the time of those offences you were 29 to 30 years of age; you are now 31. You have a relatively minor criminal history: you have a possession of a dangerous drug offence that you were dealt with on the 10^th of January 2011, you were given a good behaviour bond of four months and drug diversion. On 5 November 2013 you were convicting of obstructing a police officer and fined $100. And finally, on 13 January 2015 there is a further obstruct of a police officer; you were convicted and not further punished.
The offences arise out of the breakdown, really, of a longstanding relationship. In respect of the strangulation offence, you were 29 at the time of that offence. The complainant, LAI, was your partner and she was 30 years at the time of the offence. You had been in a relationship for about 10 years – it is a long period. You have four children together. You separated in February of 2019.
On 2 July 2019 a protection order was made in the Magistrates Court at Beenleigh for the protection of the complainant; you were the respondent. It contained two conditions: that you be of good behaviour and not commit domestic violence; and further, you not enter, attempt to enter or approach within 100 metres where LAI lived or worked. That was varied on 5 August 2019 to include the children as named persons and also to include further non-contact conditions.
On 13[79] August 2019 at about 12.30 am the complainant was at home with her children when she heard noises from outside her front door. She saw you on her doorstep playing around with the outdoor ceiling light. She shouted at you to leave.
[79] The Statement of Facts shows the date as being 14 August; Exhibit R4 page 246.
You went to your car and left. The complainant turned on all of the lights and stayed inside for about 15 minutes. She went outside to try and fix the light and to block the driveway with some rubbish bins to stop you returning. You then walked towards her, she told you not to go inside – she was concerned about the children who were asleep, she grabbed you by your shoulder to stop you from entering the house. You turned around, grabbed her left hand and squeezed it. You then grabbed her by the throat and pushed her against the front door tightening your grip; the complainant could not breathe, this lasted for about 30 seconds. As you did that you continued to hold onto her left hand. The complainant felt pain around her windpipe. Eventually you released your grip and she tried to yell for help. You ran away.
She immediately phoned the police. The complainant was subsequently seen by paramedics and she told the ambulance officer she had difficulty breathing and shortness of breath. One of the ambulance officers observed minor redness and a bruise on her neck. She then went and saw a GP who noted there was some tenderness in the left neck muscle and there were some muscular spasms on the left side of her neck.
At 6.50 am on 14 August 2019 the complainant saw your car parked at the end of the driveway and she called police. They arrived a short time later and you were intercepted, and there was an interview where you gave a version to the police which is not accepted.
There are a lot of problems in our community with domestic violence. And choking in particular is an extremely serious offence, it is seen as a precursor to – well, serious violence including homicide, which is why it is now an offence; it carries a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment. It is, of course, an aggravating feature that you were on a protection order at the time. You were remanded in custody for a period before being released on bail.
We then come to the second indictment involving unlawful stalking. There was an attempt at reconciliation with the complainant and you lived under the same roof and address in Holmview for a period. In July 2019 you were admitted to Logan Hospital for a mental health assessment. Your behaviour was becoming increasingly erratic and aggressive towards the complainant.
There was that protection order that I have already mentioned that was made on 2 July 2019. A no contact order was varied, which allowed the complainant to provide written consent for you to attend the house. As I have indicated, you were given watchhouse bail on 4 August 2019 with the condition that you have no contact with the complainant, and not approach her house within 100 metres. There was an amended protection order; it was made on 5 August 2019. As I have said, you were arrested for the choking offence on 14 August 2019. You were then eventually released on bail on 18 March 2020 with a further condition: that you have no contact with the complainant or attend her residence.
After your release from custody you and the complainant re-engaged in contact with each other. On 6 May 2020 she revoked your consent for you to be at the address and told you not to contact her. Twenty-three days later you returned to the address. The complainant believed you were under the influence of illicit substances. You did some work for her in the house, putting together some bunkbeds. But then the complainant made it clear to you that the relationship was over.
On 12 May 2020 the complainant blocked your mobile number and then unblocked it on the 24^th of May. A review of text messages and phone logs between you and the complainant from 24 May 2020 until your arrest on 16 June 2020 revealed that you had messaged the complainant sometimes as little as 15 times a day – even 15 times per day is a lot – but up to as many as 105 times per day, which is extraordinary. Most of the conversations were instigated by you. Sometimes the complainant would contact you about the whereabouts of the children. However, the conversations were not merely confined to the wellbeing and whereabouts of the children, many of the messages consisted of you simply abusing the complainant.
The stalking conduct also included you waiting outside her house and questioning the complainant about who was coming into the house, and you were accusing her of sleeping with other men. You would sleep in your car outside the house and ignore requests to leave. You entered her house through locked doors on 31 May 2020 and stole personal belongings. You entered her property when she was home, also when she was not home. You cut a padlock on the side gate and attempted to enter the house. You posted various concerning things on social media, in particular ideas of suicide, and putting all the blame on the complainant. All of this would occur at any hour of day or night almost every day for the period charged of 24 May 2020 to 16 June 2020. And the stalking only stopped when you were apprehended and arrested.
There is no victim impact statement, but there is no doubt that your conduct both in the choking incident and the stalking incidents clearly would have had a significant adverse effect on the complainant, and perhaps the children. The large number of summary offences – I do not need to go through all of them, some of them are of course contraventions of the domestic protection order constituted by the choking offence, as I have said, and the stalking offence.
But even before those offences there were three contraventions of a domestic violence order in August 2019, and the various breach of bail conditions that are set out. There was the possession of dangerous drugs on 16 June 2020 when police intercepted your car, and a clip seal bag was found containing a gram of cannabis. There was a used glass pipe and a pocket knife on the front passenger seat. There were the various letters that you sent to the complainant, including while you were in prison, and there were also the phone calls which are set out. I have had full regard to that.
