Cowgill and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) - [2024] AATA 729

Cowgill and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2024] AATA 729 (11 April 2024)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2021/2488
Re:Heath Cowgill
APPLICANT

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

DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member S Burford
Date:11 April 2024
Place:Perth

The decision of the delegate of the Respondent dated 13 April 2021 not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s Class BF-C Absorbed Persons (Permanent) visa is affirmed.
............................[Sgd]............................................
Senior Member S Burford
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – decision of delegate of Minister not to revoke mandatory cancellation of visa – character test – Direction No 99 – primary and other considerations – protection of Australian community – nature and seriousness of criminal offending – risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct – strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia – best interests of children – expectations of the Australian community – extent of impediments if removed – Applicant is a 47 year old man who arrived in Australia as a 11 month old infant – extent of impediments if returned to New Zealand – Non-Revocation Decision is affirmed.
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 15, 34, 34(1), 34(2),189, 196, 197C, 198, s499, s499(1), 499(2A), 500(1)(b), 500 (6B), 501, 501(3A), s501(6), s501 (6)(a), s501(7), 501(7)(c), 501CA, 501CA(3), 501CA(4), 501CA(4)(b)(i), 501CA(4)(b)(ii), 501F, 501E, 503
Migration Legislation Amendment Act 1994 (Cth) (No 60 of 1994) – ss 8, s83
Migration Reform (Transitional Provisions) Regulations 1994 NO 261
CASES
AJL20 v Commonwealth of Australia [2020] FCA 1305
BHL19 v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2022] FCA 313
BSJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1181
CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138
Cowgill v Minister for Immigration [2022] FCA 1337
Deng v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 1456
FCFY v Minister for Home Affairs (No 2) [2019] FCA 1990
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185
Hambledon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 7
HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2019) 273 FCR 121
Minister for Home Affairs v HSKJ [2018] FCAFC 217; (2018) 266 FCR 591
Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17
Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594
Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 348
Webb v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCA 831
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Cth), Direction No 65: Visa Refusal and Cancellation under s501 and Revocation of a Mandatory Cancellation of a Visa under s501CA (22 December 2014)
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, Direction No 90: Visa Refusal and Cancellation under Section 501 and Revocation of a Mandatory Cancellation of a Visa under Section 501CA (8 March 2021) - para 9.4
Minister for Citizenship, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Direction No 99: Visa Refusal and Cancellation under Section 501 and Revocation of a Mandatory Cancellation of a Visa under Section 501CA (23 January 2023) paras 2, 3, 4(1), 5.1, 5.1(3), 5.1(4), 5.2, 5.2(2), 5.2(3), 5.2(4), 6, 7, 8, 8(1), 8.1(1), 8.1(2)(a), 8.1.1, 8.1.1(1), 8.1.1(1)(a), 8.1.1(1)(b), 8.1(1)(a)-(h), 8.1.1(1)(d), 8.1.1(1)(e), 8.1.1(1)(g), 8.1.1(1)(f) and (h),8.1(2), 8.1.2(1), 8.1.2(2)(a) 8.1.2(2)(b), 8.2, 8.2(2), 8.2(3), 8.2(3)(c), 8.3(1), 8.3(2)(3), 8.3(4)(g), 8.4, 8.4(1)-(2), 8.4(3), 8.4(4)(a)-(e), 8.4(4)(f)-(g), 8.5 (1), 8.5(2), 8.5(2)(a)–(f), 8.5(3), 9, 9.1, 9.1(3), 9.1.2(2), 9.2, 9.2(1)(a), 9.2(1)(b), 9.2(1)(c), 9.3, 9.4
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member S Burford
11 April 2024
THE APPLICATION

The Applicant seeks review of a decision of a delegate of the Respondent (the Minister) dated 13 April 2021, a delegate of the Minister decided not to revoke the cancellation of his Class BF-C Absorbed Person (permanent) visa (the visa) under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Migration Act).[1] The visa had been cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act on 18 November 2020.[2]
[1] R1, pages 7-23.
[2] R1, page 196.
The application is made pursuant to s 500(1)(b) of the Migration Act which allows applications to be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of decisions of a delegate of the Minister made under s 501 of the Migration Act.
The application in this instance is being dealt with on remittal from the Federal Court of Australia.
BACKGROUND
The Applicant is a 47-year-old citizen of New Zealand. He first arrived in Australia on 29 November 1977 when he was an 11-month-old infant, together with his family including his mother, father, grandmother, grandfather and his brother.[3] He has remained in Australia since arriving in 1977.[4]
[3] R1, pages 125 and 195.
[4] R1, page 146.
On 6 October 2020 the Applicant received 54 separate convictions for stealing and other dishonesty offences including two Commonwealth counts of using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence and was sentenced to a total of five and a half years imprisonment.[5]
[5] R1, pages 23-27.
On 18 November 2020, the Minister cancelled the Applicant’s visa under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act on the basis that he had a substantial criminal record within the meaning of s 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act and was serving a sentence for imprisonment on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a state or territory (the Cancellation Decision).[6]
[6] Migration Act ss 501(6)(a) and 501(7)(c); R1, page 196.
The Applicant requested revocation of the Cancellation Decision on 26 November 2020.[7] He submitted a personal circumstances form dated 5 December 2020 and evidence in support of his request for revocation.[8]
[7] R1, pages 109-112.
[8] R1, pages 122-161.
On 13 April 2021, a delegate of the Minister decided, under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, not to revoke the Cancellation Decision (the Non-Revocation Decision).[9] This is the reviewable decision before the Tribunal.
[9] R1, pages 7-23.
The Applicant was notified of the Non-Revocation Decision on 14 April 2021 by email to his authorised recipient (the Applicant’s partner, Miss Dobson).[10]
[10] R1, page 238.
The Applicant lodged his application for review of the Non-Revocation Decision on 21 April 2021.[11] The Tribunal is satisfied that the application was lodged within time, pursuant to s 500(6B) of the Migration Act.
[11] R1, page 1-3.
On 24 June 2021, the Tribunal held a hearing before the Tribunal, differently constituted.[12] On 7 July 2021, the Tribunal affirmed the Non-Revocation Decision.[13]
[12] R1, page 355 (Transcript of hearing).
[13] R1, page 448.
On 11 November 2022, the Federal Court of Australia found that the Tribunal had failed to consider the known views of the Applicant’s then 13-year-old daughter (Ms A) about the potential effect of the Applicant’s removal which were communicated in a letter provided to the Tribunal with the original application for review and dated 21 April 2021.[14] It was held that this amounted to jurisdictional error.[15] The Court ordered that the matter be remitted to the Tribunal for determination according to law.[16]
[14] Cowgill v Minister for Immigration [2022] FCA 1337 at [38]; letter reproduced in the decision at [21] and at R1, page 6.
[15] Cowgill v Minister for Immigration [2022] FCA 1337 at [46]; R1 page 459.
[16] Cowgill v Minister for Immigration [2022] FCA 1337; R1, page 447.
ISSUES
The issues before the Tribunal are:
(a)whether the Applicant passes the character test, as defined by s 501(6) of the Migration Act; and
(b)if the Applicant does not pass the character test, whether the Tribunal is satisfied that there is another reason why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked.[17]
[17] Section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act.
For the reasons below, the Tribunal has decided that the correct and preferable decision is that the Non-Revocation Decision be affirmed.
THE HEARING AND THE EVIDENCE
The hearing was held on 21 June 2023 at the Federal Court of Australia in Perth. The Applicant was serving his sentence at the time of the hearing and was incarcerated at Karnet Prison Farm. The Applicant appeared in person and was self-represented. The Respondent was represented by Mr Jon Papalia, an Australian Government Solicitor who also appeared in person.[18]
[18] Transcript, page 1.
At the hearing, the Applicant made submissions, gave evidence and was cross-examined. No witnesses were called. However, a significant number of individuals who were identified to be the Applicant’s family members attended the hearing.[19] The Tribunal notes that the remittal bundle included the transcript of the previous Tribunal hearing at which Ms Kerry Dobson and Ms Adele Harrison gave evidence in support of the Applicant’s request for revocation.[20] The Applicant confirmed at the hearing that while he was not calling witnesses he was seeking to rely on the evidence previously provided.[21] The Tribunal has had regard to the evidence provided by those witnesses at the previous hearing and in statements previously provided by the Applicant.
[19] Transcript, page 2.
[20] See [16].
[21] Transcript, page 2.
The following documents were marked as exhibits:
·Applicant’s Supporting Documents, labelled ASD1-ASD24, consisting of pages 1-58 (Exhibit A1);
·Remittal Bundle, labelled 1-12, consisting of pages 1-468 (Exhibit R1); and
·Respondent’s Tender Bundle, labelled TB1-TB9, consisting of pages 469-554 (Exhibit R2);
The additional documents submitted by the Applicant in A1 included witness statements, psychological reports, management plans, letters of support, phone records, employment records and certificates.
The additional material submitted by the Respondent in R2 included prison, program and medical records relating to the Applicant.
On 1 February 2023, a directions hearing was held to program the matter for hearing. During which the Tribunal discussed with the parties matters arising for consideration under Minister for Citizenship, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Direction No 99: Visa Refusal and Cancellation under Section 501 and Revocation of a Mandatory Cancellation of a Visa under Section 501CA (23 January 2023) (Direction No 99) and the filing of evidence and submissions, noting that the previous Tribunal had considered the matter by applying Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs, Direction No 90: Visa Refusal and Cancellation under Section 501 and Revocation of a Mandatory Cancellation of a Visa under Section 501CA (8 March 2021) (Direction No 90). With the agreement of the parties, the Tribunal also directed that the Respondent file their RSFIC first to assist the Applicant to understand the points at issue and to prepare submissions and evidence in response.
The Respondent filed a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (RSFIC) dated 14 March 2023. The Applicant filed a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (ASFIC) on 25 May 2023.
The Tribunal was mindful of the Applicant’s lack of representation in the conduct of the proceedings. The Tribunal provided an opportunity at the hearing for the Applicant to respond to matters put by the Respondent in written and oral submissions and to provide answers to questions asked by the Tribunal which were directed at relevant considerations under Direction No 99. The Tribunal considered the Applicant was provided with a fair opportunity to give evidence and present arguments in support of the application and to respond to issues raised by the Respondent.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Migration Act
The Migration Act provides special powers for the Minister to refuse or cancel visas on character grounds. In some circumstances, where a visa is cancelled on character grounds, the Minister can revoke that cancellation decision.
These powers generally involve consideration of whether a person passes the character test, and if they do not, consideration of whether there is another reason that the decision to cancel or refuse a visa should be revoked.
The character test is set out in s 501(6) of the Migration Act and provides that a person does not pass the character test if the circumstances listed in that subsection apply. Section 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act relevantly provides that:
(6)For the purposes of this section, a person does not pass the character test if:
(a)the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by
subsection (7)); …
(Original emphasis.)
A ‘substantial criminal record’ is relevantly defined by s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act as follows:
(7)For the purposes of the character test, a person has a substantial criminal record if: …
(c)the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
12 months or more; …
(Original emphasis.)
Under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act, the Minister must cancel the visa of certain incarcerated persons if the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because the person has a substantial criminal record as a result of being sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than 12 months.
Additionally, under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act, the person must be serving a ‘sentence of imprisonment’, on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth or a State or Territory.
If a visa is cancelled under s 501(3A), the Minister must give the person a written notice inviting them to make representations about revocation of the original decision.[22] If the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation, then under s 501CA(4), the Minister may revoke the original decision if satisfied that the person passes the character test or that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked. Making a revocation decision under s 501CA requires the decision-maker to decide:
·whether the person passes the character test under s 501CA(4)(b)(i);
and, if not satisfied that the person passes the character test,
·whether under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) if there is ‘another reason’ why the original decision should be revoked.[23]
[22] Migration Act s 501CA(3).
[23] HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2019) 273 FCR 121, 136 [66].
Direction No 99
The Tribunal is required to form a state of satisfaction as to whether there is ‘another reason’ why the original decision should be revoked, reasonably and on a correct understanding of the law.[24] By reason of s 499 (2A) of the Migration Act, in doing so the Tribunal must comply with written directions about the performance of its functions or the exercise of those powers which are given by the Minister pursuant to s 499(1) of the Migration Act.
[24] FCFY v Minister for Home Affairs (No 2) [2019] FCA 1990 at [63] (Thawley J); Deng v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 1456 (Halley J) at [119].
As noted above, on 23 January 2023, the Minister made Direction No 99 under s 499 of the Migration Act, which commenced operation on 3 March 2023. This Direction replaced Direction No 90 which was in place when the previous Tribunal decision was made.[25] The Tribunal is required to apply the Direction in place at the time of this decision, which at the time of this decision is Direction No 99.
[25] Direction No 99 paras 2-3.
An objective of Direction No 99 is to guide decision-makers in exercising powers under ss 501 or 501CA of the Migration Act.[26] In exercising the power under s 501CA(4), the Tribunal must have regard to the primary and other considerations set out in Direction No 99 where relevant to the decision.[27]
[26] Direction No 99 para 5.1(4).
[27] Direction No 99 para 6.
Paragraph 5.1 of Direction No 99 sets out ‘[o]bjectives’ including para 5.1(3) which provides that:
Under subsection 501(3A) of the Act, the decision-maker must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if the decision-maker 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 fulltime 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 their visa cancelled under section 501(3A) may request revocation of that decision under section 501CA of the Act. Where the decision-maker considering the request is not satisfied that the non-citizen passes the character test, the decision-maker must consider whether there is another reason to revoke the cancellation given the specific circumstances of the case.
Paragraph 5.2 of Direction No 99 sets out ‘[p]rinciples’ which must be taken into account by decision-makers under ss 501 and 501CA of the Migration Act. These principles ‘provide the framework within which decision-makers should approach their task of deciding whether to … revoke a mandatory cancellation under section 501CA’ and are expressed as follows:[28]
[28] Direction No 99 para 5.2.
(1)Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on
non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding,
will respect important institutions, such as Australia’s law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
(2)Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.
(3) The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measureable [sic] risk of causing physical harm to the Australian Community.
(4)Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time.
(5) With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia will generally afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age. The level of tolerance will rise with the length of time a non-citizen has spent in the Australian community, particularly in their formative years.
(6)Decision makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen’s conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation. In particular, the inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence and the other types of conduct or suspected conduct mentioned in paragraph 8.55(2)[29](Expectations of the Australian Community) is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient in some circumstances, even if the non-citizen does not pose a measureable [sic] risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
[29] As there is no para 8.55(2) the Tribunal infers this is a reference to 8.5(2).

