Chodowiec and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)

[2021] AATA 4175

Chodowiec and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2021] AATA 4175 (12 November 2021)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number:          2020/3965

Re:Damian Piotr Chodowiec

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Senior Member P J Clauson AM

Date:12 November 2021

Place:Brisbane

The reviewable decision to refuse the application for citizenship be conferral is set aside and remitted to the Respondent for reconsideration with a direction that the Applicant is of good character.

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

Senior Member P J Clauson AM

Catchwords

CITIZENSHIP – Good Character – Whether Applicant is of good character – Where Tribunal satisfied Applicant presently of good character – Decision set aside and remitted with direction

Legislation

Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)

Cases

Fenn and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 931

Irving v The Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1966) 68 FCR 422

KJZM and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] AATA 2621.

Zheng and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] AATA 304.

Secondary Materials

CPI 15 – Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member P J Clauson AM

12 November 2021

INTRODUCTION

1. Damian Piotr Chodowiec (the “Applicant”) submitted an application for Australian Citizenship by conferral under section 21 of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (the “Act”) on 14 May 2019.[1]

   [1] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T4, 14.

2. On 24 June 2020, a delegate of the Minister (the “Delegate”) refused the Applicant’s application for Australian citizenship on the basis that the Delegate could not be satisfied of the Applicant’s good character pursuant to sub-section 21(2)(h) of the Act.[2]

   [2] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T13, 140-146.

3. The Applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of that decision on 26 June 2020.[3]

   [3] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T2, 6.

   ISSUE FOR THE TRIBUNAL

4. The Tribunal has to determine whether it is satisfied of the Applicant’s good character for the purposes of sub-section 21(2)(h) of the Act at the time of its decision. The case was conducted on the basis that if that issue were resolved in the Applicant’s favour, the matter should be remitted to the Respondent for reconsideration with a direction that the Applicant was of good character. 

   LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

5. The Tribunal, in considering the requirement as to an applicant’s good character, is bound by sections 21 and 24 of the Act. The relevant sections of the Act provide:

   Section 21 Application and eligibility for citizenship

   …

   2A person is eligible to become an Australian citizen if the Minister is satisfied that the person:

   ….

   (h)is of good character at the time of the Minister’s decision on the application.

   Section 24 Minister’s Decision

   1If a person makes an application under section 21, the Minister must, by writing, approve or refuse to approve the person becoming an Australian citizen.

   1AThe Minister must not approve the person becoming an Australian citizen unless the person is eligible to become an Australian citizen under subsection 21(2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7) or (8).

6. Consequently, the Minister must refuse an application for citizenship if the Minister is not satisfied of an applicant’s good character.

   Good Character and Assessing it

7. The Act is silent on what constitutes ‘good character’ and thus it is appropriate to look at how that term has been understood by courts and tribunals.

8. Guidance as to what constitutes ‘Good Character’ may be found in the matter of Irving v The Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1966) 68 FCR 422 at 431 – 432). In that matter the term ‘Good Character’ was described as meaning:

   Unless the terms of the Act and regulations require some other meaning be applied, the words ‘good character’ should be taken to be used in their ordinary sense, namely, a reference to the enduring moral qualities of a person, and not to the good standing, fame or repute of that person in the community. The former is an objective assessment apt to be proved as a fact whist the latter is a review of subjective public opinion. A person who has been convicted of a serious crime and thereafter held in contempt in the community, nonetheless may show that he or she has reformed and is of good character. Conversely, a person of good repute may be shown by objective assessment to be a person of bad character.

9. The importance of the consideration of a person’s character who is an applicant for Australian citizenship has been enunciated by Breen DP in the matter of Fenn v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 931 where the Deputy President stated (at [8]):

   The grant of Australian citizenship is a privilege not bestowed lightly. It is given to those who uphold the values of the Australian community and who are willing to make a positive contribution to the country they want to call home. … The refusal to grant citizenship is not a second form of punishment, which is the domain of the Criminal Courts. It is simply the right of the Australian community to decide whom they wish to have included as fellow citizens, which is a function of State.

10. Further reinforcement for the concept of how consideration of character is intrinsically bound into the process of evaluating the suitability of an applicant for a grant of citizenship is demonstrated by the observation of Forgie DP in the matter of Zheng and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] AATA 304 (at [120]) where, after considering the wording of the preamble to the Act, the Deputy President made the observation that:

    In the context of the Act, loyalty to Australia, a belief in a democratic form of government, a respect for the rights and liberties of all Australians and obedience to and observance of the law are values that are regarded as significant. An assessment of a person’s character will need to have regard to them. They are not values that can be assessed in the abstract. Instead, they are measured in part by what a person says, in part by what a person does and in part by what a person is heard to say and seen to do.

11. CPI 15 – Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act (CPI 15) now provides the necessary guidance framework as to how character is to be assessed for the purposes of the Act.[4] Generally, government policy should be followed even though it is not binding. A decision maker should only depart from government policy such as CPI 15 when there is a cogent reason to do so.

    [4] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T15, 161.

12. The framework states that the ‘Good Character’ of a person relates to their ‘enduring moral qualities’, and that a person possessing those qualities would be likely to uphold the laws of Australia and the other commitments they may make when pledging their allegiance to Australia should they become a citizen.

13. CPI 15 also states that in most cases “it would not be appropriate to automatically conclude that a person is not of good character based on the fact that the person has been convicted of an offence. A full assessment is required”.

14. CPI 15 further stipulates that the instruction should not be applied rigidly or inflexibly and that where a decision maker has a discretionary power conferred in the Act, it is to be exercised taking into account the facts of the case and although the instruction provides guidance to a decision maker, it cannot fetter their legislated statutory discretion.

15. The Tribunal in considering whether the Applicant is of good character, has viewed the evidence provided both in documentary and oral form by the Applicant in support of his contention that he is of good character, through the lens of the foregoing guidelines.

16. The Tribunal is reminded in the CPI 15 framework for assessing ‘Good Character’, decision makers must ‘be mindful that the requirement to be of ‘good character’ does not mean that a person must be ‘of perfect character’.[5] It therefore stands to reason that this exhortation further reinforces and reflects the extended view that a person who commits an offence should not be automatically assumed to be of bad character and allows the consideration that a person who may have been of bad character can become a person of good character.

