CXFK and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 990

CXFK and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) [2025] ARTA 990 (10 July 2025)
Applicant:CXFK
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number: 2025/3269
Tribunal:General Member J Cipolla
Place:Sydney
Date:10 July 2025
Decision:The decision not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s Class BF Transitional (Permanent) visa is affirmed.

[SGD]

………………..……………….
General Member J Cipolla
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation of Applicant’s Class BF Transitional Permanent visa – substantial criminal record – armed robbery – burglary-decision – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 501CA (4)
CASES
NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 37
JYVY and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2024] AATA 3617
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185
Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs [1996] FCA 663
Byers v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2024] ARTA 183
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Direction No. 110, Visa cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA paras 5.2(2), 7(2), 8.1.1(1), 8.1.1(1)(a)-(i), 8.1.1(1)(a)(ii), 8.1.1(a)(iii), 8.1.1(1)(b)(i), 8.1.2(1)-(2), 8.2(1), 8.2(3), 8.2(3)(a)-(d), 8.3(2), 8.3(2)(a)-(b), 8.4(1)-(3), 8.4(4)(a)-(h), 8.5(1)-(4), 9(1)
STATEMENT OF REASONS
BACKGROUND

CXFK (The Applicant) was born in the United Kingdom on 6 April 1962.
The Applicant arrived in Australia with his family in 1963 as an infant and has resided in Australia continuously now for 62 years.
The Applicant has had a long-term drug addiction. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that his addiction to illicit drugs stems from a violent and abusive childhood that led to him being placed into institutional care as a 13-year-old. The Applicant developed a long-term addiction to illicit drugs, predominantly heroin. The Applicant’s many years of criminal offending is largely associated with his chronic and long-term drug use.
Whist in institutional care as a minor the Applicant was subject to child abuse and has recently (2024) received reparation from the Victorian Government with respect to this.
The evidence indicates that the Applicant has a number of immediate family members in Australia namely his mother, stepmother, two brothers and two stepbrothers. The Applicant also has a number of aunts, uncles and cousins in Australia.
The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant is estranged from his close family members. This is attributable to the chronicity and length of his drug addiction and his associated criminal offending and his lengthy terms of imprisonment.
As a result of his offending the Applicant has spent a large part of his life imprisoned.
The Applicant met his late partner, Ms D K, in 1997, and they commenced living together in a de-facto relationship in September 1997. The Applicant had a relationship with Ms K for 26 years. Ms K had a multiplicity of serious health issues which were compounded by her suffering a stroke in 2017. After the stroke the Applicant became her primary carer.
The Applicant claims he was not able to obtain carers benefit to care for Ms K and he returned to criminality and drug abuse in 2018. Ms K provided a number of character references for the Applicant. The evidence indicates that Ms K passed away in April 2024.
Prior to the deterioration in Ms K’s health the Applicant worked for Whyalla Steel for 10 years from 2008-2018 (his longest period of employment). During this period, he worked his way up to the position of leading hand.
The Applicant suffers with health conditions including asthma and emphysema, he also suffers with post-traumatic stress disorder and a depressive disorder and has been on opioid substitution, predominantly methadone, to treat his drug addiction. The Applicant has also been prescribed olanzapine.
The Applicant was diagnosed with emphysema in 2014, and he believes that this will be a lifelong condition.
Whilst incarcerated the Applicant worked in the prison kitchen.
The Applicant has no children.
OFFENDING HISTORY
The Applicants adult criminal offending history commenced in 1980 and involved multiple counts of stealing, break and enter, drug possession, aid and abet robbery whilst armed, driving offences and fraud. This offending led to a range of sentences that included fines, drivers licence disqualification and terms of imprisonment. The Applicant’s national offending history is referable in Annexure A (see attached).
The evidence indicates that the Applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 11 years with a 6-year non-parole period. The sentencing judge noted the Applicant’s offences were prolific, consisting of 130 incidences of offending involving the theft of personal items from residences, including wedding rings, family heirlooms, credit cards and Medicare cards. The sentencing judge noted the adverse impact that this would have had on the many victims of his offending.
SENTENCING COMMENTS DISTRICT COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA 12 MARCH 2004
The Applicant was 41 years old at the time he was sentenced for this tranche of offending in 2004. Judge Lowrie noted in his sentencing comments that the Applicant faced sentence for what he described as a ‘massive’ amount of offending consisting of 130 counts along with offending that occurred in Port Adelaide consisting of a further 50 offences.
Judge Lowrie noted that:
“it is a tragedy that you have been on the street since the age of 13, I see this fairly often. Coming from quite a violent background and then trying to stand on your own feet at 13 and then, as we see, drifting into drugs. When I look at your offending, which is continual over the years, I have no doubt most of it was drug -related. You have a limited social network in the community I mention your de facto, D. You have had that relationship for seven years and you probably know that drugs simply are destroying your life. Depressing as it is in dealing with you, one always hopes there is a glimmer of hope, that is not too late. You have very much been institutionalised for long periods and now face this further period, I think at this stage having spent 12 years in jail. However, your counsel stresses, and as indeed coming from Dr Raeside, that you now have a desire to indeed do something about your life.
On the other hand, I have some 20 victim impact statements. You, no doubt are aware of the problems of taking people’s treasures, irreplaceable items that always causes great harm. You have that breach of bond I have to deal with, and, of course, I have to make the sentence cumulative.
I then set out that I hope there is little hope there. You said to Dr Raeside that you are sick of being in the criminal justice system and you want to break that cycle and that gives me a little hope. I also note that you were able to get work. You are obviously an intelligent fellow and you seem to be able to get work and get on with your life but then drugs come along, and these offences occurred.
As I say, they are quite horrific in nature. What I have done on the last page of my reasons, I have made as many reductions as I can for your pleas, your honesty and the way you dealt with the police when you outlined all of this offending and, doing the best I can making all the substantial reductions, I fix a head sentence of 11 years imprisonment.
However, I do not want you to become institutionalised, because of your age and, doing the best I can, I fix a six-year non-parole period and that will run from when you went into custody, which I think was 8 April 2003.
… I accept that you had a difficult childhood and that you were subjected to violence and abuse in the family home. You have not had any contact with your mother since you were twenty-two years of age. Your father died in 1987 as a result of asthma when he was 42 years of age.
…Your counsel has explained the circumstances that led to your recent offending. You lost your job, your house, and your partner was diagnosed with cancer. These events resulted in you slipping back into a drug taking lifestyle and with that, committing offences to support your drug habit. You can appreciate that if you continue abusing drugs, you will become institutionalised for life. No use to D [Redacated]. That would be a tragedy. It appears to me that you have already spent some 12 years of your adult life in jails.
… I understand that you are sick of being in the criminal justice system and want to break out of this cycle. That gives me some hope.
Judge Lowrie fixed what he described as a lower-than-normal non-parole period of six years from the date the Applicant was taken into custody.
SEVERITY APPEAL SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 1 OCTOBER 2004
The evidence indicates that the Applicant lodged a severity appeal with respect to his 2004 District Court sentencing to the Supreme Court of South Australia, Court of Criminal Appeal.
On 1 October 2004 the Supreme Court set aside the District Court sentence imposing a sentence of 9 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years.
The Tribunal has had regard to the severity appeal judgement of the Supreme Court of South Australia, Court of Criminal Appeal.
Justice Perry noted:
The overall offending was very serious indeed, and represented a persistent course of criminal conduct, extending over a long period of time.
The appellant has a poor criminal record, and although he is not to be sentenced again for that, this circumstance gives very little buoyancy to his prospects of successful rehabilitation, even if the measures suggested by Dr Balfour were to be put into effect”.
Justice Gray noted:
The appellant left home and school when age 13 years and lived on the streets. His offending behaviour began at this time. He became a ward of the state and was placed in juvenile residential institutions. He frequently absconded. The appellant has not had any contact with his mother since he was 22 years of age. His father died in 1987.
The appellant has a long history of dishonesty offending. This has been described as being primarily drug-related. The appellant had spent more than 18 years in custody prior to the present offending.
By the age of 18 years the appellant had become entrenched in an offending and drug using lifestyle punctuated with frequent periods of incarceration. He told Dr Balfour, a psychologist, that he “always loved using heroin and continues to do so” however, he added that as he has matured, he has realised the negative consequences of drug use and ceases to be free of these consequences.
At the time of sentencing the appellant had developed a positive relationship with his de-facto partner a relationship which has existed for some seven years. However, he appeared to lack a wider supportive family or social network within the community.
Following his release from prison in 1997, the appellant maintained a relatively stable lifestyle. However, during 2000, after his de facto partner was diagnosed with cancer, he began using amphetamines. His offending recommenced.
The appellant has had periods of employment including work as a caterer, scaffolder and forklift driver. Whilst in custody he successfully completed Year 9 level schooling and attained skills as a bricklayer.
As noted in the psychological report of Dr Balfour, following the present offending the appellant displayed a desire to break the cycle of criminality that has plagued his life. Dr Balfour observed that the appellant had demonstrated a genuine desire to end his drug dependent lifestyle.
Psychological evidence before the court confirmed the appellant’s prospects for rehabilitation. However, the likelihood that he will cease to offend is poor without the assistance of appropriate rehabilitation programs. It was considered that further periods of incarceration would make it increasingly difficult for the appellant to successfully re-integrate into society”.
… Despite a poor criminal record, the appellant presents with prospects for rehabilitation. A number of Dr Balfour’s recommendations can be undertaken whilst the appellant is in custody. Other recommendations will have to be deferred until the appellant is released on parole”.
The Supreme Court of South Australia, Court of Criminal Appeal, found that “having regard to the personal background of the appellant, the history of his offending, the psychological evidence, the lack of violence in the offending, the degree of co-operation with the police and the need for rehabilitation the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive”.
The evidence indicates that as a result of the Applicant’s offending that he was issued with a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation of his visa on 4 January 2008. A decision was made at that time not to cancel his visa however, the Applicant was issued with a formal written warning with respect to not engaging in future criminal conduct. The warning was issued on 3 April 2008.
The warning issued by the Department appears to have had a salient impact on the Applicant as the evidence indicates a period of no offending between 2008 and 2018.
The evidence indicates however, that the Applicant engaged in further serious offending in October 2018, whilst on bail. The offending behaviour included a large number of break and enters and two supermarket robberies whilst armed. The evidence indicates that the Applicant entered a supermarket on 20 October 2018 and pushed an employee aside and stole $300 from the cash register. When the Applicant attempted to leave the supermarket, another employee tried to stop him, and the Applicant produced a large chisel and pointed it at the employee before exiting the supermarket. A week later whilst on bail, on 27 October 2018, the Applicant returned to the same supermarket, approached an employee, and forced his way to the cash register stealing $250 in cash. As the Applicant was leaving the supermarket he dropped a chisel and returned to the supermarket to retrieve it before finally exiting.
The evidence indicates that on 15 April 2020 the Applicant was sentenced in the County Court of Victoria in Melbourne for two counts of armed robbery, one count of attempted burglary, five charges of burglary, four charges of theft, one count of criminal damage (intent damage/destroy) and one count of commit indictable offence while on bail. The evidence indicates that the Applicant was sentenced to a cumulative term of imprisonment of five years and eight months with respect to this offending.