Informed by the principles set out in para 5.2 of Direction No 99, the Tribunal must take into account the primary considerations listed in paragraph 8, and the other considerations listed in paragraph 9, where relevant having regard to the specific circumstances of the case, in deciding ‘whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen’s visa’.[30]
[30] Direction No 99 para 6; see also the definition of ‘decision-maker’ in para 4(1) of Direction No 99, which includes the Tribunal.
In making a decision under s 501CA(4), the primary considerations to be taken into account by the Tribunal are:[31]
(a)protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(b)whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;
(c)the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia;
(d)the best interests of minor children in Australia; and
(e)expectations of the Australian community.
[31] Direction No 99 para 8.
The ‘other considerations’ that the Tribunal must take into account, insofar as they are relevant to the matter, include (but are not limited to):[32]
(a)       legal consequences of the decision;
(b)       extent of impediments if removed;
(c)       impact on victims; and
(d)       impact on Australian business interests.
[32] Direction No 99 para 9.
Further guidance as to how a decision-maker is to apply the considerations in
Direction No 99 can be found in para 7, which provides that:
(1)In applying the considerations (both primary and other), information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight.
(2)Primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations.
(3)One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations. please
THE APPLICANT’S CONDUCT AND OFFENDING
The Applicant’s record of criminal offending in Australia as an adult commenced in May 1996. He has a lengthy criminal record comprising of over 130 separate convictions committed between 1996 and 2020.[33] A detailed table of his offending history is at Annexure A.
[33] R1, pages 24-29.
The Applicant’s offending history includes convictions for the following:[34]
·Property and dishonesty related offences: Stealing (1996 – 1 Count); Aggravated (Habitat); Burglary and commit (1997 – 1 count); aggravated (place) burglary and commit (1998 - 6 counts); attempted aggravated burglary (1998 - 1 count); receiving stolen property (1998 – 1 count); stealing a motor vehicle (1998 – 2 counts); steal motor vehicle (2002 – 1 count); burglary and commit offence in dwelling (2012 - 1 count); stealing (2012 - 1 count); gain benefit by fraud (2018 – 1 counts); stealing (2018 – 2 counts); possession of stolen or unlawfully obtained property (4 counts); wilfully mislead a person (2020 – 1 count); gain benefit by fraud (2020 – 30 counts); attempting to gain benefit by fraud (2020 – 2 counts); Possession of identification material with intent to commit an offence (2020 - 3 count); stealing (2020 – 12 counts); With intent to defraud forges a record (2020 – 1 count); with intent to defraud by deceit attempted to gain benefit (2020 – 1 count); Creating a false belief (2020 - 1 count);
·Drug related offences: Possess quantity of cannabis (1996 – 1 count); Possess smoking implement (1996 – 1 count); Possess quantity of cannabis (1997 – 1 count); Possess smoking implement (1997 – 1 count); Possess prohibited drug (2002 – 1 count); Possess prohibited drug (2004 – 1 count); possess smoking implement (2004 – 1 count); Prohibited plant cultivate (2004 – 1 count) Possess a prohibited drug (Cannabis) (2017 – 1 count); Possess drug paraphernalia in or on which there was prohibited drug or plant (2017 - 1 count); Possess a prohibited drug (Methylamphetamine) (2018 – 2 counts); Possess drug paraphernalia in or on which there was prohibited drug or plant (2018 - 2 counts); Possess a prohibited drug (Cannabis) (2018 – 2 count); Possess a prohibited drug (Methylamphetamine) (2019 – 1 count); ) Possess drug paraphernalia in or on which there was prohibited drug or plant (2019 – 1 counts); Possess a prohibited drug (Cannabis) (2019 – 1 count); Possess a prohibited drug (Cannabis) (2020– 1 count);
·Traffic and related offences: No motor drivers licence (under suspension ) (1996 -1 count); No motor drivers licence (1997 – 1 count); No motor drivers licence (under suspension ) (1998 – 1 count); No motor drivers licence (under suspension ) (2000 – 1 count); Excess 0.08% (2000 – 1 count); Driving under the influence (2002 – 1 count); No motor drivers licence (under suspension ) (2002 – 3 counts); Excess 0.08% (2006 – 1 count); Reckless driving (2006 – 1 count); No motor driver’s licence (under suspension) (2007 – 1 count); Unlicenced vehicle (2007 – 1 count); Possess driver’s licence calculated to deceive (2007 – 1 count); No driver’s licence (disqualified from holding from obtaining) (2008 – 1 count); No driver’s licence (Cancelled – disqualification expired) (2008 – 1 count); Exceed 0.08g (2008 – 1 count); Exceed 0.08g per 100 ml of blood (2011 – 1 count); Drive motor vehicle while using mobile phone (2008 – 1 count); No authority to drive (suspended) (2012 – 1 count); Use a licence, number plate or label to which not entitled (2017 – 1 count); No authority to drive (fines suspended) (2018 – 1 count); Used an unlicensed vehicle (2018 - 2 count); Drove or permitted vehicle with false plate to be driven (2018 – 2 count); Failed to give driver identification (2018 – 1 count); No authority to drive (fines suspended) (2020 – 2 counts); Exceed speed limit in a speed zone (30-40 km) (2020 - 1 count);
·Breaches of court orders or official directions: Breach of probation (1997 – 1 count); Breach of bail (2002 – 1 count); False bail undertaking (2002 – 1 count); Breach of bail undertaking (2008 – 2 counts); Breach of bail (failed to appear soon after (2018 – 1 count); Breach of Family Violence restraining order (2018 – 1 count); Person having been served with a data access order and without reasonable excuse failed to obey the data access order (2020 – 2 counts); Breach of bail undertaking (2020 - 1 count);
·Violence offences: common assault on person other than family member (2001 – 1 count);
·Other offences: Refuse name and address (1996 – 1 count); Fail to stop when called upon (2002 – 1 count); Wilfully mislead police (2002 – 1 count); Used a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence (2020 – 2 counts).
[34] R1, pages 24-29 and 272-293.
As noted above, the Applicant’s offending history as an adult began in May 1996 when he was convicted of four offences and sentenced to fines and disqualification of his suspended driver’s licence.[35]
[35] R1, page 29.
In 1997 he was convicted of a further five offences including breach of probation and aggravated burglary and commit offences for which he received the first of his prison sentences - a total term of 15 months imprisonment.[36]
[36] R1, page 29.
On 17 April 1998 the Applicant was convicted of four offences including aggravated burglary, attempted aggravated burglary, receiving, and stealing a motor vehicle and was sentenced to a total effective sentence of six years imprisonment for those offences.[37]
[37] R1, page 29.
In 2002 the Applicant was convicted of a further 9 offences for which he received a range of penalties including a total of 21 months imprisonment,[38] fines and licence disqualifications.[39]
[38] 17 months effective.
[39] R1, page 29.
As a result of this offences, the Applicant has been warned by the immigration authorities on several occasions regarding the potential impact of further offending on his visa status.[40] On 6 February 2003, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs issued the Applicant with a warning of possible future liability under s 501 of the Migration Act. That warning stated:[41]
The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs has decided on this occasion not to order the cancellation of your Australian permanent residence visa on the basis of this conviction. Nevertheless, you are warned that any further criminal conviction will lead to reconsideration of the cancellation of your visa. Disregard of this warning will weigh heavily against you if your case is reconsidered.
[40] R1, pages 190, 193.
[41] R1, page 193.
The Applicant acknowledged receipt of that warning on 10 February 2003.[42]
[42] R1, page 194.
In 2004 the Applicant was convicted of three relatively minor drug offences and in 2006 he was sentenced for two offences including driving in excess of 0.08% and reckless driving.[43]
[43] R1, page 28.
In 2007 and 2008 he was convicted of a further 9 driving related and other offences including driving without a licence, driving in excess of 0.08% and breaching bail. He received a 6 months term of imprisonment in 2007 and a total of 9 months cumulatively for the 2008 offences.[44] He was convicted of one offence in 2011, driving in excess of 0.08% for which he was fined and disqualified.[45]
[44] R1, page 28.
[45] R1, page 28.
In 2012 he was convicted of a further three offences including two property offences and driving while suspended. On 11 September 2012, the Applicant was convicted of burglary and stealing. The conviction triggered a suspended sentence of six months and one day imprisonment in January 2012 for driving while suspended. The court sentenced the Applicant to a further two months imprisonment to be served cumulatively.[46]
[46] R1, page 28.
On 20 November 2012, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship issued a ‘Formal counselling letter’ to the Applicant warning that further criminal convictions could result in consideration of the cancellation of his visa. That letter noted:[47]
The purpose of this letter is to warn you that any further criminal convictions, or any other conduct on your behalf that comes within the scope of subsection 501(6), could result in consideration of the cancellation of your visa. The consequences of visa cancellation under section 501 of the Act include removal of the former visa holder from Australia and, in certain cases. Bars on re-entering Australia.
[47] R1, page 190.
On 22 November 2012, the Applicant acknowledged receipt of the letter.[48]
[48] R1, page 192.
In 2017 the Applicant was convicted for a further 3 relatively minor drug related offences for which he was fined.[49]
[49] R1, page 28.
In 2018 he was convicted of 42 offences (including 21 counts of gaining benefit by fraud) for which he received fines. One of those offences was the breach of a family violence restraining order.[50]
[50] R1, pages 27-28.
In 2019 the Applicant was convicted of three relatively minor drug offences for which he received fines.[51]
[51] R1, page 27.
In April 2020, the Applicant was convicted of 6 offences for which he received fines. On 6 October 2020 the Applicant was convicted of 54 separate offences for stealing and other dishonesty offences and was sentenced to a total effective custodial term of five and a half years imprisonment.[52] Those convictions lead to the mandatory cancellation of his visa.
[52] R1, pages 24-27.
The Applicant has received terms of imprisonment (served and suspended), fines, suspensions and disqualifications, and community-based orders for his offences. He has received sentences amounting to 15 years imprisonment.[53]
[53] Annexure A.