Stalking is also an extremely serious offence. It is something that first emerged in the United States in the 1980’s as a result of serious incidents of stalking, in the initial stages of – famous musicians or movie stars, and so forth, and led to extreme acts of violence including homicide. Consequently, in the early 90’s in Queensland the stalking offence was established. It is serious conduct because it just wears down the victims’ mental health and their feelings of safety and wellbeing. So it is, again, a particularly serious offence. Of course, you breached bail and you breached court orders, which has always been viewed as serious by the courts.
In your favour it is a timely plea of guilty. I have been greatly assisted by Mr Edridge’s outline which sets out your background and the various issues that you have with mental health, and also, you have multiple sclerosis which is a considerable condition to have. And one can only hope that you are one of the lucky ones, and the condition does not worsen. But in any event, hopefully, you will get full treatment for it.
You were born in Scotland. You are not a citizen of Australia. You came to Australia with your family when you were about 19 years of age. You followed your mother and the rest of the family. You have a good relationship with your mother and your siblings. And, indeed, your mother is here to support you in Court, as well as your sister. You married the Complainant soon after arriving in Australia. She is Muslim, and you converted to Islam, and I am told you still are devoted to that religion. You and the Complainant were married for 10 years, and you have four children: a son who is nine; a daughter, seven; another son who is four; and your youngest daughter is only three.
You have now come to terms with the fact that the relationship has ended. You do not want to seek any contact with the Complainant, but you are motivated to try and be a good father for your children. You have got an excellent work history, and it is a shame where, I think, your use of dangerous drugs has been your downfall like it has been for a lot of offenders who appear in front of me. You are the main breadwinner for the family. You have got a long history of working as a tyre fitter, and you were working six days a week in that occupation.
You started work at the age of 14 doing a milk run. You worked as a tyre fitter, both in Scotland and then in Australia when you came here. You even rose to a management position, and you were working until, of course, you were arrested and put in custody in August 2019. You had used the dangerous drug, ‘ice’, for about eight years after being introduced by a work friend. It is well-known that ice, firstly, is widespread in the community, and quite often, it is used by people in the trades, and a lot of people – a lot of offenders I deal with were introduced to that dangerous drug by a work colleague, you know, to help them stay awake or to give them the energy to continue working. It is a nasty drug. It is one of the worst we have, and it is really difficult to know what the Courts, police, the community can do to try and convince people, “Do not take it, it just destroys people’s lives.” And it is the catalyst for extreme violence we see in the community including murder. In any event, you have told Mr Edridge that you have resolved to quit ice after a period, and you have been abstinent. But when the relationship ended in February 2019, you started using ice and, of course, that led to, inevitably, you losing your job because you just simply could not do it again.
You have a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis, which I have referred to earlier. That occurred in 2017. You underwent two courses of chemotherapy. You have been diagnosed with depression, which is not surprising, given that condition and the other matters in your life. You commenced antidepressants whilst you were on remand. You have not received, it seems, much treatment for multiple sclerosis while in prison. You have had video link appointments booked with a neurologist, but they were cancelled due to COVID lockdowns and, obviously, that is a relevant factor on sentence. Obviously, at this time – at the moment, I should say – you are able to stand and move around and so forth. One hopes that your multiple sclerosis does not worsen, because it affects people differently but, obviously, you need to get treatment and proper treatment for that.
You worked as a laundry worker, as well as a senior cleaner. You also worked as a groundsman and an industry worker whilst you had previously been on remand. I have had regard to all the matters in your favour. I have had regard to the references that have been tendered by your family. You are very lucky to have family who care and support you, and you will need their help once you are released from prison. I have had regard to the certificate of completion that was tendered. I have also had regard to your relapse prevention program. Having regard to all of the comparable cases, no case is exactly alike, but I agree with the prosecution here. There is separate and distinct offending. You have the strangulation in the domestic setting. That occurs in August 2019. You were arrested, placed in custody, and then released on bail, and when you were on bail you committed this serious offence of stalking, and it is right in those circumstances to make the sentence for stalking cumulative on the sentence imposed for the strangulation.
I’ve factored all of those offences, the summary offences in reaching the overall sentence of four years. You heard my discussion. The sentence could have been as high as four and a-half years, but taking into account all of the competing factors, I think four years is the appropriate sentence. I have had regard to the fact that you are not an Australian citizen, and the Minister for Immigration may seek to take action about that. You have your rights to oppose that. It is not quite the case where I would otherwise reduce the sentence because of that, and I am familiar with what the Court of Appeal has said in the case of R v Norris; Ex parte Attorney-General.
So what I will do is impose an overall global sentence of four years imprisonment to reflect all of the offending and set a parole eligibility today because of the significant period you have served in custody. So I impose the following sentences: on the single count of the indictment charging strangulation in a domestic setting, you are sentenced to two years imprisonment; on the indictment charging stalking with the circumstance of aggravation, you are sentenced to two years imprisonment; the sentence on the stalking is to be cumulative on the sentence of two years for the strangulation offence; in respect of each summary offence, you are convicted but not further punished. I declare that between the 14^th of August 2019 and the 18^th of March 2019, and the 29^th of July 2020 and the 15^th of August 2021, a total period of 601 days, as time served under these sentences of imprisonment. I state you are eligible for parole on today’s date, 16 August 2021.
I consider now the protection order that is currently in force. I have power under section 42 of the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012. While the prosecution have been unable to get specific submissions on this from the complainant, I consider – having regard to the nature of the offences, particularly the stalking, and the repeated contraventions on a protection order – that for the complainant’s benefit, the order should be extended. So the order now continues in force to and including 5 August 2026. Now, is there anything I have missed or overlooked?
MR EDRIDGE: No, your Honour.
Traffic history

