Callaghan and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration)

Callaghan and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2016] AATA 713 (15 August 2016)

Division

GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s)

2016/2917

Re

David Callaghan

APPLICANT

And

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal
Senior Member W Stefaniak AM RFD

Date 15 August 2016

Date of written reasons 15 September 2016

Place Sydney
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

...........................[sgd].............................................
Senior Member W Stefaniak RFD
CATCHWORDS
IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP – mandatory cancellation of visa – application for revocation of cancellation decision – failure to pass character test – substantial criminal record Ministerial Direction No 65 applied – protection of the Australian community – seriousness and nature of the relevant conduct – the risk conduct may be repeated – expectations of Australian community – best interests of minor children – decision affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 501, 501(3a), 501CA
CASES
Drake v The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Ministerial Direction no. 65
WRITTEN REASONS FOR DECISION GIVEN ORALLY ON 15 AUGUST 2016
Senior Member W Stefaniak RFD
15 September 2016

On 18 February 2016, a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection cancelled the Applicant’s TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa pursuant to section 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The Applicant was subject to a mandatory cancellation of his visa pursuant to that section as he was serving a term of imprisonment on a full-time basis and had previously been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months.
The Applicant requested the decision be revoked and on 31 May 2016 a delegate of the Minister made a decision pursuant to section 501CA of the Act not to revoke the decision cancelling the visa.
The Applicant sought review of this decision with the Tribunal and a hearing was held to determine his application for review on 15 August 2016.
At the conclusion of that hearing, I affirmed the delegate’s decision to cancel the Applicant’s visa. At the time I gave the reasons for my decision orally.
At the Applicant’s request, I now provide my reasons in writing.
BACKGROUND
These matters are always difficult matters. The law was tightened up and changed in 2014 as a result of a very deliberate government policy. The problems with the Applicant date back to approximately 2002 and he was issued with warnings in 2007 and 2011 under previous legislation (which was perhaps not quite as stringent as the 2014 laws). Might I say, regardless of whatever happens either here or if the matter were to be appealed, I do wish the Applicant well in his future endeavours and I would certainly hope that he would be able to get his life together as he has stated to the Tribunal. I am particularly heartened by his comment that he has plans regardless of whether he stays in Australia or New Zealand. That is a good positive attitude.
The Applicant was born in New Zealand in 1968 and lived on the South Island in Nelson. His father was perhaps not the ideal parent and at any rate died when the Applicant was still young.
The Applicant has family in both Australia and New Zealand. In the documents tendered it was stated that his mother and siblings actually resided in Australia. That was clarified at the hearing. He has a sister in Brisbane who lives with her husband, his brother-in-law and his nieces and nephews. Unfortunately, and for whatever reason, there has been no contact with them for many years. Since the Applicant came to Australia in August 1996, the only contact seems to have been, with his mother and that was about 10 years ago. His mother lives in Appleby, Richmond, in the Nelson area of the South Island in New Zealand. He also has a brother who has a disability but who is now caring largely for himself. He also lives in Nelson as does the applicants other brother. The Applicant thinks, but does not know for sure, that the later brother does not have any children. It is certainly true to say that he has had no contact of any kind with his family apart from phone calls to his mother since he came to Australia.
He was not afraid in New Zealand of hard work. He took over a timber business from his father which had been run down to basically a Land Rover. He built that up into a business owning a six tonne Hino truck, leased a sawmill and employed some six people in the sawmill. That I believe lasted for a number of years. Unfortunately, as a result of the business not getting a major contract renewed, he made a value judgement and sold the business and moved to Australia in August 1996.
THE APPLICANT’S OFFENCES
The Applicant committed a number of offences in New Zealand prior to coming to Australia:
·28 April 1987 - PCA 0.102: fined $400 and disqualified from driving for 6 months.
·28 October 1987 - PCA 0.126: fined $500 and disqualified from driving for 6 months. Fail to comply with prohibition of an enforcement officer: convicted and discharged.
·12 April 1989 - Assault police: convicted and fined $300. Resist police, convicted and sentenced and ordered to pay costs.
·21 November 1989 - Wilful damage: fined $150 and ordered to pay reparation of $150.
·1990 - Common assault: sentenced to supervision by community corrections, fined $500 and ordered to undergo an “anger management” program.
·29 December 1992: Convicted of careless use of vehicle causing injury through drink: sentenced to non-residential periodic detention of 9 months, indefinite disqualification from driving and ordered to attend an assessment course; issued with a final warning. Convicted on the same day of reckless driving and sentenced to non-residential periodic detention for 9 months and disqualified from driving for 2 years.
·17 July 1995 - Convicted and discharged on four counts of not paying tax deduction to the inland revenue department; convicted of two further counts: fined $500 on each count (the Applicant indicated in evidence that these six charges related to approximately $35,000 being owed to the tax department and problems with his accountant in relation to that).
These New Zealand offences are relevant insofar as they indicated a previous history of offending and also that he appeared to have a bit of a drinking problem (which the Applicant himself admitted he had then), with perhaps some anger management issues as well.
At any rate, he sold his business in New Zealand and moved to Australia in 1996. He set up a trucking business and he worked in that for about 3 years. He bought two trucks. He drove one and hired another driver and they picked up and delivered pallets to customers.
After a while he had to sell one truck and after a further period of time, his remaining truck. It seems this may have had something to do with his drinking problems. At any rate he took a job where he caught buses to put up fencing. That was not particularly productive and he then worked on the Telstra phone lines. He also had a job on a part-time basis as a security guard but the contract for the business was not renewed and so he lost that job.
The Applicant commenced receiving Centrelink social security payments in approximately early 2002. It was somewhat unclear from the evidence. Since 2002 he has had some significant issues and problems. As pointed out by the Respondent, in the G documents from pages 22 to 28 there are over 60 offences listed in the Applicants name, including the following offences committed in Sydney:
April 2002 (Sutherland Local Court) - Contravene apprehended domestic violence order: fined $1,500, with costs and released upon entering a 2 year good behaviour bond with conditions including to comply strictly with apprehended domestic violence orders made by the Sutherland Local Court.12 August 2002. Convictions for a further 13 contravene apprehended domestic violence orders: on all of those offences a bond was imposed to accept the supervision of New South Wales parole service from 17 June 2002 and undertake a domestic violence program. (It seems that after missing some three sessions of that program, he was told to not bother attending the program anymore and the matter was referred back to the Applicant’s parole officer).
·6 November 2002 (Sutherland Local Court) - Convicted of destroy or damage property valued at less than $2,000: 2 year supervision probation service and ordered to participate in a domestic violence program and report to the probation office in Darlinghurst within 7 days.
The Applicant then went to Newcastle, he said, to get away from the crowd he was with in Sydney. Unfortunately he committed further offences.
·15 September 2003 (Newcastle Local Court) - Convicted of a two counts of larcenies of goods to the value of less than $2,000: sentenced to 9 months imprisonment, suspended upon entering into a bond for good behaviour and accepting 9 months supervision from the New South Wales probation service. The same penalty was imposed for a further two counts of common assault and resisting an officer in the execution of his duty.
·The Applicant then moved back to Sydney, where his offending behaviour continued:
·4 June 2004 (Downing Centre Local Court) - Charged interfering with a parking meter: fined $200 plus costs. Convicted of having goods in his personal custody suspected of being stolen: fined $300 plus costs (the Applicant told the Tribunal that in relation to the parking meters, he would stick some wire in the meter and get the coins out. He stated that at this stage he was well and truly addicted to drugs and was spending his Disability Support Pension on drugs within 2 days of receiving it. He would then either steal items or steal from parking meters just to feed himself and survive).