At the time of the hearing the Applicant was incarcerated at Karnet Prison Farm with his sentence due to expire on 26 May 2025. The earliest date that the Applicant could be released to parole was 26 May 2023.[54] He gave evidence at the telephone directions hearing on 1 February 2023 that he would be denied parole until the outcome of the Tribunal Hearing.
[54] R1, page 170.
The records also indicated the Applicant had a number of convictions as a juvenile dating back to late 1992.[55] Most of these offences are now recorded as ‘spent’. In any event, given his age at the time of those offences and the nature of the offences as recorded, the Tribunal does not consider that they contribute to any assessment of the overall seriousness of the Applicant’s offending and conduct. The Tribunal places no weight on those offences and has had no further regard to that material.
[55] R1, pages 291-293.
The nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s offending and other conduct is considered further below.
DOES THE APPLICANT PASS THE CHARACTER TEST?
As noted above, the character test is defined in s 501(6) of the Migration Act. Section 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act provides that a person does not pass the character test if they have a ‘substantial criminal record’, as defined by s 501(7). Relevant to the Applicant’s case,
[56] Migration Act s 501(7)(c).
a person has a substantial criminal record if they have been ‘sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more’.[56]
The Tribunal finds that on 6 October 2020 the Applicant was convicted in the Perth District Court of Western Australia of 54 separate offences including a conviction for one count of stealing for which he was sentenced to two years and six months imprisonment. He was sentenced to a total effective sentence of five and a half years imprisonment by the District Court for his convictions on that date.[57]
[57] R1, pages 24-27.
As the Applicant has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more, he does not pass the character test by operation of s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant passes the character test.[58]
[58] Section 501CA(4)(b)(i) of the Migration Act.
IS THERE ANOTHER REASON WHY THE CANCELLATION DECISION SHOULD BE REVOKED?
As the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant passes the character test, the Tribunal must then determine whether, having regard to the primary and other considerations contained within Direction No 99, there is another reason why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked. The statutory power to revoke will only be enlivened if there is ‘another reason’ why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked.[59]
[59] Section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act.
In his application to the Tribunal dated 21 April 2021,[60] the Applicant listed his reason for seeking a review of the delegate’s decision as follows:
I believe the decision is wrong. I can change my ways. I will not be of danger or criminally affect anyone after my release. Without support from my family I will not cope in another country. My children and partner do need me in their lives physically and emotionally. I will continue to seek support for my drug problems in every way possible.
(As in original)
[60] R1, pages 1-3 (Misdated in the Remittal Bundle index as 11 November 2021).
In oral and written submissions to the Department and the Tribunal the Applicant submitted, in summary, that:[61]
[61] ASFIC; R1, pages 122-147; 330-345; Transcript, pages 6-25, 42-46.
·The interests of his minor children in Australia, his Australian citizen partner, his mother and other family members who are all Australian citizens should be given significant weight;[62]
[62] R1, page 331; Transcript pages 16-20.
·He is on a ‘path to a drug free lifestyle’. He has been clean and drug free since he went to prison including when subject to random testing and has completed drug rehabilitation programs;[63]
[63] R1, pages 331, 334; Transcript pages 23-25.
·He has a medical condition which requires treatment and should be given weight;[64]
[64] ASFIC, page 4; R1, page 331.
·From 1996 to 2020 his offending was ‘heavily dominated’ by traffic and minor drug offences and he has shown in period of his life where there have been large gaps between his convictions for dishonesty offences; [65]
[65] ASFIC, page 4; R1, page 332.
·He accepts his 2020 offences were serious and is aware now of the impact on his victims. He plead guilty to the offences and expressed remorse;[66]
[66] ASFIC, pages 4, 6.
·In his early offending he was influenced by his older brother and the offending was out of character for him;[67]
[67] ASFIC, page 4.
·He lost a child in 2017 which led him to resort to drugs and lead to his offending between October 2018 and November 2019;[68]
[68] ASFIC, page 4; R1, page 334
·He regrets his actions and is not a violent offender which should weigh in his favour;[69]
[69] R1, page 333.
·He has engaged in study and employment in prison and has made a positive contribution to the prison community in this regard;[70]
[70] R1, pages 334-335, 336
·The Department confirmed by telephone he held an Absorbed Persons visa in December 2019 which enabled him to remain indefinitely, and he has not reoffended since then. This should weigh in favour of revocation;[71]
[71] ASFIC, page 24; R1, page 338.
·The Family Violence Restraining Order against the Applicant did not involve any of the acts mentioned in Direction No 99 and was revoked, however, he now accepts some of his behaviours towards his partner could be classified as family violence;[72]
·His good behaviour in prison, rehabilitation and abstinence from drugs should weigh in his favour;[73]
·The risk of being separated from his partner and children and his elderly mother whose health is deteriorating is a strong reason for him not to reoffend;[74]
·He had undiagnosed mental and medical health conditions (depression and anxiety) which impacted his drug use. He has now been treated for these conditions and is now ‘fixed’;[75]
·He has undertaken a range of rehabilitation programs which will reduce the risk of his reoffending in the future. He had minimal opportunity to undertaken programs in the past. He will lose the opportunity to continue rehabilitation if deported;[76]
·He has an offer of employment on release which will reduce the risk of reoffending;[77]
·He arrived as an infant and has no links to New Zealand. His ties to Australia through his partner, children and extended family are very strong and they will be devastated if he is returned to New Zealand;[78]
·He will struggle to establish himself in New Zealand as he has no support there;[79]
·He has a close relationship with his children who will be devastated if he is removed to New Zealand. His wife needs his support to raise the children;[80]
·The considerations weighing in favour of revoking cancellation of his visa, include the best interests of his daughters, his ties to Australia through his partner, children, older mother and extended family and the fact he has been in Australia since he was an infant and spent his life here provide ‘another reason’ why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked.[81]
[72] ASFIC, page 14; R1, page 340.
[73] ASFIC, page 7; R1, page 341.
[74] R1, pages 341-342.
[75] ASFIC, page 11; R1, page 342, 369.
[76] ASFIC, pages 8-12.
[77] ASFIC, page 12; A1 page 58.
[78] R1, page 344; ASFIC, pages 15-17.
[79] ASFIC, page 27.
[80] R1, page 344; ASFIC, pages 18-22.
[81] R1, page 345.
The Minister submitted, in summary, that:[82]
[82] RSFIC, pages 6-8, 10-16.
·The Applicant’s offending should be viewed as serious having regard to his long history of offending including serious dishonesty offences family violence, multiple terms of imprisonment and the frequency and trend of increasing seriousness of his offending and the cumulative effect of that offending.[83]
[83] RSFIC, pages 7-8.
·His offending should also be regarded as serious noting he was formally warned on two occasions of the consequences of further offending.[84]
[84] RSFIC, page 8.
·Should the Applicant reoffend the nature of harm to be caused to the community would be self-evident and serious including financial harm and a loss of confidence in the banking system;[85]
[85] RSFIC, pages 9-10.
·There are reasons to be concerned about the Applicant’s risk of reoffending including:[86]
[86] RSFIC, page 10.
ohis lengthy and persistent criminal history demonstrating a disregard for the law;
oThe length of time he has had a substance abuse problem, the role that has played in his offending and the fact that previous programs, bail conditions and suspended sentences have not had an effect in curbing his offending;
oHis disregard for formal warning from the Department and the fact the deportation of his father and brother did not deter his offending;
·However, the Minister acknowledges his rehabilitation programs and positive behaviour in prison as weighing in his favour;[87]
·The Applicant has engaged in family violence offending in the form of a breach of a Family Violence Restraining Order which weighs against revocation but not determinatively so;[88]
·The Applicant has lived in Australia since he was an infant and held the visa by operation of law. This should be afforded significant weight in his favour. He has strong ties here, noting his father and brother do live in New Zealand;[89]
·The best interests of the Applicant’s children weigh in favour of revocation, however it is noted that a return to drug use or family violence would not be in their best interests;[90]
·The best interests of the Applicant’s grandchild who was born while he was in prison weighs in favour of revocation, however as the child is cared for by their parents less weight should be afforded to their interests;[91]
·The best interests of the Applicant’s nieces and nephews should not be afforded significant weight given the nature of the relationship;[92]
·The Applicant has been convicted of serious crimes involving complex fraud against vulnerable members of the community and bank officials and the community expectation would be that he would not hold a visa, however the weight to be afforded to this consideration would be tempered by the tolerance afforded to the Applicant as a person who has been in Australia since his infancy;[93]
·The Applicant is obtaining treatment for a number of medical issues, however there are no substantial language or cultural barriers he would face. New Zealand’s social, medical and economic support systems are of an equivalent quality to those available in Australia.[94] There are also organisations like People at Risk Solutions (PARS) which provide assistance to persons removed from Australia to New Zealand. However, the Minister concedes the Applicant will face some hardship on return as he has no ties to New Zealand;[95] and
·The considerations weighing against revocation outweigh any considerations weighing in favour of revocation.
[87] RSFIC, page 11.
[88] RSFIC, page 13.
[89] RSFIC, page 13.
[90] RSFIC, page 15.
[91] RSFIC, page 15.
[92] RSFIC, pages 14-15.
[93] RSFIC, page 16.
[94] Citing Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 348 at [68]-[69].
[95] RSFIC, page 17.
Protection of the Australian Community