Clearly, the applicant was “stupid enough” to ignore this warning. The applicant’s recent attempts at rehabilitation have failed during the period he has been under court orders, incarcerated, and in Immigration Detention. The Tribunal is unable to find that the applicant has achieved any substantive rehabilitation, even when subject to the strictures of a regulated lifestyle, and holds grave fears for how he would conduct himself if at liberty in the community. There is strong reason to believe that he is incorrigible.
There is no clear expert evidence that the applicant’s physical and mental health issues contributed to his offending.
Central to the applicant’s plans for the future is the maximisation of his role as a father. It will be eight years before the eldest child turns 18, and 15 years until the youngest child turns 18. The realisation of the applicant’s plans may well involve a protracted and frustrating contest. Firstly there is the obstacle of the DVO in force until 5 August 2026. Secondly, there is a long history of conflict between the applicant and his ex-wife, LAI. LAI has not provided a statement as to her future intentions regarding the applicant having access to the children, or any possible variation of the DVO. The applicant has stated a preference for a mediated agreement, but expressed a determination to seek a remedy in the Family Court should that become necessary. There is certainly no guaranteed outcome in respect of the applicant’s objective. The situation is complicated by the applicant’s physical health. Unfortunately the Tribunal does not have the benefit of any expert evidence on the applicant’s prognosis either in respect of his Multiple Sclerosis, his mental health, or employment prospects.
The Tribunal is concerned that the applicant’s path to access to his children and ultimately co-parenting may be a significantly more difficult one than he presently anticipates. It may well be long, difficult and frustrating, again with no guaranteed outcome. Added to this, the applicant has a very long history of use of illicit substances going back to the age of 10. He used drugs daily from the age of 10 until he came to Australia in July 2008 at the age of 18. Within 18 months of arriving in Australia he was convicted of possession of a dangerous drug. In his statement of 30 December 2021,[101] the applicant referenced having used ice “about 8 years ago” which the Tribunal takes to mean around 2013. He says he had a break from it for four years before having a relapse in 2017 at the time of his combined difficulties. However, Chowdhury DCJ recorded[102]:
“You had used the dangerous drug, “ice” for about eight years after being introduced to it by a work friend. … It is a nasty drug… It is one of the worst we have …and it is the catalyst for extreme violence we see in the community including murder…”
[101] Ibid, G27, pages 176-183.
[102] Exhibit R1, G Documents, G5, page 62, lines 22- 32.
This passage needs to be considered in conjunction with his honour’s earlier statement[103]
“… And choking in particular is an extremely serious offence, it is seen as a precursor to – well serious violence including homicide, which is why it is now an offence; it carries a maximum penalty of seven years...”
[103] Ibid, G5, page 60, lines 11-14.
The history of 315A of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) (“Code”) (the provision under which the present Applicant was sentenced was discussed in the judgment of Her Honour Mullins JA (as her Honour the President of the Court of Appeal then was) (with whom McMurdo JA and Boddice J agreed) in R v HBZ [2020] QCA 73 (“HBZ”). In the course of considering the construction of the word “chokes” in s 315A of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) her Honour gave insight into the circumstances which led to the enactment of this provision.
Before turning to those circumstances, it is convenient to set out s. 315A of the Code:
Choking, suffocation or strangulation in a domestic setting
(1)A person commits a crime if-
(a) the person unlawfully chokes, suffocates or strangles another person without the other person’s consent; or
(b) either –
(i)the person is in a domestic relationship with the other person; or
(ii)the choking, suffocation or strangulation is associated domestic violence under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012.
Maximum penalty – 7 years imprisonment.
(2)An assault is not an element of an offence against subsection (1).
Her Honour recorded that s. 315A of the Code was enacted to address instances of non-fatal strangulation in line with a recommendation of the Specific Taskforce on Domestic and Family Violence (Queensland) in its 2015 Report Not Now, Not Ever: Putting an End to Domestic and Family Violence in Queensland an extract of which her honour cited at [35] which included the following:
“Strangulation is a very common feature of domestic and family violence and is also seen as a predictive risk factor for future more severe domestic and family violence and for homicide. The introduction of a separate offence for strangulation, which is not limited by association with a future crime, would allow for better recording of domestic and family violence incidents leading to better risk assessment and increased protection of victims.”
Her Honour also referred to the Explanatory Notes for the Bill which introduced s. 315A and quoted the following passages at [36] to[37]:
“The new strangulation offence and the significant penalty attached, reflect that this behaviour is not only inherently dangerous, but is a predictive indicator of escalation in domestic violence offending, including homicide. The Taskforce noted the importance of identifying misconduct to assist in assessing risk to victims and increasing protections for them.
…
The introduction of the new offence is justified to protect vulnerable members of our community, identify this predictive violent domestic conduct, denounce this type of offending, and provide adequate deterrence to perpetrators of this type of offending.”
Her Honour went on to observe at [56]:
“The gravamen of the offending conduct which the offence seeks to deter is the action of one domestic partner towards the other that is described as either choking, strangling or suffocating the victim and not the consequence of the act. The rationale for the offence is that even though one incident in the domestic context of choking, strangling or suffocating may not result in any serious injury, the conduct must be deterred, because it is inherently dangerous and experience shows that if it is repeated death or serious injury may eventually result.”