SENTENCING COMMENTS COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA
Her Honour Judge Cannon after referring to the Applicant’s offending behaviour that occurred over October 2018 noted the following in her sentencing comments:
“Mr S, your offending is most serious and warrants a punishment which is just in all the circumstances and your conduct must be firmly denounced. In relation to the burglaries, you were prepared to violate the sanctity of the homes of a number of people, taking items that were of value, and which have not been recovered. In relation to the armed robberies, you behaved in a most frightening manner on each of the occasions that you offended, committing the offences in broad daylight, and when customers were present. On each of the occasions, the people who you pushed and/or threatened were females who are doing nothing more than trying to earn an honest living. I have little doubt that the victims in respect of each of the offences especially Charges 6, 9, 12 and 13, have been traumatised by your offending. Although no Victim Impact Statements have been provided, it takes little imagination to make this observation about the impact of your offending upon the victims”.
Judge Cannon makes reference to the Applicant’s adult offending which commenced in 1980 with respect to stealing offences.
Judge Cannon noted that the Applicant after engaging in offending during the early 1980s 1990’s and early 2000’s managed to not commit any offending for a number of years.
Judge Cannon noted that:
“you managed to behave yourself for a significant number of years, until the offending before me or, more accurately, the offending which saw you plead to a number of dishonesty offences, including burglary and theft, as well as obtain property by deception, in the Melbourne Magistrates Court on 1 April this year.
Although there is a significant gap in your offending, the current spate which sees you come before me, in view of your criminal history, gives me grave cause for concern in terms of your prospects of rehabilitation”.
In sentencing the Applicant Judge Cannon noted that the Applicant’s childhood was difficult, that his biological parents separated when he was young, that the Applicant has had no contact with his mother for an extended period. The Applicant went into state care in 1973 when he was 11 or 12 years old and was then placed into foster care. The Applicant had instructed his representative in the proceedings before Judge Cannon that he had been subjected to sexual abuse whilst in the care of the Social Welfare Department. Judge Cannon noted submissions made by the Applicant’s representative that indicated that his criminal offending in the past had been predominantly directed at maintaining his drug addiction.
Judge Cannon refers to the Applicant’s relationship with D K which commenced in 1997, which had a positive influence on the Applicant. Judge Cannon noted that with the support of Ms K that the Applicant was able to attend a 3-month Technical College course in Whyalla and after that obtain full-time employment in a business in Whyalla called One Steel, where he worked for 10 years progressing to the role of leading hand.
Judge Cannon noted that in 2017 Ms K’s health deteriorated substantially after she suffered a stroke. The Applicant tried to secure a carers pension but as he had lost his birth certificate and only had an expired South Australian driver’s licence to establish identity, he was unable to access a carers pension. As a consequence, the Applicant committed the offending in October 2018 and once again resorted to heroin use.
Judge Cannon noted that with respect to the burglary and attempted burglary charges that the Applicant went to lengths to ensure that there was nobody in the homes when he entered or attempted to enter them. Judge Cannon noted however “in relation to the armed robberies, your preparedness to use a degree of physicality in order to access the till and your preparedness to point a weapon to the second victim in relation to Charge 12, make these more serious examples of armed robbery than might otherwise be the case”
Judge Cannon noted that she allowed for a significant discount in sentence because of the Applicant’s pleas of guilty and at an early stage. She further noted that:
“you made full admissions to police in relation to your offending. Your counsel submitted that you were genuinely remorseful about what you had done. I have struggled with this in view of your criminal history and your repeated offending, albeit that you may well have been affected by drugs when you committed the offences. In the circumstances, I make some allowances for remorse but, in my view, you have a good way to go in order to develop heartfelt remorse for the victims of your offending and also to develop appropriate insight. The difficulty may well be that you lack the skills to truly empathise with your victims, precisely because of your deprived upbringing and the struggles you have had with your well-being”.
Judge Cannon noted that “in all the circumstances of your case, I consider that you have fairly bleak prospects of rehabilitation, and I must give specific deterrence and protection of the community fairly strong weight”.
VISA CANCELLATION
On 16 June 2020 the Applicant’s Class BF transitional (permanent) visa was mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The delegate was satisfied that the Applicant did not pass the character test because of the operation of s 501(6)(a) (substantial criminal record) on the basis of s 501(7)(c) because he was serving a sentence of imprisonment, on a full-time basis for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.

On 8 July 2020 the Applicant made representations to the Department seeking revocation of the cancellation decision.
Not being satisfied that the Applicant passed the character test the delegate considered whether there was ‘another reason’ why the cancellation should be revoked for the purposes of s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act.
The delegate considered the revocation request made by the Applicant on 22 June 2020, a personal particulars form completed by the Applicant dated July 2020, a further response from the Applicant dated 4 June 2021, character references from the Applicant’s late partner Ms K dated 21 October 2020, and 7 June 2022 and submissions made by the Applicant on the Applicant’s behalf from Ms Shelley Burchfield, Refugee Legal dated 27 January 2025. The delegate also considered a statement provided by the Applicant dated 27 January 2025, along with psychologist’s reports from Warren Simmons dated 26 February 2020 and from Gina Cidoni dated 20 December 2024.
On 17 April 2025 the delegate notified the Applicant of a decision not to revoke the visa cancellation made on 16 June 2020.
APPLICANTS STATEMENT OF FACTS ISSUES AND CONTENTIONS
The Tribunal has received a statement of facts issues and contentions from the Applicant’s representative, Refugee Legal Victoria, prepared by G.M Hughan, a barrister, dated 10 June 2025.
The submission makes reference to the decision under review and noted that the issue before the Tribunal is whether the cancellation decision should be revoked on the basis that there is another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked.
The submission refers to the Applicant’s immigration history noting that he arrived in Australia on 27 December 1963, when he was 20 months old, and that he has not departed Australia since that time.
The submission refers to the Applicant’s traumatic childhood, his limited education and his placement into state care in 1977, during which time the Applicant was sexually abused by an employee of the facility. The submission notes that the Applicant married as a young adult, however the marriage failed. The Applicant had lived a transient lifestyle and held various labouring jobs.
The submission notes that the Applicant met his long-term partner D K in 1997, and that the relationship endured until Ms K’s death in April 2024.
The submission notes that on 21 July 2023, the Applicant issued civil proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria against the State of Victoria seeking compensation for injury, loss and damage that had arisen as a consequence of sexual abuse he experienced whilst in state care. The submission notes that in February 2024 the state of Victoria admitted liability for causing injury to the Applicant for being a victim of sexual abuse whilst in state care and as a consequence he received a financial settlement.
The submission makes reference to the Applicant’s criminal history based on information contained in the Nationally Coordinated Criminal History Check Report which is dated 4 December 2020. It notes that the Applicant’s earliest court appearances were in children’s and juvenile courts in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia and commenced in 1977, when the Applicant was 15 years old, and was transient and homeless. The submission notes that the offences at this time were predominantly burglary and theft linked to the Applicant’s alcohol and illicit drug use. As a consequence, the Applicant spent various periods of time in youth detention.
The submission notes that in 1980 when the Applicant turned 18, that he appeared before adult courts with respect to offences that included stealing, theft, robbery, aid and abet robbery whilst armed, break enter and steal, drug possession and fraud. The evidence was that between 1981 and 2004 the Applicant was sentenced to several terms of imprisonment for these offences which were all related to his ongoing heroin dependency.
The submission goes on to focus on the Applicant’s convictions and sentences of imprisonment in South Australia in 2004 and 2005 and in Victoria in 2020 which have been extensively referred to by the Tribunal.
The submission notes that with respect to Direction 110, that the following should be considered, namely those factors in Section 8 of the Direction containing the ‘primary’ considerations and those in section 9 of the Direction containing ‘other’ considerations.
The submission argues that the Applicant, now aged 63, does not present an unacceptable risk to the Australian community and that his criminal history has been largely confined to drug-related property offending with limited personal violence.
The submission notes that the Applicant has finally confronted his childhood sexual abuse which has been identified as the predominant underlying cause of his long-term heroin addiction and resultant offending. The submission notes the Applicant had never been treated for this underlying trauma. Further the Applicant has been engaging “in therapeutic drug and alcohol counselling for a period of 12 months in immigration detention and is committed to ongoing treatment in the community to address his trauma and to prevent relapse”.
In terms of the Applicant’s post release plans the Applicant intended to return to Whyalla in South Australia where he had worked between 2008 and 2018. The Applicant has maintained ongoing connections with former work colleagues and friends in Whyalla who were willing to support him reintegrate into the community.
The Applicant was reliant on expert psychiatric evidence provided by Dr Siva Bala on his behalf with respect to his child abuse case against the state of Victoria. Also, the report of Dr Gregor Schutz who prepared an assessment of the Applicant on behalf of the state of Victoria contained in the Applicant’s tender bundle at pages 52-97. This evidence indicates that the Applicant’s drug addiction and mental health problems have been caused by the trauma inflicted by childhood sexual abuse that he suffered in the 1970s whilst in state care.
The submission concedes that the two offences of armed robbery for which the Applicant was convicted and sentenced by the County Court in Victoria in 2020 were offences that should be viewed “very seriously”. The submission notes however, that in either case no physical harm was caused to the victims. Reference is made to the sentencing comments of Judge Cannon noting that the Applicant had shoved a female shop attendant whilst trying to access the till and that he waved a chisel at another female shop attendant who tried to stop him exiting the store. Judge Cannon noted that these events would have traumatised victims and further noted that the Applicant did not cause physical harm to any person.
The submission documents the Applicant’s criminal history, and the respective sentences imposed by the courts for his crimes.
The submission notes the Applicant’s offending history from the age of 15 was linked to his long-term heroin addiction and that there was no evidence of a trend of increasing seriousness. The submission notes that when the Applicant was gainfully employed in Whyalla between 2008 and 2018, that he did not offend during that period, and only relapsed into offending after his partner became seriously ill which saw the resumption of his addiction exacerbated by financial difficulty.
The submission states that the Applicant did not pose an unacceptable risk of reoffending. The Applicant had now obtained insight into the impact of childhood sexual abuse upon his life for which he had successfully litigated and received financial compensation.
The submission notes that the Applicant was reliant on the December 2024 report by psychologist, Ms Gina Cidoni. The Tribunal notes that a supplementary report from Ms Cidoni dated 26 June 2025 has also been provided and duly considered.
The submission notes that the Applicant used funds from his child abuse financial settlement to pay victims compensation that had been ordered by the Magistrates Court in Melbourne with respect to his sentencing in July 2020.
The submission notes that the Applicant’s Victorian prison records were positive indicators of him being of good behaviour and having a strong work ethic whilst in prison. The submission notes that the Applicant completed a number of rehabilitation programs whilst in prison, and that his parole from prison was supported by a case management review committee on 4 March 2021, however the Applicant’s visa cancellation resulted in parole being denied.
The submission notes that whilst in prison the Applicant commenced opioid substitution treatment which he had continued. Further, if he was released into the community the Applicant wants to continue with methadone treatment which would be overseen by his former general practitioner in Whyalla, Dr Francis.