The first primary consideration, paragraph 8.1(1), focuses on the protection of the Australian community. Direction No 99 requires decision-makers to keep in mind that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. In this respect, the Tribunal is directed to have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.[96]
[96] See also Direction No 99 para 8(1).
Paragraph 8.1(2) of Direction No 99 then provides that decision-makers should also give consideration to the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date and the risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
The Applicant submitted that if the Cancellation Decision was revoked, he would not reoffend and the protection of the Australian community did not require that his visa remain cancelled.
The Respondent contended that the protection of the Australian community weighed very heavily against revocation of the Cancellation Decision.
Nature and seriousness of the conduct
In considering the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s criminal offending and other conduct to date, paragraph 8.1.1(1) of Direction No 99 provides that the Tribunal must have regard to:[97]
[97] See also Direction No 99 para 8.1(1)(a)-(h).
a)without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community:
i. violent and/or sexual crimes;
ii.crimes of a violent nature against women or children, regardless of the sentence imposed;
iii.acts of family violence, regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed;
b)without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are considered by the Australian Government and the Australian community to be serious:
i. causing a person to enter into or being party to a forced marriage (other than being a victim), regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed;
ii. crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community (such as the elderly and the disabled), or government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties;
iii. any conduct that forms the basis for a finding that a non-citizen does not pass an aspect of the character test that is dependent upon the decision-maker's opinion (for example, section 501(6)(c));
iv. where the non-citizen is in Australia, a crime committed while the non-citizen was in immigration detention, during an escape from immigration detention, or after the non-citizen escaped from immigration detention, but before the non-citizen was taken into immigration detention again, , [sic] or an offence against section 197A of the Act, which prohibits escape from immigration detention;
c)with the exception of the crimes or conduct mentioned in subparagraph (a)(ii), (a)(iii) or (b)(i) above, the sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes;
d)the frequency of the non-citizen's offending and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;
e)the cumulative effect of repeated offending;
f)whether the non-citizen has provided false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending;
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).
h) where the offence or conduct was committed in another country, whether that offence or conduct is classified as an offence in Australia.
The Tribunal notes it is required, pursuant to Direction No 99, to take into account a range of factors, including certain conduct which is ‘viewed very seriously’ by the Australian Government and the Australian community. These include ‘violent crimes and/or sexual crimes’ and/or ‘crimes of a violent nature against women or children’. The Tribunal notes that while the Direction expressly provides categories of conduct to be considered to be very serious, it does not limit the range of conduct that may be considered to be very serious.[98]
[98] Direction No 99 para 8.1.1(1)(a).
In the Tribunal’s view, none of the Applicant’s crimes or offences as an adult and as evidenced before the Tribunal are properly characterised as ‘violent crimes’, ‘sexual crimes’ or ‘crimes of a violent nature against women or children’. While the Tribunal accepts the Applicant was the subject of a Family Violence Restraining Order (FVRO) there was no information to suggest that arose in the context of the sort of violence contemplated in the part of Direction No 99 and in any event, for the reasons discussed further below, the Tribunal did not regard that offence to be particularly serious.[99]
[99] R1, page 314.
Notwithstanding none of the Applicant’s offending falls within the categories outlined in par 8.1.1(a) of Direction No 99, in the Tribunal’s view the Applicant’s record of offending is very serious for the reasons detailed below.
As noted above, the Applicant has a history of offending as an adult dating back to 1996. This consisted of more than 130 offences including property and dishonesty related offences, driving offences and drug related offences.[100]
[100] R1, pages 24-29.
The Applicant has been convicted of a significant number of property or dishonesty related offences, the most recent of which gave rise to the mandatory cancellation of his visa. As noted above, the offences giving rise to the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa were a set of 54 convictions handed down on 6 October 2020 predominantly for dishonesty offences committed between April 2018 and November 2019. The Applicant was sentenced to a total effective term of imprisonment of five and a half years for these offences.[101]
[101] R1, pages 24-29.
The 2020 convictions related to offending committed over a 19-month period from April 2018 to November 2019. During that period the Applicant committed multiple different offences which he accepted before the District Court ‘causing substantial loss and difficulty to a significant number of people and organisations’.[102] The sentencing judge’s comments detail the nature of the offences.[103]
[102] R1, page 62.
[103] R1, page 73-89.
The maximum sentences for the offences was between 2 and 7 years imprisonment.[104] The bulk of the offending was committed between August 2018 to April 2019.[105] This included possession of identification material capable of being used to impersonate someone else, including mail items, traffic infringement notices, tax notices, bank statements, driver’s licences and medical details, debit cards, credit cards, health cards, pensioner cards and payroll information.[106] This included material that was used to facilitate stealing and fraud offences. The offences involved a range of activities including creating false bank accounts, accessing personal bank accounts by impersonating account holders and defeating security verification process. He transferred funds to accounts created in false names. His stealing involved multiple victims. In other offences the Applicant made false stolen vehicle reports to police and made false insurance claims. He opened false accounts and falsely arranged for victims pay to be deposited into his account. He attempted to purchase jewellery using a false credit card. He used a motor drivers licence to sign a car into a false name to enable him to drive a vehicle with an apparently lawful licence. He stole from a superannuation fund. The Applicant also stole from victims whom he had brief relationships with, taking advantage of their personal details to fraudulently obtain benefits including fraudulently borrowing substantial funds.[107]
[104] R1, page 73.
[105] R1, page 74.
[106] R1, page 74.
[107] R1, pages 74-78.
The Applicant was remanded in custody between April 2019 and May 2019 and was then released on bail to home detention. During that period he committed two further offences by refusing an order to supply the means to access confiscated mobile phones to police. He was released to home detention on 28 May and absconded and committed further offences.[108] It was estimated that if successful he would have fraudulently obtained $162,680 but instead he was only successful for the amount of $118,845.[109]
[108] R1, page 77.
[109] R1, page 78.
The sentencing judge observed there were a number of aggravating features of the offending which contributed to the assessment that the offending was serious including the number of occasions on which the offending occurred, the number of people impacted by the offending and the amounts involved noting:[110]
Insofar as the offences involve you stealing and involving fraud from people who you [have] never met, almost everyone in this room, in this community, is vulnerable because we rely on digital information to protect everything we own.
A person with the right motivation and skills has the ability to literally clean out every piece of digital information for anyone of us. This is not an offence that’s serious because it occurs in a public place or it occurs in a home. This is an offence which is serious because it occurs everywhere.
…
This offending has a significant impact upon every victim. You used a lot of information. You applied a lot of ingenuity. You had skill. And you used that to obtain further information, private information, to exploit weaknesses in the banking system. And when you do that, you undermine a system which really leads to us all in the enjoying a certain standard of living.
So you compromised not only the individual feeling of security that we have that our assets are safe, but you undermined the community feeling that we are part of a banking system which is not going to collapse.
You involved a number of people and you caused harm. There’s the obvious people, there’s the people whose money you stole, superannuation you stole, wages you stole. But there’s the people that you dealt with, the staff in the banks. All of that makes this offending more serious.
Perhaps not obvious are the people whose identity you borrowed to open false accounts. Those people didn’t lose funds, but those people would have suffered by having to be called from their banks to explain what is going on.
[110] R1, pages 78 and 79.
Additional features the court noted as contributing to the assessment of the offending as seriousness included:[111]
This offending was premeditated. It was sophisticated. It occurred over a lengthy period of time. You were on bail in relation to counts 48 to 52.
None of these offences can be regarded at the lower end of the offending, even taking into account the relatively small amounts of money involved for some of the offences. The offences that involved people you met really involved taking advantage of those people.
[111] R1, page 82.
The sentencing judge made remarks in relation to the Applicant’s threats to Commonwealth Bank employees (especially regarding the charge of used a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence), that the Applicant ‘graphically threatened violence to two people who were doing their job’.[112] Those threats described in the sentencing remarks included threats that if funds weren’t released to him he would bring his gun to the bank: ‘Mark my words, when I get off the plane, I’m coming for you cunts, you fucking mutt’.[113] Although the bank staff were not subjected to physical violence, the serious nature of the threats and the potential adverse impact on the recipients are evident in the transcribed threats.[114] The judge also noted the Applicant’s refusal to comply with orders was serious as the police were investigating a large number of complaints and the failure to comply with the orders frustrated those investigations and was a particularly serious offence.[115]
[112] R1, page 88.
[113] R1, page 58.
[114] R1, page 58.
[115] R1, pages 81-82.
The sentencing judge took into account mitigating factors including the Applicant’s difficult childhood involving the separation of his parents at a young age and his father’s deportation due to offences committed within his second marriage. It also noted his earlier offending had been in the company of his older brother to whom he looked up to and by whom he was ‘led astray’ and who has also since been deported to New Zealand. The Court noted the Applicant’s substance abuse issues noting he had been a ‘heavy user’ of methamphetamine and had minimal drug counselling and was medicated for depression.[116]
[116] R1, page 83.
With respect to the Applicant’s offending history, the court noted that:[117]
The record says something about you insofar as when your earlier – you completely ignored people’s property to deal with your own interests. The record suggests that that remains an issue for you….
[117] R1, page 84.
In the Tribunal’s view the offending for which the Applicant was convicted in 2020 was serious. In particular, the Tribunal notes:
·The total amount involved is quite substantial;
·There were a large number of victims, some of whom the court identified were vulnerable, including pensioners;
·Victim impact statements recorded in the sentencing remarks identify that the offending caused financial stress and trauma to the victims;
·Some of the offences were committed while the Applicant was on bail;
·The offending was relatively sophisticated and deliberate;
·The offending was difficult to detect and undermines public confidence in important institutions including the banking, insurance and superannuation sectors; and
·His non-compliance with police orders frustrated investigation into whether any other victims had been impacted.
In the Tribunal’s view the Applicant’s history of offending prior to the 2020 convictions adds to the overall seriousness of his offending and conduct.
Prior to the convictions in 2020, the Applicant had a significant number of prior convictions for property offences as well as convictions for traffic and drug related offending. The Applicant’s first conviction as an adult for property offences was on 19 August 1997, when he was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment in the Perth District Court for burglary and stealing (re-sentenced upon his breach of probation by committing the burglary).[118] He was paroled on 5 December 1997.[119]
[118] R1, pages 27-29 and 107.
[119] R1, pages 101 and 107.
On 17 April 1998, the Applicant was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 6 years’ imprisonment in the Perth District Court for 5 counts of aggravated burglary, 2 counts of stealing a motor vehicle and 1 count of receiving.[120] The offending occurred between January 1998 and February 1998, when the Applicant was subject to parole. He was paroled 10 March 2000. In sentencing the Applicant, Blaxell DCJ observed:[121]
…the burglaries you committed are very serious. They were of a professional nature given the degree of preparation and planning, the method of implementation and the quantities of property stolen. It is also significant that the great bulk of the stolen property remains unrecovered.
The seriousness of the offences greatly outweighs any personal considerations that are relevant to sentence…
[120] R1, page 108.
[121] R1, page 107.
On 30 May 2001, the Applicant was convicted in the Adelaide Magistrates Court of ‘common assault on person other than family member’. He received a good behaviour bond of 12 month’s duration. [122] The Applicant claimed that this conviction arose when a ‘sexual predator’ approached his 16-year-old niece and he pushed the victim against a wall and told him to stay away from her.[123] The Tribunal considers this offence to be at the lower end of seriousness for this kind of offending.
[122] R1, page 29.
[123] R1, page 364.
On 21 October 2002, the Applicant was sentenced to an aggregate of 21 months’ imprisonment in the Perth Court of Petty Sessions for traffic, bail and drug offences (including stealing a motor vehicle).[124] He was paroled on 22 August 2003.[125]
[124] RSFIC, page 5; R1, page 29.
[125] R1, page 476.
On 5 February 2007, the Applicant was sentenced in the Rockingham Magistrates Court to 6 months and 1 day’s imprisonment, suspended for 9 months, for an offence of driving without authority.[126] He breached this suspended imprisonment order by re-offending on 4 May 2007 and 27 September 2007.[127] He also breached bail on 2 occasions. The suspended sentence was activated, and he was separately sentenced to 4 and 3-months’ immediate imprisonment (respectively) for the breach offences and 1 month’s imprisonment for each breach of bail, on 27 October 2008.[128] He was paroled on 17 July 2009.[129]
[126] R1, page 28.
[127] R1, page 285.
[128] R1, page 28.
[129] R1, page 476.
On 5 January 2012, the Applicant was sentenced in the Rockingham Magistrates Court to 10 months’ imprisonment, suspended for 15 months, for further driving without authority.[130] He breached this suspended imprisonment order on 11 May 2012 by committing burglary and stealing. He was sentenced on 11 September 2012, in the Rockingham Magistrates Court, to a total effective sentence of 8 months and 1 day’s imprisonment (the suspended order being partially activated).[131] He was released on short-term parole on 9 January 2013. However, the Applicant was returned to custody between 13 April 2013 and 12 May 2013 due to the cancellation of that parole.[132] In sentencing the Applicant for the 11 September 2012 offences, Magistrate Temby stated:[133]
The facts in regard to this burglary are concerning. The motivation for Mr Cowgill to do what he did is understood. It seems that he was in desperate financial straits and he made a decision, and it was not an opportunistic crime. This was a thought-out crime to get the resources that he needed to meet his rent obligations. That’s why he went about doing what he did on this particular day.
Of course he intrudes upon the harmony of a person’s home and that person of course is left with the legacy of that thought and that unsettling aspect of the fact that they can’t feel safe – the occupiers can’t feel safe in their own dwelling because of this experience.
[130] R1, page 28.
[131] R1, page 28.
[132] R1, page 476.
[133] R1, page 93.
Following his release on 12 May 2013, the Applicant had no further offences recorded until 2 June 2017 when he was pulled over in possession of cannabis and drug paraphernalia and with false registration plates.[134] The Applicant was sentenced to fines in Rockingham Magistrates Court on 22 August 2017 for these offences.[135]
[134] R1, pages 27 and 382.
[135] R1, pages 27 and 283.
On 19 October 2018, the Applicant appeared in the Rockingham Magistrates Court for fraud (21 counts), possession of stolen property (4 counts), theft (2 counts), as well as possession of methylamphetamine and cannabis, breach of bail and breach of a family violence restraining order (FVRO). The Applicant was sentenced to a global fine of $5,000 for these offences. [136] Further drug and traffic offences were recorded for December 2018, June 2019 and April 2020.[137]
[136] R1, pages 281-282.
[137] R1, page 27.