    [5] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T15,164.

    THE APPLICANT’S CONTENTIONS

17. The Applicant is a Polish citizen who was born in 1999 and who migrated on a permanent basis to Australia in 2011 as a 12-year-old child with his mother.[6] The Applicant was raised in Poland by his mother and grandmother and his grandmother has since died. The Applicant has no other living relatives in Poland. His biological father left him and his mother when he was one year of age and he has had no contact with his biological father since that time. His mother remarried a Polish man who was an Australian citizen and an accountant. The family has lived on the Gold Coast since their arrival in Australia. The Applicant has received his education principally in Australia.

    [6] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T4, 15; T10, 100.

18. The Applicant in his Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions has outlined and agreed with his matters involving the police and his subsequent engagements with the judicial process. It is these transgressions and the subsequent court record of the sanctions imposed which caused the delegate to reject his application for citizenship on the basis of not being able to satisfy the character test.

19. The Applicant agrees that the following offences were committed between 2017 and 2019, namely:[7]

    [7] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T9, 71-72; see also Exhibit 9.

    (a)29 March 2017 – Exceeded the speed limit by less than 13 kilometres per hour and fined $162.00;

    (b)12 September 2017 – Wilful damage.  No conviction recorded.  Placed on a $500.00 good behaviour recognisance, nine months good behaviour period, and $250.00 restitution ordered;

    (c)14 September 2017 – Exceeded the speed limit by less than 13 kilometres per hour and fined $168.00;

    (d)12 June 2018 – Wilful damage.  No conviction recorded.  80 hours of community service to be completed within nine months and restitution ordered in the amount of $372.00;

    (e)19 July 2018 – Being intoxicated in a public place.  Fined $100.00.  No conviction recorded;

    (f)18 April 2019 – Being intoxicated in a public place.  $100.00 fine.  No conviction recorded;

    (g)2 May 2019 – Failed to comply with a condition upon a Queensland licence.  $130.00 fine;

    (h)2 June 2019 – Drug driving.  No details of outcome, however, the Applicant said that he lost his licence for six months as a result of these offences.

    (i)30 June 2019 – Drug driving.  No details of outcome, however, the Applicant said that he lost his licence for six months as a result of these offences;

    (j)28 September 2019 – Cheating by a fraudulent trick, device, sleight of hand or representation.  No conviction recorded.  Fined $100.00.

20. The principle contention propounded by the Applicant is that the offences in question would have all been committed whilst the Applicant was suffering from an undiagnosed condition namely, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”), which resulted in a significant impairment of his decision-making processes.[8] This, in turn, lead to impulsive behaviours without reasonable consideration of any consequences.

    [8] Exhibit 3.

21. The Applicant acknowledges that CPI 15 outlines four questions which a decision-maker needs to be consider when weighing the evidence as to whether a candidate meets those standards expected by the Australian community.

22. The Applicant also accepts that two of those questions he is, on the face of the matter, unable to satisfy.[9] Namely, question one: Would a person of good character have behaved the way the Applicant did? And question three: Has the Applicant behaved in accordance with Australia’s Community standards?

    [9] Exhibit 3, 6.

23. The Applicant contends, however, that the decision-maker needs to look holistically at his behaviour over a lasting and/or enduring time. The period to be considered as lasting or enduring should be so on the individual merits of each case. In the Applicant’s circumstances, it is appropriate to consider the length of time that the Applicant has been in Australia since his arrival at the age of 12.

24. The Applicant, although admitting and certainly acknowledging the grossly unsatisfactory nature of his actions and behaviour, contends that his undiagnosed ADHD condition would have had a not insignificant bearing on his decision-making ability. Consequently, because that ability to process decisions was impaired very significantly by his condition, it is argued that his actions are not true reflection of his current character.

25. The Applicant contends further that his ADHD condition was only diagnosed post his filing his application for citizenship and that the type of antisocial behaviour he had exhibited was not truly representative of his character and behaviour.

26. The Applicant contends that up until and during and after his offending behaviour, he continued to display the virtues of which he was possessed since childhood. He contends that he is an honest, respectful and well-mannered person, a dedicated student and a reliable and hardworking person who follows the rules and obeys instructions.[10]

    [10] Exhibit 3, 7.

27. The Applicant has produced statutory declarations from a number of people who have had interaction with him over a number of years and who attest to his possessing the qualities he asserts that he is fundamentally possessed of.

28. The Applicant received an invitation to comment on adverse information from the Delegate on 14 May 2020.[11] On 9 June 2020, the Applicant’s Representative, Ms De Lima, forwarded a response to the Delegate.[12] Attached to this response were the supportive statutory declarations of:

    (a)Peter Whiffin, the owner/manager of the Southport Community Op Shop charity provider;[13]

    (b)Alexandria Armour, the Applicant’s English teacher at Benowa High School;[14]

    (c)Nicole Strydom, the Applicant’s  consulting psychologist[15];

    (d)The Applicant himself.[16]

    [11] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T9, 67-76.

    [12] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T10, 97-104.

    [13] Ibid 97.

    [14] Ibid 98.

    [15] Ibid, 99.

    [16] Ibid, 100-104.

29. The statutory declaration of the Applicant outlines his life history, his expression of contrition for his actions and his intentions and aspirations for himself into the future.

30. The statutory declaration of Mr Whiffin states that he is the owner and manager of the charity shop where the Applicant completed his community service obligation. He deposes that he found the Applicant to be a willing and cheerful worker who was likable, well-mannered and brought an “upbeat happy nature” to the workplace. He was honest and was entrusted to use the shop’s vehicle to carry out messages, pick-up and delivery operation.

31. Ms Alexandria Armour’s declaration stated that she was the Applicant’s Year 12 English teacher in 2017. She attested to the Applicant’s strong and respectful character where she and his peers were concerned. She described him as a diligent student who made efforts to improve his work no matter what the difficulty. She stated that the Applicant was “punctual” to his lessons and maintained good attendance. She also stated that he followed the rules and was never engaged in disruptive behaviour.