The submission notes that the Applicant had engaged with individual drug and alcohol counselling in immigration detention since May 2024. The submission notes that the Applicant “has admitted that he used methylamphetamine on one occasion whilst in detention but has used this failing to re-affirm his commitment to remain abstinent of illicit drugs”.[1]
[1] Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (10 June 2025), [88].
The submission notes that the Applicant had a sound plan to return to Whyalla if he is released into the community and that he has former work colleagues in the Whyalla district willing to offer him accommodation and social support. Further, that the Applicant’s employment prospects in Whyalla Steelworks were good because of his excellent past employment record.
The submission notes that Ms Cidoni had assessed the Applicant’s prospects for rehabilitation as being “moderate to good”. However, Ms Cidoni noted that this was contingent upon the Applicant “receiving a comprehensive and tailored support plan which includes integrated mental health treatment incorporating trauma therapy, substance use treatment, and grief counselling”.
The submission posits that the Tribunal should find that the risk of the Applicant re-offending is low and that there is a negligible risk of any serious re-offending.
The submission notes that the Applicant has never engaged in family violence.
The submission notes that in regard to the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant’s ties to Australia that the Applicant had lived in Australia for 62 years and had never departed. He had been in a long-term relationship with an Australian citizen, the late D K, from 1997 up until the time of her death, in April 2024. The Applicant had been Ms K’s long-term carer which constituted a significant contribution to the Australian community.
The Applicant had also contributed to the Australian community through his employment at Whyalla Steelworks from 2008 until 2018 at which time he worked as an operator and leading hand.
The Applicant conceded that his family connections were limited, however, the Applicant has some contact with his half-brother J, who resided in Western Australia and with Ms K’s brother M, who resides in Whyalla and with whom he hoped to reconnect.
Having regard to the expectations of the Australian community it was submitted that even if the Tribunal, having regard to the Applicant’s offending finds that he should not hold a visa that this consideration is capable of being outweighed by countervailing considerations. Reference was made to the case of FBYR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454. This case reflects the fact that the Tribunal retains a broad discretion in determining whether there is another reason why a cancellation decision should be revoked. Further that the Tribunal’s statutory task “is synthesising multiple interrelated considerations that are relevant to the determination and that “the Direction does not identify any consideration weighing in favour of non-revocation that is not capable of being outweighed by a sufficiently weighty countervailing consideration or considerations”.
In conclusion it was submitted that this consideration should be given little or no weight as there were countervailing considerations that outweighed those considerations in favour of non-revocation.
Having regard to ‘other considerations” it was noted that the Applicant faces multiple impediments if he was removed to the United Kingdom. He has never resided in the United Kingdom he has chronic and complex trauma symptoms associated with his drug abuse history and child abuse history. The Applicant is on an opioid addiction regime of 100mg of methadone daily. The Applicant suffers with complex mental health issues. The Applicant has a history of hepatitis B and C. The Applicant has no family or other support network in the United Kingdom. There will be significant barriers to successful integration in the United Kingdom based on age, skills and any meaningful connection to the United Kingdom.
In conclusion the Applicant’s representative submits that the Tribunal should find that balancing all other considerations it should be satisfied that there is another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked.
RESPONDENTS STATEMENT OF FACTS ISSUES AND CONTENTIONS
The Respondent’s representative provided a submission to the Tribunal dated 23 June 2025 which has been duly considered.
The submission notes that a preliminary issue for the Tribunal’s determination is to identify the non-convictions precluded from consideration. The submission notes that the Applicant’s representative in their SFIC dated 23 June 2025 at paragraph 60 stated that having regard to the National Criminal History Check “that appearances for which a conviction was not recorded as shown on the NCHC (and there are several) cannot be considered”.
The Respondent noted that the substantive issue for the Tribunal’s determination in the application for review was “whether the cancellation decision should be revoked pursuant to subsection 501CA(4) of the Migration Act either because the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant passes the character test (as defined by section 5 are one of the Migration Act), or because there is another reason why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked”.
At paragraph 14 the Respondent provides a summary of contentions on behalf of the Minister. Those contentions are that the Applicant does not pass the character test pursuant to paragraph 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act because he has ‘a substantial criminal record’ as defined in subsection 501(7) of the Migration Act. The submission notes that “the only basis on which the Minister (and the Tribunal, standing in the Minister’s shoes) may decide to revoke the Cancellation Decision is where the decision maker is satisfied that there exists another reason why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked”.
The Respondent noted that in considering whether there is another reason why the Cancellation Decision should be revoked, that the Tribunal must apply Ministerial Direction 110.
The Respondent contended that primary considerations 1 and 5 weigh strongly against the Tribunal being satisfied that there is another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked, due to the very serious nature of the Applicants repeat offending. The Applicant’s property offending involved the use or threats of violence; the cumulative effect of the Applicant’s repeat offending; the unacceptable risk that the Applicant would reoffend; the expectations of the Australian community that the Australian government should cancel a non-citizens visa, if they have engaged in serious crimes against women.
The Minister accepts that primary consideration 3 weighs in the Applicant’s favour, however any weight attributed to this consideration is moderated by the fact that due to the Applicant’s significant criminal history that he has spent a lot of time in custody which has limited his ability to establish ties with Australian citizens and permanent residents, or people with an indefinite right to remain in Australia. Further that the Applicant is largely estranged from his close family members in Australia due to his drug use and criminal and prison history.
The Minister accepted that ‘Other Consideration’ 2, namely the extent of impediments if removed from Australia weighed in the Applicant’s favour. Overall, the Minister contended that the considerations weighing in the Applicant’s favour were outweighed by primary considerations 1 and 5 noting that the protection of the Australian community was to be given greater weight.
The Respondent’s submission noted that it was not in contention that the Applicant did not pass the character test and refers to the fact that the Applicant was sentenced on 15 April 2020 to a term of three years imprisonment, and as such was taken to have “a substantial criminal record” under paragraph 501(7)(c) of the Act. That it followed that pursuant to paragraph 501(6)(a) the Applicant did not pass the character test.
Hence, the Tribunal must determine whether it is satisfied that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked. The Respondent’s submission makes reference to the preliminary matters for consideration set out in Direction 110 and it also makes reference to the five Primary Considerations and to the Other Considerations.
With respect to these considerations the submission notes the following.
Having regard to the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s conduct, that violent crimes were viewed very seriously by the Australian government and the Australian community, that regard should be had to the sentence imposed by the courts with respect to a person’s criminal offending history. That consideration should be had to the impact of offending on any victims, the frequency of a non-citizens offending, whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness, the cumulative effect of repeat offending and whether a non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned.
The submission makes extensive reference to the Applicant’s criminal history and violent crimes in play from 1980 through to 2018 which led to the Applicant’s most recent convictions in the County Court of Victoria in April 2020.
The submission also refers to the sentencing remarks of Judge Cannon in the County Court of Victoria on 15 April 2020, noting that the Applicants offending behaviour whilst robbing a supermarket was frightening, threatening, and directed at females who were engaged in nothing more than their employment. The submission notes the Judge Cannon described the Applicants offending as in the category of “most serious”. Judge Cannon noted that the Applicant was prepared to violate the sanctity of people’s homes and to rob them of items which were a value to them and that the Applicant’s supermarket offending was aggravated by the fact of his preparedness to use physicality in order to access the cash register.
The submission notes that sentencing remarks made in March 2003 by the Court of Appeal indicating that the trial judge had considered the Applicants offending to be “quite horrific in nature”. Further that Judge Perry in the Court of Appeal considered the Applicants offending to be very serious and offending that extended over a long period of time.
The Respondent’s position is that the Applicants offending should be viewed very seriously having regard to Direction 110. Further that the Applicant had been sentenced to multiple terms of imprisonment including in 1981, 1983, 1987, 1988, 1993, 1994, 1995, 2001, 2004, 2005 and 2020. Consideration should be had to the impact of the Applicants offending on victims and to the cumulative effect of the Applicants offending over multiple decades. Further the Respondent refers to the magnitude of offences recorded on the Applicant’s offending history, including offences that were committed whilst the Applicant was on conditional liberty and unlawful custody. The Respondent also refers to the trend of increasing seriousness in the offending with the Applicants later offending involving physicality and weapons. The Respondent contends that these matters weigh heavily against revocation.

The Respondent contends that having regard to risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, that having regard to the Applicants offending history to date that if the Applicant was to continue to offend that his offending may include physical and psychological harm; financial harm; a burden on public health and law enforcement; and harm to road users. The Respondent submits that the nature of harm occasioned by any further offending would be unacceptable to the Australian community.
The Respondent “contends that the Applicants offending (which includes violence and property offending that sentencing courts accepted to have had a ‘traumatising’ and ‘devastating’ effect on its victims) is so serious that any material risk of reoffending ought to be considered to be unacceptable”.
The Respondent submits that the Applicant commenced using drugs in his adolescence and suffers with significant mental health issues. The Applicant has referred to underlying trauma along with the impact of his late partners medical issues as being attributable for this.
The Respondent refers to the report by Dr Siva Bala, psychiatrist, dated 11 March 2023 which notes that the Applicant had “complex post-traumatic stress disorder, a depressive disorder and a history of substance use disorder in remission within a controlled environment”.
The Respondent noted that Dr Bala indicated in the report that the Applicant had not sought help for treatment for his addictions in the past and had never engaged in any psychological or psychiatric treatment in the past, and that his abuse included alcohol, cannabis, amphetamines, opiates and psychotropic medications. The Respondent noted that Dr Bala concluded that the Applicant needed strong psychological and psychiatric treatment over an extended period to address these issues, suggesting 2 to 5 years. Dr Bala also opined that the Applicant is at “high risk of relapsing into substance use due to untreated, active post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms that predispose him to dysfunctional coping mechanisms by substance use”.
The Respondent referred to the report of Dr Gregor Schultz, a psychiatrist, who prepared the report dated 6 June 2024, in relation to the Applicant’s claims against the State of Victoria for child abuse experienced in state care. Dr Shultz diagnosed the Applicant with complex post-traumatic stress disorder, and unspecified depressive disorder and a significant opioid use disorder. The Respondent noted that Dr Shultz indicated that the Applicant had received no therapy whilst in gaol or immigration detention and had only recently engaged with a psychologist every 2 to 3 weeks whilst in immigration detention and that the Applicant’s conditions “have likely stabilised with the caveat that he clearly is in a precarious position, facing deportation”.
Dr Shultz recommended the Applicant needed to engage in psychological treatment each fortnight for at least 12 to 18 months that included a trauma component to treat the Applicant’s underlying conditions. Dr Shultz opined that the Applicant’s prognosis was mixed and was compromised by the fact that the Applicant had limited support in the community, he was estranged from his family, and he had a long history of significant substance use.
The Respondent referred to the report by Ms Gina Cidoni, a psychologist, which had been prepared for the purpose of the Applicants immigration matters. Ms Cidoni indicated that the period of stable employment from 2008 provided the Applicant with some stability. Ms Cidoni in applying Violence Risk Appraisal Guides (VRAG) as an actuarial tool assessed the Applicant’s risk of further violence to be within the range of risk category 6.
Ms Cidoni also identified the Applicants risk factors included “a long history of violent offences and persistent antisocial behaviour, significant childhood trauma, chronic substance abuse, current mental health issues like depression, and unstable emotional state, and challenging future circumstances due to potential visa cancellation, loss of support networks, and health complications” which Ms Cidoni opined complicated “risk management and treatment adherence”.