As noted above, the Applicant was remanded in custody between 11 April 2019 and 29 May 2019 when he was released to home detention bail.[138] However, he was returned to custody on 27 November 2019 following further offending which was included in the 2020 convictions.[139]
[138] R1, pages 476-477.
[139] R1, page 477.
As noted above, paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction No 99 requires the Tribunal to take into account whether the Applicant has committed violent or sexual crimes, crimes of a violent nature against women or children or acts of family violence, without limiting the range of conduct that might be considered serious by the Australian Government and community. While the Applicant has been convicted of common assault and for the breach of a FVRO, having regard to the circumstances of those offences the Tribunal does not consider them to be of the nature of offences which fall within the category contemplated by this part of Direction No 99. This assessment is consistent with submissions from the Respondent which contended the FVRO offence should be considered under the Family Violence considerations at par 8.2 of Direction No 99.[140]
[140] RSFIC, pages 6-7.
In assessing the seriousness of the Applicant’s offending, the Tribunal must also consider whether the offending falls into other categories of serious offending prescribed in paragraph 8.1.1(1)(b) of Direction No 99. This includes, relevant to the Applicant’s record, crimes against vulnerable members of the community (such as the elderly and the disabled). In sentencing, Flynn DCJ remarked on the broad vulnerability of the community to the Applicant’s offending.[141] That is, not, in the Tribunal’s view, relevant to this part of Direction No 99. However, the sentencing remarks also make clear there were offences against vulnerable individual victims including pensioners. This is reflected in the victim impact statement recorded in the sentencing remarks, which document victims who lost pension payments and other entitlements.[142] Before the first Tribunal, the Applicant conceded that some of the victims of his offending were vulnerable in this way.[143] In the Tribunal’s view the fact the Applicant’s offending was in part targeted to members of the community who were vulnerable due to their age and social disadvantage adds to the overall assessment of the offending as serious.
[141] R1, page 78 and 404.
[142] R1, page 79.
[143] R1, 390-391.
The Applicant has been sentenced to multiple terms of imprisonment, including significant terms of more than 5 years on two occasions (in 1998 and 2020).[144] As noted by the sentencing judges with respect to the 2020 offences, imprisonment is a sentence of last resort[145] and the Tribunal considers that the fact the Applicant has been sentenced to repeated terms of imprisonment contributes to the seriousness of his offending and conduct.
[144] Direction No 99, paragraph 8.1.1(c).
[145] R1, page 84; Sentencing Act 1995 (WA) s 6(4).
The Tribunal is required to consider the frequency of the Applicant’s offending, whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness, and the cumulative effect of repeated offending.[146] Although there were periods where the Applicant did not offend, between 2004-2006, 2008-2011 and 2012-2017, the Tribunal considers the Applicant’s offending was frequent and that the cumulative impact of the offending was very serious. Given the persistent and serious nature of the Applicant’s offending and the resources which would necessarily have been expended in investigating and prosecuting his offences, it can be said that there is a cumulative effect of the Applicant’s offending. The Tribunal considers both the frequency and the cumulative effect of the offending adds to the overall assessment of the seriousness of the conduct and offending. With respect to whether there is any increase in seriousness in that Applicant’s offending, the Applicant’s early offending was serious, however, his later offending was marked by a degree of sophistication making it difficult to detect. The Tribunal considers both the continued frequent offending and the later sophistication of his recent dishonesty offences indicated an increasing seriousness.
[146] Direction No 99, paragraph 8.1.1(1)(d) and (e).
The Applicant had been issued two formal warnings of the potential impact of further offending on his immigration status prior to committing the offences which lead to the mandatory cancellation of his visa.[147]
[147] Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(g) of Direction No 99; R1 pages 190-194.
The Applicant received a formal warning letter from the then Department of Immigration, and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs’ Visa Cancellation Section, dated 6 February 2003 indicating that the Minister had decided not to cancel his visa as a consequence of the 1998 offending, but that “any further criminal conviction will lead to reconsideration of cancellation of your visa. Disregard of this warning will weigh heavily against you if your case is reconsidered.” The Applicant signed for receipt of that letter on 10 February 2003.[148]
[148] R1, pages 193-194.
A further ‘Formal counselling letter’ dated 20 November 2012 was sent by the then Department of Immigration and Citizenship, National Character Consideration Centre, warning the Applicant that that any further criminal convictions or conduct coming within s 501(6) of the Migration Act could result in cancellation of his visa under s 501. The letter noted that the consequence of cancellation under s 501 included removal from Australia and could include bars on re-entering Australia. The Applicant signed for receipt of that letter on 22 November 2012.[149]
[149] R1, page 190-192.
In the Personal Circumstances Form dated 5 December 2020, the Applicant states that he received the 2003 warning whilst in gaol, and his mother advised him not to worry and that she would fix the problem.[150] The Applicant further states that he took the second warning seriously and that “… this was part of my going straight for some 4 years before the tragic loss of our son Joseph”.[151] Before the Tribunal as currently constituted the Applicant submitted:[152]
Although I have had two prior warnings in the last twenty years, which I acknowledge is not in my favour, the facts are clear in that I have been afforded little in the way of rehabilitation in the past. There has been many cases before the tribunal where people have had multiple warnings, committed further offences, had their visas cancelled, and then have had their cancellation revoked by the tribunal.
[150] R1, page 137 and 140.
[151] R1, page 140.
[152] Transcript, page 22.
Later he stated that:[153]
In the past I have demonstrated there have been periods that I haven’t offended that should weigh in favour of revocation. In 2012 I took the warning from the Department very seriously, hence, I was able to live a prosocial lifestyle for five years.
[153] Transcript, page 43.
While acknowledging the Applicant ceased offending for a period following the 2012 warning and claims the loss of his infant son was a trigger for his reoffending, the Tribunal considers the fact that the Applicant continued to offend following two formal warnings contributes to the seriousness of his conduct and offending. It cannot be said that the Applicant’s post-2012 offences were not of themselves serious. Further, they were engaged in by the Applicant after having been warned twice of the potential consequences of further offending, including removal from Australia. This adds to the overall assessment of the seriousness of the Applicant’s conduct and offending in the context of this consideration.
There is no information that the other matters raised in this part of Direction No 99 are relevant in the Applicant’s circumstances.[154]
[154] See Direction No 99 paragraphs 8.1.1(f) and (h).
Having considered the circumstances of the Applicant the Tribunal considers that the Applicant’s conduct and offending is serious and weighs against revocation of the cancellation of his visa.
Risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct
The Tribunal must also consider the risk to the Australian community (including individuals, groups or institutions) should the Applicant commit further offences. In considering the need to protect the Australian community from harm, paragraph 8.1.2(1) of Direction No 99 requires the Tribunal to have regard to the Government's view that the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. It directs that 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.[155]
[155] Direction No 99 para 8.1.2(1).
Paragraph 8.1.2(2) relevantly provides that in assessing the risk that may be posed by the non-citizen to the Australian community, the Tribunal 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:
i. information and evidence on the risk of the noncitizen re-offending; and
ii. evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken). …
This requires an assessment of the nature of the harm should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct.[156] It also requires an assessment of the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in such conduct.[157]
[156] Direction No 99 para 8.1.2(2)(a).
[157] Direction No 99 para 8.1.2(2)(b).
There is no statutory constraint on the way that risk is assessed by the decision-maker other than that there must be a rational and probative basis for the assessment.[158]
[158] See BSJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1181, at [68] per Moshinsky J; Hambledon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 7, at [41] per Kenny J.
With regard to the consideration of the risk to the Australian community should he commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, the Applicant submitted that:[159]
[159] ASFIC, pages 8-13; also R1, pages 332-337 (prior submissions).
·He accepts that he has a criminal history;[160]
[160] R1, page 332.
·He had minimal drug treatment or rehabilitation in his life prior to his current prison sentence;
·He has expressed a desire to change and does not want to offend again;[161]
[161] ASFIC, page 8.
·During his most recent prison sentence he has been given the help he had sought in the past and the opportunity to undertake a number of significant drug and criminogenic programs and courses that is expected will reduce any risk of reoffending in the future;[162]
[162] A1, pages 11-42.
·He has obtained a driver’s licence and is not a risk of offending by driving without a licence;[163]
[163] A1, page 19.
·His depression and anxiety were diagnosed prior to his imprisonment (in 2019), and treatment and medication provided since he has been serving his sentence has improved his mental health and he has a greater understanding of the impact illicit drugs have on his mental health and on his family and will reduce the risk of him self-medicating with illicit drugs;
·He has served a significant prison sentence which is a deterrent to reoffending;
·He has abstained from drugs in prison where drugs are prevalent and if he had taken drugs he would have been detected. This demonstrates he can abstain from drugs in a drug taking environment. His abstinence from drugs for more than 3 and a half years and evidence that he has taken steps to address his drug use and treatment needs supports his claim that he is able to abstain from drugs;
·He has maintained his abstinence in a drug taking environment of prison and including during stressful periods including the visa process, the death of his grandparents and the stress of possible deportation;
·He attributes his past criminal history purely based on his past addiction to drugs. He struggled to deal with stressful situations and grief and to communicate the problems to others; this is indicated in the pre-sentence psychologists report[164] and pathways report.[165] This included relapsing due to the loss of his baby son, Joseph;
·He was enrolled to do the AOD Mallee program however he was denied access due to his migration status;[166]
·He has been a trusted prisoner with no prison charges and good work and conduct reports;[167]
·Since receipt of the 22 January 2020 notification from the Department that he held an Absorbed Person Visa, he has not reoffended;[168]
·He has periods in his life where he did not offend, including a five-year period of not offending from 2012 to 2017 and a 12-year gap from dishonesty offences from 1998 to 2012;[169]
·Given the programs he has undertaken to reform himself there is an extremely lower risk of reoffending and an extremely better chance he will meet community expectations as he had during other times in his life; and
·Recognising his need for support in the community, noted in the sentencing remarks, he will be supported by his family in Western Australia. Without their support his risk of drug taking will be exacerbated by deportation. He has an offer of employment with Classy Concrete[170] and has put in place counselling support for after his release.[171]
[164] A1, pages 3-10 (redacted).
[165] A1, page 12.
[166] ASFIC, page 11; R1 page 351.
[167] See for example A1 pages 11-15, 16.
[168] R1 page 368.
[169] R1 page 332.
[170] A1 page 58.
[171] A1, pages 17-18.
The Minister submitted the Australian community should not be expected to tolerate the risk the Applicant present risk of reoffending noting:[172]
·The harm caused by complex frauds is serious as set out in the sentencing judge’s comments.[173] The harm caused by burglary offending was also noted by the courts;
·The Applicant’s lengthy criminal history reveals a disregard for the law and persistent criminality. His offending has been frequent and escalated in seriousness;[174]
·The Applicant’s life has been dominated by substance abuse and previous attempts at rehabilitation have failed[175] and sentences imposed by the courts had not deterred the Applicant in the past;
·The Applicant has disregarded formal warnings from the Department in 2003 and 2012.[176] In addition, the Applicant’s biological father was deported in 2002 and his brother was deported in 2003. A second brother was removed in 2018.[177] Instead of this standing as a reminder to the Applicant of the potential impact of further offending the Applicant ‘gave up’ and resigned himself to potentially being removed;[178] and
·While it is accepted the Applicant has engaged in rehabilitation programs and has a positive work record in prison, he presents a risk which the community should not be expected to tolerate.
[172] RSFIC, pages 9-12.
[173] R1, page 78.
[174] R1, pages 83-84.
[175] R1, page 107.
[176] R1, page 189-194.
[177] R1, page 372.
[178] R1, pages 65-66.
Nature of the harm
In order to determine the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, the Tribunal must consider the nature of the harm to individuals, or the Australian community should the Applicant reoffend.[179]
[179] Direction No 99 para 8.1.2(2)(a).
The Applicant’s previous offending behaviour caused harm to the community through property and financial loss directly associated with the offences and the broader harm caused to victims. The sentencing judge observed the impacts of offending of this type including financial loss, emotional strain, loss of confidence in banking and other institutions, loss of a feeling of safety and losses caused by theft of identity including the costs of changing names.[180] Were the Applicant to reoffend similar harm would be caused to members of the community impacted by those crimes.
[180] R1, pages 81-82, 93.
Further, the Applicant’s has been convicted of numerous drug offences. Such offending carries a risk of harm to the community. If the Applicant were to reoffend through further drug offences, this would cause physical harm to him as a drug user in the form of the health impacts of drug use, and financial costs to the community. It would also cause harm in the form of the broader offending engaged in to meet the cost of illicit drug use, as has been identified in the Applicant’s prior offending.
The Applicant has also committed repeated driving offences, included repeatedly driving while suspended or unlicensed and driving under the influence. If the Applicant was to commit further driving offences, the consequences would be potentially serious. The Tribunal notes that serious harm, such as injury or death, can be inflicted on road users a result of such offences. Were the Applicant to reoffend in a similar manner in the future, members of the public would suffer serious harm as a result, including injury to other road uses.
The Tribunal considers the harm which would be caused to individuals and to the Australian community were the Applicant to reoffend would be serious.
Likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or serious conduct
In order to determine the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, the Tribunal must also consider the likelihood of the Applicant reoffending if he were permitted to remain in the Australian community.[181]
[181] Direction No 99 para 8.1.2(2)(b).
Since the initial Tribunal hearing on the application, the Applicant has undertaken a number of additional rehabilitation, parenting and drug addiction programs in addition to mental health counselling. Programs completed by the Applicant include:[182]
[182] ASFIC page 8.
·12 Steps Narcotics Anonymous;
·Pathways;
·Meth Adapt program;
·Standing on Solid Grounds;
·Alternative to Violence;
·Advanced Alternative to Violence;
·Facilitators Course;
·Inside Out Dads;
·Alcoholics Anonymous;
·Traineeship in Warehousing Operations;
·Plan for Personal Management; and
·Apply infection prevention and control procedures.
He completed the Pathways Program in March 2022. The program completion report noted with respect to the Applicant’s insight and gains:[183]
Mr Cowgill stated his confidence has improved as his thinking is healthier and more
positive. He now knows he can achieve what he needs to and realises where his past alcohol and drug use has led. He believes he has learned his 'hard lessons' and may pay the ultimate price of being deported, which by owning that realisation will make him a better person. With what he has learned throughout the Pathways program, he believes he can achieve his goals.
Mr Cowgill identified protective factors including social support (family and friends), AOD counselling through Holyoake and engaging with a social worker to assist with any problems he may encounter. Mr Cowgill affirmed that he intends to remain alcohol and drug free on release. He plans to make a positive contribution to his community by getting involved in his children's sporting activities and by doing volunteer firefighting again. He plans to live with his partner and children on release (if his appeal against deportation is successful).
The report went on to note:…
Some of the significant treatment gains observed in Mr Cowgill at the conclusion of the program include his decision to abstain from alcohol and other drugs, his realisation of the connection between his AOD use and criminal conduct, demonstration of communication skills and improved relationship with his partner, demonstration of problem solving by using positive thinking, assertive communication, asking for help and stress management, demonstration of refusal skills, and consistent demonstration of appropriate emotional regulation and prosocial behaviour throughout the program.
Protective factors for Mr Cowgill include social support from family and friends, alcohol and drug counselling through Holyoake and engaging with a social worker to assist with any problems he may encounter.
[183] R2, pages 501-502.