[Tribunal emphasis].
The Tribunal is concerned that a protracted dispute with LAI over access to his children could drag on for a considerable time, and may well prove to be a source of painful frustration, and ultimately disappointment. Should the applicant succumb to anguish he may feel, or revert to ice usage, there is a very real risk of a further domestic violence episode which could well have grave consequences.
Applying the principles in paragraphs 5.2(3) and (5) of the Direction, the Tribunal is of the view that the harm that could be caused from future similar offending is so serious that even countervailing considerations are insufficient to justify revoking the mandatory cancellation of the applicant’s visa.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 1
Primary Consideration 1 weighs very heavily against revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 2: FAMILY VIOLENCE
Paragraph 8.2 of the Direction provides:
(1)The Government has serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of entering or remaining in Australia. The Government’s concerns in this regard are proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen (see paragraph (3) below).
(2)This consideration is relevant in circumstances where:
a)    a non-citizen has been convicted of an offence, found guilty of an offence, or had charges proven howsoever described, that involve family violence; and/or
b)    there is information or evidence from independent and authoritative sources indicating that the non-citizen is, or has been, involved in the perpetration of family violence, and the non-citizen being considered under section 501 or section 501CA has been afforded procedural fairness.
(3)In considering the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non- citizen, the following factors must be considered where relevant:
a)    the frequency of the non-citizen’s conduct and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;
b)    the cumulative effect of repeated acts of family violence;
c)     rehabilitation achieved at time of decision since the person’s last known act of family violence, including:
i.the extent to which the person accepts responsibility for their family violence related conduct;
ii.the extent to which the non-citizen understands the impact of their behaviour on the abused and witness of that abuse (particularly children);
iii.efforts to address factors which contributed to their conduct; and
d)    Whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware by a Court, law enforcement or other authority, about the consequences of further acts of family violence, noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen’s favour. This includes warnings about the non- citizen’s migration status, should the non-citizen engage in further acts of family violence.
The definition of “family violence” relevantly provided by the Direction includes “violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that … causes the family member to be fearful. …
Examples include:
a) An assault …
c) stalking …
e) intentionally damaging or destroying property…”
There is very clear evidence before the Tribunal that this applicant has engaged in acts of physical family violence, which are fully set out in the sentencing remarks of his Honour Chowdhury DCJ, and do not require repetition.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant and LAI Islam were married with four children, but separated at the time of the applicant’s offending, for which he received four years imprisonment. The Tribunal is satisfied that LAI Islam was a family member of the applicant, and that the offences of choking, and stalking as well as the episode of tyre puncturing recorded at Exhibit R4 page 251, each constituted acts of violence by the applicant. Moreover, the Tribunal is satisfied that each and every one of the breaches of the DVO by the applicant would have caused LAI to be fearful, and were therefore acts of family violence.
The acts of family violence by this applicant were particularly frequent, and approximate once a fortnight during his last year of liberty.
The Tribunal respectfully concurs with the observation by Chowdhury DCJ that “there is no doubt that your conduct both in the choking incident and the stalking incidents clearly would have had a significant adverse effect on the complainant, and perhaps the children.”[104]
[104] Exhibit R1, G Document, G5, page 4, lines 15 – 17.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that LAI would have felt she was in a constant state of harassment during the period of offending, and that this would have had some flow on effect upon the children. Unfortunately there is no expert evidence of the impact on her or the children.
The applicant has stated that he now recognises his wrong doing, but the Tribunal has already stated its assessment of his credibility. The applicant he has not sincerely, clearly or satisfactorily addressed the impact of his behaviour on either his ex-wife or their children. The Tribunal is not persuaded that the applicant fully understands the impact of his behaviour on his ex-wife and children.
There is no clear evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant had received any formal warnings about the visa consequences of his conduct prior to his offending.
The Tribunal is gravely concerned that if this applicant is returned to the community his period of confinement will merely represent a hiatus in his offending.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 2
A consideration of Primary Consideration 2 very heavily against revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 3: THE BEST INTERESTS OF MINOR CHILDREN IN AUSTRALIA
Paragraph 8.3(1) of the Direction compels a decision-maker to make a determination about whether cancellation or refusal under s 501, or non-revocation under s 501CA, is in the best interests of a child affected by the decision. Paragraphs 8.3(2) and 8.3(3) respectively contain further stipulations. The former provides that for their interests to be considered, the relevant child (or children) must be under 18 years of age at the time when a decision about whether or not to refuse or cancel the visa or not to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision is being made. The latter provides that if there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests may differ.
Paragraph 13.2(4) of the Direction provides a list of factors to be considered in determining the best interests of the minor children. Those factors relevantly comprise for present purposes:
(a)the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the non-citizen. Less weight should generally be given where the relationship is non-parental, and/or there is no existing relationship and/or there have been long periods of absence, or limited meaningful contact (including whether an existing Court order restricts contact);
(b)the extent to which the non-citizen is likely to play a positive parental role in the future, taking into account the length of time until the child turns 18, and including any Court orders relating to parental access and care arrangements;
(c)the impact of the non-citizen’s prior conduct, and any likely future conduct, and whether that conduct has, or will have a negative impact on the child;
(d)the likely effect that any separation from the non-citizen would have on the child, taking into account the child’s or non-citizen’s ability to maintain contact in other ways;
(e)whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child;
(f)any known views of the child (with those views being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child);
(g)evidence that the child has been, or is at risk of being, subject to, or exposed to, family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen, or has otherwise been abused or neglected by the non-citizen in any way, whether physically, sexually or mentally;
(h)evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen’s conduct.
It is first necessary to identify the children actually or possibly relevant to this proceeding.
In his PCF, at item 8, the applicant listed four minor children of his own, presently aged between 3 and ten years[105]. All of the children are Australian citizens. The current terms of the DVO prevent him from contacting the children until 5 August 2026, by which time their ages will range from 7 to 14 years.
[105] Exhibit R1, G Documents, G26, page 162.
The applicant is clearly in a lifelong parental relationship with each of these four children, however his contact with them has been governed by the non-contact provision of the DVO since August 2019, and the Tribunal notes that this order is in force until 5 August 2026. The applicant told the Tribunal that he has not embraced his children since July 2019.
Since that time, LAI has been filling the role of sole parent. It is unclear to the Tribunal to what extent if any her new partner plays any role in the lives of the children. LAI’s conduct as a mother has not been the subject of criticism before this Tribunal.
The assessment of the likelihood of the applicant playing a positive role in the lives of his children in the time until each of the children reaches the age of 18 is dependent on a number of factors. As things stand at present, in the light of the non-contact order, unless a LAI consents, (which is a matter of some uncertainty, and does not presently appear to this Tribunal to be a likelihood), or a court otherwise orders, the applicant will be precluded from contacting his children until 5 August 2026. By that time, he is likely to have had little or no contact with the children for a period of some seven years, which is a very long time in the lives of children of such tender years.
Should it emerge that either LAI consents to the applicant having access to the children, or a court so orders, the likelihood of the applicant playing a positive role in the lives of his children very much depends on his desire and capacity to exercise self-discipline, abstain from illicit substances, and to exercise whatever rights he may have in accordance with the law. On the other hand, it may well be that LAI contests the applicant’s claim for access to his children, and that a protracted and possibly unsuccessful legal battle lies ahead of the applicant. Evidence before the Tribunal shows that with the possible exception of about four years, (Chowdhury DCJ observed that the applicant had used ICE in Australia for eight years) the applicant has been regularly using illicit substances from the age of 10 until the time of his incarceration. The Tribunal is very concerned that the emotional strain of a protracted child access or custody battle, particularly coupled with the applicant’s significant physical and mental health challenges may lead him to revert to the use of illicit substances. Of particular concern to the Tribunal is the observation by Chowdhury DCJ[106] that:
“You had used the dangerous drug, “ice” for about eight years after being introduced to it by a work friend. … It is a nasty drug. It is one of the worst we have …it just destroys people’s lives … and it is the catalyst for extreme violence we see in the community including murder.”
[106] Ibid, G5, page 62, lines 20-35.
Given LAI’s consent or a favourable court order, it may well be that this applicant might play a role in the lives of his children. However, the Tribunal is concerned that this role will not be a positive one. Co-parenting arrangements inevitably involve some frequent contact between estranged parties, even if conducted through intermediaries. The Tribunal is concerned that any interaction between the applicant and LAI would have the potential to quickly flare into a dangerous scenario with grave consequences to which the children may well be witnesses.
Moreover, emotional strain or life’s adversities including the deterioration of his own health, may lead the applicant back to illicit substances, and were this to happen, it may expose the children to further extremely serious episodes of family violence addressed towards their mother, and this may well adversely impact the children.
There is no expert evidence before the Tribunal of the impact of the applicant’s past conduct on his children. There is certainly no evidence that any of the applicant’s family violence conduct has been specifically addressed towards the children. However, given the history between their parents, it would be surprising if the applicant’s violence towards their mother and repeated breaches of the DVO, and subsequent separation had not already had some negative impact on them, and possibly caused enduring emotional trauma.
The role of the applicant in the children’s lives has been significantly diminished over the past three years, and it appears likely to remain so until at least 5 August 2026.
The great concern for this Tribunal is that if the Applicant remains in Australia and commits further serious episodes of domestic violence against LAI with potentially serious or even fatal consequences, the outcome for the children might be even worse than were the applicant to be deported. Their mother might be dead, and their father might be in prison for a murder which they had witnessed.