Applying the Historical, Clinical and Risk Management Violence Assessment Scheme Version 3 (HCR-20-V3), it was noted that Ms Cidoni assessed the Applicant’s risk of violent offending to be moderate. The risk factors that were identified were childhood instability, abuse, early exposure to violence, maladaptive coping mechanisms, along with the fact that the Applicant displayed a poor understanding of the factors that influenced his behaviour and exhibited what she described as poor emotional regulation, unresolved trauma factors that contributed to a vulnerability to stress and substance relapse.
The Respondent’s submission notes that Ms Cidoni considered that the Applicant had the potential to reintegrate successfully into the community, however this was contingent on him having access to consistent mental health services, trauma-focused counselling and substance abuse treatment to mitigate risk. The Respondent highlights that Ms Cidoni found that the Applicant struggled with grief, loss, unresolved trauma and that these factors increased the Applicant’s vulnerability to engage in maladaptive behaviours including substance abuse. She opined that the Applicants offending could be understood within the context of early adversity experienced by the Applicant, however, they had been exacerbated by his ongoing substance abuse, untreated mental health conditions, periods of homelessness, financial strain and the emotional stress of dealing with his late partners declining health. Ms Cidoni concluded that these factors had eroded the Applicant’s ability to ‘navigate challenges in a constructive manner’.
The Respondent submitted that prior to being in immigration detention that the Applicant had not engaged in any help or treatment for his psychological and psychiatric impairments. Further that the Applicant has not yet completed the treatment that experts believed he will need to engage in going forward.
Overall, the Respondent submits that with respect to primary consideration 1 that the Applicant represented an unacceptable risk to the Australian community. To support this assertion the Respondent relied on the findings of Dr Bala that the Applicant had poor capacity and prospects for employment going forward. The Applicant has not completed the treatment that experts have identified for him, that there is no definitive offer of employment that has been made to the Applicant. The Respondent noted that the Applicant has contended that he led a pro-social life between 2000 and 2018 and suggested that regard to this needed to “be limited in circumstances where the available information suggests that the Applicant has left the jurisdiction of the Receiving Charges and has failed since 8 May 2001 to sufficiently cooperate with investigating authorities to facilitate the bench warrant against him being revoked or the Receiving Charges being finalised”.
The Respondent also notes that the Applicant in the past has claimed to be disillusioned with his lifestyle of drug addiction, offending, and incarceration, and had been motivated to break out of that cycle but nonetheless, the pattern of the Applicant’s behaviour, showed regular relapse and the commission of further serious offending. The Respondent noted that the Applicant had committed further offending when confronted with life’s stressors such as the deteriorating health of his partner, and his inability to obtain carer benefits.
The Respondent submits that the Applicants offending weighed very heavily against him within the context of Primary Consideration 1. To buttress their submission the Respondent relied on the fact that the Applicant had a significant criminal history and a significant history of reoffending, despite being given countless opportunities from the Australian courts to cease engagement in criminal conduct and also being formally warned with respect to the consequences of further offending in terms of his migration status in 2008.
The Respondent relied on the fact that the Applicant’s risk of violent reoffending had been assessed by professionals to be moderate. The Applicant had an extensive history of drug misuse. The Applicant had demonstrated limited insight and understanding of the factors that influenced his behaviour in the past. The Applicant has previously reoffended despite protective factors that he claimed to be in place to prevent that offending. The Applicant had a propensity to decompensate by using drugs and committing further offences following periods of stability and abstinence. The Respondent contends that the Applicant’s rehabilitation from drug abuse has not been properly tested in the community. The Respondent contends that the Applicant’s payment to a victim of $14,300 in satisfaction of compensation orders made by the Melbourne’s Magistrate Court was more motivated by his desire to improve his prospects with respect to the cancellation review that was before the Tribunal. Reference was again made to the Applicant leaving the jurisdiction of the Receiving Charges from 2001 and that he had failed since 8 May 2001 to cooperate with investigating authorities to facilitate a bench warrant against him being revoked or for these charges to be finalised.
Overall, the Respondent contends that the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the Applicant has sufficiently addressed the factors that have contributed to his offending and that the Applicant has not sustained in any significant rehabilitation efforts. The Respondent submits that the Applicants continued presence in Australia poses an unacceptable risk to the Australian community. Collectively for these reasons the Respondent contends that Primary Consideration 1 weighs very strongly in favour of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
With regard to Primary Consideration 2 dealing with family violence committed by the Applicant the Respondent submitted that there was no evidence which indicated that this consideration applied, and the Respondent accordingly considered it should be afforded neutral weight.
In regard to Primary Consideration 3 strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia the Respondent noted that the evidence indicated the Applicant had a number of family members in Australia. These included his biological mother, his step-mother, two biological brothers, three-step-brothers, two uncles, an aunt, a nephew and three cousins. It was submitted that the evidence indicated that the Applicants ties with his family members were fractious and complex due to his long drug and offending history and significant periods of imprisonment. These factors limited the strength duration and nature of ties that the Applicant had to these family members. The Respondent submitted that having regard to the length of time that the Applicant had resided in Australia, accepted that the Applicant was likely to have established some social connections during his period of residence with other members of the Australian community, and that the interests of these persons should be taken into account. The Respondent also accepted that there was evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant had made a positive contribution to the Australian community through his employment in Whyalla and the care that he provided to his late partner.
The Respondent submitted that primary consideration 3 should weigh in the Applicant’s favour, however, the Respondent submitted that this should be tempered by the following factors. Firstly, the significant periods of time that the Applicant had been incarcerated and thus removed from the Australian community. The Applicant’s scattered and indeed limited work history. The Respondent submitted that “to the extent that the Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs in favour of setting aside the reviewable decision, the Respondent contends that it is outweighed by Primary Considerations 1 and 5.
Having regard to Primary Consideration 4 the best interests of minor children, the Respondent noted that there was no information which indicated that any child in Australia would be affected by the Tribunal’s decision and there was no evidence to indicate that this consideration applied.
Having regard to Primary Consideration 5 the expectations of the Australian community the Respondent made the following contentions. Firstly, that the nature of the offences that have been committed over time by the Applicant are such, that the Australian community would expect his visa to remain cancelled. In particular, the fact that the Applicants offending at times included the perpetration of violence, including violence against women, and the use of weapons.
The Respondent noted that in light of the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s criminal offending which had been discussed in detail with respect to Primary Consideration 1, the Respondent contended that the Applicant did not meet Australian community expectations that he would obey the laws of Australia, and once again the Australian community’s expectation would be that the Applicant’s visa should remain cancelled.
Overall, the Respondent contended that Primary Consideration 5 favoured a decision not to revoke the cancellation decision under review.
The Respondent submitted that with respect to ‘other considerations’ that having regard to the legal consequences of the decision, conceded that if the Applicant’s visa remained cancelled that he would be liable to be removed from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable pursuant to section 198 of the Act and that he would be subject to ongoing immigration detention under section 189 of the Act.
The Respondent conceded that there were no non-refoulement obligations that arose in this case and contended that overall, this consideration should be afforded neutral weight.
Having regard to the extent of impediments if removed, the Respondent conceded that the Applicant, who is now 63 years of age, has a number of complex medical conditions, such as complex post-traumatic stress disorder, a depressive disorder and a significant opioid disorder in remission. The Respondent noted that the Applicant was treated with methadone on a daily basis for his heroin dependence. The Respondent noted that the Applicant would face emotional hardship if removed to the United Kingdom. The Respondent contended that the Applicant would struggle with a lack of connection and a support network or indeed familiarity with the United Kingdom and would find it challenging to establish himself because of those factors along with his age.
The Respondent contended that the United Kingdom offered a comparable health and welfare system to Australia and indicated that the Applicant would be able to access social, medical and/or economic support in the United Kingdom.
The Respondent addressed the Applicant’s concerns that his lack of ready documentation upon being removed to the United Kingdom may result in him not being able to access his methadone maintenance program which could have adverse consequences on his health. The Respondent noted that the Applicant had not provided evidence to demonstrate that he would not be able to access appropriate treatment to address him accessing drug rehabilitation treatments upon arriving in the United Kingdom.
The Respondent acknowledged that the extent of impediments if removed weighed in favour of the Applicant, however contended that this was outweighed by Primary Considerations 1 and 5.
The Respondent noted that there was no evidence that the Applicant’s removal from Australia would have any impact on Australian business interests.
In conclusion the Respondent noted that the correct or preferable decision is to affirm the decision under review. The Respondent noted that the Applicant was seeking the Tribunal make an order that his name not be published because it would lead to his identification as a victim of sexual assault. The Respondent noted that proceedings brought by the Applicant against the State of Victoria were initiated in his own name. The Respondent noted that there was already publicly accessible material in which the Applicant had been identified as a victim of sexual assault. In the circumstances the Respondent contended that the order with respect to him being identified in the decision record would not achieve the purpose for which it was sought and that the appropriate time for the parties to make a submission about any order regarding publication of the Applicant’s name would be after the Tribunal had given its reasons to the public.
APPLICANT’S REPLY TO THE RESPONDENT’S STATEMENT OF FACTS, ISSUES AND CONTENTIONS DATED 26 JUNE 2025
The Applicant agreed with the Respondent’s submission that the Applicant’s charges dealt with before 6 April 1980 by courts in Victoria, New South Wales, and South Australia should be given no weight, as this offending occurred when the Applicant was a minor. Further to this that the Tribunal should place no weight on matters listed in the Applicant’s National Criminal History Certificate dealt with by the Central Local Court of New South Wales on 10 March 1987, on the basis that the Applicant was released on a reconnaissance to be of good behaviour, with the effect that he was not convicted of those offences, and hence no regard should be had to them.
Further to this the Applicant agrees with the Respondent’s submission that pending charges listed on the Applicant’s National Criminal History Check should not be taken into account as findings of guilt.
The Applicant rejects the contention that primary consideration 1, namely protection of the Australian community, and primary consideration 5 expectations of the Australian community weigh strongly against the Applicant and outweigh other considerations. The Applicant submits that weight to be given to the protection of the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community are substantially outweighed by other considerations, including the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant’s ties to Australia and the extent of impediments of his return to the United Kingdom. The submission also notes that a further relevant consideration “is the responsibility which Australia has to ensure the harm suffered by the Applicant as a victim of childhood sexual abuse in an Australian institution is not exacerbated by removing him to a country to which (sic) is not connected other than by reason of his birth”.
The Applicant submits that the Respondent has failed to adequately address the psychological damage caused by the sexual abuse suffered by the Applicant as a child which operates as an impediment to his removal to the United Kingdom. The submission also posits that genuine consideration of the human consequences of what has been done to somebody needs to be considered in the exercise of administrative discretion.
The submission takes issue with the characterisation of the Applicant’s offending that occurred in a supermarket in Victoria in 2018. The submission acknowledges that the Applicant’s offending history includes some crimes which are viewed “very seriously”. The submission notes however that the Applicant has limited convictions for offences of personal violence and has only two convictions of offences for personal violence in the last two decades.