32. The Applicant’s treating psychologist, Nicole Strydom, provided a statutory declaration in which she has stated that the Applicant had been referred by his treating psychiatrist for management and counselling with a Mental Health Care Plan from his psychiatrist for Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).

33. Ms Strydom’s statutory declaration also references the fact that the reason for the initial appointment with his general practitioner, who later referred him to his psychiatrist, was to address inattention and focusing difficulties because the Applicant hoped to start studying and wanted to address these cognitive difficulties prior to commencing studies. It also notes that in order to assist with the treatment of his ADHD he is taking prescribed medication. Importantly, Ms Strydom also notes that during the sessions that he has had with her which, up to the date of her statutory declaration had been three, he had spoken of taking responsibility for his past behaviour and stating that his mother’s drinking had made him feel angry, which had then impacted on his behaviour. She noted further that the Applicant has gained insights into what triggers him and had become aware of unhelpful thoughts. He reported to her that he wished to learn to manage his thoughts, emotions, and behaviour in a more helpful and appropriate way.

34. She noted that he had presented in an appropriate manner and had conducted himself respectfully and that his commitment to his counselling had been good and he was determined to implement the alternative coping strategies offered to him. In order to achieve that, he was booking further psychological sessions to continue his progress. Ms Strydom also suggested that future treatments for his condition would be further psychotherapy, including anxiety and depression strategies, which would be beneficial for him.

35. It is also further noted that Ms Strydom’s statutory declaration indicates that she knew that the Applicant was in fact seeking a reference and a report in order to support his citizenship application.

36. The Applicant, by way of his citizenship application and information provided to the Tribunal, indicated that:[17]

    [17] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T10, 85ff.

    ·He is not a risk to national security and has not been identified by any government agency as such.

    ·He has not been in prison for any crime for a period of up to at least five years.

    ·The Applicant does not have any record of Commonwealth agency fraud. He is currently receiving Youth Allowance payment because of his physical inability to work and has his State debt relating to his Court appearances deducted from Youth Allowance payments under an agreed payment plan at a rate of $30.00 per fortnight. He has never been deceptive about his convictions and declared what he knew about them at the time he applied for citizenship.

    ·He has no association with criminals or criminal organisations or other groups who do not uphold and obey the laws of Australia.

    ·The Applicant is not a family member of a person who has committed an offence.

    ·He has not been dishonestly or prematurely discharged from the Armed Forces of another country in a manner that in Australia would raise character concerns.

    ·The Applicant has never been issued with a Violence Order or been associated with youth gangs.

    ·The Applicant has never engaged in political extremism, vilification of a segment of the community, incited discord or endangered society through involvement in illegally disruptive and/or violent activities.

    ·The Applicant has never been referred to a Special Case Assessment Unit regarding war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide.

    ·The Applicant’s only offences are those for which he was brought before the Magistrates Court and to which he pleaded guilty and has fully accepted and disclosed.

37. The Applicant also contends that the drinking habits of his mother and stepfather impacted upon him significantly and upset him to a considerable degree.[18] He was disturbed at the physical violence by his stepfather towards his mother. He contends that these aspects of his life were compounded by his undiagnosed ADHD.

    [18] Transcript of proceedings, P-17, ln 21-25.

1. The Applicant has now moved out of his parents’ house and had, of his own volition and after speaking with a friend who is an ADHD sufferer, sought medical, psychiatric and psychological assistance to address his mental issues.

2. The Applicant contends that he has always wanted to be an accountant, but that his visa didn’t qualify him for a student loan and his parents were not able to support his desire financially. As a consequence, he was employed by his older stepbrother, who is a painting contractor, and with whom he worked until a right shoulder condition rendered it impossible for him to continue such work as bone wear and a resultant chronic tendency for his shoulder to keep dislocating forced him to stop that employment.

3. He has, however, since removing himself from his parents’ residence and expected to commence a Certificate IV TAFE course shortly after the hearing of this matter in Accounting and Bookkeeping. He says that that will be a gateway to his becoming an accountant at a later time. He has settled down, has a steady girlfriend and has indicated that he feels Australia is his home and he wants to be the best citizen he can.[19]

   [19] Transcript of proceedings. P-12.

4. The Applicant contends that he is ashamed and regretful and remorseful for his actions and is taking active and positive steps to change his behaviour.

   RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS

5. The Respondent’s contentions are, in summary, that the Tribunal cannot be satisfied of the Applicant’s good character for the purposes of sub-section 21(2)(h) of the Act because of the nature of the Applicant’s serious offences and the Applicant’s behaviour relating to driving offences whilst using cannabis, failing to comply with the condition of his driving license and two counts of speeding. The Respondent also contends that the Applicant, whilst being the subject of a domestic violence police callout to his place of residence, behaved in a disrespectful manner towards the attending police officers.

6. The Respondent contends that the Applicant has committed two counts of wilful damage and one count of breach of application against Order imposed, two counts of being intoxicated in a public place and one count of cheating by fraudulent trick, device, sleight of hand or representation.

7. It is contended by the Respondent that the Applicant’s offences and conduct as a whole, weighs against a finding that he displayed enduring moral qualities and is of a good character.[20]

   [20] Exhibit 4, [17].

8. It is the contention of the Respondent that a pattern of behaviour, even of repeated minor offences over an extended period, shows a disregard for the law and supports a finding that the Applicant is not of good character.[21] Further, it is contended by the Respondent that it has been less than two years since the Applicant’s last offence took place. The Respondent contends that that is not a sufficient passage of time to demonstrate that the Applicant is presently of good character.

   [21] Ibid.

9. The Respondent notes the Applicant’s partial justification of his actions, being the anger he experienced as a result of witnessing his mother’s alcoholism and his stepfather’s violence towards her and otherwise attributing his offences to his “undiagnosed and untreated Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder”.[22]

   [22] Exhibit 4, [18].

10. The Respondent submits that the Applicant’s offending continued even after he moved out of his mother’s and stepfather’s house. Although stating he is, “actively seeking to change (his) behaviour on a permanent basis” and that he will “continue to seek counselling … to work through (his) feelings”[23] the Respondent contends that there is no evidence that he has attended any anger management courses or is otherwise attending routine counselling.

    [23] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T10, 104 [43], [46].