·5 November 2004 (Central Local Court) – Larceny: fined $400.
·16 November 2004 (Downing Centre Local Court) - Destroying or damaging property: fined $400. Intent to commit indictable offences in relation to a previous conviction: fined a further $400.
·6 July 2005 - Two counts of possessing house breaking implements, three counts of resist or hinder police in the execution of their duty, four counts of having goods in personal custody suspected of being stolen but which were not a motor vehicle, five counts of interfere with parking meters offences, one count of larceny value less than $2,000, one count of failure to appear in accordance with bail undertakings and one count of assault an officer in the execution of his duty: 12 months good behaviour order, subject to probation and parole supervision and ordered to report to the probation and parole Sydney office within 24 hours.
·18 July 2005 – Two counts of possessing safe breaking equipment, one offence of having goods in his personal custody suspected of being stolen, larceny and fail to appear in relation to bail: 12 months good behaviour bond.
·23 May 2008 - Shoplifting goods to the value of less than $2,000: sentenced to 6 months imprisonment, suspended upon entering a bond to be of good behaviour.
·14 July 2008 - Five counts of shoplifting goods to the value of $2,000 or less: sentenced to 9 months imprisonment, commencing on 6 June 2008 with a non-parole period of 4 months with release subject to supervision and conditions. This was his first custodial sentence (of effectively 4 months).
·17 October 2008 - Convicted of shoplifting offence: sentenced to 4 months imprisonment commencing on 16 October 2008.
·29 April 2009 - Convicted for a further shoplifting offence: no further penalty.
·14 July 2009 - Entering enclosed lands, not prescribed premises with lawful excuse: fined $200.
·29 July 2009 (Central Local Court) - Possess a prohibited drug: fined $200 and ordered to pay $76 costs . Shoplifting goods to the value of less than $2,000: 3 months imprisonment commencing on 14 July 2009. A severity appeal was lodged and it appeared to have been successful as there is no record of him serving that sentence.
·26 August 2009 - Convicted of another shoplifting of less than $2,000: conviction confirmed (this offence this offence appears to have been merged into some other offences).
·23 September 2009 - Convicted of make a false statement to obtain money: sentenced to imprisonment for 1 month commencing on 10 September 2009.
·21 December 2009 - Convicted of possess and attempt to prescribe restricted substance; fined $500 and orders to pay court costs.
·12 April 2010 (Downing Centre Local Court) - Convicted on one count of having goods in personal custody suspected of being stolen, one count of not paying for a train fare and one count of not holding a valid ticket: section 10A conviction with no other penalty. Convicted of one count of larceny of goods valued less than $2,000: sentenced to a term of 9 months imprisonment, suspended on entering a bond of n9 months supervision by the New South Wales parole service.
·13 May 2010 - leaving a restricted area and not making his ticket available for inspection: section 10A conviction with no other penalty. Convicted of two counts of shoplifting goods to the value of less than $2,000: sentenced to 9 months imprisonment commencing on 7 May 2010, concluding on 6 September 2010 with a non-parole period with conditions of 3 months, concluding on 6 August 2010, where he was to be released subject to supervision, alcohol counselling and drug counselling.
·15 November 2010 - Leaving a restricted area and not making his ticket available for inspection: fined $100 plus costs. Shoplifting goods to the value of less than $2,000; fined $400. Charged and convicted of being in a dwelling, stealing and breaking out and taking goods to the value of $15,000: sentenced to 12 months imprisonment commencing on 22 December 2010 and concluding on 21 December 2011, with a non-parole period with conditions for 9 months which was to conclude on 21 September 2011 when he was to be released subject to supervision. (It appeared that offence related to the theft of some jewellery, coins and a computer from a dwelling. He was also sentenced in relation to failing to appear in accordance with a bail grant undertaking to 5 months imprisonment to be served concurrently with the above sentence).
·10 February 2011 - Goods in personal custody suspected of being stolen not being a motor vehicle: sentenced to imprisonment for one month, commencing on 7 May 2011 to be served concurrently with the above sentences.
·30 January 2012 – Convicted of possess a prohibited drug: fined $150.
·2 December 2015 - In relation to an offence committed in March 2015 where he threatened grievous bodily harm to a female doctor at a health clinic: sentenced to 8 months imprisonment concluding on 1 August 2016, with a non-parole period with conditions for 3 months concluding on 1 February 2016.
The above is his substantial criminal history in Australia.
INTERVENING EVENTS
On 18 February 2016, the Applicant was subject to a mandatory cancellation of his visa as he was serving imprisonment of a fulltime basis and had previously been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 12 months, pursuant to section 501(3A) of the Act. He requested on the same day that the decision to cancel his visa be revoked and provided written statements in support of his application (see G documents, pages 57, 64, 65 and 268).
The parties take no issue with the Applicant being detained as a result of the above and nor can they. For his most recent offences involving the doctor, when the Applicant had served his non- parole period and was released from prison on 1 March 2016, he was immediately detained at the detention centre in Villawood.
On 31 May, a delegate of the Minister made a decision pursuant to 501CA(4) of the Act not to revoke the decision cancelling the visa and the Applicant was notified of that decision on 1 June 2016. On that day, he lodged an application for review to the AAT.
APPLICANT’S EVIDENCE
The Applicant has been in receipt of social security benefits since 2003 or thereabouts. He states he has been homeless from around 2002 up until about 2013. For about the last 3 years, apart from his time in custody, he resided in a housing trust unit in Redfern. He states that he gets on very well with his worker, and he appears happy now with the methadone program and particularly with the support his worker is giving him.
His worker was not called to give evidence, nor were any other persons on the Applicant’s behalf. The Applicant told the Tribunal that a lot of his “friends” were not the sort of people who would turn up to a Tribunal to give evidence.
He has indicated that he wants to rehabilitate himself and undertake a drug course, both in writing and in his evidence at hearing. Regardless of the outcome of his application for review, the Applicant has stated he wants to re-establish himself in business either in Australia or New Zealand. I commented favourably during the end of the hearing in relation to his desire to do that and acceptance that he is happy to do that, whether he stays in Australia or goes back to New Zealand.
He wants to contact and develop a relationship with his daughter, especially for those very formative teen years. In evidence the Applicant stated that he has seen his daughter on two occasions- One not long after she was born, and the other in 2006/7. This contradicted other documentation the Respondent had submitted suggesting he had seen her on about 7 occasions, but this was not backed up by any evidence- it was merely the understanding the Respondent had and so I accept the sworn evidence of the Applicant in that regard.
The Applicant was in a relationship with his daughter’s mother for several years. Although she took out a Domestic Violence Order, they both kept seeing each other which made the whole issue fraught with difficulties and led to the Domestic Violence offences the Applicant committed in 2002. It appears that the daughter was taken from the mother at birth, and an aunt is currently looking after the daughter.
At the hearing he provided as an exhibit, a SERCO certificate dated 11 June 2016 which he completed in Villawood, indicating that he has been assessed as having completed the following units in advanced English and computer software applications: Unit English I, Advanced Vocabulary Building; English II, Basic English Grammar Parts of Speech; English III, Reading Comprehension; English IV, Advanced Writing Skills; English V, Intricacies of Australian Idioms in Speech; English VI, Effective Communication; Unit, Communications I, Basic Microsoft Word Applications; Coms II, Basic Microsoft Excel Applications; III, Basic Internet Explorer and Email Applications. The certificate has been signed by the course leader.
The Applicant also provided the Tribunal with his Medicare card and what looks like a Pension card. He has a St George Bank account which expires in 2019. Also he has a Class C driver’s licence expiring in 2020 and a Class C learner’s licence also expiring in 2020. So it appears that he has now a full Class C licence and he tendered evidence of that. As he does not appear to have held a driver’s licence, probably for this century, the achievement of now obtaining one and his other qualifications whilst in Villawood is significant and a credit to him.
CONSIDERATION
The primary issue for determination by the Tribunal is whether the delegate’s decision to refuse to revoke the earlier decision of 18 February 2016, in other words, the delegate’s decision of 31 Mays to affirm the cancellation of the applicant’s visa, was a correct or preferable decision: Drake v The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60 at 589 per Bowen CJ and Deane J.