The submission states that the Applicant’s offending has predominantly resulted from the impact of his untreated childhood trauma and related drug addiction. The submission notes that the 10-year period of no offending between 2008 and 2018 was not addressed by the Respondent. The submission rejects the notion that the Applicants offending over time was indicative of a trend of increasing seriousness noting that prior to the October 2018 offending the Applicant had not offended for some 15 years.

With respect to risk, the submission notes that the Applicant was assessed by Corrections Victoria Forensic Intervention Services on 30 March 2021, by a Senior Psychologist, Dr Kerri Kershaw, who applying a number of tests determined that the Applicant should be placed in the low-risk category of risk of violence relative to other offenders.
Reference was made to the report of the psychiatrist Dr Bala, who assessed the Applicant for the purpose of his claim against the State of Victoria for child abuse compensation. It was noted in his report of 11 March 2024, that the Applicant’s prognosis with regard to a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder, and opioid use disorder was positive with gradual improvement expected over time. Further that the main causal factor of the Applicant’s condition is the sexual abuse that he experienced whilst in the protection of the state.
The submission notes that the Respondent did not acknowledge the findings of the psychiatrist Dr Schutz in his report of 6 June 2024, who opined that the Applicant’s prognosis was mixed but noted that he had been able to maintain stable employment for a lengthy period of time and appeared to be motivated to remain abstinent from drugs.
The submission noted that the Applicant had engaged in drug and alcohol counselling whilst in immigration detention in Victoria over the past 12 months.
The submission notes that the Applicant had friends and professional supports in place in Whyalla and has funds to purchase a home and noted that the Applicant had done well in Whyalla in the past. The submission notes that the Applicant had been assessed in prison as having a low risk of future violent offending.
The submission acknowledged that the Applicant was estranged from immediate family members in Australia but had recently located and connected with the brother of his late partner, Mr M K.
The submission notes that the Applicant had provided a significant contribution to Ms K before he was incarcerated. Reference was made to the Applicant’s work history and to the fact that the Applicant had worked consistently whilst in prison during his recent prison sentence. The submission notes despite the fact that the Applicant had been subjected to institutional sexual abuse he had nevertheless made a substantial contribution to the Australian community through his work and caregiving.
The submission contends that having regard to expectations of the Australian community that the Tribunal could reduce the relative weight attributed to this consideration having regard to the evidence before it.
The submission noted the impact that will be caused to the Applicant in terms of impediments if he is removed to the United Kingdom.
The submission notes that the Respondent has not addressed “at all the ‘other’ consideration raised by the Applicant being the incongruity of Australia accepting liability for the damage done to him as a young person in state care, then punishing him by removing him at age 63 to a country where he has no connection and where the psychological damage to him will be compounded. It is the Applicant’s contention that this consideration weighs heavily, in favour of revocation.”
REVIEW HEARING
The Tribunal noted that the evidence filed and marked before it included the joint hearing book filed on 27 June 2025. The G documents filed on 19 May 2025. The evidence also included four documents filed by the Applicant on 27 June 2025 including the Parliament of Victoria’s Parliamentary Apology to Care Leavers dated 8 February 2024. The National Apology from the National Office of Child Safety delivered by the Australian Government on the 22 October 2018. A copy of the final report of the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse published in December 2017. A copy of the decision in Byers v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2024] ARTA 183, 5 November 2024.
At the hearing the Applicant gave oral evidence and was cross-examined. The Applicant also called the following witnesses who gave evidence and were cross-examined.
(a)Ms Gina Cidoni, Registered Psychologist;
(b)Mr Aaron S, a friend of the Applicant.
In opening Mr Hughan noted that this was an exceptional case. Mr Hughan stated that the Applicant’s problems as an adult with his drug addiction and criminal offending was a direct consequence of abuse that he experienced as a child whilst in care of the State in Victoria. Mr Hughan noted that the Applicant falls within the class of persons whom the Australian Federal Government and the Victorian State Government have apologised to for their failure and the adverse impact that it had on victims. It was conceded that the Applicant had a long history of offending some of which was serious. It was conceded that any risk of re-offending was unacceptable. Mr Hughan stated that with respect to risk there were a number of support mechanisms in place. The Applicant will return to Whyalla where he had a crime free and drug-free life for 10 years during which time he worked in the steel industry. The Applicant had contributed to the care of his late partner D K. The Applicant had the support from friends in Whyalla and he has set up medical and psychological support to be in place and ready to go if he is released into the community and returns to Whyalla.
It was noted that if the Applicant is removed to the United Kingdom, he has no family, no friends, no prospects of employment and would experience difficulty in accessing social services. Mr Hughan noted that the Australian Government had accepted responsibility for the harm caused to the Applicant by accepting his compensation claim. Mr Hughan argued that it would be repugnant for the Australian community to turn its back on the Applicant.
The Applicant confirmed that his statements provided to the Tribunal in support of his review application dated 27 January 2025, 10 June 2025, and 26 June 2025, were all true and correct.
The Applicant gave evidence about how the child abuse that he had experienced in state care in Victoria made him feel. The Applicant described it is causing him to “go off the rails”. The Applicant stated that he suffered nightmares, he started taking drugs to dull the pain. The Applicant stated that he stole to pay for drugs, which led to periods of imprisonment. The Applicant conceded that he had used drugs for most of his life.
The Applicant expressed that if he is released back into the community that he does not want to return to a life of drug abuse and crime. The Applicant stated that with a structured plan including drug and alcohol counselling, trauma counselling and a willingness to engage in work in the steel industry in Whyalla would assist in this respect. The Applicant stated that he saw this is his last chance, and that with his compensation money he could purchase a property in Whyalla.
When asked whether he had previously addressed the trauma as a result of child abuse the Applicant stated he took drugs and consumed alcohol. The Applicant stated that he would address his addictions by the support of friends, he noted he had an offer of a place to stay in Whyalla with a previous work colleague and friend Mr Aaron S. The Applicant stated that he had explored drug and alcohol counselling options available to him in Whyalla. He had also conducted Internet searches looking for a psychologist in Adelaide or Whyalla that could assist him with trauma counselling with respect to child abuse trauma and had found Mr Luke Williams who had agreed to take the Applicant on as a client going forward. He believes that Mr Williams would be a good fit because he had worked in the corrective services system and dealt with people like the Applicant with a long drug, criminal and prison history. The Applicant advised that since he had been in immigration detention he had seen a psychologist by the name of John every 2 to 3 weeks for around 50 minutes. The Applicant stated that he had also engaged with drug and alcohol counselling whilst he was in prison. The Applicant advised that he had never attended Narcotics Anonymous or Alcoholics Anonymous.
The Tribunal, noting the Applicant’s extensive criminal and drug history asked the Applicant whether a magistrate or judge had ever suggested as part of his bail conditions or with respect to sentencing that he engage in a full-time drug rehabilitation program or drug and alcohol rehabilitation. The Applicant stated that this had not occurred in the various criminal justice systems throughout Australia in which he had appeared.
The Applicant stated that he has a number of plans if he is released from detention. He advised he is currently on methadone treatment and will organise to have this treatment transferred from Victoria to South Australia. The Applicant had been in touch with his previous general practitioner in South Australia, Dr Francis, who had agreed to take the Applicant on again as a patient. The Applicant stated that he would derive support from his current representative. The Applicant stated that he had looked into hotels and motels to stay in initially when he is released. The Applicant stated that he will have to buy clothes and get himself sorted. The Applicant stated that he could not leave Victoria until such time as his methadone treatment had been sorted out. The Applicant stated that he would then organise a flight to South Australia. The Applicant stated because of his compensation payout he had the financial circumstances to pay for his flight and hotel.
The Applicant gave evidence with respect to his previous employment history at One Steel in Whyalla. The Applicant stated that it was hot and challenging work involving 12 hour rotating shifts, but he believed that he had the stamina and experience to undertake this work again.
The Applicant gave evidence about his late partner D K’s poor health and how he had provided substantial care to her after she suffered a stroke followed by a heart attack and later cancer.
The Applicant advised that he had previously had a drug slipup when he was on parole and was issued a warning by his parole officer. The Applicant confirmed that he started using heroin again when he relocated from South Australia to Victoria.
The Applicant stated that when his partner D was diagnosed with cancer that she wanted to relocate from South Australia to Victoria. They initially stayed two weeks with a friend in Bendigo at which time Ms K was able to organise a place for herself that did not include the Applicant as it could only accommodate one person. The Applicant stated that whilst in Bendigo he fell back into criminal offending and heroin use. The Applicant conceded that in October 2018, he committed armed robbery and also a number of break and enters. With respect to the armed robbery offences the Applicant stated that he was in an IGA supermarket and that he noticed that the draw of the till was open and in the moment, he shoved the lady that was working at the till out of the way, took cash from the till, and ran away from the supermarket. The Applicant conceded that he had a chisel in his possession at the time and it was on his person as he used it to break into houses.
The Applicant gave evidence that after 10 years of sobriety and being drug-free that the wheels fell off the cart quickly in Bendigo for a number of reasons. The Applicant stated that he was depressed about D’s illness, he was depressed about accommodation issues, it was difficult to source accommodation. The Applicant stated that he had problems with identification in Victoria which meant that he could not access a carers pension. The Applicant stated that within days he slipped back into drug use and associated criminality.
The Applicant discussed a second armed robbery at the same IGA supermarket one week after the first. The Applicant stated that he walked into the supermarket and waited for the draw of the till to open before grabbing cash. The Applicant stated that as he was exiting the store, a lady stood in front of him, and he pulled the chisel out and ran past her. The Applicant stated that he was not clear about the order of things. The Applicant confirmed that he was arrested in November 2018, for this spate of offending and sentenced by Judge Cannon on 15 April 2020 in the County Court of Victoria at which time he was sentenced to a period of eight years with a non-parole period of five years. The Applicant stated that he applied for parole but was denied it, as his visa had been cancelled and he was the subject of deportation. As a consequence, the Applicant served his full term of imprisonment.
The Applicant gave evidence about a verbal altercation that occurred in prison during Covid lockdowns during which time prisoners were locked in the cell for 24 hours a day. The Applicant stated that food was passed through the trapdoor into his cell and the Applicant made a derogatory comment to a prison guard. The Applicant stated that this was the only infraction of this kind during this period of imprisonment. The Applicant also advised that he refused a urine test on one occasion because he was not able to urinate. The Applicant stated that he had been able to provide urine samples during his time in prison and had never failed drug testing.
The Applicant advised during his term of imprisonment he worked in the prison kitchen and was considered to be in a trusted role because of access to knives. The Applicant stated that he got on reasonably well in prison because of his commitment to work and limited engagement with other prisoners.
The Applicant confirmed that his partner Ms K passed away in April 2024 and he was able to attend a funeral for her in August 2024, escorted by immigration officers. The Applicant confirmed that he had been with Ms K from 1997.
The Applicant described that he had also taken a caring role for a prisoner with cancer during his last term of imprisonment and that he helped the prisoner with breakfast, assisting him with walking, and assisting with his general care needs and this continued for six months.
The Applicant advised that not long after Ms K’s funeral in August 2024 that he was feeling down and that he used methamphetamines on one occasion in immigration detention. The Applicant stated that since that incident he had been transferred to a less secure wing in immigration detention which was more relaxed and more open. The Applicant stated that he was not happy with his slipup, and he had not engaged in drug use in detention again.