The decision of the delegate of the Respondent dated 13 April 2021 not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s Class BF-C Absorbed Persons (Permanent) visa is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding two hundred and sixty nine (269) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member S Burford

.............................[Sgd]...........................................
Associate
Dated: 11 April 2024

Date of hearing: 21 June 2023

Applicant: In person

Solicitors for the Respondent: Mr J Papalia, Australian Government Solicitor
ANNEXURE A – TABLE OF THE APPLICANT’S OFFENDING HISTORY IN AUSTRALIA
Offending table details drawn from the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission ‘Check Results Report,’ dated 5 November 2020[306] and the Western Australian Police Force ‘History For Court – Criminal and Traffic,’ compiled on 20 May 2021.[307]
[306] R1, pages 24-29.
[307] R1, pages 271-293.

Conviction Date Court Offence Offence Date(s) Court Result

1.    6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
(Att) Gains Benefit by Fraud 29 January 2019 2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

2.    6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
(Att) Gains Benefit by Fraud 16 January 2019 6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

3.    6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Creating false belief 8 October 2018 6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

4.    6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Gains Benefit by Fraud 6 June 2018 2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

5.    6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Gains Benefit by Fraud 8 June 2018 2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

6.    6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Gains Benefit by Fraud 6 June 2018 2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

7.    6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Gains Benefit by Fraud 8 June 2018 2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

8.    6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Gains Benefit by Fraud 8 June 2018 2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

9.    6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Gains Benefit by Fraud 7 June 2018 2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

10. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Gains Benefit by Fraud 5 June 2018 6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

11. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Gains Benefit by Fraud 8 June 2018 2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

12. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Gains Benefit by Fraud 5 June 2018 6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

13. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Gains Benefit by Fraud 8 June 2018 2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

14. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Gains Benefit by Fraud 8 June 2018 2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

15. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Gains Benefit by Fraud 8 June 2018 2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

16. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Gains Benefit by Fraud 5 June 2018 2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

17. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Gains Benefit by Fraud 5 June 2018 6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

18. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Gains Benefit by Fraud 16 May 2018 6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

19. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Gains Benefit by Fraud 8 June 2018 2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

20. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Gains Benefit by Fraud 8 June 2018 2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

21. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Gains Benefit by Fraud 23 October 2019 1 year imprisonment cumulative from 27 November 2019

22. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Gains Benefit by Fraud 8 June 2018 2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

23. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Gains Benefit by Fraud 6 June 2018 2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

24. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Gains Benefit by Fraud 8 June 2018 2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

25. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Gains Benefit by Fraud 8 June 2018 2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

26. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Gains Benefit by Fraud 8 June 2018 2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

27. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Gains Benefit by Fraud 19 October 2019 6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

28. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Gains Benefit by Fraud 10 January 2019 1 years 6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

29. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Gains Benefit by Fraud 8 October 2018 1 years 6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

30. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Gains Benefit by Fraud 6 June 2018 2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

31. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Gains Benefit by Fraud 6 June 2018 2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

32. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Gains Benefit by Fraud 6 June 2018 2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

33. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Gains Benefit by Fraud 8 June 2018 2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

34. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia

Person having been served with a

data access order and without

reasonable excuse, failed to obey that

data access order
26 April 2019 Destruction order; 1 years cumulative from 27 November 2019

35. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia

Person having been served with a

data access order and without

reasonable excuse, failed to obey that

data access order;
26 April 2019 Destruction order; 1 years concurrent from 27 November 2019

36. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Possession of identification material with intent to commit an offence 14 March 2019 1 years imprisonment cumulative from 27 November 2023

37. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Possession of identification material with intent to commit an offence 9 April 2019 1 years imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2023

38. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Possession of identification material with intent to commit an offence 26 November 2019 1 years imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2023

39. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Stealing 11 March 2019 6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

40. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Stealing 11 September 2018 1 years imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2023

41. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Stealing 25 March 2019 1 years 6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

42. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Stealing 3 April 2018 6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

43. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Stealing 2 January 2019 6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

44. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Stealing 24 October 2019 6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

45. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Stealing 19 November 2019 6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

46. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Stealing 31 August 2018 2 years imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

47. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Stealing 30 December 2018 6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

48. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Stealing 4 June 2018 6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

49. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Stealing 3 February 2019 2 years 6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

50. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia
Stealing 16 October 2018 1 years 6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

51. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia

Used a carriage service to menace,

harass or cause offence
14 January 2019 $200 fine

52. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia

Used a carriage service to menace,

harass or cause offence
21 January 2019 $200 fine

53. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia

With Intent to Defraud Forges a

Record
16 February 2019 6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

54. 6 October 2020
District Court of Western Australia

With intent to defraud by deceit

attempted to gain benefit
6 February 2019 1 years imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019

55. 8 April 2020 Perth Magistrates Court Breach of Bail Undertaking 24 July 2019 $500 fine

56. 8 April 2020 Perth Magistrates Court
Possess a Prohibited Drug

(Cannabis)
10 April 2019 $300 fine

57. 8 April 2020 Perth Magistrates Court
Exceed speed limit in a speed zone;

Between 30 and 40km/h
14 March 2019 $800 fine

58. 8 April 2020 Perth Magistrates Court
No authority to drive (fines

suspended)
14 March 2019 $300 fine

59. 8 April 2020 Perth Magistrates Court Wilfully mislead a person 14 March 2019 $500 fine

60. 8 April 2020 Perth Magistrates Court
No authority to drive (fines

suspended)
10 April 2019 $300 fine

61. 4 June 2019 Fremantle Magistrates Court
Possess a Prohibited Drug

(Cannabis)
14 March 201914 March 2019 $500 fine

62. 4 June 2019 Fremantle Magistrates Court
Possess a prohibited drug

(Methylamphetamine)
14 March 2019 $700 fine

63. 4 June 2019 Fremantle Magistrates Court
Possessed drug paraphernalia in or on which there was a prohibited drug or

plant
14 March 2019 $300 fine

64. 11 December 2018 Fremantle Magistrates Court
Possess a Prohibited Drug

(Cannabis)
18 November 2018 $1000 fine

65. 11 December 2018 Fremantle Magistrates Court
Possess a prohibited drug

(Methylamphetamine)
18 November 2018 $1000 fine

66. 11 December 2018 Fremantle Magistrates Court Possessed drug paraphernalia in or on which there was a prohibited drug or plant 18 November 2018 $1000 fine

67. 11 December 2018 Fremantle Magistrates Court Possessed drug paraphernalia in or on which there was a prohibited drug or plant; 18 November 2018 $1000 fine

68. 19 October 2018 Rockingham Magistrates Court Breach Family Violence Restraining Order or Violence Restraining Order; 17 May 2018 $5000 fine

69. 19 October 2018 Rockingham Magistrates Court Breach of Bail 27 August 2018 $5000 fine

70. 19 October 2018 Rockingham Magistrates Court Gains Benefit by Fraud (21 Counts) Unknown $5000 fine

71. 19 October 2018 Rockingham Magistrates Court
Possess a Prohibited Drug

(Cannabis)
19 April 2018 $5000 fine

72. 19 October 2018 Rockingham Magistrates Court
Possess a prohibited drug

(Methylamphetamine
16 June 2018 $5000 fine

73. 19 October 2018 Rockingham Magistrates Court
Possession of stolen or unlawfully

obtained property
19 April 2018 $5000 fine

74. 19 October 2018 Rockingham Magistrates Court
Possession of stolen or unlawfully

obtained property
19 April 2018 $5000 fine

75. 19 October 2018 Rockingham Magistrates Court
Possession of stolen or unlawfully

obtained property
19 April 2018 $5000 fine

76. 19 October 2018 Rockingham Magistrates Court
Possession of stolen or unlawfully

obtained property
19 April 2018 $5000 fine

77. 19 October 2018 Rockingham Magistrates Court Stealing 9 May 2018 $5000 fine

78. 19 October 2018 Rockingham Magistrates Court Stealing 26 February 2018 $5000 fine

79. 19 October 2018 Rockingham Magistrates Court
Drove or permitted vehicle with false

plate to be driven
19 April 2018 $5000 fine

80. 19 October 2018 Rockingham Magistrates Court Used an unlicensed vehicle 19 April 2018 $5000 fine

81. 12 June 2018 Armadale Magistrates Court
No authority to drive (fines

suspended)
26 February 2018
$200 fine

82. 27 March 2018 Rockingham Magistrates Court Used an unlicensed vehicle 11 February 2018 $750 fine