In determining this issue, I must have to have regard to Ministerial Direction no. 65 which deals with visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 of the Act and revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa under 501CA of the Act.
In relation to the offences I do note a number of things. Firstly, that there is some truth in the submission by the respondent that they are increasing in severity. They are certainly very numerous. It appears they have all been committed whilst the Applicant was having problems with drinking, which he states he has stopped doing now for over a decade and also when he is affected by drugs. Indeed he says he committed the various larceny offences and the offences of stealing money from parking meters to feed his very significant drug habit. In evidence he stated a two-week pension goes in about two days to get drugs, and there is evidence that he has taken many different types of drugs, including heroin and ice.
The offences finally after about six years or so led, as they invariably must to, imprisonment and in his case to a number of terms of imprisonment. The most serious offence, in terms of community expectations, and it is one where his explanation is somewhat different to the facts in the police report, was the latest offence in 2015 when he had difficulty with a new female doctor at the centre he went to, getting what he needed by way of methadone. It seems he then became quite threatening and aggressive as far as she was concerned, and that naturally would have been very, very scary for her.
There is case law in relation to these types of matters that the Tribunals’ role is not to delve into the actual facts of a particular case and, effectively, if a person pleads guilty to a series of charges and does not challenge the facts as presented by the prosecution then those facts have to be accepted and the Tribunal cannot go behind that.
It did concern me, I must say, that the Applicant often denied or watered down his actions in his evidence to the Tribunal but he did not challenge in open court the facts and pleaded guilty as he said on numerous occasions “to get it over with.” That is unfortunate for him because were his version to be the correct one, or at least were it to sow a reasonable doubt in the court’s mind, he may well not be here today. But he has chosen to plead guilty, he says, to get it over and done with. It could also be simply because the facts as stated to the court are substantially true, and certainly they have to be accepted by this Tribunal as the accepted facts. The law is quite clear in relation to that.
Accordingly, I have to accept what is in the incident reports and police statements of facts and as the Applicant has pleaded guilty and not challenged the facts as stated, he is stuck with them.
Another concerning point for the Applicant is the fact that, after the series of offences in 2010 for which he was imprisoned, on 14 September 2011 he received a notification of a decision not to cancel his visa under section 501 (that is the old section). He was notified apparently on 23 May 2011 by the Department that the visa which authorised his stay in Australia might be liable for cancellation under section 501 of the Act on character grounds. Even then character grounds were invoked if a person was sentenced to 12 months or more imprisonment. I should also add that the issue of character is accepted by all sides in this case. So, on that point the Applicant fails in relation to character grounds, and that is accepted by both Applicant and respondent, as it should be. The law is very clear there.
On 14 September 2011, the delegate said:
After taking into account all relevant considerations the Minister has made a decision not to cancel your visa on character grounds on this occasion. Your current visa will continue to provide you with permission to remain in Australia. However the delegate decided after you be given the following formal warning.
Please note that visa cancellation may be reconsidered if you commit further offences or otherwise breach the character test in future. Disregard of this warning will weigh heavily against you if your case is reconsidered.
Please note that Special Category visas automatically cease on the departure of the visa holder.
Please note also that if you seek to re-enter Australia, you will be subject to a character check at the border and your criminal history might result in you being refused entry into Australia, depending on your circumstances.
…
Please acknowledge receipt of this letter by signing and returning the attached page in the enclosed envelope.
In this matter an earlier warning had been sent out in 2007 but because the Applicant was living on the street he never got that, as one would expect.
On 22 September 2011, the Applicant signed and returned the acknowledgement which was received on 23 September 2011. The acknowledgement said:
I, David Grant CALLAGHAN, acknowledge that I have received the Notice of decision not to cancel a visa under subsection 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958. I understand that I can again be considered for refusal or cancellation of any visa granted to me if further information of relevance comes to the attention of the Department at any time in the future, and that if this happens my past conduct and previous relevant information can also be reconsidered.
I will not be reading out the 20 December 2007 formal counselling letter because he did not receive it.
It is of particular relevance in this case that not only has a warning been given but the Applicant has acknowledged it. It was under the previous law but, even so, it may well have been, regardless of the 2014 changes, that the imprisonment in 2015 would have immediately invoked what most likely would have been, it seems, a cancellation, due to the applicant’s significant breach of the undertaking signed in 2011. In terms of the law as it currently stands, it is certainly very relevant.
Now, there are some incidents here where the applicant’s recollection is somewhat different from other people’s and he particularly seemed to indicate that he had not done any actual courses because they either were not available or there was probably, at best I could put it, some misunderstanding. It seems, and the Respondent pointed this out quite effectively, that there had been a number of occasions when he had been offered courses and he simply had not taken them up. The applicant, certainly in relation to one incident I was about to read out, indicated that, he thought they (the authorities) were going to contact him, and they thought he was meant to contact them. He was at that period of time, in custody. I would have to say that there seems to be a number of occasions when certainly he could have done courses and he should have done courses, and they were actually offered and, indeed, in terms of some of the conditions of the bonds he entered into, he was meant to do those courses.