The children are of tender years, and the Tribunal considers that their best interests are served by having a mother who can go about her business of raising them as best she can, with minimised harassment and risk to her own safety and wellbeing.
The Tribunal notes that the applicant also nominated his nephew V (born in
November 2015) and his niece S (born July 2019) both of whom are Australian citizens as children impacted by this decision. At the time the applicant was remanded in custody on the strangulation charge, V was a few months short of four years old, and S was a new born baby. Obviously he is not in a parental role with either child. The applicant has stated that V looked up to him, but acknowledged that he had only met her a couple of times. The applicant had contact with these children via FaceTime.
Whilst there is a paucity of evidence about the impact of this decision on V and S, it appears from the little evidence that is available that this decision may have some adverse impact on V, but is less likely to have any particular impact on S.
In any event, the nature of this case is that the Tribunal gives greater weight to the interests of the applicant’s biological children than it does to the interests of V and S.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 3
The best interests of the children mentioned above weighs heavily against revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 4: THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY
The relevant paragraphs in the Direction
In making the assessment for weight to be allocated to Primary Consideration 4, paragraph 8.4(1) of the Direction provides that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. The Tribunal should consider whether the Applicant has breached, or whether there is an unacceptable risk that he would breach, this expectation by engaging in serious conduct.
Paragraph 8.4(2) of the Direction directs that a visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, 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 be granted or continue to hold a visa. In particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, of the following kind:
(a)acts of family violence; or
(b)causing a person to enter into, or being party to (other than being a victim of), a forced marriage;
(c)commission of serious crimes against women, children or other vulnerable members of the community such as the elderly or disabled; in this context, ‘serious crimes’ include crimes of a violent or sexual nature, as well as other serious crimes against the elderly or other vulnerable persons in the form of fraud, extortion, financial abuse/material exploitation or neglect;
(d)commission of crimes against government representatives or officials due to the possession they hold, or in the performance of their duties; or
(e)involvement or reasonably suspected involvement in human trafficking or people smuggling, or in crimes that are of serious international concern including, but not limited to, war crimes, crimes against humanity and slavery; or
(f)worker exploitation.
Paragraph 8.4(3) of the Direction provides that the above expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
Paragraph 8.4(4) of the Direction provides guidance on how the expectations of the Australian community are to be determined. This paragraph states:
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.
Paragraph 8.4(4) is consistent with the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185 at [68] (“FYBR”) which affirmed the approach established in previous authorities that it is not for the Tribunal to determine for itself the expectations of the Australian community by reference to an applicant’s circumstances or evidence about those expectations. The Tribunal is to be guided by the Government’s views as to the expectations of the Australian community, which are to be found in the Direction.[107]
[107] See Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 348; Afu v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1311; YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466 and FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 500.
Analysis – Allocation of Weight to this Primary Consideration 4
The Applicant in this case has, as a mature man, committed some 28 offences in rapid succession over a twelve month period from July 2019 . Although he has lived in Australia for since July 2008, and has contributed to some degree during that period, he also committed his first serious drink driving offence about seventeen months after his arrival in Australia. Since July 2019, the applicant has shown a blasé attitude towards respecting Australian law. He has committed two extremely serious offences. He has offended even whilst on bail, and subject to a DVO. He has demonstrated contempt for court orders, and been unperturbed by very frequent interactions with the police.
He has had many opportunities to redeem himself, but has chosen instead to reoffend on many occasions. In doing so, he has clearly failed to meet the expectations of the Australian community, and the Tribunal is satisfied that there is an unacceptable risk that he will offend again. The Tribunal accepts that his record of criminal and other serious conduct is such that the Australian community would expect that his visa remain cancelled.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 4
Accordingly, Primary Consideration 4 weighs heavily against revocation of the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
It is necessary to look at the Other Considerations listed at paragraph 9 of the Direction.
9.1 International non-refoulement obligations
The Applicant does not make any claims with respect to Australia’s non-refoulement obligations, and none arise on the evidence.
This Other Consideration is not relevant, and is given neutral weight.
9.2 Extent of Impediments if Removed
Paragraph 9.2 of the Direction directs a decision-maker to take into account 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 any substantial language or cultural barriers; and
(c)any social, medical and/or economic support available to that non-citizen in that country.
The Applicant is a 32-year-old man, with a lengthy history of drug use, and who suffers from MS as well as some mental health issues. There is no suggestion that he would be unable to receive necessary treatment[108] for these conditions in Scotland, where he would be entitled to free health care. He will need to re-familiarise himself with availability of health care, and ensure he avails himself of those.
[108] Exhibit R2, Tender Bundle, R7, page 297 and R9, page 304.
There do not appear to be any significant language or cultural barriers to his return to Scotland, as he has lived a substantial part of his life there. Scotland is not unfamiliar to him. He has worked successfully in Australia as a tyre fitter, and there does not appear to be any reason why he ought not to be able to do so in Scotland.
The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant will face deeply personal challenges returning to his home country. He will be physically isolated from all members of his immediate and extended family. However, the applicant also has some The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has stated that he has an uncle and aunt and two cousins in Scotland and Ireland, as well as grandparents in Scotland. There is no evidence before the Tribunal as to the extent of their willingness or capacity to offer him assistance should he need it, and he may or may not be left to fend for himself. He should be able to avail himself of the same social, medical, and economic support as any other citizen of Scotland.