83. 27 March 2018 Rockingham Magistrates Court
Drove or permitted vehicle with false

plate to be driven
11 February 2018 $750 fine

84. 8 March 2018 Perth Magistrates Court
Failed to give driver identity

information
8 December 2017 $750 fine

85. 22 August 2017 Rockingham Magistrates Court Possess a Prohibited Drug 2 June 2017 $300 fine

86. 22 August 2017 Rockingham Magistrates Court
Possessed drug paraphernalia in or on

which there was a prohibited drug or

plant
2 June 2017 $150 fine

87. 22 August 2017 Rockingham Magistrates Court
Used a licence, number plate or label

to which not entitled
2 June 2017 $400 fine

88. 11 September 2012 Rockingham Magistrates Court
Burglary and Commit Offence in

Dwelling
11 May 2012 2 months imprisonment cumulative from 11 September 2012

89. 11 September 2012 Rockingham Magistrates Court Stealing 11 May 2012 $350 fine

90. 5 January 2012 Rockingham Magistrates Court No Authority to Drive - Suspended 30 September 2011 6 months 1 days imprisonment concurrent from 11 September 2012

91. 6 September 2011 Fremantle Magistrates Court
Exceed 0.08g alcohol per 100ml of

blood
18 July 2011 $1300 fine; Mdl disqualified 18 months

92. 27 October 2008 Rockingham Magistrates Court Breach of Bail Undertaking 12 February 2008 1 month imprisonment concurrent

93. 27 October 2008 Rockingham Magistrates Court Breach of Bail Undertaking 26 February 2008 1 month imprisonment concurrent

94. 27 October 2008 Rockingham Magistrates Court
No Driver's Licence (Cancelled Disqualification

Expired)
4 May 2007 4 months imprisonment; Mdl disqualified 9 months

95. 27 October 2008 Rockingham Magistrates Court
Excess 0.08%; >=0.13% but < 0.14%;
4 May 2007 Fine $1200; Mdl disqualified 12 months concurrent

96. 27 October 2008 Rockingham Magistrates Court
Drive motor vehicle while using

mobile phone
27 September 2008 Fine $200

97. 27 October 2008 Rockingham Magistrates Court
No Driver's licence (Disqualified

from Holding or Obtaining)
27 September 2008 3 Months imprisonment; Mdl disqualified 9 months concurrent

98. 05 Feb 2007 Rockingham Magistrates Court No Motor Drivers Licence 8 November 2006 6 months 1 day imprisonment; Mdl disqualified 12 months

99. 05 Feb 2007 Rockingham Magistrates Court
Possess Driver's Licence Calculated

to Deceive;
8 November 2006 Fine $250; Mdl CANC & DISQ 3 months

100.      05 Feb 2007 Rockingham Magistrates Court Unlicensed Vehicle; 8 November 2006 Fine $150

101.      10 Feb 2006 Mandurah Magistrates Court Reckless driving 13 Jan 2006 Fine $500 Mdl CANC & DISQ 15 months

102.      10 Feb 2006 Mandurah Magistrates Court Excess 0.08%; >=0. 11 % but <0.12% 13 Jan 2006 Fine $1250; Mdl CANC & DISQ 9 months

103.      15 October 2004 Armadale Court of Petty Sessions Possess Prohibited Drug Unknown [308] $750

104.      15 October 2004 Armadale Court of Petty Sessions Possess Smoking Implement Unknown $750

105.      15 October 2004 Armadale Court of Petty Sessions Prohibited Plant cultivate Unknown $750

106.      21 October 2002 Perth Court of Petty Sessions Breach of bail Unknown 2 months imprisonment Concurrent

107.      21 October 2002 Perth Court of Petty Sessions False Bail Undertaking Unknown 1 month imprisonment

108.      21 October 2002 Perth Court of Petty Sessions Possess prohibited drug Unknown 1 Month imprisonment; concurrent

109.      21 October 2002 Perth Court of Petty Sessions No Motor Drivers Licence 16 December 2000 4 Month imprisonment: Mdl 9 months cumulative

110.      21 October 2002 Perth Court of Petty Sessions Steal Motor Vehicle 16 December 2000 6 months Imprisonment; DISQ Mdl 3 months concurrent

111.      21 October 2002 Perth Court of Petty Sessions Fail to Stop when Called Upon 16 December 2000 Fine $100; DISQ Mdl 3 months concurrent

112.      21 October 2002 Perth Court of Petty Sessions No Motor Drivers Licence 29 March 2002 4 Months imprisonment; DISQ Mdl 9 months Cumulative

113.      21 October 2002 Perth Court of Petty Sessions Driving Under The Influence 29 March 2002 3 months imprisonment; DISQ 6 months

114.      21 October 2002 Perth Court of Petty Sessions Wilfully Mislead Police 29 March 2002 Fine $100; DISC 3 months concurrent

115.      12 September 2000 Mandurah Court of Petty Sessions No Motor Drivers Licence – Under supervision 05 August 2000 Fine $1000; DISC 9 months cumulative

116.      12 September 2000 Mandurah Court of Petty Sessions Excess 0.08%; >=0.12% but <0.13% 05 August 2000 Fine $600 DISQ 5 months concurrent

117.      09 May 2000 Mandurah Court of Petty Sessions
No Motor Drivers Licence - Under

Fines Suspension
07 May 2000 Fine $1000; Disq 9 Months cumulative

118.      26 August 1998 Rockingham Court of petty sessions
No Motor Drivers Licence - Under

Fines Suspension
20 February 1998 Fine $1000; Disq 9 Months cumulative

119.      26 August 1998 Rockingham Court of petty sessions Sentencing Act Section 37 20 February 1998 30/ 12/98 NO MDL Amended $400 TO $1000

120.      17 April 1998 Perth District Court of Western Australia
Burglary and commit offence AGG (place)

(count 1)
Unknown
3 YRS IMP Cumulative

3-4. 3 YRS IMP

CONCEACHG

S. 18 MTHS IMP

CONC

6. 2 YRS 6 MTHS

IMP CONC

121.      17 April 1998 Perth District Court of Western Australia
Burglary and commit offence AGG (place)

(count 2)
Unknown
3 YRS IMP

Cumulative

122.      17 April 1998 Perth District Court of Western Australia
Burglary and commit offence AGG (place)

(count 3)
Unknown
3 YRS IMP

Concurrent

123.      17 April 1998 Perth District Court of Western Australia
Burglary and commit offence AGG (place)

(count 4)
Unknown
3 YRS IMP

Concurrent

124.      17 April 1998 Perth District Court of Western Australia
Burglary and commit offence AGG (place)

(count 5)
Unknown
18 months imprisonment

concurrent

125.      17 April 1998 Perth District Court of Western Australia
Burglary and commit offence AGG (place)

(count 6)
Unknown
2 years 6 months

concurrent

126.      17 April 1998 Perth District Court of Western Australia Receiving Unknown 1 Year imprisonment Concurrent

127.      17 April 1998 Perth District Court of Western Australia
Stealing (M/Vehicle)
Unknown
1 Year Imprisonment

Concurrent

128.      17 April 1998 Perth District Court of Western Australia
Stealing (M/Vehicle)
Unknown
1 Year Imprisonment

Concurrent

129.      29 August 1997 Rockingham Court of petty Sessions No Motor Drivers Licence 05 April 1996 Fine $150 DISQ 3 months

130.      19 August 1997 Perth District Court of Western Australia Breach of probation Unknown 3 Months Imprisonment

131.      19 August 1997 Perth District Court of Western Australia Burglary and commit offence AGG (Habitat) Unknown
12 Months Imprisonment

Total 15 months imprisonment

132.      24 June 1997 Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions Cannabis possess a quantity Unknown $100

133.      24 June 1997 Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions Posses smoking implement Unknown $100

134.      27 September 1996 Perth District court of Western Australia Stealing Unknown
Prob 18 Months

240 Hours CSO

135.      28 May 1996 Rockingham court of Petty Sessions Refuse name and or address Unknown $50

136.      21 May 1996 Armadale Court of Petty Sessions Cannabis Posses A quantity Unknown $125

137.      21 May 1996 Armadale Court of Petty Sessions Possess smoking implement Unknown $125

138.      21 May 1996 Armadale Court of Petty Sessions No Motor Drivers Licence 06 May 1996 $300; Disc MDL 12 months Cum