The Applicant advised the Tribunal that he received compensation from the Victorian Government for being a victim of child abuse in either January or February 2025. The Applicant stated that he had used part of his compensation monies to comply with a victim compensation order issued by the courts in Victoria.
With respect to being returned to the United Kingdom the Applicant stated that he did not know anybody in that country, he would be unsure about where he would live. In order to link in with medical and counselling services he would have to do look around to determine how to access these services. The Applicant stated that he believed being returned to the United Kingdom would be disastrous for him. The Applicant conceded that he may be able to get work in a steel mill in England because of his work experience.
In terms of future risk of reoffending and drug use the Applicant stated that if he was released, he had a plan to link in with counselling and support services. The Applicant stated that being a carer for his late partner had at times been challenging but since her passing he would be able to focus on his own health needs going forward.
The Applicant was cross-examined by the Respondent’s representative. The Applicant gave evidence with respect to the armed robberies at the IGA supermarket. The Applicant confirmed that he was carrying a chisel at the time of this offending because he used it to do burglaries. The Applicant conceded that on both occasions that he attended the IGA supermarket that the chisel was in his possession. The Applicant conceded that he waived the chisel at the employee that tried to stop him from exiting the store in order to create fear. The Applicant conceded that there were outstanding matters in the Bunbury Court of Petty Sessions dating back to May 2001, described in his national criminal history check as pending charges, no appearance. The Applicant stated that he failed to appear in Bunbury because of the fact that he was using drugs at the time and described them as ruling his life. The Applicant stated that he had not taken any steps to resolve the outstanding charges in Western Australia from 8 May 2001. The Applicant advised that he moved from Western Australia because he was heavily involved in the drug scene, was making poor decisions, and decided to move away. The Applicant believed that he moved to South Australia in 2001.
The Applicant conceded that he had breached bail on a number of occasions.
The Applicant stated that he first used drugs in his early teens experimenting with marijuana and Avil car sickness tablets on one occasion. The Applicant stated that he abused barbiturates and then started using heroin at around 15. The Applicant stated that he was using every day. The Applicant stated that he had used methamphetamines on and off over the years and had consumed alcohol. The Applicant stated that during the period 2008-2018 that he only used on one occasion. The Applicant described it as a slipup when he was coming off his medication and used to circumvent his cravings. The Applicant confirmed that in August 2018 he started using heroin again in Bendigo. The Applicant claims that he kept returning to illicit drug use because of his mental state and reiterated that he used drugs to try to forget what happened to him in institutional care.
The Applicant stated that if he was released into the community, he would not use drugs, he would work, he would lead a normal life and he would stay out of prison. The Applicant believed that he would not return to drugs because he had dealt with the child abuse issue, something that he had never brought up before, further that he had started engaging with professional help.
The Applicant advised that prior to his recent engagements with psychiatrists and psychologists for the purpose of his child abuse claim against the State of Victoria and with respect to the cancellation of his visa, that he had not engaged with psychologists or other mental health professionals in the past. The Applicant stated that his heroin cravings had been kept under control by a regular regime of methadone which he took daily.
The Applicant described how he had found out about relevant support services in Whyalla if he was to return to live there, and how he had found out about Luke Williams. The Applicant conceded that if he engaged Mr Williams for psychological counselling that there was no reason he would not be able to engage with him via video from the United Kingdom.
The Applicant advised that he had recently obtained a proof of aged person card and had also obtained a bankcard by completing the relevant paperwork emailing and then receiving the cards. The Applicant conceded that if he returned to the United Kingdom, he would be able to eventually engage with a psychologist. The Applicant stated that he had made no enquiries at this stage. The Applicant also expressed concern about methadone withdrawal if he was returned to the United Kingdom and there was a time lag between methadone treatment after departure from Australia. The Applicant believed that in due course he would be able to access relevant counselling in the United Kingdom.
The Applicant advised how he proposed to look for work with One Steel in Whyalla and advised that his asthma and emphysema would not be an impediment to doing hot and challenging work in the steel mill. The Applicant stated that he had been subject to regular drug testing in Whyalla.

The Applicant has provided statements from two friends Aaron S and B F who have attested to his past work ethic in Whyalla and his good character, particularly, with regard to the care that he provided to Ms K.
The Tribunal notes that the Applicant has resided in Australia since he was an infant arriving in the country in 1963.
The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant commenced offending as a teenager and that his adult offending was evident from 1980.
The Tribunal finds that weight should be given to the fact that the Applicant spent a productive decade from 2008 through to 2018 working in the steel industry in Whyalla in South Australia. Further to this the Tribunal finds that weight should be given to the fact that the Applicant provided care to his late partner Ms K during periods of her illness and incapacity when he was not confined in prison, and indeed to the time he has spent in Australia since arriving as an infant.
The evidence indicates that any positive contribution made by the Applicant to the Australian community is significantly outweighed by his significant offending history. His many terms of imprisonment effectively removed the Applicant from the community and inhibited any ability to make a positive contribution. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant whilst in prison exhibited a strong work ethic, working in the prison kitchen, and that he volunteered to assist a fellow prisoner suffering from cancer.
When all of these factors are taken into account this consideration is given moderate weight in favour of revoking the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 3
Primary Consideration 3 is given moderate weight in favour of revocation.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 4: THE BEST INTERESTS OF MINOR CHILDREN IN AUSTRALIA AFFECTED BY THE DECISION
The evidence indicates that the Applicant has never had children, and that this consideration is not relevant, and the Tribunal accordingly gives this consideration neutral weight.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 4
Primary Consideration 4 should be given neutral weight.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 5: THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY
The Tribunal notes that Primary Consideration 5 of Direction 110 states the following.
(1) The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia.
(2) In addition, visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences is such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa. In particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, of the following kind:
In making the assessment for weight to be allocated to Primary Consideration 5, paragraph 8.5(1) of the Direction provides that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. The Applicant has breached this expectation through his criminal conduct.
a) acts of family violence; or
b) causing a person to enter into, or being party to (other than being a victim of), a forced marriage;
c) commission of serious crimes against women, children or other vulnerable members of the community such as the elderly or disabled; in this context, 'serious crimes' include crimes of a violent or sexual nature, as well as other serious crimes against the elderly or other vulnerable persons in the form of fraud, extortion, financial abuse/material exploitation or neglect;
d) commission of crimes against government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties; or
e) involvement or reasonably suspected involvement in human trafficking or people smuggling, or in crimes that are of serious international concern including, but not limited to, war crimes, crimes against humanity and slavery; or
f) worker exploitation.
(3) The above expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community
(4) This consideration is about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole and in this respect, decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government's views as articulated above, without independently assessing the community's expectations in the particular case.
The Applicant’s representative concedes that the expectations of the Australian community weigh against the Applicant, however the Applicant’s representative argues that it does not do so in a manner which outweighs other favourable considerations in this case.
The Applicant’s representative submits that the weight with respect to this consideration requires a balancing process for the decision-maker to determine in the light of individual facts and circumstances in the case at hand. Reference was made to judicial authorities and Tribunal authorities with respect to the approach that can be taken to this consideration. The Tribunal authorities cited showed that in consideration of the expectations of the Australian community that consideration could be given to the nature and circumstances of the offending, reference to the Applicant’s individual circumstances including steps to mitigate reoffending, the extent of time a person had been in Australia, and demonstrated good behaviour over lengthy periods of time.
Reference was made to the Federal Court case of FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454, which was referable to an earlier Ministerial Directive 65. The Applicant’s representative submitted that FYBR “clearly indicated that it was permissible for both primary and other considerations to limit the extent to which expectations of the Australian community are given effect, in a decision concerning whether to revoke mandatory cancellation”.
The Applicant’s representative further argued that the consideration with respect to the expectations of the Australian community “is capable of being outweighed by countervailing considerations as arise and that are relevant to the case”.
The Applicant’s representative argued at hearing that higher tolerance should be apportioned to this consideration if a person has lived in Australia from a very young age. This factor is an important matter that is required to be weighed up in other contexts of Direction 110 such as in 8.3(2)(a) dealing with strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia, however, it does not in the view of the Tribunal provide a reason for giving this primary consideration less weight.
The Respondent submits that the expectations of the Australian community had to be applied “normatively”.
The Respondent’s submissions are that the nature of the Applicant’s offences over time are such that the Australian community would expect that his visa would remain cancelled. The Respondent noted the fact that the Applicant’s offending included the perpetration of violence and the use of weapons on multiple occasions.
The Respondent contends that the Applicant does not meet the Australian communities expectations that he would obey the laws of this country and that community expectation would be that his visa should remain cancelled.
The Respondent contends that the Tribunal is able to reduce the relative weight attributed to the expectations of the Australian community as against the other considerations as part of its balancing exercise of the considerations contemplated by the Direction. However, the Respondent submits in this case that the expectations of the Australian community should be given significant weight because of the Applicant’s underlying character concerns.
The Direction makes it clear, that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while they are in Australia. When a non-citizen engages in serious conduct in breach of this expectation then the Australian community expects the government not to allow such a non-citizen to remain in Australia.
For the following reasons the Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs heavily against revoking the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa. The Applicant’s adult offending history commenced in 1980, and continued through to 2018, during which time the Applicant repeatedly breached Australian criminal law. The nature of the Applicant’s offending involved crimes of violence that included assault and robbery, robbery whilst armed and malicious injury.
The Australian community expects that the Australian government should cancel a person’s visa if serious character concerns are raised through the commission of serious crimes. Indeed, the expectation applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing harm to the Australian community.
Upon consideration of the evidence before it, the Tribunal is satisfied that the expectations of the Australian community, particularly given the community’s intolerance for any form of violence weighs very heavily against the revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 5
Primary Consideration 5 weighs very heavily against a decision to revoke the cancellation.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
It is necessary to look at the Other Considerations listed at paragraph 9(1) of the Direction. These are considered under their respective headings below.
9.1 Legal consequences of the decision
Pursuant to Direction 110 at 9.1 the Tribunal needs to take account the fact that unlawful non-citizens are, in accordance with section 198 of the Act, liable to removal from Australia as soon as is reasonably practicable in the circumstances specified in that section of the Act. Accordingly, if the Tribunal does not revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa, he will be held in immigration detention until such time as he can be removed from Australia.
Other legal consequences of the decision include a prohibition on applying for other visas, except for a Protection visa or a Bridging R visa under s 501E, and a permanent exclusion from Australia for visas subject to Special Return Criteria 5001(c).
The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant was born in Scotland and that he never took out Australian citizenship, despite living in Australia since 1963. It will be incumbent on the Australian authorities to clarify the Applicant’s eligibility for entry and citizenship within the United Kingdom prior to his removal from Australia during which time the Applicant will be held in immigration detention. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant has applied for and received a Scottish birth certificate.
The Respondent notes in its submission to the Tribunal that the above-mentioned legal consequences flow naturally from the intended operation of the Act.
The Applicant in this case does not contend that non-refoulement obligations are relevant or arise with respect to him.
None of these consequences would be desirable from the Applicant’s perspective and hence this consideration weighs in favour of revoking the visa cancellation.