In the totality of these circumstances, this Other Consideration is given neutral weight.
9.3 Impact on victims
Paragraph 9.3(1) states that decision-makers must consider the impact of the s 501 or 501CA decision on members of the Australian community, including victims of the non-citizen’s criminal behaviour, and the family members of the victim or victims, where information in this regard is available and the non-citizen being considered for visa refusal or cancellation, or who has sought revocation of the mandatory cancellation of their visa, has been afforded procedural fairness.
There is no relevant evidence before the Tribunal so as to enliven consideration of this paragraph.
In the absence of other relevant evidence, the Tribunal gives this Other Consideration neutral weight.
9.4 Links to the Australian Community
Paragraph 9.4 of the Direction requires that decision makers must have regard to the following two factors:
·the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia; and
·the impact on Australian business interests.
9.4.1 Strength, Nature and Duration of Ties to Australia
Decision makers are required by paragraph 9.4.1(1) to consider any impact of the decision on the non-citizen’s immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
The Tribunal accepts that all of the applicant’s immediate family, are either Australian citizens, permanent residents, or otherwise entitled to remain in Australia. This includes his claimed partner, his ex-partner, four children, mother, step-father and three siblings and that all will suffer some emotional and possibly financial hardship if the applicant is removed from Australia. The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant’s deportation will also adversely impact on all of his friends and social and work associates in Australia.
The Tribunal is unclear as to the extent that the applicant’s deportation will impact on his claimed new partner, but accepts that if the relationship is genuine, Ms Lancaster will be adversely impacted by the applicant’s deportation and will have to consider whether to abandon the relationship or relocate to Scotland.
It is likely that the applicant’s parents and siblings, will suffer emotionally, and be faced with a similar decision regarding relocation from a settled life in Australia. The Tribunal accepts that there is no evidence before it of any intended relocation, and these relationships are likely to be permanently diminished, although they could maintain contact through use of internet technology.
The applicant’s deportation will be a two edged sword for his ex-wife LAI. On the one hand, she will be spared the constant strain and harassment of the applicant’s conduct. On the other she will be left to raise the children (subject to her new partner’s involvement) by herself, and without the financial support she might otherwise receive were the applicant to continue to live and work in Australia. The Tribunal accepts that LAI is unlikely to facilitate contact between the applicant and his children, and that it is likely that the applicant and his four infant children will be permanently separated in consequence of his deportation. Nevertheless, these children should be able to grow up in a relatively peaceful environment without the fallout caused by their father’s persistent conduct, and without the ongoing risk to their mother’s safety and wellbeing. Hopefully this will assist them to grow into stable well-adjusted adults.
Decision makers are required by paragraph 9.4.1(2) to have regard to the strength nature and ties the applicant has to the Australian community having regard to how long the applicant has resided in Australia, including whether the applicant arrived as a young child, noting that less weight should be given where the applicant began offending soon after arrival in Australia, and more weight should be given where the applicant has spent time contributing positively to the Australian community.
The Applicant was a young 18 year old adult at the time of his arrival in Australia and he commenced offending within eighteen months of his arrival. In consequence of this the Tribunal gives less weight to the period the Applicant has resided in Australia having regard for paragraph 9.4.1(2)(a)(i) of the Direction.
The applicant arrived as a young adult at the age of 18 years. As noted above, he began offending not long after, and this lessens the weight which might otherwise be given to the longevity of his residence. But for this his fourteen years of residence in Australia would be given greater weight, but it nevertheless presents a significant tie. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has over much of this period contributed to the Australian community via employment, payment of taxes, and various socially beneficial acts, and these contributions to the community offset (as provided for in paragraph 9.4.1(2)(ii) the discount which has been given to the significance of his early offending.
The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant has strong life-long family ties and other social ties of long duration with Australian citizens, permanent residents, or those who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.
This Other Consideration weighs in favour of revocation of the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
9.4.2 Impact on Australian Business Interests
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant’s deportation will impact on Australian business interests in the manner contemplated by Direction 90.
An overall consideration of paragraph 9.4 the Applicant’s links to the Australian community weighs in favour of revocation of the mandatory cancellation of his visa.
Findings: Other Considerations
The application of the Other Considerations in the present matter can be summarised as follows:
(a)international non-refoulement obligations: neutral weight;
(b)extent of impediments if removed: neutral weight;
(c)impact on victims: neutral weight; and
(d)links to the Australian community: weighs in favour of revocation.
CONCLUSION
The Tribunal is now required to weigh all of the Considerations in accordance with the Direction.
In considering whether there is another reason to exercise the discretion afforded by s501CA(4) of the Act to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation decision, The Tribunal finds as follows:
·Primary Consideration 1 weighs very heavily in favour of non-revocation;
·Primary Consideration 2 weighs very heavily in favour of non-revocation;
·Primary Consideration 3 weighs heavily in favour of non-revocation;
·Primary Consideration 4 weighs heavily in favour of non-revocation; and
·To the extent that Other Considerations (d) weighs in favour of revoking the mandatory visa cancellation decision, it does not outweigh Primary Considerations 1, 2, 3, and 4.
Application of the Direction therefore favours the non-revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
Consequently, the Tribunal cannot exercise the discretion to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
DECISION
The decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 302 (three hundred and two) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member R Maguire

...................[SGD].....................................................
Associate
Dated: 16 August 2022

Date(s) of hearing: 8 and 12 August 2022

Date final submissions received: 8 August 2022

Applicant: In person

Solicitors for the Respondent: Mr Ashley Burgess (Sparke Helmore Lawyers)
ANNEXURE A

Exhibit Number

Description of Exhibit

Party

Date of Document

Filing Date

R1

S501 G Documents

(G1-G37, paged 1-243)

R

Various

15 Jun 2022

R2

Tender bundle

(R1 – R9, paged 1-307)

R

Various

18 Jul 2022

A1

Applicant’s Statement of Fact, Issues and Contentions dated 15 July 2022

(paged 1-8)

A

15 Jul 2022

18 Jul 2022

A1.1

Applicant’s Personal Statement, lodged on 1 August 2022

(4 pages)

A

-

1 Aug 2022

R3

Respondent’s Statement of Fact, Issues and Contentions dated 18 July 2022

(paged 1-16)

R

18 Jul 2022

18 Jul 2022

Other Evidence

A2

Applicant’s Emailed Further Material

Cover email dated 1 August 2022

Photos – 4x – Screenshots of text messages between Applicant and mother of his children regarding parenting arrangements

A

-

1 Aug 2022

A3

Applicant’s Emailed Further Material

Cover email dated 1 August 2022

Photos - 9x – Screenshots of Stress management worksheets – part 2

Photos – 1x – Screenshot Positive self-confidence and self-esteem

Photos – 3x – Screenshots Domestic and family violence – missionaustralia.com.au

A

-

1 Aug 2022

A4

Applicant’s Emailed Further Material

Cover email dated 1 August 2022

Photos - 3x – Screenshots of Stress management worksheets – part 1

Photo – 1x – Screenshot – Relationships Australia

Photo – 1x -Screenshot Smart Recovery meeting registration dated 2 June 2022

Photo – 1x – Screenshot Change.org

Photo – 1x – Screenshot - Drug response to a course

A

-

1 Aug 2022

A5

Applicant’s Emailed Further Material

Cover email dated 1 August 2022

Photo – 1x – Screenshot - Drug response to a course (Another copy as appears in A4 above)

Photo – 5x – Screenshots – Anger Management workbook

A

-

1 Aug 2022

A6

Applicant’s Emailed Further Material

Cover email dated 1 August 2022

Photos – 2x – Screenshots Applicant querying if any DV courses to DVCS

A

-

1 Aug 2022

A7

Applicant’s Emailed Further Material

Cover email dated 1 August 2022

Photos – 2x – Screenshots of no DV courses available

A

-

1 Aug 2022

A8

Applicant’s emailed further material:

Cover email dated 3 August 2022

Photos – 4x – Do it program completed – evidence of

A

-

3 Aug 2022

A9

Letter of support of Mrs J Kenney, lodged on 8 August 2022 and Applicant’s email dated 8 August 2022

A

-

8 Aug 2022

8 Aug 2022

Date(s) of hearing:	8 and 12 August 2022
Date final submissions received:	8 August 2022
Applicant:	In person
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Mr Ashley Burgess (Sparke Helmore Lawyers)

Exhibit Number	Description of Exhibit	Party	Date of Document	Filing Date
R1	S501 G Documents (G1-G37, paged 1-243)	R	Various	15 Jun 2022
R2	Tender bundle (R1 – R9, paged 1-307)	R	Various	18 Jul 2022
A1	Applicant’s Statement of Fact, Issues and Contentions dated 15 July 2022 (paged 1-8)	A	15 Jul 2022	18 Jul 2022
A1.1	Applicant’s Personal Statement, lodged on 1 August 2022 (4 pages)	A	-	1 Aug 2022
R3	Respondent’s Statement of Fact, Issues and Contentions dated 18 July 2022 (paged 1-16)	R	18 Jul 2022	18 Jul 2022
Other Evidence
A2	Applicant’s Emailed Further Material Cover email dated 1 August 2022 Photos – 4x – Screenshots of text messages between Applicant and mother of his children regarding parenting arrangements	A	-	1 Aug 2022
A3	Applicant’s Emailed Further Material Cover email dated 1 August 2022 Photos - 9x – Screenshots of Stress management worksheets – part 2 Photos – 1x – Screenshot Positive self-confidence and self-esteem Photos – 3x – Screenshots Domestic and family violence – missionaustralia.com.au	A	-	1 Aug 2022
A4	Applicant’s Emailed Further Material Cover email dated 1 August 2022 Photos - 3x – Screenshots of Stress management worksheets – part 1 Photo – 1x – Screenshot – Relationships Australia Photo – 1x -Screenshot Smart Recovery meeting registration dated 2 June 2022 Photo – 1x – Screenshot Change.org Photo – 1x – Screenshot - Drug response to a course	A	-	1 Aug 2022
A5	Applicant’s Emailed Further Material Cover email dated 1 August 2022 Photo – 1x – Screenshot - Drug response to a course (Another copy as appears in A4 above) Photo – 5x – Screenshots – Anger Management workbook	A	-	1 Aug 2022
A6	Applicant’s Emailed Further Material Cover email dated 1 August 2022 Photos – 2x – Screenshots Applicant querying if any DV courses to DVCS	A	-	1 Aug 2022
A7	Applicant’s Emailed Further Material Cover email dated 1 August 2022 Photos – 2x – Screenshots of no DV courses available	A	-	1 Aug 2022
A8	Applicant’s emailed further material: Cover email dated 3 August 2022 Photos – 4x – Do it program completed – evidence of	A	-	3 Aug 2022
A9	Letter of support of Mrs J Kenney, lodged on 8 August 2022 and Applicant’s email dated 8 August 2022	A	- 8 Aug 2022	8 Aug 2022