Conviction Date	Court	Offence	Offence Date(s)	Court Result
1.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	(Att) Gains Benefit by Fraud	29 January 2019	2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
2.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	(Att) Gains Benefit by Fraud	16 January 2019	6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
3.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Creating false belief	8 October 2018	6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
4.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Gains Benefit by Fraud	6 June 2018	2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
5.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Gains Benefit by Fraud	8 June 2018	2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
6.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Gains Benefit by Fraud	6 June 2018	2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
7.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Gains Benefit by Fraud	8 June 2018	2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
8.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Gains Benefit by Fraud	8 June 2018	2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
9.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Gains Benefit by Fraud	7 June 2018	2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
10.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Gains Benefit by Fraud	5 June 2018	6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
11.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Gains Benefit by Fraud	8 June 2018	2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
12.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Gains Benefit by Fraud	5 June 2018	6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
13.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Gains Benefit by Fraud	8 June 2018	2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
14.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Gains Benefit by Fraud	8 June 2018	2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
15.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Gains Benefit by Fraud	8 June 2018	2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
16.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Gains Benefit by Fraud	5 June 2018	2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
17.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Gains Benefit by Fraud	5 June 2018	6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
18.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Gains Benefit by Fraud	16 May 2018	6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
19.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Gains Benefit by Fraud	8 June 2018	2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
20.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Gains Benefit by Fraud	8 June 2018	2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
21.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Gains Benefit by Fraud	23 October 2019	1 year imprisonment cumulative from 27 November 2019
22.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Gains Benefit by Fraud	8 June 2018	2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
23.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Gains Benefit by Fraud	6 June 2018	2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
24.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Gains Benefit by Fraud	8 June 2018	2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
25.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Gains Benefit by Fraud	8 June 2018	2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
26.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Gains Benefit by Fraud	8 June 2018	2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
27.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Gains Benefit by Fraud	19 October 2019	6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
28.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Gains Benefit by Fraud	10 January 2019	1 years 6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
29.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Gains Benefit by Fraud	8 October 2018	1 years 6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
30.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Gains Benefit by Fraud	6 June 2018	2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
31.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Gains Benefit by Fraud	6 June 2018	2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
32.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Gains Benefit by Fraud	6 June 2018	2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
33.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Gains Benefit by Fraud	8 June 2018	2 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
34.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Person having been served with a data access order and without reasonable excuse, failed to obey that data access order	26 April 2019	Destruction order; 1 years cumulative from 27 November 2019
35.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Person having been served with a data access order and without reasonable excuse, failed to obey that data access order;	26 April 2019	Destruction order; 1 years concurrent from 27 November 2019
36.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Possession of identification material with intent to commit an offence	14 March 2019	1 years imprisonment cumulative from 27 November 2023
37.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Possession of identification material with intent to commit an offence	9 April 2019	1 years imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2023
38.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Possession of identification material with intent to commit an offence	26 November 2019	1 years imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2023
39.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Stealing	11 March 2019	6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
40.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Stealing	11 September 2018	1 years imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2023
41.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Stealing	25 March 2019	1 years 6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
42.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Stealing	3 April 2018	6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
43.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Stealing	2 January 2019	6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
44.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Stealing	24 October 2019	6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
45.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Stealing	19 November 2019	6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
46.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Stealing	31 August 2018	2 years imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
47.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Stealing	30 December 2018	6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
48.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Stealing	4 June 2018	6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
49.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Stealing	3 February 2019	2 years 6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
50.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Stealing	16 October 2018	1 years 6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
51.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Used a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence	14 January 2019	$200 fine
52.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	Used a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence	21 January 2019	$200 fine
53.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	With Intent to Defraud Forges a Record	16 February 2019	6 months imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
54.	6 October 2020	District Court of Western Australia	With intent to defraud by deceit attempted to gain benefit	6 February 2019	1 years imprisonment concurrent from 27 November 2019
55.	8 April 2020	Perth Magistrates Court	Breach of Bail Undertaking	24 July 2019	$500 fine
56.	8 April 2020	Perth Magistrates Court	Possess a Prohibited Drug (Cannabis)	10 April 2019	$300 fine
57.	8 April 2020	Perth Magistrates Court	Exceed speed limit in a speed zone; Between 30 and 40km/h	14 March 2019	$800 fine
58.	8 April 2020	Perth Magistrates Court	No authority to drive (fines suspended)	14 March 2019	$300 fine
59.	8 April 2020	Perth Magistrates Court	Wilfully mislead a person	14 March 2019	$500 fine
60.	8 April 2020	Perth Magistrates Court	No authority to drive (fines suspended)	10 April 2019	$300 fine
61.	4 June 2019	Fremantle Magistrates Court	Possess a Prohibited Drug (Cannabis)	14 March 201914 March 2019	$500 fine
62.	4 June 2019	Fremantle Magistrates Court	Possess a prohibited drug (Methylamphetamine)	14 March 2019	$700 fine
63.	4 June 2019	Fremantle Magistrates Court	Possessed drug paraphernalia in or on which there was a prohibited drug or plant	14 March 2019	$300 fine
64.	11 December 2018	Fremantle Magistrates Court	Possess a Prohibited Drug (Cannabis)	18 November 2018	$1000 fine
65.	11 December 2018	Fremantle Magistrates Court	Possess a prohibited drug (Methylamphetamine)	18 November 2018	$1000 fine
66.	11 December 2018	Fremantle Magistrates Court	Possessed drug paraphernalia in or on which there was a prohibited drug or plant	18 November 2018	$1000 fine
67.	11 December 2018	Fremantle Magistrates Court	Possessed drug paraphernalia in or on which there was a prohibited drug or plant;	18 November 2018	$1000 fine
68.	19 October 2018	Rockingham Magistrates Court	Breach Family Violence Restraining Order or Violence Restraining Order;	17 May 2018	$5000 fine
69.	19 October 2018	Rockingham Magistrates Court	Breach of Bail	27 August 2018	$5000 fine
70.	19 October 2018	Rockingham Magistrates Court	Gains Benefit by Fraud (21 Counts)	Unknown	$5000 fine
71.	19 October 2018	Rockingham Magistrates Court	Possess a Prohibited Drug (Cannabis)	19 April 2018	$5000 fine
72.	19 October 2018	Rockingham Magistrates Court	Possess a prohibited drug (Methylamphetamine	16 June 2018	$5000 fine
73.	19 October 2018	Rockingham Magistrates Court	Possession of stolen or unlawfully obtained property	19 April 2018	$5000 fine
74.	19 October 2018	Rockingham Magistrates Court	Possession of stolen or unlawfully obtained property	19 April 2018	$5000 fine
75.	19 October 2018	Rockingham Magistrates Court	Possession of stolen or unlawfully obtained property	19 April 2018	$5000 fine
76.	19 October 2018	Rockingham Magistrates Court	Possession of stolen or unlawfully obtained property	19 April 2018	$5000 fine
77.	19 October 2018	Rockingham Magistrates Court	Stealing	9 May 2018	$5000 fine
78.	19 October 2018	Rockingham Magistrates Court	Stealing	26 February 2018	$5000 fine
79.	19 October 2018	Rockingham Magistrates Court	Drove or permitted vehicle with false plate to be driven	19 April 2018	$5000 fine
80.	19 October 2018	Rockingham Magistrates Court	Used an unlicensed vehicle	19 April 2018	$5000 fine
81.	12 June 2018	Armadale Magistrates Court	No authority to drive (fines suspended)	26 February 2018	$200 fine
82.	27 March 2018	Rockingham Magistrates Court	Used an unlicensed vehicle	11 February 2018	$750 fine
83.	27 March 2018	Rockingham Magistrates Court	Drove or permitted vehicle with false plate to be driven	11 February 2018	$750 fine
84.	8 March 2018	Perth Magistrates Court	Failed to give driver identity information	8 December 2017	$750 fine
85.	22 August 2017	Rockingham Magistrates Court	Possess a Prohibited Drug	2 June 2017	$300 fine
86.	22 August 2017	Rockingham Magistrates Court	Possessed drug paraphernalia in or on which there was a prohibited drug or plant	2 June 2017	$150 fine
87.	22 August 2017	Rockingham Magistrates Court	Used a licence, number plate or label to which not entitled	2 June 2017	$400 fine
88.	11 September 2012	Rockingham Magistrates Court	Burglary and Commit Offence in Dwelling	11 May 2012	2 months imprisonment cumulative from 11 September 2012
89.	11 September 2012	Rockingham Magistrates Court	Stealing	11 May 2012	$350 fine
90.	5 January 2012	Rockingham Magistrates Court	No Authority to Drive - Suspended	30 September 2011	6 months 1 days imprisonment concurrent from 11 September 2012
91.	6 September 2011	Fremantle Magistrates Court	Exceed 0.08g alcohol per 100ml of blood	18 July 2011	$1300 fine; Mdl disqualified 18 months
92.	27 October 2008	Rockingham Magistrates Court	Breach of Bail Undertaking	12 February 2008	1 month imprisonment concurrent
93.	27 October 2008	Rockingham Magistrates Court	Breach of Bail Undertaking	26 February 2008	1 month imprisonment concurrent
94.	27 October 2008	Rockingham Magistrates Court	No Driver's Licence (Cancelled Disqualification Expired)	4 May 2007	4 months imprisonment; Mdl disqualified 9 months
95.	27 October 2008	Rockingham Magistrates Court	Excess 0.08%; >=0.13% but < 0.14%;	4 May 2007	Fine $1200; Mdl disqualified 12 months concurrent
96.	27 October 2008	Rockingham Magistrates Court	Drive motor vehicle while using mobile phone	27 September 2008	Fine $200
97.	27 October 2008	Rockingham Magistrates Court	No Driver's licence (Disqualified from Holding or Obtaining)	27 September 2008	3 Months imprisonment; Mdl disqualified 9 months concurrent
98.	05 Feb 2007	Rockingham Magistrates Court	No Motor Drivers Licence	8 November 2006	6 months 1 day imprisonment; Mdl disqualified 12 months
99.	05 Feb 2007	Rockingham Magistrates Court	Possess Driver's Licence Calculated to Deceive;	8 November 2006	Fine $250; Mdl CANC & DISQ 3 months
100.	05 Feb 2007	Rockingham Magistrates Court	Unlicensed Vehicle;	8 November 2006	Fine $150
101.	10 Feb 2006	Mandurah Magistrates Court	Reckless driving	13 Jan 2006	Fine $500 Mdl CANC & DISQ 15 months
102.	10 Feb 2006	Mandurah Magistrates Court	Excess 0.08%; >=0. 11 % but <0.12%	13 Jan 2006	Fine $1250; Mdl CANC & DISQ 9 months
103.	15 October 2004	Armadale Court of Petty Sessions	Possess Prohibited Drug	Unknown [308]	$750
104.	15 October 2004	Armadale Court of Petty Sessions	Possess Smoking Implement	Unknown	$750
105.	15 October 2004	Armadale Court of Petty Sessions	Prohibited Plant cultivate	Unknown	$750
106.	21 October 2002	Perth Court of Petty Sessions	Breach of bail	Unknown	2 months imprisonment Concurrent
107.	21 October 2002	Perth Court of Petty Sessions	False Bail Undertaking	Unknown	1 month imprisonment
108.	21 October 2002	Perth Court of Petty Sessions	Possess prohibited drug	Unknown	1 Month imprisonment; concurrent
109.	21 October 2002	Perth Court of Petty Sessions	No Motor Drivers Licence	16 December 2000	4 Month imprisonment: Mdl 9 months cumulative
110.	21 October 2002	Perth Court of Petty Sessions	Steal Motor Vehicle	16 December 2000	6 months Imprisonment; DISQ Mdl 3 months concurrent
111.	21 October 2002	Perth Court of Petty Sessions	Fail to Stop when Called Upon	16 December 2000	Fine $100; DISQ Mdl 3 months concurrent
112.	21 October 2002	Perth Court of Petty Sessions	No Motor Drivers Licence	29 March 2002	4 Months imprisonment; DISQ Mdl 9 months Cumulative
113.	21 October 2002	Perth Court of Petty Sessions	Driving Under The Influence	29 March 2002	3 months imprisonment; DISQ 6 months
114.	21 October 2002	Perth Court of Petty Sessions	Wilfully Mislead Police	29 March 2002	Fine $100; DISC 3 months concurrent
115.	12 September 2000	Mandurah Court of Petty Sessions	No Motor Drivers Licence – Under supervision	05 August 2000	Fine $1000; DISC 9 months cumulative
116.	12 September 2000	Mandurah Court of Petty Sessions	Excess 0.08%; >=0.12% but <0.13%	05 August 2000	Fine $600 DISQ 5 months concurrent
117.	09 May 2000	Mandurah Court of Petty Sessions	No Motor Drivers Licence - Under Fines Suspension	07 May 2000	Fine $1000; Disq 9 Months cumulative
118.	26 August 1998	Rockingham Court of petty sessions	No Motor Drivers Licence - Under Fines Suspension	20 February 1998	Fine $1000; Disq 9 Months cumulative
119.	26 August 1998	Rockingham Court of petty sessions	Sentencing Act Section 37	20 February 1998	30/ 12/98 NO MDL Amended $400 TO $1000
120.	17 April 1998	Perth District Court of Western Australia	Burglary and commit offence AGG (place) (count 1)	Unknown	3 YRS IMP Cumulative 3-4. 3 YRS IMP CONCEACHG S. 18 MTHS IMP CONC 6. 2 YRS 6 MTHS IMP CONC
121.	17 April 1998	Perth District Court of Western Australia	Burglary and commit offence AGG (place) (count 2)	Unknown	3 YRS IMP Cumulative
122.	17 April 1998	Perth District Court of Western Australia	Burglary and commit offence AGG (place) (count 3)	Unknown	3 YRS IMP Concurrent
123.	17 April 1998	Perth District Court of Western Australia	Burglary and commit offence AGG (place) (count 4)	Unknown	3 YRS IMP Concurrent
124.	17 April 1998	Perth District Court of Western Australia	Burglary and commit offence AGG (place) (count 5)	Unknown	18 months imprisonment concurrent
125.	17 April 1998	Perth District Court of Western Australia	Burglary and commit offence AGG (place) (count 6)	Unknown	2 years 6 months concurrent
126.	17 April 1998	Perth District Court of Western Australia	Receiving	Unknown	1 Year imprisonment Concurrent
127.	17 April 1998	Perth District Court of Western Australia	Stealing (M/Vehicle)	Unknown	1 Year Imprisonment Concurrent
128.	17 April 1998	Perth District Court of Western Australia	Stealing (M/Vehicle)	Unknown	1 Year Imprisonment Concurrent
129.	29 August 1997	Rockingham Court of petty Sessions	No Motor Drivers Licence	05 April 1996	Fine $150 DISQ 3 months
130.	19 August 1997	Perth District Court of Western Australia	Breach of probation	Unknown	3 Months Imprisonment
131.	19 August 1997	Perth District Court of Western Australia	Burglary and commit offence AGG (Habitat)	Unknown	12 Months Imprisonment Total 15 months imprisonment
132.	24 June 1997	Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions	Cannabis possess a quantity	Unknown	$100
133.	24 June 1997	Fremantle Court of Petty Sessions	Posses smoking implement	Unknown	$100
134.	27 September 1996	Perth District court of Western Australia	Stealing	Unknown	Prob 18 Months 240 Hours CSO
135.	28 May 1996	Rockingham court of Petty Sessions	Refuse name and or address	Unknown	$50
136.	21 May 1996	Armadale Court of Petty Sessions	Cannabis Posses A quantity	Unknown	$125
137.	21 May 1996	Armadale Court of Petty Sessions	Possess smoking implement	Unknown	$125
138.	21 May 1996	Armadale Court of Petty Sessions	No Motor Drivers Licence	06 May 1996	$300; Disc MDL 12 months Cum

[308] Page 286 R1, offence date omitted

Date of hearing:	21 June 2023
Applicant:	In person
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Mr J Papalia, Australian Government Solicitor