I note that, putting it at its highest in terms of his case, it is unfortunate that he has not done these courses, and I find, certainly on the balance of probabilities, that it seems that he was offered a number of courses and, for whatever reason, he did not partake in them. I would also accept at this point in time that I do not think Villawood has these courses, and so no one expects him to do them there, but it is certainly unfortunate from his point of view that he did not avail himself of the opportunity when they were offered or, indeed, if by chance he is accurate, and I do not accept that he is, and they simply were not offered, that he did not seek them out. A lot of people do every course available to them when they are in custody, and do all they can to advance themselves, tick all the boxes and pick up some skills along the way.
In the Respondent’s tender bundle there are some assessment reports which are relevant. I was concerned when the Applicant was saying that he had a deal with the judge and the lawyer - I am not sure if that was the prosecutor or his lawyer - in relation to home detention. And it seems he was seeking to get some transcript of that but had unfortunately left it a bit late in the piece to 9 August 2016. It appears however that what he was referring to was the judge merely asking the prosecution about the suitability of home detention, and requesting that a report be done in relation to that. The Applicant was assessed and a report was prepared for the hearing date on 21 October 2015. The assessment, which is at supplementary tender bundle page 43 onwards, states that it is valid for three months from the hearing date, being 21 October 2015, and the following factors have been assessed: previous community supervision, criminal record, risk of re-offending, risk of harm to others, and substance abuse. It did not look at mental health or domestic violence.
The sources of the information were interviews with Mr Callaghan at the Leichhardt District Office, telephone contact with a case worker at the Methadone Treatment Facility, police facts and criminal history, and Corrective Services New South Wales records. The report dated 19 October 2015 states:
CURRENT CIRCUMSTANCES
Mr Callaghan reported that he resides alone in a Department of Housing property. He claims to have been at this address for two and a half years, and prior to this was reportedly homeless. He stated he immigrated to Australia from New Zealand in 1996 and the majority of his family remain in New Zealand. Mr Callaghan stated that he has a nine year old daughter from a relationship which ended approximately six years ago. He advised that his daughter is in foster care and he no contact with his child.
[He] has been in receipt of a Disability Support Pension for the past three years. He reported a history of unemployment.
CRIMINAL HISTORY AND RISK OF RE-OFFENDING
Previous community supervision
Mr Callaghan has been known to Community Corrections since 2002 and has been supervised in relation to various bonds and while on parole in 2011. He has breached orders for further offending and ongoing illicit substance use.
Criminal record
Records indicate that Mr Callaghan has a lengthy history of drug related offending.
Risk of re-offending.
According to an actuarial risk/ needs assessment tool (Level of Service Inventory- Revised), the offender is assessed as a medium risk of re-offending. The offender’s criminogenic needs are:
· substance abuse
· aggression
Factors contributing to the current offence
Substance abuse
Mr Callaghan disclosed a lengthy history of illicit substance abuse including heroin, amphetamines and abuse of prescription medication. He reported to have been on a methadone treatment program since 2012 and enquiries confirmed this information and that he attends regularly for dosing. His last urine screen in July 2015 was positive of OxyContin. During the interview for this assessment, Mr Callaghan admitted to having last used heroin and methamphetamine one week prior to an interview at Leichhardt Community Corrections on 28 September 2015. While he admitted to his drug dependency still being an issue, he expressed resistance to the option of a residential rehabilitation program due to the possibility of losing his current housing.
Aggressive behaviour
Mr Callaghan appeared to have minimal insight into his aggressive and threatening behaviour, and to lack understanding of the potential impact of his behaviour on the victim.
Attitude to the offence
Mr Callaghan appeared to downplay the seriousness of his offending behaviour and disagreed with details in the police facts. He admitted to having been under the influence of “pills” during the commission of the offence [And this offence relates, it seems, because it is 2015, to the threats made to the doctor].
FACTORS RELEVANT TO ICO ASSESSMENT
Substance use
Mr Callaghan has a lengthy history of unresolved substance dependency and admitted to recent use of heroin and methamphetamine.
ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATION
Assessment
Mr Callaghan has a lengthy history of unresolved substance dependency and related offending. He displayed minimal insight into his recent aggressive offending behaviour. Notwithstanding this, enquiries confirm that he has engaged well in current drug treatment and attends regularly for his methadone dosage. Enquiries indicated that his case worker is supporting him with options for further treatment.
Recommendation - unsuitable
The offender has been assessed as unsuitable for an intensive correction order for the following reasons:
·unresolved substance dependency
On 1 December 2015 the Applicant was sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment. A Home Detention Assessment completed by Ms Cremer, a Senior Community Corrective Services Officer at Corrective Services NSW on the same date states:
The Court is advised that Mr Callaghan telephoned this office on 9th November 2015 and was advised to await contact regarding his home detention assessment.
On 9 and 10 November 2015 Ms Cremer attempted to contact the Applicant on several occasions by phone:
When unable to reach him, a message was left on his voice mail requesting he attend urine screening at this office on 12 November 2015. On 11 November 2015 Mr Callaghan left a telephone message for the undersigned advising he was unable to attend the urine screening. On 13 November 2015 the undersigned attempted to contact him several times without success. Following this a letter was sent to his address advising him of a final opportunity to attend an appointment at this office on 17 November 2015 at 3.00 pm. A telephone call was made to him on 17 November and a voice message was left advising him of the afternoon appointment which he subsequently failed to attend.
RECOMMENDATION
Unsuitable
The offender has been assessed as unsuitable for a Home Detention Order for the following reasons:
·Unreliability and failure to comply with assessment requirements.