9.2 Extent of Impediments if Removed
Having regard to consideration 9.2, the extent of impediments if removed from Australia the Applicant’s representative has noted that the Applicant would face substantial impediments if removed to the United Kingdom. First and foremost is the fact that the United Kingdom is a country in which the Applicant has never lived and left as an infant in 1963. The Applicant is now 63 years old and has significant mental health and other chronic health issues related to his long-term drug addiction and the Applicant’s representative submits that this creates a high risk of an overall deterioration in the Applicant’s health if removed from Australia.
The Applicant’s representative notes that the Applicant has been diagnosed with complex trauma predominantly related to childhood sexual abuse which has manifested itself as complex post-traumatic stress disorder and a depressive disorder. The Applicant also has a long-term opioid disorder.
The Applicant’s representative strongly stressed that the Applicant is currently stable on methadone treatment of 100mg daily for his heroin dependence and takes various medications for his asthma and emphysema. The Applicant is also taking sleeping tablets to address issues with insomnia. The Applicant’s representative noted the Applicant medical history “lists Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C. The Applicant’s representative has argued that a transition to the United Kingdom involving a long flight and a transition to the health system in the United Kingdom could mean that the Applicant will miss out on his daily methadone maintenance which could lead to cravings and other severe health impacts.
The Applicant’s representative has made reference to the report of Ms Cidoni that the Applicant’s unresolved trauma and mental health issues would be exacerbated if removed from Australia. The Tribunal notes that Ms Cidoni in her oral evidence to the Tribunal held the belief that the Applicant would eventually be able to link in with relevant psychiatric, and psychological services, however, there could be a delay in him being able to do this.
The Applicant’s representative submitted that the Applicant feared a lack of ready documentation with respect to entering the United Kingdom which would possibly lead to a fatal treatment gap in his methadone maintenance program and access to other necessary health services.
The Applicant’s representative conceded that the Applicant had experience in the steel industry and there may be the possibility of engaging in a similar industry in the United Kingdom, however it will be hampered by his criminal history, his age, his mental health issues and his physical health issues. The Applicant’s representative submitted that this consideration weighed heavily in favour of revocation.
The Respondent has submitted that the Applicant is now 63 years of age and concedes that he does suffer with a number of complex medical conditions which include emphysema and asthma and also suffers with post-traumatic stress disorder, a depressive disorder and a significant opioid disorder in remission.
The Respondent acknowledges the fact that the Applicant is likely to face emotional hardship in the United Kingdom. However, the Respondent notes that the United Kingdom is a country which is linguistically and culturally very similar to Australia and submits that the Applicant will not experience any significant cultural or linguistic challenges.
The Respondent contends that the welfare and health systems in Australia and the United Kingdom are not dissimilar, and the Respondent submits that the Applicant has not put forth sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he would experience difficulty accessing appropriate treatment upon his arrival in the United Kingdom.
Overall, the Respondent accepts that the Applicant may face some challenges in relocating to the United Kingdom and that this ‘other’ consideration weighs in favour of the Applicant, however, it is outweighed by primary considerations 1 and 5.
The Respondent’s submission notes that the Applicant had received a financial settlement from the Victorian government which he will be able to apply in the United Kingdom for the same reasons that he intended to apply it in Australia, such as the purchase of a residential property. The Respondent submits that there is no evidence to suggest that the Applicant would not have access to the social, medical or economic services available in the United Kingdom that are generally available to all British citizens. Overall, the Respondent contends that the extent of the Applicant’s impediments if removed will be limited.
The Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s submissions that he may experience initial difficulty in accessing the welfare, health and drug rehabilitation programmes available to him in the United Kingdom. The Applicant did concede that he believed that he would eventually be able to work the UK system out. The Applicant’s representative noted that any gap in the Applicant’s methadone maintenance program during the period of removal and re-settlement in the United Kingdom could be detrimental to the Applicant. The Tribunal accepts that this may be the case, however, the Tribunal finds that any removal undertaken by the Government would have to be done having regard to the Applicant’s medical needs so that his health is not compromised in the process.
The Tribunal also finds that the Applicant because of his age, his criminal history and the fact that he has been removed from the workforce since 2018 may be impeded in finding suitable employment in the United Kingdom. Fortunately, in this respect the Applicant will have some sort of safety net, his Victorian compensation payment, which he will be able to utilise in the interim.
The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs strongly in favour of revocation.
9.3 Impact on Australian Business Interests
With respect to ‘other’ consideration 9.3, namely the impact on Australian business interests both the Applicant and the Respondent concede that this consideration does not apply, and that the Tribunal should afford neutral weight to this consideration.
CONCLUSION
Having regard to the evidence before it the Tribunal finds that the Applicant does not pass the character test.
Having close regard to the principles in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, the Tribunal has taken into account the considerations identified in sections 8 and 9 of the Direction which are relevant to this decision. The Tribunal has duly considered the matters raised by the Applicant in this review.
The following considerations weigh very heavily against a decision to revoke the cancellation:
(a) Primary Consideration 1, Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(b) Primary Consideration 5, The expectations of the Australian community.
Primary Consideration 2 is not relevant and hence given neutral weight.
Primary Consideration 3 is given moderate weight in favour of revocation.
Primary Consideration 4 is not relevant and hence given neutral weight.
To the extent that they are relevant, the Other Considerations weigh in favour of the revocation.
The Tribunal has been tasked with making a decision that has very harsh and indeed lifelong consequences for the Applicant. The Tribunal in doing so is cognisant of the fact that the Applicant has resided in Australia for most of his life since arriving in Australia from Scotland as an infant.
In making the decision the Tribunal is guided by the confines of Direction 110. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that the Applicant’s risk of causing harm either direct or indirect has been assessed as moderate. Given the Applicant’s criminal history to date the Tribunal finds that any risk is too great a risk. The Applicant has a very long criminal history and there would be strong community interest in having the Applicant removed from the Australian community which will protect the Australian community from the risk of serious harm going forward.
Consequently, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is another reason to revoke the visa cancellation.
DECISION
The decision not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s Class BF Transitional (Permanent) visa is affirmed.

Date(s) of hearing: 2 and 3 July 2025

Solicitors for the Applicant: Ms Burchfield, Refugee Legal
Mr Hughan of Counsel

Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms Anderson, Clayton Utz Lawyers

ANNEXURE A	COURT	DATE	OFFENCE	RESULT
VIC	Melbourne Magistrates Court	20/07/2020	BURGULARY (2 Charges) THEFT (3 Charges) ENTER BUILDING WITH INTENT TO STEAL (2 Charges) OBTAIN PROPERTY BY DECEPTION (4 Charges) ATTEMPT TO COMMIT INICTABLE OFFENCE ROBBERY THEFT FROM SHOP (SHOPSTEAL) UNLAWFUL ASSAULT DEAL PROPERTY SUSPECTED PROCEED OF CRIME	Aggregate 18 MONTHS imprisonment. Concurrent.
VIC	Melbourne Magistrates Court	20/07/2020	THEFT	Aggregate 18 MONTHS Imprisonment. Concurrent.
VIC	Melbourne Magistrates Court	20/07/2020	THEFT	Pay Compensation $8000.00 Aggregate 18 MONTHS Imprisonment. Concurrent.
VIC	Melbourne Magistrates Court	20/07/2020	THEFT	Pay Compensation $2000.00 Aggregate 18 MONTHS Imprisonment. Concurrent.
VIC	Melbourne Magistrates Court	20/07/2020	DISHON ASSIST IN RETENTION STOLEN GOODS DISHON U/TAKE IN RETENTION STOLEN GOODS	Aggregate 18 MONTHS Imprisonment. Concurrent.
VIC	Melbourne County Court	15/04/2020	ARMED ROBBERY	3 YEARS Imprisonment.
VIC	Melbourne County Court	15/04/2020	ARMED ROBBERY	3 YEARS Imprisonment. 2 YEARS of sentence concurrent.
VIC	Melbourne County Court	15/04/2020	ATT. BURGLARY BURGLARY	16 MONTHS imprisonment on each count. 12 MONTHS of each count. Concurrent and Concurrent.
VIC	Melbourne County Court	15/04/2020	BURGLARY (4 Charges)	12 MONTHS imprisonment on each count. 9 MONTHS of each count. Concurrent and Concurrent.
VIC	Melbourne County Court	15/04/2020	THEFT (4 Charges)	8 MONTHS imprisonment on each count. Concurrent and Concurrent.
VIC	Melbourne County Court	15/04/2020	CRIMINAL DAMAGES (INTENT DAMAGE / DESTROY)	5 MONTHS imprisonment. Concurrent.
VIC	Melbourne County Court	15/04/2020	COMMIT INDICTABLE OFFENCE WHILST ON BAIL	2 MONTHS imprisonment. Concurrent.
SA	Pt Augusta MC	20/07/2005	Larceny Non-aggravated serious criminal trespass (place of residence) (2)	Convicted 4 MONTHS imprisonment. Head Sentence: 9 YEARS 10 MONTHS imprisonment.
SA	Supreme Court of SA	01/02/2004	Non-aggravated serious trespass (non-residential) (2), Interfere with motor vehicle without consent, Non-aggravated serious criminal trespass (place of residence) (25), Unlawful possession (2), Drive or use motor vehicle without consent, Aggravated serious criminal trespass (residence not occupied) (2), Larceny (31), Attempted damaging property, Receiving	Sentenced 9 YEARS 6 MONTHS imprisonment Non parole period 5 YEARS from 8/4/03 Driver’s license disqualification 24 MONTHS from 12/3/04
SA	District Court of SA	12/03/2004	Breach of BOND re 5/12/01	Found proved No further penalty for Breach Penalty Suspension revoked 18 MONTHS imprisonment cumulative
SA	Pt Adelaide MC	30/05/2003	Fail to comply with bail agreement	Convicted Discharged without penalty
SA	Adelaide MC	05/12/2001	Non-aggravated serious criminal trespass (place of residence) Larceny	Non-parole period 9 MONTHS Suspended sentence bond $100 – 12 MONTHS Compensation $200
WA	Bunbury Court of Petty Sessions	08/05/2001	Receiving Stolen Property (x8)	Pending Charges No appearance Warrant Issued: Bench Warrant, W 01
QLD	Brisbane Magistrates Court	08/03/2001	VAG POSSESSION OF PROPERTY SUSPECTED STOLEN OR UNLAWFULLY OBTAINED (ON 20/2/01) AS , CXFK	Convicted & Fined $50 I/D IMP. 2 days Time to Pay 28 Days
WA	Bunbury Court of Petty Sessions	09/02/2000	No Motor Drivers License	[Counts 1] Fine: $200; Disq. Hold / OBT MDL 3 MONTHS Mand.
WA	Bunbury Court of Petty Sessions	09/02/2000	Fail to Give Way from a “Stop” Sign	[Counts 1] Fine: $200;
WA	Bridgetown Court of Petty Sessions	26/10/1998	Excess 0.08%	[Counts 1] Fine: $700; DISQ Hold / OBT MDL 5 MONTHS
NSW	Bridgetown Court of Petty Sessions	26/10/1998	No Motor Drivers License	[Counts 1] Fine: $300; DISQ HOLD / OBT MDL 3 MONTHS Mand. Conc.