11. The Respondent also notes the statutory declaration provided by Ms Nicole Strydom, Psychologist, which is dated 8 June 2020, and the report of Professor Philip Morris, Psychiatrist, dated 27 October 2020, are relied upon by the Applicant in support of his contentions that he is a fit and proper person to be an Australian citizen. However, the Respondent contends that the statutory declaration provided by Ms Strydom[24] does not establish a connection between the Applicant’s past criminal behaviour and his ADHD. In respect of Professor Morris’ report, it is contended by the Respondent that this report does not sufficiently support a finding that the Applicant is of good character in circumstances where there was no evidence that Professor Morris diagnosed the Applicant with ADHD in accordance with the criteria in the relevant Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (“DSM”). In any event, there is no adequate explanation as to how the Applicant’s asserted problems with attention and concentration led to his offending, nor that any asserted problems were sufficient to remove the Applicant’s volition to make decisions and know right from wrong; and the report does not sufficiently identify what “documentation was made available in formulation of the opinion”.[25]

    [24] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T10, 99.

    [25] Exhibit 6; see also Exhibit 4, Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions dated 15 February 2021, [22(c)].

12. It is to be noted, however, that during the hearing, the Applicant’s representative produced a letter from Professor Morris indicating that the test that was applied by him in diagnosing the Applicant’s ADHD complaint was that diagnostic criteria of DSM-5. The letter was noted to be Exhibit 6A.

13. The Respondent further contends that the Applicant’s expressions of remorse for his actions are not genuine and do not comply with the genuine expressions required by the CPI 15 at [4.4]. The Respondent also contends that the Applicant has not exhibited true insight into the seriousness of his actions and their potential consequences because:

    (a)The Applicant, in his statutory declaration dated 8 June, 2020,[26] shifts responsibility in respect of the incidents that gave rise to the wilful damage charges to his stepfather, whom he describes as having a “violent temper” and his friend/co-defendant in the other matter whom he claims handed him the screwdriver and told him to hit the back wheel of the car with it.

    (b)the court brief revealed that the Applicant was adamant to Police that he had done nothing wrong and that he was under the guidance of his co-defendant.[27]

    (c)the Applicant, in his statutory declaration dated 8 June 2020, appears to downplay his being intoxicated in a public place and breaching his Good Behaviour Bond in circumstances where he “did not cause any problems” and “was not in a fight with anybody”.

    (d)The Applicant appeared to be defensive in his responses when being interviewed by Professor Morris and admitted to him that he continued to use illegal drugs.

    (e)When the police were called to the Applicant’s house in response to a report of domestic violence, the Applicant was uncooperative and verbally abusive, telling Police that they had “no [expletive removed] rights” to be there.[28]

    [26] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T10, 100-104.

    [27] Exhibit 9, 3.

    [28] Exhibit 9, 25.

14. The Respondent contends that the character references provided to the Tribunal by the Applicant should be accorded little weight for the reasons below:

    (a)Mr Whiffin’s statutory declaration makes no mention of the Applicant’s criminal offences. The community service by the Applicant amounted to 80 hours, which equates to only 10 to 14 days if Mr Whiffin’s claims that the Applicant worked between six to eight hours per day to complete his obligations are true.[29]

    (b)Ms Armour’s statutory declaration makes no reference to the Applicant’s criminal offences and attests only to the Applicant’s behaviour throughout the period of the three years she taught him at high school. The Respondent observes Ms Armour’s reference claims that “Damian was always punctual to lessons, maintained a good attendance, following the rules of the school and never engaged in disruptive behaviour”, and “that this aspect of the Applicant’s behaviour doesn’t seem to be the typical behaviour associated with an ADHD condition.”[30]

    (c)That Mrs Gladkowska is the Applicant’s mother and would be inherently biased in favour of the Applicant and that further her statutory declaration seems to indicate her lack of appreciation of the full extent of her son’s offending. This is evidenced by her Statement that “Damian was very sorry about each incident, but would not speak to me about what happened.”[31]

    (d)That the statutory declaration of Ms Zirdum[32] only serves to indicate that she only knows what she has been told about the Applicant’s offences by others and it does not disclose a full knowledge of those offences. Also, it is contended that the Deponent is not qualified to attest as to whether the Applicant’s ADHD would be the cause of what she refers to as the Applicant’s “unusual behaviour”.

    [29] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T10, 97.

    [30] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T10, 98.

    [31] Exhibit 5.

    [32] Exhibit 8.

15. The Respondent contends that the Applicant’s application for citizenship, if refused, would not entail his being returned to Poland as he would still enjoy the same ability to enter and reside in Australia as he does now as a permanent resident. Also, the Tribunal cannot waive by discretion the good character requirement on the basis of compelling or compassionate circumstances, or significant disadvantage or hardship.

16. The Respondent contends that the effects of subsection 21(2)(e) and 24(1A) is that in order for a person to be granted Australian citizenship, the Delegate must be satisfied that they are of good character.

    HEARING AND EVIDENCE

17. A review hearing was convened in Brisbane on 9 April 2021 and utilised MS Teams.

18. The Applicant gave evidence on his own behalf and was represented by Ms De Lima and the Respondent was represented by Mr Cummings of Sparke Helmore Lawyers.

19. The Applicant presented as a neatly dressed and polite young man and the Tribunal takes note of the fact that the mien of the young man appearing before it was considerably different to that depicted in his police identification photographs in evidence before the Tribunal.[33]

    [33] See, eg, Exhibit 9, 7.

20. The Applicant’s evidence-in-chief was that he wanted to become an Australian citizen as he had lived in Australia since he arrived here at the age of 11, his friends were all here and he had lived his adult life here in Australia.

21. He told the Tribunal that he was starting a TAFE course in accounting and bookkeeping and wished to follow in his stepfather’s footsteps as an accountant.  He told the Tribunal that his girlfriend was in Australia and that he couldn’t call himself a Polish citizen because he had grown up in Australia, was educated in Australia and felt it was his home and he wanted it to continue to be his home.