The Respondent’s representative also took the Tribunal and the Applicant to NSW Corrective Services Case Note Reports (at pages 48-60 of the Respondent’s tender bundle) which were completed when the Applicant was imprisoned during the period between May and August 2010. A case note dated 7 July 2010 records the following:
Inmate does not wish to participate or enter rehabilitation program/ centre.
The Case Note Reports also record a discussion with the Applicant in relation to accommodation upon release. He was not too sure where he would stay. He seems to have gone from custody to a residential program at the Bundaleer Community Offender Support Program (COSP) Centre. On 28 August 2010 at the COSP Centre, he was issued with an alcohol and other drug (AOD) final warning. It was made clear to him that drug use at the centre would not be tolerated. He apparently replied, “Well, I’ll use it outside” and he was told if he wanted to do that he could not remain at Bundaleer. He was encouraged that now is the time to get on board with the interventions that were being offered to him, given that he has identified that he is relapsing. He agreed.
Given that two syringes had been located in his possession, he was then asked what he had used today, which he said “Nothing”. He was again informed he had just been issued with this AOD letter and there was no further repercussion on his placement at Bundaleer should he disclose, given that the worker wanted to know, so the staff could be aware for his own safety. He stated he used a “50 of heroin”. He was thanked for being honest, and he was also encouraged to involve himself in the program e.g. case meetings, working on exit and AOD interventions. There was further evidence that he was non-compliant with a pat search and thought that was “bullshit”, and there were submissions in relation to his room.
The overall summary made by Bundaleer staff dated 7 September 2010 was that Mr Callaghan did not participate in the Bundaleer program. He failed to meet the staff for appointments on a continual basis, and did not meet his board and lodgings requirement, and he failed to take medication. His progress was not satisfactory and future accommodation within a COSP environment was not be advisable. In fact, on 26 August 2010, following the Applicant’s initial interview with his Connections case worker, the case worker commented that the Applicant was “rude and demanding with a sense of entitlement”. The case worker said he would see him again to determine if he would continue to provide support, and made a note “David doesn’t appear to be interested or willing to engage”.
I have to say that there does seem to be somewhat of a history in relation to this, despite the Applicant’s protestations that he really wants to do some of these courses. For example, there was a note from Kempsey Community Corrections on 23 August 2011 that “Inmate refused attendance at Getting Smart” which is another course he should have done namely, the Smart Recovery Program. Staff attempted to contact the Applicant to arrange for him to attend the Smart Recovery Program. He stated he did not wish to attend, and that he was right. The Applicant was given time to think about the offer over the weekend, however he did not turn up to the program the following Monday. I believe that was the incident where he thought they were going to come and get him, and maybe there was some miscommunication there, but again an opportunity went begging.
On 16 September 2011, in a further case note report from Kempsey Community Corrections the author shared concerns with the inmate’s attitude in regards to trying to help himself integrate back into community life, and attempting to access support services before release:
Minimal attempt to contact welfare has been achieved by this inmate. Programs to address his offending behaviour have not been addressed where he refused to comply and then refused to attend.
In Exhibit A1, the Applicant commented on some of the above issues and matters. I am not going to worry about the New Zealand matters, that is a long time ago and not of any real relevance. . I am basically just concerned with what is happened here in Australia. He has sent to the Tribunal a 10-page document. In it he states.
Every document I sen[d] I will be addressing to address my (sic) drug issue, my future goals, offen[d]ing, why I won’t re-offend in the future. alcohol. I don’t drink I gave that up many years ago. As you can see, there’s no alcohol related offending.
…
I can prove I have not re-offended for f4 years not one offence (sic). I’m on the methadone program with great success I now have great support I have a great case worker at the Lagton Centre I have a place to live where I have been for the last 4 years I don’t drink or use drugs as I can prove from my urines no drug or any [assault] charg[e]s in custody.
He stated, in relation to the last charge in 2015 that he had moved to Redfern. His doctor was away so he went to the other medical centre. He stated there that he was given the script, and he basically pleaded guilty just to get it over and done with. He stated that the doctor was a relief doctor who did not know him. No one demanded a script. He told them why he needed it and she gave him a script.
He indicated orally to the Tribunal that he could have said, “Look, I might go out and do something silly or, indeed, perhaps even go out and hurt someone” but he did not put it any higher than that. It appears that that is very different from the police evidence which I have already dealt with.
He stated the police came around and charged him, and he said he was not guilty but he pleaded guilty just to get it over and done with:
...because I want to start working and I don’t want this hanging over my head.
He stated in his statement which has been tendered:
As you can see, I’ve stayed out of trouble for a period of three years, due to I’ve now had a lot of support out there and a house to come home to... I’ve been renting off Housing for four years now and hopefully I’ve still got it, but the longer I stay in here the less likely, because they hold it for six months and it’s getting close to that now. Peter, please look at my [revocation] ASAP. I love Australia and all it stands for. I feel a visa is not a right to have(sic), it’s a privilege and I know that now.
And I would never lose it again if I had the chance to have it back. I’ve known I have made mistakes in my life and realise where I have gone wrong and believe me I won’t put another foot wrong. This has been a real wake-up call for me. I just want to go back to my wife and daughter and be the best husband and father I could ever be. I have a lot of goals. If I get my visa back I would like to start working and then save enough money to start my own business fencing and rubbish removals. Peter, I’d like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to tell you about this part of my life, and to explain exactly what happened and, believe me, I’m not making any excuses. I will await your reply.

As I said he has made some explanations in relation to what happened in New Zealand. I am really not concerned in relation to that. He also stated that someone wanted him to help them with a job in 2010. This was the 2 December break and enter. He added something which he has not added in oral evidence, namely, he did not want to do it, but the other guy said if he did not “he’d bash me” and hurt his girlfriend. He was worried about her, and that is when he went and opened the window. He stated the other guy went in, which would seem to indicate that he did not, but in evidence before the Tribunal he indicated that he did. He said the police got him because of his fingerprints, and he said he pleaded guilty just to get it over with, “...and believe me, I’ll never do that again in my life”. Similarly, he said he would never make another silly mistake like 10 February 2011. He indicated, that in relation to his New Zealand offences (apart from the tax offences) that he had been drinking very heavily and that in those days he was certainly drinking a lot, but that does not seem to be a particular problem now.
There are some further documents I will just mention briefly before I apply the law here, and those are to be found in Exhibit R3, the Respondent’s supplementary tender bundle. These are police incident reports which very much indicate that right up until the time he was jailed in 2015 the Applicant certainly had come under notice by the police, although he had not been charged. Specifically, at 11.10pm, on 16 November 2015 in Redfern he was seen attempting to take his clothes off. What is relevant here is that he states he was affected by drugs not liquor. The police observed him to be stumbling back and forward as he was trying to dress himself. He was slurring his words. He stated to police that he had only had consumed a few beers at an undisclosed pub before walking home. It looked like he might have been assaulted. The police took him to hospital.
The interesting thing is despite his denials to the Tribunal, he tells the police that he had had a few beers and the police specifically used the term “intoxicated”. I suppose, taking it at its highest, that because they do not mention smelling alcohol that could have meant drugs, but clearly I certainly would have to accept that he said he had a few beers, and he probably would not be in any state to know what he said. So I can certainly find on that evidence that it could well have been alcohol that effected him, perhaps combined with drugs , despite his denials of not drinking for many years.
There was another incident on 20 October 2015 which appears to have involved a “pyramid of drugs”. In an incident reported on 15 June 2015, he apparently became angry and yelling at the centre in relation to getting his methadone. Security had to be called.
It seems there is a bit of a history if he cannot get his methadone and, if there are problems he can get quite upset and aggressive and perhaps he does not even know he is.
The incident report also noted the incident ( on 29 March 2015) with the doctor that led to his last imprisonment. I have already indicated how terrified the victim was when he said to her that, “I could lock this door and strangle you now if you don’t give me the script” . She actually saw track marks on his arm, and he leant back on his chair and reached towards the door with his left arm. The victim felt scared and intimidated because she believed he was going to do it. That is why she wrote him out the script. When she did that he calmed down, and looked at a photo of another doctor’s children and said, “I could go outside and kill a child or kill a mother. I can’t control myself if I don’t get my medication”, so she wrote the script for 20 tablets, and he then left and the police much later arrested him in relation to that.
On 28 March 2015, in Surry Hills police were called to a multi-level apartment block and a lobby on the ground floor. They were called to an intoxicated man asleep inside the lobby. They attended and met security. They observed the Applicant fast asleep on a sofa lounge:
Police could also smell a strong aroma of alcohol from him. Police asked security if the person of interest resides at the location, but security said they had never seen him before. When he was woken up and said he was let in by security and they said they did not.
He then murmured and told them where he actually lived. They searched the accused, could not find anything on him, but clearly the police stated in their report “Police could also smell a strong aroma of alcohol”.
There is another incident on 11 December 2014 where the Applicant was searching the bins outside residents’ houses. Police noted “he appeared affected by alcohol and drugs, having a strong smell of intoxicating liquor and glazed eyes”. The Applicant told the Tribunal that it could have been that he could have spilt grog on himself whilst going through the bins. I would not necessarily accept that. I suppose it is possible, but when one looks at that incident and the later one in March where he is sound asleep and police could also smell a strong aroma of alcohol on him, and where there is no indication there that there was any possibility of alcohol being spilled on him, I find it a bit incredulous that it is just alcohol being spilt on the applicant. It seems that he is still imbibing in alcohol.
He obviously has a significant drug problem. No one seems to be disputing that. He has indicated to the Tribunal what type of drugs he cannot take. Unfortunately it seems he still takes drugs he knows he should not take. For example, on 17 February 2013 the police stated he is a heroin addict but he had taken a mix of OxyContin, methadone and Xanax. Xanax apparently is a drug he can take, but not with the other drugs as well.
I am satisfied that all these reports, which actually go back to 2012, deal with drugs and they also deal with alcohol. I find on the balance of probabilities, that it seems to me quite clear from the evidence that, not only was the Applicant taking drugs that had caused him a number of problems in the past, but also, despite his protestations, he has been imbibing in alcohol as well.
I now come to apply the law in relation to this matter. Section 6.2 of Ministerial Direction no. 65 provide general guidance to decision makers and outlines the principles which must be taken into account:
6.2 General Guidance
(1) The Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. The principles below are of critical importance in furthering that objective and reflect community values and standards with respect to determining whether the risk of future harm from non-citizens is unacceptable.
(2) In order to effectively protect the Australian community from harm and to maintain integrity and public confidence in the character assessment processes decisions about whether a non-citizen’s visa should be refused or cancelled under section 501 should be made in a timely manner once a decision-maker is satisfied that a non-citizen does not pass the character test. Timely decisions are also beneficial to the client in providing certainty about their future.
(3) The principles provide a framework within which decision-makers should approach their task of deciding whether to refuse or cancel a non-citizen’s visa under section 501, or whether to revoke a mandatory cancellation under 501CA. The relevant factors that must be considered in making a decision under section 501 of the Act are identified in Part A and B, while factors that must be considered in making a revocation are in Part C.
6.3 Principles
(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) The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they commit serious crimes in Australia or elsewhere.
(3) A non-citizen who has committed a serious crime, including of a violent or sexual nature, and particularly against vulnerable members of the community such as minors, the elderly or disabled, should generally expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.
(4) In some circumstances, criminal offending or other conduct, and the harm that would be caused if it were to be repeated, may be so serious, that any risk of similar conduct in the future is unacceptable. In these circumstances, even other strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa.
(5) Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by people 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 in relation to a non-citizen who has lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.
Obviously the very early age does not count here, but the Applicant certainly has lived here for 20 years, although that is not most of his life, but it is a long time.
The Direction continues:
(6) Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, reflecting that there should be no expectation that such people should be allowed to come to, or remain permanently in, Australia.
(7) The length of time a non-citizen has been making a positive contribution to the Australian community, and the consequences of a visa refusal or cancellation for minor children and other immediate family members in Australia, are considerations in the context of determining whether that non-citizen’s visa should be cancelled, or their visa application refused.
Part C of the Direction outlines the considerations for revocation requests:
13.1 Primary considerations – revocation requests
(1) Under subsection 501(3A) of the Act, the Minister must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because of the operation of paragraph (6)(a) (on the basis of paragraph (7)(a), (b) or (c)) or paragraph (6)(e)) and the non-citizen is serving a sentence of imprisonment on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory. A non-citizen who has had his or her visa cancelled under section 501(3A) may request revocation of that decision under section 501CA of the Act. Where the discretion to consider revocation is enlivened, the decision-maker must consider whether to revoke the cancellation given the specific circumstances of the case.
(2) In deciding whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen’s visa, the following are primary considerations:
(a) Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(b) The best interests of minor children in Australia;
(c) Expectations of the Australian community.
13.1 Protection of the Australian community
(1) When considering protection of the Australian community, decision makers should have regard to the principle that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. Remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on noncitizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community. Mandatory cancellation without notice of certain non-citizen prisoners is consistent with this principle by ensuring that serious offenders remain in either criminal or immigration detention while their immigration status is resolved.
(2) Decision-makers should also give consideration to:
(a) The nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date; and
(b) The risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
In considering the nature and seriousness of the conduct, decision-makers must have regard to factors including the principal act without limiting the range of offences that must be considered serious, violent and/or sexual crimes are viewed very seriously, and in this matter the Applicant has committed some violent crimes at the lower end of the scale. There have been threats of extreme violence, but they were only threats and it was handled well by the doctor, although clearly on the evidence the doctor was absolutely terrified and felt in danger, but it was not actual violence.
Decision-makers must also have regard to:
(b) The principle that crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community (such as minors, the elderly and the disabled), or government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties, are serious. Again, whilst the police are not to be regarded as blue punching bags, the courts tended to view as an offence usually punishable by a fine, such offences as resist arrest or assault police. They are viewed at the bottom end of the scale for violence, and obviously the more serious charges of grievous bodily harm, actual bodily harm and the like are available to the police and the prosecution should the offences warrant that as well. In this matter there are a number of violent offences but it is clear from the penalties that they are regarded at the bottom of the scale.
Thirdly, I am also required to have regard to the sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes. As I said earlier, the Applicant has committed over 60 offences in a 13 year period, , most of which resulted in non-custodial penalties but a number resulted in custodial sentences:
I now turn to considering the frequency of the non-citizen’s offending and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness. There are certainly numerous offences here, over 60, so very, very frequent indeed. Increasing seriousness? Some of the larcenies were of goods worth more than the goods stolen in earlier years, and of course there is the very serious threats in relation to not being given the methadone pills. That certainly is probably the most serious and, yes, that is at the end of the period and that is why we are here today because that is what the Applicant was sentenced for when the Department took the action it did so one could say the offences are creeping upwards in terms of seriousness.
I am also required to consider the cumulative effect of repeat offending. This is a dreadful record. Most of the crimes are relatively minor but they have cost the community. Firstly, they have cost the Applicant. He has ruined his life over the last 14 years or so. He has brought it on himself with his drug addiction but, clearly, he has probably suffered more than anyone else through his own actions. Clearly a lot of time, effort and damage has been caused over the years as a result of his offending, not only to the Applicant himself but also to various members of the community both to citizens and public officials, and it has been pretty well constant with only a few gaps over the last 14 or so years.
In relation to whether the non-citizen has provided false or misleading information to the department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending I do not think he has done anything like that. The principles guiding my decision then continue on to require consideration of:
(g) Whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware, in writing, about the consequences of further offending in terms of the non-citizen’s migration status (noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen’s favour).Well, in 2011 not only was he warned he acknowledged the warning, and that has to be a very important factor here.
The requirement to consider where the non-citizen is in Australia that the crime committed whilst a non-citizen was in Immigration detention, during an escape or after he escaped, but before he was taken into Immigration detention again is serious, does not apply here.
The Direction also requires decision-makers to consider the risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct. The Direction states:
(1) In considering whether the non-citizen represents an unacceptable risk of harm to individuals, groups or institutions in the Australian community, decision-makers should have regard to the principle that the Australian community’s tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.
(2) In considering the risk to the Australian community, decision-makers must have regard to, cumulatively:
(a) The nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and
(b) The likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account available information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen re-offending (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken).
Well, unfortunately there were not many rehabilitation courses undertaken. He obviously has not reoffended as he is in a secure environment where he cannot drink or take drugs. In terms of the evidence before me, it seems that he has been assessed at certainly a moderate risk and not suitable for programs due to his inability to undertake and participate in them, with the exception of studying and passing some subjects in a course he did at Villawood (see earlier in this judgement for details of the subjects passed).
I must say, it is my view that unless there were some very, very good supports in place and probably a residential program, there would be a very good chance of the Applicant lapsing back into his life of drug and substance abuse and the criminal acts that go with that life . I think moderate risk is optimistic, even with good supports, and without good supports he would be a high risk in my view.
Although I note most of these offences have not been, as taken individually, particularly violent or serious offences, but taken cumulatively over the 14 year period, which is a long period of time they certainly fall into the category of repeat offending to a very, very significant degree.
I now look at the best interests of minor children in Australia. Decision-makers must make a determination about whether revocation is or is not in the best interests of the child. We look at such things as the nature of the relationship. If it is non-parental less weight is given. If there is long periods of absence or limited meaningful contact that is of course relevant. The extent to which the non-citizen is likely to play a positive parental role in the future, given the fact the child has now got about seven years till she turn 18 is of relevance. Other factors to consider are any other court orders, prior conduct of the non-citizen, whether that is going to have a negative impact on the child. Any separation, in terms of the Applicant and the child. Whether there are other people fulfilling a parental role. The views of the child are relevant.

There is certainly no evidence that the Applicant has ever abused or neglected the child. The child was taken away from her mother and the Applicant has only ever seen the child twice. There would be no trauma at all arising out of the non-citizen’s conduct with the child. The trouble is he does not have a meaningful relationship, unfortunately. He has accepted the auntie was taking care of her, and the child has not seen him since she was probably about two or three.
I note the Applicant very properly wants to be involved in his daughters life and is very concerned that this simply cannot happen if he is in New Zealand. That is not necessarily so. He can ring his daughter .He will probably need to do this to start with wherever he is. Over time she may well be able to see him.
Of course it would be easier in Sydney, but Nelson, or for that matter, anywhere in New Zealand is closer that North Queensland, Darwin or Perth and who is to say the Applicant might not end up there if he were to stay in Australia, overcome his problems and get a job somewhere.
He is worried she will not be interested in meeting him. That is understandable, but most children want to meet an absent parent and get to know them. It’s up to him to try to establish contact and it does not really matter where he is. If he were to remain a drug addicted petty criminal in Sydney he would have less chance of establishing any relationship with his daughter than if he goes to New Zealand and makes a go of his life.
The best interests of minors i.e. his daughter, are not a very strong consideration as he does not know her and she does not know him. There has been no real contact in any meaningful way. What I said above applies.
Finally, I have to have regard to the expectations of the Australian community.
The Australian community expect non-citizens to obey Australian laws. If there is an unacceptable risk that non-citizens will breach the trust and they have been convicted of offences in Australia or elsewhere it may be appropriate to not revoke the mandatory visa revocation.
I feel the expectation of the Australian community would be that the Applicant has been a serial pest in this country since 2002 and has made no contribution since that time. He has not worked since before 2002 and has been a taker and not a contributor. The people of Australia would expect him to be deported.
All of the evidence before me points to a significant problem that the Applicant still has, certainly with drugs and quite likely, if those police reports are accurate, which I have no reason to disbelieve, alcohol. Secondly, he has committed so many offences that the chances of him offending again is something I cannot ignore and further on that point, the fact that it is likely that if he were simply let out and there were not some amazingly strong safeguards put in place, there is, a very strong likelihood of him re-offending, not necessarily with serious crimes but with a number of petty crimes such as he has engaged in since 2002 to support his habit.
DECISION
At the end of the day I think I am in a position where I have no choice, sitting in the shoes of the decision-maker, but to affirm the decision under review. I would simply say in closing one thing to the Applicant. You now have an opportunity to make a fresh start, to break the destructive cycle you have been in here for many years, to achieve your current stated aims in the land of your youth, where you have family you can reconnect with. It is not like you are being sent back to Mogadishu. You are going to a country that is closer in culture and values to Australia than any other in the world and where, I understand at present, it’s easier to get a job than in Australia. Far from making it harder to see your daughter, if you pull yourself together and get on with life, there is no reason why you can’t connect with your daughter and have a real relationship with her as her father. I think a moving back home might be the best thing that has happened to you for many a year.
I note you wish to appeal and if you do, as is your right, and are successful, I wish you well in your stated endeavours but if you do and are not successful or if you don’t and accept my decision, please bear in mind what I have said above.

I certify that the preceding 94 (ninety-four) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member W Stefaniak RFD
...............................[sgd].........................................
Associate
Dated 15 September 2016

Date(s) of hearing 15 August 2016

Applicant In person

Solicitors for the Respondent Australian Government Solicitor

[2016] AATA 713

15 August 2016

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Natural Justice

Appeal

Jurisdiction

Division	GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s)	2016/2917
Re	David Callaghan
APPLICANT
And	Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
RESPONDENT

Tribunal	Senior Member W Stefaniak AM RFD
Date	15 August 2016
Date of written reasons	15 September 2016
Place	Sydney

Date(s) of hearing	15 August 2016
Applicant	In person
Solicitors for the Respondent	Australian Government Solicitor