NSW	Lismore District Court	28/05/1998	Common Assault – T2	H4811605: Appealed AGAINST Conviction Conviction Confirmed: Sentence to Commence 300498 No Costs of Appeal (DC 313018) Court Case Reference Number: 98/52/0167
NSW	Ballina Local Court	30/04/1998	Common Assault – T2	H4811605: Fixed Term 3 MONTHS (LC 22562) (APPEALED) (DC 313018)
QLD	Southport District Court	23/03/1995	Wilful & Unlawful Damage to Property (ON / ABT 29.6.94) As CXFK	Imprisonment 1 MONTH Cumulative with term presently being served Recommended NEW release date be EXTENDED by 1 MONTH beyond the present parole period
QLD	Southport Magistrates Court	03/02/1995	Possn. Property Suspected Stolen OR Unlawfully Obtained (ON 21.6.94) As CXFK	Convicted & Not Punished
QLD	Southport District Court	09/01/1995	Breach of Suspended Sentence Imposed on 7.6.94 Break & Enter Dwelling House with Intent (3 Charges on 21.6.94) Break & Enter Place with Intent (on 21.6.94) Attempted Break & Enter Dwelling House with Intent in the Night-Time (2 Charges on 21.6.94) Stealing (3 Charges on 21.6.94) Attempted Break & Enter Dwelling House with Intent (on 21.6.94) As CXFK	His Honor ordered that the whole of the suspended sentence is to be served. On EACH Charge: Imprisonment 4 YEARS On EACH Charge: Imprisonment 2 YEARS. Imprisonment 5 YEARS. All terms of imprisonment to be served CONCURRENTLY with each other AND concurrent with suspended sentences. Recomm. to be considered for parole AFTER serving 2 YEARS Terms of IMP. are to have effect from the date of Arrest – 21.6.94 PURS. TO S. 158 OF THE PEN. & SENT. ACT
QLD	Southport District Court	07/06/1994	Stealing (on 22.10.89) Receiving (BTN 25.10.89 & 2.11.89) Stealing (BTN 15.10.89 & 2.11.89) Unlawful Use of Motor Vehicle for the Purpose of Facilitating the Commission of an Indictable Offence (2 Charges on 1.11.89) Stealing Whilst Armed with a Dangerous Weapon and in Company (on 1.11.89) Break & Enter Dwelling House with Intent (on 7.10.89) Stealing or Alternatively Receiving (on 7.10.89) CXFK	Conviction Recorded Imprisonment 2 YEARS Sentence Suspended for a Period of 4 YEARS On EACH Charge: Imprisonment 2 YEARS Sentence Suspended for a Period of 4 YEARS On EACH Charge: Imprisonment 2 YRS Sentence Suspended for a Period of 4 YEARS
QLD	Southport Magistrates Court	22/12/1993	Breach Bail Act (CONTEMPT) CXFK	Convicted & Sentenced 5 MONTHS Imprisonment
NSW	Sydney District Court	14/06/1991	INDICTED FOR: 1. Conspiracy to Commit Armed Rob Steal MV (ALT) 2. Receiving (Plea of Guilty to ALT Charge Accepted by Crown in Full Discharge of Indictment)	H 999991187011: 1 & 2. On EACH Charge MIN Term 18 MONTHS Commencing 060790 ADDITIONAL Term 6 MONTHS (Judge Shadbolt) (FILE NO 90/11/1067) (DC 77367-70)
NSW	Central Local Court	28/11/1989	1. Breach of RECOG (2 Counts) (1^st Instance Warrant)	H 999991187010: 1. On EACH Count Fixed Term 6 MONTHS
NSW	Central Local Court	28/11/1989	2. Breach of RECOG (3 Counts) (1^st Instance Warrant)	H 999991187010: 2. On EACH Count Fixed Term 3 MONTHS
NSW	Central Local Court	28/11/1989	3. Breach of RECOG (1^st Instance Warrant)	H999991187010 3 & 4. On EACH Charge FD $200
NSW	Central Local Court	28/11/1989	4. Off Manner (S80AA Warrant)	H999991187010 3 & 4. On EACH Charge FD $200
NSW	Central Local Court	28/11/1989	5. Fail to Appear	H999991187010 5 & 6. On EACH Charge Fixed Term 3 MONTHS
NSW	Central Local Court	28/11/1989	6. Malic Injury	H 999991187010 5 & 6. On EACH Charge Fixed Term 3 MONTHS
NSW	Central Local Court	28/11/1989	7. Resist Arrest (2 Counts)	H 999991187010 7. On EACH Count Fixed Term 1 MONTH
NSW	Central Local Court	28/11/1989	8. GIC	H 999991187010 8. Fixed Term 6 MONTHS
NSW	Central Local Court	28/11/1989	9. Escape Lawful Custody (5 6 7 8 & 9 BY S80AA Warrant)	H 999991187010 9. Fixed Term 2 MONTHS Cum. (SDC 150079-80)
QLD	Southport Magistrates Court	22/01/1988	Possn. Utensil Used in Connection with the Administration of a Dangerous Drug (24/11/87) CXFK	Imprisonment 7 DAYS
QLD	Southport District Court	18/01/1988	Receiving (4 Charges – BTN 16 & 24/11/87) Forgery (4 Charges – BTN 18 & 24/11/87) False Pretences (3 Charges – 18 & 19/11/87) Attempted False Pretences (2 Charges – 24/11/87) CXFK	On EACH Charge: Imprisonment 2 YEARS H.L. Concurrent
QLD	Brisbane Magistrates Court	26/11/1987	Stealing (On/ABT 18/3/87) Live in Part Off Earnings of Prostitution (BTN 28/2 & 28/3/87) Breach Bail Act (CONTEMPT) CXFK	Imprisonment 3 MONTHS Imprisonment 1 MONTH Imprisonment 2 MONTHS
NSW	Central Local Court	10/08/1987	1. POSSN PROH DRUG (Heroin)	H 999991187009: 1 2 3 & 4: On EACH Charge RECOG S558 SELF $100 GB 3 YEARS
NSW	Central Local Court	10/08/1987	2. ADMIN PROH DRUG (Heroin)	H 999991187009: 1 2 3 & 4: On EACH Charge RECOG S558 SELF $100 GB 3 YEARS
NSW	Central Local Court	10/08/1987	3. False Representation	H 999991187009: 1 2 3 & 4: On EACH Charge RECOG S558 SELF $100 GB 3 YEARS
NSW	Central Local Court	10/08/1987	4. Fraud	H 999991187009: 1 2 3 & 4: On EACH Charge RECOG S558 SELF $100 GB 3 YEARS
NSW	Central Local Court	10/08/1987	5. Fail to Appear (3 4 & 5 BY 1st Instance Warrant)	H 999991187009 5. Sentenced to ROC
NSW	Central Local Court	26/06/1987	1. GIC (1st Instance Warrant)	H 999991187009 1. RECOG S558 SELF $1000 GB 3 YEARS
NSW	Central Local Court	26/06/1987	2. Fail to Appear (1st Instance Warrant)	H999991187009 2. PROVED DISM S556A
NSW	302 Castlereagh St Local Court	13/01/1986	POSSN Prohibited Drug (Indian Hemp)	H 999991187005 FD $20
NSW	Penrith District Court	05/08/1983	Escape Lawful Custody	H 999991187002 9 MONTHS Penal Servitude to Commence at Expiration of Present Sentence Aggregate Non-Parole Period to Expire 051283
NSW	Lismore District Court	12/06/1981	1. Assault & Rob	H 999991187001 5 YEARS Penal Servitude
NSW	Lismore District Court	12/06/1981	2. Aid & Abet Robbery Whilst Armed	H 999991187001 2 YEARS Penal Servitude All to Date from 20/05/81 on Parole Period 2 YEARS
NSW	Port Macquarie Petty Sessions	03/06/1981	1. Smoke Prohibited Drug (Indian Hemp)	H 99999187001 1 & 2: On EACH Charge FD $300
NSW	Port Macquarie Petty Sessions	03/06/1981	2. POSSN Prohibited Dru g (Indian Hemp)	H 99999187001 1 & 2: On EACH Charge FD $300
NSW	Taree Petty Sessions	26/09/1980	Stealing S501	H 999991187000 6 MONTHS HL
NSW	Central Petty Sessions	16/05/1980	Stealing S501	H 999991186999 Sentenced to ROC
NSW	Sydney District Court	07/05/1980	Indicted for: 1. BE&S (2 Counts) 2. Larceny MV	H 999991186997 1 & 2: On EACH Charge 6 MONTHS HL CONC (SDC 150078)
NSW	Sydney District Court	07/05/1980	1. BE & S (2 Counts)	H 99999118698 1 & 2: On EACH Charge 6 MONTHS HL
NSW	Sydney District Court	07/05/1980	2. Steal S117	H999991186998 1 & 2: On EACH Charge 6 MONTHS HL
NSW	Albion Street Children’s Court	11/10/1979	Malicious Injury	H 999991186996 FD $100 PAY COMP $78
SA	Adelaide CC	26/10/1978	Receiving	Without Conviction Bond $200 to be of good behaviour for 12 MONTHS
SA	Adelaide CC	26/10/1978	Unlawfully Possess Personal Property	Without Conviction Dismissed without Penalty
NSW	Parramatta District Court	01/09/1978	Appealed AGAINST Conviction of 050778	H 999991186992 Appeal DISMISSED Conviction Confirmed In Lieu Committed to Institution in General Terms
NSW	Port Macquarie Children’s Court	05/07/1978	1. Possess Goods Stolen Outside State	H 999991186992 1 & 2: On EACH Charge Committed to an Institution 15 MONTHS (APPEALED)
NSW	Port Macquarie Children’s Court	05/07/1978	2. Break Enter & Steal (5 Counts)	H 999991186992 1 & 2: On EACH Charge Committed to an Institution 15 MONTHS (APPEALED)
VIC	Traralgon Children’s Court	04/02/1978	Burglary (3 Charges)	Aggregate 3 MTHS Youth Training Centre
VIC	Traralgon Children’s Court	04/02/1978	Malicious Damage	3 MONTHS Youth Training Centre. Concurrent.
VIC	Melbourne Children’s Court	27/01/1978	Burglary (4 Charges) Theft (3 Charges) Att. Burglary	Aggregate 6 MONTHS Youth Training Centre
VIC	Melbourne County Court	02/12/1977	Appeal re 07/11/1977 Theft of a Motor Vehicle (2 Charges) Burglary (5 Charges)	Appeal ALLOWED. Sentence Varied by Ordering Appellant to be Returned to Care of Social Welfare Department.
VIC	Traralgon Children’s Court	07/11/1977	Theft of a Motor Vehicle (2 Charges)	6 MONTHS Youth Training Centre on EACH Charge. Concurrent.
VIC	Traralgon Children’s Court	07/11/1977	Burglary	2 MONTHS Youth Training Centre.
VIC	Traralgon Children’s Court	07/11/1977	Burglary (4 Charges)	1 MONTH Youth Training Centre on EACH Charge. Disqualified from Obtaining Licence for 18 MONTHS.

Date(s) of hearing:	2 and 3 July 2025
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Ms Burchfield, Refugee Legal Mr Hughan of Counsel
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Ms Anderson, Clayton Utz Lawyers