22. He told the Tribunal that he was not working as his employment as a painter had to be abandoned because of a chronic shoulder dislocation condition.  His shoulder had dislocated 15 times and he was awaiting remedial surgery for the condition.  He told the Tribunal that when he heard of the TAFE course, he enrolled straight away so that he could finish that course and “build a career off that”.  He further stated that “the next step will be being an accountant, which will lead me to that, but that will come in time”.[34]

    [34] Transcript of proceedings, P-12.

23. He told the Tribunal that he was looking forward to starting his TAFE course and that he recognised that it was a big step for him to take and he hoped that in a year or two (presumably upon completion of his course), he could obtain a job as a bookkeeper and “… from then on, build my career, build my business.  Whatever (sic) it comes, I see myself as – yes, I see my career in Australia”.[35]

    [35] Ibid.

24. The Applicant was asked by Ms De Lima how he felt about his criminal record and he replied in the following terms:

    … If I could take it back, I would take it back.  I feel ashamed that it’s even like that.  I never thought that that would be the impact of my life. Like what I did was horrid.  I don’t see myself doing that stuff ever again in my life.  I am very, very sorry for what I did.  It’s nothing – it’s not an Australian behaviour and I’m just ashamed of that and it will not repeat itself again.  Like it hasn’t repeated itself for over two years since my last offence and it’s going to stay like that.

25. The Applicant was asked by his representative why would the Tribunal consider he would not return to his old ways.  He replied that:

    … For that – listen, everyone’s got their own opinion and I know myself I won’t go back to those ways because those ways lead you to nothing but trouble with everything.  I will never go back to those ways because I can see there’s a better way to build your career from being actually studying something and then working your life to it.  I’ve got a girlfriend here that I want to, like, help her out too with everything and I just want to live a good life in Australia and I know I’m capable of that and I will do it.

26. The Applicant was asked by his representative as to what led him to seek medical assistance for his issue.  The Applicant told the Tribunal that he had been speaking with one of his high school friends about his inability to focus on things as his school teacher had said about him at school:

    I felt like my Teacher said in school I always had - like I couldn’t focus on things and that became a problem when I couldn’t commit to things that I wanted to commit more.

27. His friend suffered from the same problem as the Applicant and he encouraged the Applicant to seek medical assistance.  He told the Tribunal that his friend’s discussion and experience:

    “- - - Inspired me to actually go and see a Psychiatric (sic) and such - talk to them.”

28. The result of his seeking such assistance was that he was prescribed medication for the condition and that his condition was from that time:

    “ - - - Like kind of fading away and it’s just getting better and better.”[36]

    [36] Transcript of proceedings, P-11.

29. Under cross-examination by the Respondent’s representative, the Applicant agreed that a person of good character would obey the law, respect other people’s property, assist the police and not respond to violence with violence and would not expose others to the risk of harm.  He agreed that a person of good character would not expose others to unnecessary risks and should take responsibility for their own actions.

30. The Applicant agreed with the Respondent’s representative’s suggestion that a person should be responsible for their actions, even if drunk, as it was a person’s choice to get intoxicated.  He related this situation to that of his own and effectively stated it was his fault for becoming intoxicated on the occasion shown in his police record.  He stated that he took full responsibility for that and his related past behaviours.

31. The Applicant told the Tribunal that he considered he had been of good character, but had made:

    A few slip-ups which showed - and which I am very ashamed of and I’m very sorry for those offences that I did.[37]

    [37] Transcript of proceedings, P-15.

32. It was put to the Applicant to consider if he was of good character at the date of his final offence, which was driving whilst under the influence of a drug and the following exchange took place between the Respondent’s Representative and the Applicant:

    As at the date of your last offence, which I think was drug driving, if we were having this hearing that day, do you think the outcome of it would have been that you were of good character, in your own opinion?

    - - - No, the offence (indistinct) I am not in good character which is an action, but there’s many other actions that you guys don’t see that proves that I’m of good character.  And I can’t say that it is like - I can say that to you guys but you don’t have to believe that for any reason, but I consider myself as a good character and especially for those last two years I tried to change my whole way of living to be a good character and good person in life because it gets you somewhere if you obey the law and do right things, it gets you somewhere, like, in life, than doing all this stupid stuff.  That doesn’t get you anywhere but in trouble and stuff and it’s just, it’s not worth it, in my opinion.[38]

    [38] Transcript of proceedings, P-15, ln 35-46.

33. The Applicant did not disagree when asked that his behaviour in the past had been able to be construed as not conforming to that of a person of good character, but did qualify that statement by indicating that his behaviour was not all of the time such as to be indicative of a person of bad character.  He pointed out that he had finished and passed Grade 12 and that he was always studying to continue his education.  He agreed that he had a slip up for a couple of years, but that he had worked hard to overcome the results of his wrongdoing.

34. The Applicant also told the Tribunal of his anger at his mother’s excessive drinking and his stepfather’s rough behaviour towards his mother and the upset and discomfort that caused him.

35. Under cross-examination, he was questioned extensively about the various offences that he had committed and was quite open about what had occurred at each of them.  There were aspects of these that he was unable to clarify with regard to slightly differing versions and Police briefs to that of his own recollection.  He admitted that on the occasion he was attacked by a gang of youths at a shopping centre carpark while he was in his final year of school, he came home and told his stepfather, who had been drinking, about that incident.  He agreed that he had gone with his stepfather and helped kick-in some windows of the house where they were gathered.  He had not reacted at the original incident with any violence towards the perpetrators, but had involved himself with his stepfather in a later act of wilful damage following an attempt to confront the perpetrators over their actions. He followed his stepfather’s intention.  He did not think that going to the perpetrators’ home would lead to the property damage that occurred and stated that had he known that he would not have joined his stepfather in that action.

36. The Applicant stated to the Tribunal he was 17 at the time and was looking up to his stepfather with whom he had lived since age 11 and was trying to show his stepfather a misguided sense of loyalty, for which he is fully aware he should not have done and is ashamed of his behaviour resulting from this altercation.  He said he was shaken-up and fearful after the carpark beating he had received earlier that day and was worried about the circumstances.

37. The Applicant agreed that going to the house on this occasion wasn’t a spur of the moment decision, but pointed out that in his stressed and shaken-up state at the time, that time seemed to go very quickly.  He again expressed that he was remorseful and stated that he should not have behaved as he did, that he was solely responsible and knows that it was wrong.  He accepted that the reasons given in mitigation for his offences and penalties[39] in the submissions to the Delegate were put forward in his favour.  However, he stated in his evidence:

    - - - I’m truly sorry for doing those things, and those six excuses - those six things don’t give me any excuse for my actions at the time.

    [39] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T10, 92.

38. The Applicant was also questioned about his speeding offences and answered the questions truthfully and to the best of his ability regarding the penalties therein.  The Applicant was questioned by the Respondent’s representative about the wilful damage charge which resulted from the so-called spying incident wherein the Applicant damaged the tyres of a motor vehicle belonging to another party.  Once again, the Applicant told the Tribunal that he was at the home of his colleagues and he met this person who was a friend of a friend.  This person told the Applicant that he was being spied on and the Applicant told the Tribunal that he guessed this person had some mental issues.  He told the Tribunal that the person was always high at that time.  The Applicant told the Tribunal that this person made him believe that they were being spied on.

1. The Applicant confirmed that the other party broke into the vehicle, grabbed what they thought was spying equipment and the Applicant ‘popped' the car’s tyres.  He told the Tribunal he was sure that it was him who called the police and provided the address.  He also confirmed to the Tribunal that they had been drinking heavily during the night, had little sleep and the other party who broke into the car had been using illegal drugs.  The Applicant stated that he wasn’t too sure if he also was on drugs, but he wasn’t feeling himself at the time.  He admitted that he could have been using drugs, but gave the impression that if he was, he was unable to recall whether he was on drugs, how he had ingested them, either voluntarily or without his knowledge.

2. The Applicant admitted to having used marijuana in the past, but had ceased taking it once he began his ADHD medication regime.  He stated that he knew that it was unwise to continue taking illegal drugs with prescribed medicines.  He stated that he was a person who did not suffer from addiction.  However, when questioned about his apparent admission to Professor Morris and recorded in his report of 8 April 2021 (an updated version of Exhibit 6) that:

   He does not use illicit drugs other than the occasional use of marijuana.  Apparently, about four weeks ago he met up with friends and had a few puffs of cannabis on a joint that was offered.

3. The Applicant replied to that question in the following terms:

   … And that was the last time I had something.  I didn’t count that I smoked – sorry, I even forgot about this because I truly don’t smoke anymore and I don’t use illicit drugs at the moment or any drugs apart from my medication.

4. A further exchange occurred between the Representative of the Respondent and the Applicant:

   Mr Chodowiec, When was the last time that you used cannabis?

   … I honestly don’t remember.  It would have - the last time I talked to Mr Morris – like, when I was with my friends I would have had a couple of puffs. I haven’t smoked since.  I’m starting TAFE next year and I know when I used to smoke it’s just not – I’m not the same that I can be and it doesn’t have a good effect on me long term or short term and I just fully.  I haven’t smoked since.  I can’t even remember when I last smoked to be honest.[40]

   [40] Transcript of proceedings, P-29, ln 21-28.

5. A further exchange between Mr Cumming and the Applicant took place:

   So when do you – like, does there come a point in time where you make a conscious decision to stay off the marijuana?

   …  Like yes, it came to a point where I was, like, when it didn’t have a good effect on me the next day.  I would wake up and I would - I just wouldn’t feel myself or like fully alive and ready to go and reach my goals in a day that I want to reach and it came to a point that there’s no point of smoking cannabis. It’s just not good for me or not good for anything.  Like it doesn’t bring me any benefits or joy anymore.

6. Then the further exchange took place between Mr Cumming and the Applicant:

   “So is that a decision you made on a specific day, or it was just sort of a realisation you gradually came to?

   … It was a decision and it was a realisation that I made that I just don’t want to smoke anymore.  It just doesn’t make any sense.”[41]

   [41] Transcript of proceedings, P-30, ln 15-18.

7. This conversation continued between Mr Cumming and the Applicant in the following terms:

   If you smoked it last time in late September, it must have been a realisation that you came to later than that date. Do you accept that?

   … I guess, but it was - I think I was trying to smoking (sic) before that and every now and then I think my (indistinct) and I would have had like I said, one or two puffs or something and then from that time I just completely stopped and since then I haven’t had a slip (sic) or anything anymore and I feel better about myself.

   What’s interesting about the Morris report is that your sort of decision or your realisation about marijuana use not being a good thing for you is not in those reports.  He speaks of you as being an occasional cannabis user.  So that suggests to me that you didn’t tell Professor Morris that you were off the cannabis.  Do you accept that?

   … When he asked me a question if I smoked - the question that he asked me - I answered the question that he asked me, when was the last time I smoked and I told him.  He didn’t ask me if I had previous problems with marijuana or anything like that so I truthfully answered the question to him.

   He says he does not use illicit drugs other than the occasional use of cannabis which to me seems like he’s asked you if you use drugs?

   - - - Yes, well, and I said no, I haven’t used any drugs and occasionally I used cannabis like you said.[42]

   [42] Transcript of proceedings, P-30, ln 20-40.

8. The Applicant told the Tribunal in relation to the alleged spying incident that the other party had raised the suggestion that he was being spied on and that the Applicant, having been sitting and drinking with him all night, was suggestible to the idea.  He told the Tribunal he just wanted to help the other person.  He called the police “… to come and check those devices out.  I did call police at that time. I wasn’t thinking I was doing anything wrong.  And later on, when I realised he was a student at the TAFE, well they – they were recording devices and TV. I was just ashamed, and I was like, “Why the hell did I do that?”.[43]

   [43] Transcript of proceedings, P-31, ln 46

9. The Applicant said he had not spoken to the co-accused again since the incident.  He also stated when asked about it by the Respondent’s representative that he had damaged the car’s tyres in order to prevent it being driven away before the police could arrive.  He went on to state:

   “I know that was wrong, but at that time I thought it was a good thing to do until the police comes (sic).  And I did call police straight away after.  And I wasn’t thinking straight like I said.”[44]

   [44] Transcript of proceedings, P-32, ln 6-12.

10. He told the Tribunal that he did 80 hours community service and became good friends with the people who worked at the opportunity shop.  He said he enjoyed his community service experience.  He told the Tribunal that he worked in sales, and was trusted to use the shop’s motor vehicle to run errands like dumping rubbish, vacuuming and putting out things.  He also spoke to the people who came to the shop. simply to talk to someone.  He also told the Tribunal that he enjoyed the experience very much of working at the op shop.

11. The Applicant agreed under cross-examination that he had been charged on two separate occasions with being intoxicated in a public place in July 2018 and again in April 2019.  His evidence was that he thought that going out and drinking was fun at that time in his life, however, he found that getting as drunk as you could was not fine and that he had learned that lesson the hard way.  The Applicant told the Tribunal that where alcohol is concerned, he has seen how it had impacted his home and he had seen how many alcoholics behave and that he was no longer a fan of drinking.  In short, he told the Tribunal he is now what the Tribunal takes him to mean, an occasional drinker at gatherings of family and friends for example.  He said, quite frankly, that he couldn’t claim to be a non-drinker, but enjoyed a drink when the opportunity presented in a friendly or family function context.  This evidence was to the effect that he very seldom goes out in circumstances where he would drink excessively as in the past.  He stated he had grown past the age of where he wanted to go out in those circumstances.  He stated that it was his choice to get intoxicated on both occasions, that he had not acted responsibly and that he was sorry for the events that occurred and that they in fact should not have happened.  Although he stated that he had not started altercations or fights at these times, he acknowledged that he could be a danger both to himself and to others.

12. The Applicant was cross-examined regarding the gambling incident at the Gold Coast Casino.  The Respondent’s representative asked the Applicant about the differing versions of the event as depicted by the Applicant in his statutory declaration dated 8 June 2020[45] and that of the police in their court brief.[46]  The Applicant told the Tribunal that he had recorded his recollection of the event in his statutory declaration from what he could remember of it given that on the evening in question he was intoxicated to a fair degree at that time.  He stated that he thought the amount in question was $30.00, whereas the Police reported the amount as $50.00 and he did concede that although the time which elapsed around the incident was not a ’moment’, it would not have been a very long period of time, not seconds, but perhaps two to three minutes.

    [45] Exhibit 1, T10, 100, 103.

    [46] Exhibit 9.

13. The Applicant told the Tribunal that the reason he had not disclosed this incident and the subsequent charge resulting therefrom was because he was not aware of any charge at the time he lodged his Application for Citizenship.  He only found out about the charge when the police arrived at his house approximately two months after the incident and served him with a warrant to appear in Court to answer the charge.

14. The Applicant also indicated that his mother had filled out and filed his application for citizenship and he was unable to explain why the breach of an Order that occurred prior to his lodging the application didn’t appear thereon as one of his declared offences.  He told the Tribunal it was not an attempt to hide the fact.  The breach of the Order was the result of the Applicant committing a second offence whilst on a good behaviour period for nine months relating to a previous offence.

15. The Applicant had been apprehended by police on 2 June 2019 and was found to be in charge of a motor vehicle whilst under the influence of an illegal drug, in the case of the Applicant, cannabis.  The Applicant did not include this offence in his application for citizenship.  His explanation for this was that when his Representative sought the police record, it did not appear on that document at the time and he didn’t read through that document as he believed the police record would have included all of his records.

16. The Applicant agreed that such information would have been of assistance to the Delegate.  He also stated he was fined and lost his licence for six months as a result of this incident and that he had learned that he should never do the same thing again and reiterated that he did not smoke marijuana anymore.

17. The Applicant agreed that he was intercepted later in June 2019 driving under the influence of marijuana again.  He told the Tribunal that he had a problem with using this drug at that time quite heavily, but that he was not addicted to its use.  He told the Tribunal that having lost his licence for six months was:

    one of the worst 6 months of my life, without driving, and I am truly sorry for that and I would never drive again anymore, under influences (sic), even if it’s alcohol or weed, it’s just – I wouldn’t do that again.[47]

    [47] Transcript of proceedings P-45, ln 18-26.

18. He agreed that the act of driving under the influence of drugs was dangerous and stated he would never do it again.

19. The Applicant also concurred with the proposition put to him by the Respondent’s representative that he had been caught driving a motor vehicle on four occasions on consecutive times, namely 2 May, 2 June, 20 June and 30 June 2019 whilst holding a driver’s licence which was conditioned upon the holder driving only an automatic vehicle.  The vehicle he was driving when apprehended on these occasions was a manual vehicle.  His evidence to the Tribunal was that he used the vehicle knowing that he did not have permission to do so.  He told the Tribunal that he used it when he got into a state of mind where he felt he had to get out of the house.  He said he knew that it was not the right thing to do and he knew he could get caught and fined, but he at that time didn’t care about the consequences that might ensue and he subsequently lost his licence for six months.

20. The Applicant agreed that the Tribunal, nor the Delegate, knew anything about his two drug driving offences, nor his driving illegally until the Minister had summonsed this information.  The Applicant also averred that the police record he had summonsed was obtained and that was what he had provided.  He was asked if by not disclosing this material, he had not acted honestly and his reply was that he effectively wasn’t fully aware of this omission as he thought everything would have been on the material he had obtained from the police record.

21. The Applicant was asked about the alleged domestic violence incident reported by a third party and to which the police had responded on 30 June 2019.[48] He told the Tribunal that a heated argument had taken place between himself and his stepfather about his stepfather being drunk and being violent towards him and his mother at that time.  He said that it was a heated situation which did not need to involve the police.  The argument was strictly verbal and non-physical.  He said the police had arrived and tried to push into the house without asking and he had responded to this in a rude fashion as he was still upset and angry at the time.  He accepted that the police were there to help but he didn’t really appreciate their presence as his stepfather had left the property and he felt the police had arrived at the wrong time.  He stated that he considered it to be a family issue, not a matter for the police to resolve.  He said he would help the police in any matter, but that in family matters that is not necessary where no crime is involved.  He conceded that he would call the police in the event of his stepfather assaulting his mother, but he wouldn’t intervene himself.  The Applicant stated that he was now an adult and that both his mother and stepfather were adults and that he no longer lived with them.  He stated that he was currently living with his girlfriend and that he sees his mother once or twice a week to check up on her.  He told the Tribunal that at the moment everything was going quite well, that she was getting better with not drinking and that he didn’t see himself being in that situation again.

    [48] Exhibit 9, 25.

22. The Applicant was questioned about his engagement with the psychologist and when that first took place.  He told the Tribunal that his first appointment was with Mr Rawlley, a psychiatrist at Robina on 20 May 2020.  He was tested by one of the assistants, which involved questioning about his life and other matters and undergoing a form of computer test for his issues.  The test returned a diagnosis of ADHD.  He told the Tribunal that his condition began to improve.  He told the Tribunal that he had then attended three counselling sessions with Ms Strydom, a psychologist.

23. He told the Tribunal he saw his GP after speaking to his friend about his issues and his GP referred him to Mr Rawlley, the psychiatrist, for further assessment.  He confirmed that he then saw Dr Morris in October 2020 for the purpose of confirming his diagnosis and providing a report as an expert for his review.  He consulted Dr Morris as Mr Rawlley said he would not do a Tribunal appearance.

24. He told the Tribunal that he had not, as suggested by Dr Morris in his letter[49] of 27 October 2020, followed-up with any counselling to develop strategies to reduce his attention and concentration problems to complement the beneficial effects of his medication.  He told the Tribunal that he felt alright about himself and that he was going pretty well and was starting his TAFE course and didn’t feel that he needed to see anyone.  He told the Tribunal that because he could not work as a result of his chronic shoulder condition, he was in receipt of Centrelink benefits and the counselling sessions were $140.00 per session and thus financially beyond his reach.  He said if he had the money, he would probably go.

    [49] Exhibit 6.

25. The Applicant was referred to a part of the statutory declaration by his psychologist, Ms Strydom[50], wherein at point 4 she wrote that:

    “The reason for the initial appointment with his General Practitioner, who referred him to his Psychiatrist, was to address inattention and focusing difficulty.  Damien hopes to start studying and wanted to address these cognitive difficult difficulties prior to registering.”

    [50] Exhibit 1, T Documents, T10, 99.

26. It was put to him that his real motivation to seek treatment was not that he wanted to stop criminal activity, but was to be able to study.  The Applicant stated in response that he never wanted to “do crime in the first place”.[51]  He repeated that he was very sorry for doing what he had done.

    [51] Transcript of proceedings, P-52, ln 23.

27. He was asked if he would not have done the crimes if he had been on Ritalin at that time.  He stated that had he been so and he was diagnosed with ADHD, then it may have helped him think through those situations back then and define right from wrong.  He stated that:

    “Ritalin helped me a lot.”[52]

    “Especially on focusing and making decisions that affect my life.”

    [52] Transcript of proceedings, P-52, ln 40.

28. The Applicant told the Tribunal that it was hard at home with two alcoholics and not having very good English and did concede that there would have been other parties suffering from ADHD who had not done the things he had done, but stated that “everyone is different.”[53]

    [53] Transcript of proceedings, P-53, ln 18.

29. The Applicant, in response to a question from the Respondent’s representative, indicated that he had not blamed his ADHD more than was appropriate for his decision.  He stated that he was the sole cause of his actions, but that:

    “ADHD might have played a big part of that, but I blame it on myself.  I know I did those (sic) stuff. No one else did them for me.  It wasn’t my mum that was drinking, it wasn’t my stepdad.  It was me and myself.  At the end, I could have turned around.  I just didn’t have the mental state that I could have done it, and I apologise for that.  I’m sorry.  But I know I made those decisions.  I don’t blame ADHD, it might have played a part of that, but that’s nothing to blame (sic) – there’s no one to blame but myself.”[54]

    [54] Transcript of proceedings, P-53, ln 24-31.

30. The Applicant, when it was put to him that he had earlier stated that maybe he wouldn’t have committed the offence if he was on Ritalin, replied that maybe if he was, he would not have done what he had.  He stated:

    “But I don’t know how because we can’t go to the past.  And I can’t see what could have happened before.  I’m sorry for what happened before, but I can’t change the past.  And I wish I could because I would have changed it.  But I can’t.”[55]

    [55] Transcript of proceedings, P-53, ln 37-40.

31. The Applicant, in responding to the Respondent’s representative’s question regarding whether he had anger management issues in the past as seemingly referred to in the statutory declaration of Ms Strydom[56], the Applicant stated that his anger was really relating to his mother’s drinking and that seeing the person he loved the most drinking excessively gave him that feeling.  He explained that seeing them that way “it doesn’t make you happy.”[57]

    [56] Ibid.

    [57] Transcript of proceedings, P-54, ln 19-20.

32. The Applicant stated that since he has moved out of the family home, he hoped she wasn’t drinking and that she could get better and that was all he could effectively hope for and that he had his life to focus on and to get on with it.  He said he did not see a need for anger management counselling as it was really his mother’s drinking that caused him to become angry and volunteered the comment regarding this aspect that:

    “And you probably couldn’t relate, but it did - it can make you angry.”[58]

    [58] Transcript of proceedings, P-54, ln 31-32.

1. The Tribunal being mindful also that in the CPI 15, when assessing ‘good character’, it must be “mindful that the requirement to be of ‘good character’ does not mean that a person must be of ‘perfect character’.” Thus, it is not unreasonable for the Tribunal to take a view that a person who may have committed offences should not be automatically assumed to be of bad character. In this matter, the Tribunal, looking at all of the evidence cloaking this Applicant since his arrival in Australia, is able to conclude, in the light of those considerations provided in the CPI 15, that the Applicant is of good character notwithstanding those offences to which he pleaded guilty.

2. The correct and preferable decision in this matter is therefore that the Applicant is a person of good character and the matter is remitted to the Minister for reconsideration on that basis.

   DECISION

3. The decision is set aside and remitted to the Respondent for further consideration with a direction that the Applicant is of good character for the purposes of section 21(2)(h) of the Act.

I certify that the preceding 169 (one hundred and sixty-nine) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member PJ Clauson AM

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

Associate

Dated: 12 November 2021

Date(s) of hearing:	9 April 2021
Advocate for the Applicant:	Ms L de Lima
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Visas'R'Us
Advocate for the Respondent:	Mr Samuel Cummings
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore