Frost and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs - [2024] ARTA 30

Applicant:Ms Ashlee Jacqui Frost
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number: 2024/8140

Tribunal:General Member A. E. Burke
Place:Melbourne
Date:31 December 2024

Decision:Pursuant to section 105 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), the Tribunal sets aside the reviewable decision. In substitution the Tribunal finds there is another reason under section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to revoke the mandatory cancellation of Ms Frosts’ visa.

.............................[SGD]...........................................
General Member A. E. Burke
Catchwords
MIGRATION – mandatory cancellation of visa – New Zealand citizen – Class BS Subclass 801 Partner visa – failure to pass character test – serious offending – whether another reason mandatory cancellation should be revoked – Ministerial Direction No. 110 applied – ties to Australia and best interests of minor children considered – decision set aside
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)
Cases
Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Splendido [2019] FCAFC 132
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185
Hughes v The Queen (2017) 263 CLR 338
Khalil and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2022] AATA 3563
LZGG and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2020] AATA
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
Rano v Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Cyber Security [2024] FCA 1003
Tanielu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 673
Jagroop v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] 241 FCR 461
Secondary Materials
Jacek Debiec, ‘A sudden and lasting separation from a parent can permanently alter brain development’, The Conversation (online, 22 June 2018) <A sudden and lasting separation from a parent can permanently alter brain development>.
Caleb D. Lloyd, Nick Chadwick and Ralph C. Serin, ‘Associations between gambling, substance misuse and recidivism among Canadian offenders: a multifaceted exploration of poor impulse control traits and behaviours’ (2014) 14(2) International Gambling Studies, 279.
Rizeanu, Steliana, Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy and Clinical Applications, Chapter 9 Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy for Gambling Addiction (InTech, 2018).
Direction No. 110 – Migration Act 1958 – Direction under section 499: Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA
Explanatory Memorandum, Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2023 (Cth)
S.S. Merkouris et al, ‘Predictors of outcomes of psychological treatments for disordered gambling: A systematic review’ (2016) 48 Clinical Psychology Review, 7.
Julia Gillard, ‘National Apology for Forced Adoptions’ (Speech, Great Hall, Parliament House Canberra, 21 March 2013).
Statement of Reasons

On 24 January 2024 a delegate of the Minister, administering the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Minister), cancelled Ms Frost’s Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) Visa under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
On 2 February 2024 Ms Frost provided a response to the decision requesting revocation of the decision to cancel her visa for other reasons:
There is an extremely low risk to the Australian Community due to my offending being a direct result of my previous gambling addiction. While being in custody I have engaged in gamblers therapy, trauma therapy and other programs to address my behaviour. I have also self-excluded myself from all betting and gambling agencies and locations.
I have lived in Australia for 16 years and for the first 11 of those years I had no criminal history and contributed positively to the Australian Community.
My crime (while very serious) was non-violent and non-sexual and occurred from a spiralling gambling addiction due to suffering from family violence and sexual assault and not receiving treatment.
I am further motivated to return to the positive community member I once was and never reoffend again by my 2 children who were born and reside here and my family who also reside here.
My prospects for rehabilitation are very high for these reasons and I believe reflect in my conduct in prison, my engagement in gamblers therapy, trauma counselling and other programs.
I have been extremely remorseful from the time of my arrest (this has been stated in my court proceedings and via my psych report) and felt sick and guilty for the impact on my victims. I truly believe they deserve not only for me to complete my sentence but also to receive the restitution I was ordered to pay when sentenced, this is another reason I want to remain in Australia and work to return all monies.
On 9 October 2024 a delegate of the Minister made a decision not to revoke the cancellation of Ms Frost’s visa. The delegate found that:
Nature and seriousness of conduct
16. In considering the nature and seriousness of Ms FROST’s criminal offending, I take the view that repeated fraudulent offending such as Obtain financial advantage by deception may be viewed seriously. I base this assessment upon the detrimental fiscal impact such offending has upon the victims of such crimes, and the associated costs to the community in terms of the administration of criminal justice.
17. Ms FROST was convicted on 1 September 2023 in the County Court of Victoria of 15 counts of Obtain financial advantage by deception and three counts of Use a false document to prejudice other for which she was sentenced to a total effective sentence of three years, five months and four days imprisonment... One of the convictions for Obtain financial advantage by deception was given an indicative sentence of 22 months imprisonment and this was the basis for Ms FROST’s mandatory visa cancellation.
…
44. In summary, Ms FROST’s childhood is marred by the separation of her parents, family violence and instances of sexual assault. As an adult, Ms FROST was again sexually assaulted at the age of 19 years, and she reported to a psychologist that she had been subjected to daily physical violence at the hands of her former partner, the father of her children, during the last two years of their relationship. I note that Ms FROST has received diagnoses relating to PTSD, and gambling and alcohol disorders which contributed to her impaired decision making and emotional regulation difficulties. While these factors go some way to explain the circumstances leading to Ms FROST’s criminal offending, I do not consider that they significantly reduce her culpability, noting that Ms FROST was found guilty of the crimes committed.
…
57. While I acknowledge that Ms FROST has demonstrated positive behaviours while incarcerated, has completed positive relationship and lifestyle courses, and has received some counselling to address her gambling and previous trauma, it appears that more work may be required to address her behaviour relating to the use of alcohol. Additionally, I consider that the long-term effectiveness of Ms FROST’s rehabilitative efforts are yet to be tested in the community when she is no longer subject to institutional constraints. Furthermore, I am of the view that Ms FROST would likely require ongoing counselling and support while in the community to address her mental health issues to reduce her risk of relapse and subsequent reoffending.
…
67. I accept that a number of factors, as outlined above, may have contributed in part to Ms FROST’s offending behaviour. Further, I acknowledge that she is remorseful for her offending and has made significant inroads in her rehabilitation journey to address her mental health and gambling addiction. However, I remain concerned regarding a number of risk factors. These include her repeated fraudulent offending and gambling addiction spanning some five years, and the absence of any completed courses or programs specifically to address her alcohol use disorder. Also, I consider that uncertainty prevails regarding the level of familial support Ms FROST is likely to receive upon release, the long-term effectiveness of her rehabilitative efforts to date, and whether she will follow-through upon required ongoing counselling upon release. On balance, I cannot rule out the possibility that Ms FROST will reoffend.
…
81. I note that Ms FROST also has close links to Australia through numerous extended family members, some of whom are Australian citizens, all whom have the right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
82. Ms FROST submits that her family members are quite close and that a negative decision outcome would cause emotional distress.
83. Despite the absence of any letters of support, I nonetheless accept that Ms FROST has developed social ties during her residence in Australia, and that a decision to not revoke her visa cancellation would have some adverse impact upon her other family members and friends.
…
101. I am mindful that the best interests of G and J is a primary consideration in this context. While I find that it is in the best interests of G and J that I revoke the cancellation of Ms FROST’s visa to enable them to have an in-person relationship with their mother in the future, this is tempered by the fact that their father is presently responsible for the children’s daily care and control; and currently provides for their practical, emotional and financial needs. I have nonetheless attributed this consideration significant weight in favour of a decision to revoke the cancellation of Ms FROST’s visa.
On 11 October 2024 Ms Frost applied to the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) under s 501 of the Act seeking review of the decision to refuse to revoke the cancellation of her visa, stating:
I believe the decision was wrong and that primary considerations were not given the correct weight. I also think that important things like my relationship with my kids father and kids were not taken into consideration.
At the hearing of her application on 12 and 13 December 2024 Ms Frost was represented by Ruth Hamnett Counsel, and Ms Catherine Oppel, solicitor at Australian Government Solicitor, appeared for the Minister. The Minister lodged a set of paginated G-Documents, summons documents from Corrections Victoria, Queensland and Victoria Police. Ms Frost submitted numerous statements from family and friends, psychological reports and other documentation.
BACKGROUND
Ms Frost is a 37 year old New Zealand citizen who arrived in Australia at the age of 21. Ms Frost completed her secondary education in New Zealand growing up with her father after her parents separated when she was around six years of age.
On 3 January 2008 Ms Frost, arrived in Australia on a 444 visa, she resided in Sydney until 2015 and worked predominately in administrative roles. Ms Frost worked in a call centre, in an administrative role at a gym and then as an executive assistant at True Solutions, CSL Behring from 2017 to 2019 and Target between November and December 2019.
Ms Frost’s mother and new partner moved to Australia around 2010 and in 2012 Ms Frost’s father and new wife moved to Australia.
Ms Frost commenced a relationship with her ex-partner in 2011, having known him from school, she relocated to Melbourne in 2015 to live with him and in 2020 they relocated to Mackay.
In 2019 Ms Frost gave birth to her first daughter and her second daughter in 2021, both have resided in Australia since birth and are New Zealand citizens.
Ms Frost’s offending commenced in 2018 and continued for some four years until she was remanded in Custody in 2022.
In her witness statement, dated 29 November 2024 for these proceeding Ms Frost provided the following background to her offending:
31.In Sydney, I was drinking three or four nights a week and going out every weekend. My gambling also started when I came to Australia as I had a friend who would do it. It started out as something we would do casually on the weekend and we would go to the pokies or to the races. We would do it on the weekends but not really throughout the week.
…
33. Peter was very nasty and would call me names constantly. He cheated on me twice as well. If I went out and wore a crop top he would ignore me for days. He physically abused me a few times. Once he grabbed me by the shirt and pushed me to the ground. On another occasion, I was lying in bed and he threw me around the room, took my phone and crushed it. On another occasion he grabbed my shirt and punched towards it. This happened when we were on the street and other people called the police. I didn’t tell them anything because I was worried for my kids and didn’t want them to see their dad getting arrested. There were no IVOs issued by either of us.
34.My gambling started to pick up in 2015 when I moved to Melbourne and in around 2017 and 2018, it really escalated. My preferred app was SportsBet and I was gambling everyday. Peter didn’t know that I was gambling at all. Some of my family and friends knew I gambled casually but no one knew the extent of it.
…
38.My offending stemmed from my gambling addiction. I was gambling every day from around 2017 or 2018. My gambling of choice was through SportsBet and I would usually bet on horse and dog racing. I would occasionally place bets on rugby or basketball but it was mostly horses and dogs. I was working at CSL Behring at the time.
39.On one occasion, a friend had given me $3000 to book accommodation for Christmas. I gambled the money away and needed to work out how I would book the group accommodation without the money. As part of my job, I would book accommodation as needed for my bosses. I put the Christmas accommodation booking on the work credit card and no one noticed. Gambling had taken such a strong hold that I kept doing it and no one noticed still.
40.I would book accommodation on the work credit card and then cancel the booking. I would receive a travel credit. I saw on Gumtree that people were willing to buy these travel credits at a discounted rate. I would then on sell the travel credit and vouchers. I first sold them to a woman I met on Facebook Marketplace and she then told her friends. To get more money, I started selling the vouchers in advance of actually receiving the credit. For example, I would sell them to someone and then I would book the accommodation for them directly when they needed it.
41.My intentions were to put the money back and I tried as much as I could when I was working at CSL Behring. All of the money that I took went into gambling. I lost over $800,000 through my SportsBet account. At the time, Peter and I were living with Peter’s parents. My only expenses were $100 towards board and the rest of my money went towards gambling. In my head I was going to put all the money back but it kept spiralling and I dug myself into a bigger hole.
42.I fell pregnant in 2019 and had a very difficult first trimester and was very unwell. I did not tell anyone at work that I was pregnant as I had miscarried four times previously so didn’t want to tell anyone until I knew the baby was going to be ok. Because I was so unwell, I took a lot of time off work. They let me go while I was pregnant for underperformance which was realistically because I was not coming to work because I was sick.
43.I continued gambling and continued selling travel vouchers even when I stopped working at CSL Behring. I started selling fake vouchers because I was so desperate to get more money to keep gambling. People started to notice when they tried to book things that their vouchers weren’t working. Another person noticed when they went to check in to their accommodation that I had booked for them and it hadn’t been paid for. I was making excuses that I couldn’t keep selling credits or booking holidays because I didn’t have the money to keep doing it because I was gambling it all. People who I had sold them to started asking for refunds and eventually went to the police.
44.After this, I legitimately sold a jacket on Facebook Marketplace. The woman who bought it transferred me the money but said she couldn’t pick it up for a few days. I then decided to keep doing this but not posting the items that they had bought to keep gambling.
45.Peter was working throughout this whole period and I was a stay at home mum to our daughter. There were issues with how I was spending the money he would give me for groceries and other things. He would give me say $200 to go grocery shopping for our family and I would buy $50 of food and spend the rest on gambling. Peter would come home and question me about why there wasn’t much food. I would make excuses like the girls were having a tantrum so couldn’t do the whole shop. I would then have to find the money to do the grocery shopping the next day because I had already spent it on gambling.
46.I have nothing to show from my fraud and taking of the money. Every single cent went into gambling. I have no savings. I did not live a lavish lifestyle or spend money on clothes. I didn’t spend money on my daughter, every single cent went into gambling.
47.When the police found out, I was arrested and bailed. I was then arrested for a few more of the same incidents and remanded. My criminal lawyer in Mackay negotiated with the police to try and avoid a prison sentence to avoid me having migration issues. I was sentenced to 18 months prison that was suspended for three years. This was for the Facebook Marketplace selling clothes and not sending them offending.
48.When that case was finished in court, Victoria Police were there and they arrested me and extradited me to Victoria to face charges relating to the fraud for my employer and the fraud in selling the travel credits. I have been in Dame Phylis Frost Centre since this time. I was sentenced to three years and five months prison for my offending.
LEGISLATION
Mandatory visa cancellation in circumstances of a substantial criminal record arises under s 501(3A) of the Act. This is one of a number of ways in which a person may fail the character test in s 501(6). Substantial criminal record is defined as including the situation where a person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more (s 501(7)I).
A mandatory cancellation decision may be revoked upon application where a person is found to pass the character test, or where there is another reason to revoke the decision (s 501CA(4)). A compulsory source of guidance has been issued in the form of Direction No. 110 (the Direction). I will refer to the factors identified in the Direction below, and also note that considerations are to be informed by the following principles:
(1)Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia’s law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
(2)The safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.
(3)Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.
(4) The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the noncitizen poses a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
(5)Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time.
(6)With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.
(7) Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen’s conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation.
(8)The inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation, even if the information available at the time of consideration suggests that the noncitizen does not pose a measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
ISSUES

In her Statement of Facts, Issues, and Contentions filed on 29 November 2024 Ms Frost conceded that she did not pass the character test for the purposes of s 501CA(4)(b)(i) of the Act and she confirmed this at the hearing. The Tribunal is satisfied that Ms Frost does not satisfy the character test under s 501 on account of her substantial criminal record as defined under s 501(7) being sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
Accordingly, the issue for consideration by the Tribunal is whether the cancellation of Ms Frost’s visa should be revoked, taking into account the relevant considerations in Ministerial Direction No 110 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA. In essence, the Tribunal must be satisfied there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.
EVIDENCE
Ms Frost’s Offending
The following table has been derived from a national criminal history check relating to Ms Frost produced by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission on 16 October 2023:

COURT DATE

OFFENCE

COURT RESULT

1 Sep 2023
OBTAIN FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE BY
DECEPTION (all up 14 counts)
17 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT.

12 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT.
10 MONTHS OF SENTENCE CONCURRENT

8 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT ON EACH COUNT. 7 MONTHS OF EACH COUNT CONCURRENT AND CONCURRENT

5 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT. 4 MONTHS OF
SENTENCE CONCURRENT.
TO PAY $8900.00 COMPENSATION

4 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT ON EACH COUNT. 3 MONTHS OF EACH COUNT CONCURRENT AND CONCURRENT

1 MONTH IMPRISONMENT CONCURRENT. 12
MONTHS OF THIS ORDER CUMULATIVE TO OTHER ORDER THIS DAY.
TO PAY $700.00 COMPENSATION

22 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT

12 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT.
9 MONTHS OF SENTENCE CONCURRENT

8 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT.
6 MONTHS OF SENTENCE CONCURRENT

6 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT.
4 MONTHS OF SENTENCE CONCURRENT

4 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT.
3 MONTHS OF SENTENCE CONCURRENT

1 MONTH IMPRISONMENT CONCURRENT

USE A FALSE DOCUMENT TO PREJUDICE OTHER (3 charges)

4 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT ON EACH COUNT

ATT.TO OBTAIN FINAN. ADVAN. BY

DECEPTION

2 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT CONCURRENT

5 May 2023

OBTAIN FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE BY

DECEPTION

MAKE A FALSE DOC. TO

PREJUDICE OF OTHER

Aggregate 7 DAYS imprisonment.

Cumulative.

OBTAIN PROPERTY BY DECEPTION

Aggregate 21 DAYS imprisonment.
Cumulative.

Pay compensation $13961.00

OBTAIN PROPERTY BY DECEPTION (7 charges)

Aggregate 21 DAYS imprisonment.

Cumulative.

OBTAIN PROPERTY BY DECEPTION

90 DAYS imprisonment.

Base sentence

4 Nov 2022

FRAUD -
DISHONESTLY OBTAINS PROPERTY FROM ANOTHER

CONVICTION RECORDED
SENTENCED
IMPRISONMENT: 18MO
TO BE SUSPENDED FOR: 3Y CONCURRENT

26 Oct 2010

Never licensed person drive vehicle on road-2nd+ offence

CONVICTION
WITH NO OTHER PENALTY :
DISQUALIFICATION : 3 YEARS
COMMENCING 26/10/2010
DISQUALIFICATION (HABITUAL
OFFENDER):
QUASHED DISQUALIFICATION

(HABITUAL OFFENDER) : QUASHED

8 April 2009

Drive vehicle on road or road related area, m/v tax not paid

FINE : $100 COSTS -

COURT : $73

Driver of Class A vehicle with expired registration label

FINE : $100 COSTS -

COURT : $73

Never licensed person drive vehicle on road-2nd+ offence

FINE : $500 COSTS -
COURT : $73 DISQUALIFICATION : 3 MONTHS COMMENCING 08/04/2009

Use uninsured motor vehicle

FINE : $250 COSTS -

COURT : $73

Use unregistered registrable Class A motor vehicle

FINE : $250COSTS -

COURT : $73

22 Jan 2009

Never licensed person drive vehicle on road-1st offence

FINE : $500 COSTS -

COURT : $73

Ms Frost’s total effective sentence for her 1 September 2023 convicts was three years, five months and four days’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of one year and eight months fixed which included one sentence for 22 months imprisonment.
In her sentencing remarks on 1 September 2023 Her Honour Judge Chambers described Ms Frost’s offending:
5 Between 13 December 2017 and 4 September 2019, you were employed by CSL as an executive assistant working in Broadmeadows. In this role you provided administration and management support to six CSL executives. This included organising the travel arrangements for executives for which you were provided access to their company provided credit cards. You were only authorised to use the credit cards under instruction from the cardholders for work-related purchases.
6 On 4 September 2019 your employment was terminated by CSL for poor performance.
7 Soon after this, CSL identified suspicious transactions on a credit card of an executive who had previously been based in Broadmeadows but had left to work in Germany. The transactions were ongoing despite the fact that executive no longer worked at CSL. Following this CSL conducted a forensic audit of your work-issued laptop which disclosed more anomalous transactions CSL reported the matter to police on 26 November 2019.
8 Your offending on this indictment relates to the 93 occasions between August 2018 and September 2019 that you made fraudulent transactions using the six company credit cards issued by CSL to its executives.
9 In the majority of these transactions you would purchase flights or accommodation on the executive credit cards and later cancel these bookings. A credit would then be reimbursed to you. You would use this financial advantage by on-selling the credit at a discounted price.
10 On other occasions you utilised merchant payment services such as PayPal or Stripe to credit money directly into your personal bank accounts. You did this by creating a PayPal account using the details of the actual CSL cardholders but registered to your own email address. In this way you avoided detection.
11 The charges to which you have pleaded guilty relate to the 93 fraudulent transactions you made using the executive issued credit cards
12 Between 27 December 2018 and 26 August 2019 you also attempted to obtain credits totalling $17,501.23 using four of the executive credit cards to purchase hotel accommodation, furniture and tickets to various events. However, these transactions were unsuccessful and as such the credit cards were never debited the full amounts. These attempted transactions are the subject of Charge 7, an attempt to obtain a financial advantage by deception.
13 During the period of your employment with CSL you obtained a financial advantage in the sum of $392,030.39 in addition to your attempt to obtain a financial advantage totalling $17,501.23. The amount of all transactions, both successful and unsuccessful, totalled $409,531.62.
14 While employed by CSL you paid back the sum of $111,300 by reversing some of the transactions. This occurred before your offending was detected by CSL.
15 Accordingly, the actual loss suffered by CSL as a result of your offending was $280,730.39.
16 The offending on the second indictment occurs after your employment with CSL was terminated and you moved to live in Queensland in June 2020. Between 11 June 2020 and 17 November 2020 you engaged in deceptive conduct in relation to eight separate victims, each of whom lived in Victoria, obtaining a benefit of $225,200.
17 In each case you either purported to be an employee of Webjet or someone who knew an employee of Webjet who had been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. You also held yourself out as a travel agent. Your offending involved making fraudulent representations to victims that you or other Webjet employees were suffering severe financial difficulties due to the COVID-19 lockdowns and were selling personal staff travel credits to fund yourself or others through the pandemic. You then offered to sell the travel credits at a significantly discounted rate than their asserted value.
Ms Gina Cidoni, registered psychologist, in a sentencing report dated 9 August 2023 provided the following opinion of Ms Frost’s psychological functioning, the impact of this on her offending and potential imprisonment, treatment recommendations, prospects of rehabilitation, and risk of reoffending. In the report she opined:
47.      Psychological Testing
…
52. Her profile was valid, and there were no signs of exaggeration or faking good or bad on her profile.
…
54.      Summary and Opinion
55. The following are my conclusions regarding Ms Frost, based upon the above history, her self-report, psychometric testing, and evaluation findings.
56.      Cognitive Function:
57. She is a 35-year-old woman where upon presentation, there appeared to be no obvious impairments and she did not report any risk factors suggestive of injury.
58.      Clinical and Personality Diagnoses:
59. The clinical evaluation indicated she has the following clinical diagnoses in line with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5):
- Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (C-PTSD)
- Gambling Disorder (severe) in early remission.
-Alcohol Use Disorder (sustained remission in a controlled environment)
60. Her diagnoses have profoundly affected her daily life, resulting in financial hardship, emotional turmoil, and relationship difficulties. These challenges are further compounded by her complex family history, characterised by sexual abuse as a child and young adult, and persistent domestic violence.
61. Her experiences and psychological sequelae have likely interacted with her predisposition to gambling, intensifying her struggles. The complexity of her history of sexual abuse as a child and young adult, along with persistent domestic violence exposure, led to an increased reliance on alcohol and gambling as a coping mechanism. The emotional distress and financial hardship resulting from these traumatic experiences could have driven her towards these as a temporary escape or a way to regain control.
62. Moreover, the compulsive aspects of personality may have further fuelled these behaviours, making them more severe and challenging to overcome. All these factors collectively shaped the development of her addictive disorders, including gambling.
63.      Mental State at the Time of the Alleged Offending:
64. At the time of the alleged offence, her mental state was influenced by her gambling addiction and heavy drinking. In combination, these factors contributed to impaired decision-making and emotional regulation difficulties, leading to her engaging in financial deceptions. This situation aligns with the principles outlined in R v Verdins, where her mental impairment at the time of the offence impacted her ability to understand the wrongfulness of her actions or control her behaviour.
…
66.      Reoffending Risk and Recommendations:
67. Her risk of reoffending is influenced by a range of factors, including her gambling addiction, substance use, past traumatic experiences, and mental health challenges. These factors contribute to impulsive decision making and difficulties in managing emotions, increasing the likelihood of engaging in behaviours that may lead to reoffending.
68. To mitigate these risks, it is important for her to undergo targeted therapeutic interventions that address her addictive behaviours, and mental health concerns, and provide coping strategies for emotional regulation.
69. A comprehensive treatment plan should incorporate cognitive-behavioural therapy to target her addictions, trauma-focused therapy to address her past traumatic experiences, and counselling to enhance her overall emotional well-being.
70. Additionally, support in developing healthier coping mechanisms, life skills, and relapse prevention strategies can play a pivotal role in reducing her risk of reoffending and fostering positive change.
71.      Impact of Imprisonment:
72. Given her history of instability, including enduring mental health challenges, her current mental state is significantly impacting her. Traits such as impulsivity and difficulties with emotional regulation may lead to heightened vulnerability within the prison context. Her struggles with emotional regulation might contribute to mood swings and difficulty coping with the confined and potentially high-stress environment of prison.
73. Although specialised mental health support is crucial for her well-being, she is likely too preoccupied with the immediate challenges of daily survival, coping with the overwhelming demands and maintaining herself day to day. Ensuring that she receives the necessary support will be vital in managing these challenges and promoting her overall mental health.
74. Her separation from her children has created a deeply troubling situation. Her estranged husband's refusal to facilitate any form of contact in another state compounds the distress. This separation places her children at serious risk of profound and lasting disadvantage. The absence of maternal care during crucial formative years can hinder their emotional, psychological, and social development, potentially leading to anxiety, feelings of abandonment, and difficulties in forming healthy relationships. Her children's cognitive development and academic performance may also suffer.
75. On Ms Frost's side, this separation is causing immense emotional anguish, guilt, and a sense of powerlessness. The connection she has with her children, coupled with her concern for their well-being, exacerbates her stress and depression. The loss of daily interactions and routines that come with caring for her children further isolates her.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS
Primary Consideration 1: Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct (paragraph 8.1)
The Direction requires the Tribunal to keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government and to that end the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens (8.1(1)). The Tribunal must have particular regard to the principle that remaining in Australia is a privilege given the expectation that non-citizens are law-abiding, respect important institutions and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
This primary consideration also requires the Tribunal to consider two specific elements: the nature and seriousness of a non-citizen’s conduct to date; and the risk to the Australian community, should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct (8.1(2)(a)-(b)).
The nature and seriousness of the conduct (paragraph 8.1.1)
Ms Frost did not contest she had committed serious crimes and accepted that she failed the character test.
Submissions
Ms Frost
Counsel conceded that this consideration weighs against revoking the mandatory cancellation of Ms Frost’s visa, however they submitted Ms Frost was a low risk of reoffending, her offending was not considered serious in the terms of the direction as it was not violent and other primary considerations outweigh any concern for this consideration.
Counsel submitted that:
·Ms Frost does not pose a real risk of harm to the Australian community.
·Ms Frost’s offending is not considered by the Direction to be serious or very serious criminal offending as she has no history of family violence, sexual crimes or serious violent offending.
·Ms Frost does not intend to minimise her offending or the harm it has caused others in any way, she fully accepts that her offending was serious and does not dispute in any way the characterisation of her offending by Her Honour Judge Chambers in the sentencing remarks of 1 September 2023.
·Ms Frost acknowledges she has been sentenced in three courts, to various terms of imprisonment.
·Ms Frost fully accepts that there was a psychological and financial impact on her victims.
·Ms Frost’s offending between 2018 and 2022 was regular and sustained, however it did not escalate during this period.
·Ms Frost had not previously received a formal warning or been otherwise made aware, in writing, about the consequences of further offending until receiving the cancellation of her visa.
Counsel contented it should be apparent to the Tribunal, that Ms Frost was in the grips of a serious gambling addiction, but at the time of her offending to feed her addiction she was in complete denial having never received any mental health support or diagnoses for her past trauma.
Counsel contented the Tribunal should consider the sentencing remarks of Honour Judge Chambers of 1 September 2023 where Her Honour recognised that Ms Frost had expressed remorse, made full and detailed admissions to police, and pleaded guilty to all offences at the earliest opportunity.
‘at the age of 30 you had otherwise been of good character and had no prior criminal history. Despite facing a number of significant challenges in your life, including during your childhood adolescence, you had worked continuously in numerous roles until your offending at CSL and held other administrative roles, including an executive role, without incident’.
Respondent
Counsel contended that this consideration weighs very heavily against there being another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of Ms Frost’s visa. Counsel submitted the Tribunal should be mindful that in relation to the protection of the Australian community the safety of the Australian community is the government's highest priority.
Counsel contended therefore the protection of the Australian community is to be given heavy weight than other primary considerations and that was the case here as Ms Frost’s offending was very serious.
Counsel submitted the direction contains a nonexclusive list of offending the Government considers serious and it does not mean in any way Ms Frost’s offending should be viewed as anything but very serious particularly given its frequency, cumulative nature, the significant sentences imposed and the judges’ remarks.
Counsel contended when all these factors are put together Ms Frost’s offending is very serious. Counsel submitted what flows from that is that if Ms Frost offends in the future based on her past record it will again be very serious offending.
Counsel submitted:
·Ms Frost’s offending was very serious, Judge Chambers described the objective gravity of her offending in relation to CSL and the 8 Victorian victims of her travel-credit fraud as aggravated by a number of features:
49 Firstly, this was sustained and repeated offending. The offending during your employment with CSL involved 93 separate fraudulent transactions over a 12-month period. Although you took steps to reimburse a significant amount of the money while employed by CSL, you did not desist from further offending. While your gambling addiction explains the motivation for your offending, you had ample opportunity to reflect on the wrongfulness of your actions and to stop to seek help, but you did not. Rather, having left your employment and moved to Queensland, you continued to engage in ongoing deceptions over a further five-month period, involving repeated acts of dishonesty ultimately obtaining substantial amounts of money from eight separate individual victims.
50 Secondly, there was a degree of planning in your deceptions to avoid detection. During your employment with CSL the use of executive issued credit cards to purchase flights and accommodation created an air of legitimacy and contributed to your offending going undetected for so long. You also established PayPal accounts in the names of those executives which also lent authenticity to your transactions.
51 The offending involving the travel credit scam was reasonably sophisticated. You represented you were a travel agent or an employee of Webjet and exploited the COVID-19 pandemic to create the appearance of a legitimate scheme offering the travel credits of Webjet employees who, through the pandemic, were said to be in financial difficulties. This was a ruse to entice the victims to believe in the legitimacy of the scheme, one which you elaborated on by booking legitimate accommodation and travel at times. On other occasions you provided screenshots of fictitious work colleagues to bolster the credibility of the scheme. On three occasions you created false documents purporting to verify the scheme. Your offending involved forethought and planning, together with ongoing contact with the victims on each separate occasion the subject of the charges.
52 Thirdly, the monetary value of your deceptions, in the sense of the actual amount obtained through your deceptive conduct, was substantial. During the course of your employment you obtained a financial benefit being credits totalling $392,030.39. You attempted to obtain a further $17,501.23. The loss to CSL, once the amount you reimbursed is taken into account, totals $280,730.39.
53 In the five months in which you engaged in the travel credit deceptions you acquired a financial benefit totalling $225,200. The total quantum of your deceptive conduct equates to a benefit of over $630,000.
54 Finally, and significantly, your offending over the 12-month period of your employment with CSL was a fundamental breach of the trust your employer had reposed in you in your role as an executive assistant. You had been entrusted to make purchases on company issued credit cards but instead you took the opportunity this presented to dishonestly obtain close to $400,000.
55 In relation to the travel credit scam, you enticed each of the victims to trust in the legitimacy of your scheme despite being aware there was no credit available to fulfil your promises to them. The gravity of your deceptive conduct was compounded on each occasion you deceived yet another victim over the five-month period in over 98 separate transactions.
…
59 Your deceptive conduct across the two indictments was objectively serious and impacted on the lives of multiple people. You exploited the circumstances of the pandemic to convince victims that the travel credits were available due to the financial difficulties being experienced by others through the pandemic. Your offending only ended upon your arrest. Your moral culpability for your deceptive conduct is significant, although this is also informed by your personal circumstances to which I now turn.
·Ms Frost’s offending from 2018 to 2022 represents a significant escalation in her fraudulent activity.
·Judge Chambers considered the victim impact statements provided to her and concluded that Ms Frosts’ 'deceptive conduct has had a wide-ranging impact on these victims, both financially and emotionally’.
·The seriousness of Ms Frost’s offending is also demonstrated by her sentences, including for her crimes in Queensland an 18-month prison term wholly suspended on 4 November 2022; respectively in Victoria a sentence of 118 days' imprisonment on 5 May 2023 and 3 years, 5 months and 4 days' imprisonment on 1 September 2023.

Counsel contented Ms Frosts’ offending over a 4-year period, involved ongoing deception and repeated acts of dishonesty. Her deception involved planning, and the preparation of false documentation, her travel credit scheme was 'sophisticated' and 'involved forethought and planning, together with ongoing contact with the victims on each separate occasion’ as did many of her fraudulent online transactions.
Counsel submitted in this circumstance; the Tribunal should be extremely cautious about relying on self-interested claims made by Ms Frost without independent corroboration.
Counsel further submitted the evidence provided on behalf of Ms Frost which rely upon her self-reporting of incidents of family violence, should also be treated with a high degree of scepticism.
Protection of the Australian community
The risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct (paragraph 8.1.2)
This part of the primary consideration requires the Tribunal to have regard to the Government’s view that ‘the Australian community’s tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases’ (8.1.2(1)).
Submissions
Ms Frost
Counsel contented Ms Frost did not present any risk of future harm to the community as she has undertaken all avenues to address her gambling addiction which was the root cause of her offending. Further the Australian community could be assured that the protective factors now in place for Ms Frost to access would ensure she stayed absent of gambling and if she relapsed, she would be able to get support prior to her going into a spiral when she needed to fraudulently obtain money to feed her addiction.
Counsel contented Ms Frost fully accepts that her offending was serious, and that Australian community should have a low tolerance of risk of future harm. Counsel further contented Ms Frost fully accepts responsibility for the psychological and financial harm caused by her offending and her evidence before the Tribunal demonstrates her remorse, guilt and she knows that the things that she did were horrible. Counsel noted Ms Frost’s evidence:
·She felt relief when she was arrested for the Facebook marketing offending in Queensland but that she went back to offending on bail in an attempt to chase her losses, thinking that she could repay those she had taken money from.
·That when she was extradited to Victoria for her offending against CSL Behring she felt relief that her offending and gambling was finally all out in the open.
Counsel contented Ms Frost’s account of her offending was consistent with Ms De Giorgio’s evidence and clinical assessment that Ms Frost’s offending was to control her anxiety to chase loss rather than for any personal financial gain.
Counsel submitted:
·Ms Frost has lived in Australia for 10 years without incident until her offending in 2017 (aside from minor traffic offences in 2009 and 2010).
·Ms Frost is a survivor of sexual assault, and domestic violence and as such, has developed a number of mental health issues including a gambling addiction. Her offending involved fraudulently obtaining money to fund her gambling addiction.
·All Ms Frost’s family members, including her two young daughters, reside permanently in Australia.
·Ms Frost is extremely remorseful and committed to her rehabilitation and as such, poses no risk to the Australian community should her visa cancellation be revoked, and she is released back into the Australian community.
·There is no risk that Ms Frost will reoffend, as she is extremely remorseful, has undertaken extensive rehabilitation and has numerous protective factors available to her upon release into the Australian community.
·Mr Grant Young, Senior Prison Officer at Dame Phyllis Frost Centre reported that Ms Frost ‘has expressed sincere remorse for her offences, acknowledging the seriousness and the impact on her victims’.
·Ms Kylie De Giorgio, Gambler’s Help Counsellor reported that Ms Frost ‘has expressed remorse for her actions through both words and actions consistently’.
·Mr Jason Little, from About Time for Justice has also reported that Ms Frost ‘has always been sincere and has shown genuine remorse for her actions’.
·Ms Cidoni’s report also describes Ms Frost as remorseful and concluded in her report that:
Her risk of reoffending is influenced by a range of factors, including her gambling addiction, substance use, past traumatic experiences, and mental health challenges. These factors contribute to impulsive decision-making and difficulties in managing emotions, increasing the likelihood of engaging in behaviours that may lead to reoffending. To mitigate these risks, it is important for her to undergo targeted therapeutic interventions that address her addictive behaviours, and mental health concerns, and provide coping strategies for emotional regulation.
A comprehensive treatment plan should incorporate cognitive-behavioural therapy to target her addictions, trauma-focused therapy to address her past traumatic experiences, and counselling to enhance her overall emotional well-being. Additionally, support in developing healthier coping mechanisms, life skills, and relapse prevention strategies can play a pivotal role in reducing her risk of reoffending and fostering positive change.
·Judge Chambers found Ms Frost’s ‘future prospects very much depend upon [her] ability to manage [her] long standing abuse of alcohol and severe addiction to gambling’ and suggested that if she commit to long-term counselling to address these issues, ‘the risk of reoffending will certainly be reduced’.
Counsel submitted Ms Frost has undertaken every course at her disposal whilst in Prison to deal with her addiction, prevent relapse and to facilitate her rehabilitation:
(a)Drummond Street, Unit 1: Addiction and the brain, Unit 2: Conflict Resolution, Unit 3: Relapse Prevention and Unit 4: Dear Addiction between October and November 2024;
(b)‘Acknowledging Responsible Choices’ dated November 2023;
(c)ACCEPT Program – involving nine sessions between 20 August 2024 and 17 September 2024;
(d)Peer Listener Program on 23 June 2023;
(e)ATLAS 'Healthy Relationships’ dated 9 February 2023;
(f)ATLAS 'Houses and Homes’ dated 2 February 2023;
(g)ATLAS 'Adapt’ dated 16 January 2023;
(h)ATLAS ‘Recalibrate’ dated 27 January 2023;
(i)ATLAS ‘Jobs and Careers’ dated 15 December 2022;
(j)ATLAS ‘Family, Friends and Community’ dated 8 December 2022;
(k)ATLAS ‘Healthy Living’ dated 7 December 2022;
(l)ATLAS ‘Take Stock B’ dated 2 December 2022;
(m)ATLAS ‘Take Stock A’ dated 1 December 2022;
(n)Save the Children, ‘Smalltalk’ (Parent capacity building program);
(o)Better Tomorrows, ‘Tuning Into Respectful Relationships’; and
(p)Centre of Excellence Civil Construction Program.
Additionally, Counsel submitted Ms Frost has also undertaken extensive Counselling to deal with the underlying causes which have led to her offending to fund her gambling addiction and address her previously undiagnosed mental health conditions:
(a)since December 2022 Ms Frost has been receiving therapeutic counselling with a Gambler’s Help Therapeutic Counsellor. Her counsellor, Ms Trina Fazio provided a report dated 22 March 2023 which opines that Ms Frost has ‘demonstrated genuine motivation to address her gambling behaviour. She has also taken action to block her access to future gambling by signing a permanent self exclusion notice for betting exchange companies’. And ‘Ashlee has gained a much clearer understanding of how her betting behaviour became a way she distracted from her anxiety triggered by personal problems, in particular, family violence’.
(b)since 2023 Ms Frost has also been working with a Gamblers Help Counsellor from Banyule Community Health, her current counsellor has provided a report dated 11 November 2024 that confirms she has attended thirty sessions and has been ‘engaged, and hard working’. Her counsellor reports that Ms Frost ‘has worked on the triggers that led to her offending behaviour through gambling addiction, with both behaviour and cognitive therapies utilised to achieve this … I have been impressed by Ms. Frost and her dedication to her rehabilitation and believe her to be a shining example of the positivity that can come from being incarcerated’. Importantly, Ms Frost’s Gambler’s Help Counsellor will continue to provide support to her upon release from prison.
(c)Ms Frost has also engaged in trauma counselling provided by Western Region Centre Against Sexual Assault. Her counsellor, Ms Tegan Cottell-Moore reports: ‘[The Applicant] has displayed exceptional capacity to address and process her trauma and reflect on her role in areas of life that hold room for improvement or require more healthy and positive choices. Ashlee has been consistent in all areas of personal growth, from education to working at DPFC and most significantly throughout her therapy journey. Ashlee has displayed consistent and positive emotional growth and had developed and began implementing various learnt emotional regulation techniques and mindfulness practices’.
Counsel contend Ms Frost has demonstrated exemplary behaviour during her incarceration noting Mr Young, senior prison officer, described her as a ‘positive role model within the facility’, and observing that Ms Frost’s behaviour has been commendable, earning her ‘trust-based positions such as peer educator, where she supported new arrivals by guiding them through prison processes and offering assistance. Additionally, she has served as a billet in the prisoner shop’.
Counsel contend Ms Frost’s remorse was evident throughout her testimony to the Tribunal. And was echoed by the testimony of her father and her gambling counsellor. Counsel again drew the Tribunal to the sentencing remarks of Judge Chambers who spoke of Ms Frost’s early guilty plea, as ‘demonstrative of the fact that [the Applicant] accept responsibility for [the] offending and it an indication of [the Applicant’s] remorse’. Similarly, Judge Chambers recognised Ms Frost’s immediate and detailed admissions to police upon her arrest, during which she ‘fully described the mechanism by which [she] offended’.
Counsel contend Ms Frost has demonstrated not only remorse but significant insight into her offending and the impact it has had on the victims of her fraud by voluntarily entering into a judgment in the Federal Court to make repayments to the victims for the false travel credit scheme. Counsel again took the Tribunal to the remarks of Judge Chambers who highlighted this voluntary action as being demonstrative of Ms Frost’s remorse and acceptance of responsibility for her offending.
Counsel contend the Tribunal could take comfort in the number of protective factors in place to support Ms Frost if she is released back into the Australian community including:
·Developing a ‘relapse prevention plan’ with her Gambler’s Help Counsellor
·Ongoing counselling support from Gambler’s Help Counsellor
·Ongoing support from her Outreach Case Manager and Advocacy Worker at Flat Out
·An offer of paid employment upon release as a peer worker at About Time for Justice in Brisbane
·Physical and emotional support from her father, Mr John Mitchell, who has offered to house Ashlee, assist her to find employment and pursue further education.
Counsel contended Ms Frost’s evidence was very frank and that she had not sought help during her offending as she was in denial; she kept her serious gambling addiction and offending secret; had no support for past trauma or diagnosis of mental health conditions; and was a full-time carer of two very young children who depended on her for everything.
Counsel contended this was in stark contrast to Ms Frost’s present situation as she now has significant protective factors available on release into the community which were not present before imprisonment. Counsel submitted Ms Frost’s evidence was:
·Her father will support her with housing, finding employment, with her daughters and with her rehabilitation by checking in on her, taking her to appointments and making sure she does not become overwhelmed and that this was corroborated by her father that he will support her in any way he can, that his support before was not ideal as he did not appreciate the extent of his daughter’s gambling addiction.
·She has extensive supports both pre- and post- release and that these and other related services will be available to her whether she serves out her parole in Victoria or Queensland.
Counsel submitted given the significant work Ms Frost has done on herself whilst in prison, her risk of re-offending is low. Counsel contended Ms Frost was a case in which the criminal justice system has served its purpose to both punish and rehabilitate.
Counsel conceded that Ms Frost had been extremely candid with the Tribunal, accepting that she will need to continue to work to manage her gambling addiction. However, Counsel submitted Ms Frost did not fail the character test for gambling, which is a legal acidity. But it is conceded that there is a direct connection between Ms Frost’s gambling and offending, and the Tribunal could take comfort in the fact Ms Frost is now aware of a number of steps or 'red flags' that would be very apparent to both herself and trusted supports such as Ms De Giorgio and her father, well before she could engage in any further offending. Counsel submitted Ms Frost has taken extensive steps to minimise her risk of gambling again including putting in place bans in over 400 sites including online gambling and all casinos; knowing she has access to a 24-hour counselling service and a direct line to Ms De Giorgio. Counsel submitted if Ms Frost should she feel the urge to gamble she has a plan to deal with it and now has many protective factors that will keep her in a safe zone away from the path she previously took.
Counsel submitted Ms De Giorgio’s evidence was persuasive and should carry considerable weight with the Tribunal. That Ms De Giorgio was positively persuaded in her professional capacity that Ms Frost has expressed remorse to her, shown considerable personal growth and her time in custody was a circuit breaker.
Counsel contended the Respondent’s submissions on Ms Frost’s level of remorse nor that she had undertaken the recommendations in Ms Cidoni’s report that largely rely on reports and statements which pre-date all the work Ms Frost has done in prison. Counsel submitted Ms Frost’s and Ms De Giorgio’s evidence was that since being in prison, Ms Frost has undertaken numerous courses to facilitate her rehabilitation, both prior to and whilst serving her sentence. Counsel contended the Respondent’s submissions were simply incorrect that Ms Frost had not undertaken targeted therapeutic interventions to address her addictive behaviours, mental health concerns and to provide coping strategies for emotional regulation. Counsel submitted the evidence clearly demonstrated Ms Frost had engaged in extensive and targeted therapeutic counselling including Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) to address her gambling addiction with Gamblers Help Therapeutic Counsellors, developed a 'Gambling Relapse Prevention Plan’ and undertaken financial counselling setting a SMART Goal to manage her finances and debt post release from prison.
Counsel submitted the Tribunal should place little weight on the report provided by the Respondent in relation to associations between gambling, substance misuse and recidivism among Canadian offenders as it does not fit Ms Frost’s profile. Counsel submitted the report focused on male offenders with a median age range of 41, incarcerated for a median period of 6.7 years for non-sexual violent offences, sexual offences or non-violent offences who are also problem gamblers with substance use disorders.
Counsel submitted it had provided two reports which support the contention that Ms Frost’s treatment will eventuate in positive outcomes for her rehabilitation:
·‘Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy for Gambling Addiction’, Steliana Rizeanu:
Cognitive-behavioral therapy is currently considered the most efficient method of treatment for gambling disorder; this type of therapy postulates the fact that the irrational thoughts tied to the ability of a person to control the game and predict the win represent the main factors which determine the development and the maintenance of this pathology [39-45].
·Blaszczynsky introduced a complete self-help program for compulsive gamblers which comprises the following steps:
oIncreasing the motivation to stop the game.
oMonitoring gambling behaviour.
oControlling the impulse to gamble by following relaxation techniques.
oIdentifying irrational thoughts and replacing them with other rationalities.
oPreventing relapse.
oLearning new ways of getting family support.
·‘Predictors of outcomes of psychological treatments for disordered gambling: A systematic review’
The aim of this review was to identify and critically review the available evidence for post-treatment, short-term, medium-term and long-term gambling outcomes following psychological treatment for disordered gambling.
Results indicated that males produced better outcomes than females across multiple evaluation periods (short-term, and medium-term), with the exception of post-treatment where females produced better outcomes than males.
Counsel submitted these reports highlight the positive impacts of CBT which Ms Frost has engaged in with her Gambling Help Counsellor but that the articles cannot take the Tribunal any further as each person has their own issues.
Respondent
The Respondent highlighted that the Direction holds that tolerance for future offending reduces with its seriousness, and therefore contended that very heavy weight against revocation should be placed on this primary consideration. As Ms Frost’s offending was obviously very serious and the Australian community’s tolerance of risk of future harm should be regarded as low.
The Respondent contented in assessing Ms Frost’s risk, the Tribunal must have regard, cumulatively to the nature of the harm to individuals and the community if she reoffends and the likelihood of her reoffending.
The Respondent further contented in addition to the seriousness of Ms Frost’s offending, including its effects on victims, the Tribunal should be mindful of the views of the Commonwealth Fraud Prevention Centre that the impact of fraud goes well beyond financial loss, impacting people, industries, entities, services and the environment. The Respondent contented fraud is not victimless, it can be a 'traumatic experience that often causes real and irreversible impacts for victims, their families, carers and community' it can have a 'devasting impact' increasing the 'disadvantage, vulnerability and inequality they suffer'.
The Respondent contended the risk of Ms Frost engaging in further criminal conduct is significant because:
·She engaged in frequent, repeat offending over a 4-year period and was not constrained by consideration of the negative impact of it on her victims, her family or herself.
·She admitted to Ms Cidoni that she was 'heavily addicted' to gambling for 10 years, from the age 19 to 29, which is a considerable period and shows Ms Frost has barely experienced any adult life at liberty when she has not suffered this addiction. The extended period of her addiction does not augur well for her overcoming this addiction when she is once again at liberty.
·She did not seek help with her gambling addiction over that period despite having a supportive family and social network; Judge Chambers concluded that 'you had ample opportunity to reflect upon the wrongfulness of your actions and to stop to seek help, but you did not.'
·Her behaviour was not constrained by the imposition of bail conditions, as she continued to gamble and offend when on bail and her offending only ceased when she was arrested and placed into custody.
·There is real doubt about the sincerity of Ms Frost’s remorse and the extent of her insight. Although she made some repayments, she also continued to reoffend, so her repayments are not indicative of lasting or effectual remorse. That Community Corrections Officer Ms Divitcos noted in August 2023 that Ms Frost 'did not express remorse or shed any insight in relation to the victims' and Ms Cidoni assessed her 'insight and judgment as poor.'
·Ms Frost has not taken adequate steps, and none are proposed, to address psychological risks that led to her offending:
oMs Cidoni's testing revealed 'elevations for a compulsive and melancholic personality pattern' including 'irresistible compulsive behaviours, including severe gambling.' And she concluded that her 'compulsive decision-making and difficulties in managing emotions, increasing the likelihood of engaging in behaviours that may lead to reoffending'.
oJudge Chambers accepted that her decision-making at the time of offending was impaired by reason of her ongoing addiction to gambling and her alcohol abuse.
oMs Frost has undertaken no treatment for alcohol abuse.
oMs Frost has engaged in counselling for gambling, but this falls short of Ms Cidoni's recommendation that to mitigate risks it is 'important for her to undergo targeted therapeutic interventions that address her addictive behaviours' ... incorporating 'cognitive-behavioural therapy to target her addictions'.
·Evaluations of Ms Frost’s risk of reoffending are concerning, particularly in circumstances where the community’s tolerance of risk of future harm is low.
oThe sentencing judge ‘could not assess your future prospects with unqualified optimism’.
oMs Cidoni recommended the risk be ameliorated by taking certain steps; these steps have not been taken.
oCommunity Corrections Officer Ms Divitcos assessed Ms Frost as having a ‘medium risk’ of reoffending.
oMs Frost’s rehabilitation has not been tested outside of the controlled prison environment. Therefore, the Tribunal is unable to give any weight to rehabilitation achieved since the applicant has been in the community.
·The challenges of living independently in the community will create considerable risk of relapse:
oMs Frost has very limited social supports or family to assist her if she is released into the community. Notwithstanding a large number of family members live in Australia she cites only one, her father, who lives in North Queensland, as a potential future support. This will be of little practical use considering the applicant intends to live in Melbourne.
oMs Frost’s plans depend upon prison-related services, which will be of limited duration.
oMs Frost has very substantial debts and financial hardship has been identified as something that drove her towards gambling (even when she was making $90,000 a year at CSL, a salary she will be unlikely to attain post-release working for About Time for Justice, and her partner was earning $150,000 per year).

The Respondent contended the risk of Ms Frost reoffending is not low based on the research submitted by both Ms Frost’s representative and the Minister. The Respondent contended fundamentally the takeaway from the reports for the Tribunal is that there is a significant link between problem gamblers and recidivism, as there currently were no known cures for gambling addiction.
The Respondent contended the study sighted in the International Gambling Studies demonstrated a link between gambling problems and predicted post-release criminal recidivism even when accounting for past criminal behaviour, impulse control traits and substance misuse.
Although gambling problems added uniquely to the prediction of criminal recidivism, the co-occurrence of drug misuse and gambling problems did not have additive predictive effects. This non-significant moderating effect suggests that even though drug use and gambling were related in this sample, gambling alone was related to recidivism with or without co-morbid drug use.
Additionally, the Respondent contended the articles provided by Ms Frost’s representative also reinforce the risk of recidivism. The articles were reviewing whether or not gambling disorder can be overcome through the best available therapies. The Respondent contended the results are very problematic, with one on CBT concluding that we know too little about treating effectiveness of gambling disorder and the other which surveyed success rates post treatment can range from 30% to 80%.
The advantages of cognitive-behavioral therapy refers to the fact that it is a well-structured type of therapy, it is carried out on a limited period of time, it requires limited costs compared to the other types of therapy, and it produces long-term benefits and supposedly the fall off the risk of relapse [6, 15, 36, 43]. Success rates of this type of therapy for gambling disorder within the studies that have been carried out so far have ranged from 36% [25] to 42% [56]; to 72% [57]; to 77% [40]; to 49% [36]; and 74% [43].
The Respondent contended this was a very unhelpful range indicating that treatment is not working, and the results also suggest treatment will not assist Ms Frost as being male and having lower levels of depression are the most consistent predictors of successful treatment outcomes.
The Respondent contended the Tribunal should have some concern to the objectivity of Ms De Giorgio who appeared to tailor her responses to support her contention Ms Frost was at low risk of reoffending.
The Respondent contended when the Tribunal raised with Ms De Giorgio the issue of recidivism, she said ‘I would trust Ashlee’ and that was a personal not professional opinion. The Respondent contended this did not advance the evidence to support Ms Frost’s assertion that she was of low risk of recidivism as people do trust Ashlee and have been betrayed in the trust.
The Respondent contended the only psychological evaluation Ms Frost had undertaken was done by Ms Cidoni, 10 months after her imprisonment and after Ms Frost had already had 8 sessions with the Gambler’s Help counsellor. The Respondent contended this was of concern as Ms Cidoni had diagnosed Ms Frost as having severe gambling disorder and Ms Cidoni’s evaluation was that Ms Frost displayed remorse but not insight or judgement.
The Respondent contended Ms Cidoni’s evaluation was that Ms Frost’s risk of offending was influenced by a range of factors including gambling addictions, impulsive behaviour and in addition to treatment for her addiction she also required specialised medical health support to deal with her mental health issues. The Respondent contended to date this crucial support had not happened and some vague plan to refer Ms Frost post release to the Alfred for medical assessment was very underdeveloped and therefore a very unknown part of Ms Frost’s rehabilitation.
The Respondent contended Ms Frost appeared like a kind remorseful person but questioned how Ms Frost went from having no or little remorse to now years later being filled with so much remorse. The Respondent took the Tribunal to the Queensland Police Service Court Brief (General) which stated:
On the 25th of March 2022, the defendant participated in an Electronic Record of Interview. The defendant denied any knowledge of the offences however did state she had bank accounts with the listed banks. The defendant stated she has sold many items on the Facebook Marketplace but had not been scamming anyone. The defendant stated she believed someone to be impersonating her. During the interview, the defendant requested to speak to her solicitor prior to continuing with the interview. Police concluded the interview and arrested the defendant and opposed her bail.
The Respondent contended Ms Frost’s offending was personal, she continually manipulated people, without feeling much remorse, her family and friends had no idea she would do such a thing, and many have not forgiven her. The Respondent contended Ms Frost’s remorse and presentation may be self-serving to get what she wants to be released from prison and remain in Australia. Contending this may not be reform but Ms Frost’s sheer determined self-interest, as she demonstrated during her offending to get what she wants. Additionally, the Respondent pointed out Ms Frost has demonstrated she is very good at deception.
The Respondent contended the Tribunal needed to carefully consider Ms Frost’s testimony as it had shifted during the course of her submissions and could not give the Tribunal the level of comfort required to consider Ms Frost would not pose a risk to the community if granted the privilege of remaining in Australia.
Summary finding
The Tribunal, having regard to the evidence before it finds that Ms Frost’s offending, for which she was convicted, was very serious.
The Tribunal accepted that Ms Frost’s gambling addiction was the root cause of her offending and this in turn was driven by her underlying undiagnosed mental health conditions. The Tribunal relied upon the report of Ms Cidoni:
53. There were elevations for a compulsive and melancholic personality pattern, indicating characteristics such as a tendency toward introversion, sensitivity to criticism, preference for routine, and irresistible compulsive behaviours, including severe gambling. This addictive tendency led her to serious legal problems and contributed to ongoing depressive symptoms. Trauma further exacerbated symptoms of generalized anxiety, post-traumatic stress, and major depression. Additionally, the alcoholism scales were elevated, pointing to an ongoing vulnerability to substance abuse.
and the sentencing remarks of Her Honour Judge Chambers:
89 Based on Ms Cidoni's assessment, I am satisfied that limb 5 of the authority in Verdins13 is enlivened in that your diagnosed complex PTSD is likely to make your time in custody more difficult than that experienced by others without this condition, adding to the burden of your imprisonment.
90 On your behalf Mr Moore also submits that the conclusions of Ms Cidoni enliven other Verdins considerations and in particular operate to reduce your moral culpability for your offending and warrant moderation in general deterrence. In making this submission, Mr Moore relies upon the conclusion of Ms Cidoni that your 'experiences and psychological sequelae have likely interacted with your pre-disposition to gambling', which, together with alcohol, operate as a 'coping mechanism'. In particular, Ms Cidoni states:
'At the time of the alleged offence, her mental state was influenced by her gambling addiction and heavy drinking. In combination these factors contributed to impaired decision-making and emotional regulation difficulties leading to her engaging in financial deceptions.'
91For the principles in Limbs 1 to 4 of Verdins to have application, there needs to be some connection between the impaired mental functioning, in this case your diagnosed complex PTSD and your moral culpability for the offending. In other words, the impaired mental functioning must have some 'realistic connection' with the offending or have 'caused or contributed' to the offending.14 On the material before me, whilst I am satisfied you do suffer a complex PTSD, the conclusion of Ms Cidoni is that your decision-making was impaired, not as a result of your mental health condition, but by reason of your ongoing addiction to gambling and alcohol abuse.
Whilst the Tribunal accepted that Ms Frost’s gambling addiction drove her offending, the Tribunal did not consider her addiction mitigated, excused, or diminished her offending. Given the link between Ms Frost’s gambling addiction and her offending behaviour, the Tribunal does, however, agree that her remission from her addiction and her ability to stay away from any gambling is a relevant factor to be considered in assessing the likelihood of her reoffending.
The Tribunal found Ms Frost to be a credible and frank witness who did not seek to minimise or downplay the seriousness of her deception or the pain and suffering she has caused her numerous victims. The Tribunal found Ms Frost’s statements and evidence to the Tribunal painted a picture of a person who is remorseful for her actions and has gained genuine insight into her offending.
The Tribunal accepted the Respondent’s submissions that Ms Frost is good at deception, Ms Frost told the Tribunal herself she was bad at gambling but good at fraud. However, the Tribunal did not accept Ms Frost’s whole presentation, since her time in prison until now has been one long rouse to gain what she wants, for her to be free and to return to fraudulent activity to fuel her compulsorily gamble addiction. The Tribunal did not accept the characterisation that Ms Frost had shifted her evidence to her advantage and found the evidence did corroborate she had made full and frank admissions to the Police on arrest and that she was relieved when it all was out in the open after she was charged with her Victorian offences. The Tribunal relied upon the following:
Queensland Police Service Court Brief (General):
On the 3rd of November 2021, Investigators from Moranbah Criminal Investigation Branch executed a Search Warrant upon the defendant at During the execution, Police seized a mobile telephone and identity document. At the conclusion of the Search Warrant, the defendant accompanied Police to Moranbah Police Station and participated in an Electronic Record of Interview. During the interview the defendant made admissions to intentionally making dishonest agreements on the Facebook Marketplace however could not particularise any individual offences. The defendant stated she needed money for a specific reason but would not disclose it to Investigators, the defendant appeared remorseful.
The Tribunal relied on Ms Frost’s frank evidence and numerous statements that she is genuinely remorseful for her serious criminal activity. The Tribunal also accepted that Ms Frost has sought out and has taken advantage of all avenues to deal with her addiction and risk of recidivism. The Tribunal relied upon Ms Frost’s evidence:
Ms Oppel: It didn’t seem to make much difference to you who they were
Ms Frost: No… I think I said this earlier, at the time I was trying to feed my gambling addiction… I’m not disputing who I was, I know that the things I did were horrible. I am very well aware of that. It didn’t matter who it was.
Ms Oppel: I think you said in your oral evidence too that at the time you didn’t feel remorse, you had tunnel vision.
Ms Frost: I don’t think I said I never felt remorse. I did have tunnel vision, all I could think about in that moment and the time I was gambling was getting money to gamble… there was a big part of me that would get money and think I’ve got to pay these people back, how am I gonna do this… try and gamble it to double it… it’s not that I don’t ever feel remorse for it… I had tunnel vision on being able to gamble.
…
Ms Oppel: Your evidence was that when you got arrested it was a kind of relief
Ms Frost: Yes, especially the Victoria arresting…
Ms Oppel: On page 96, it says the plan for coping with unhelpful thinking, what thoughts cause you problems and are not helpful to your progress and they give examples, such as blaming others and saying the system is at fault, justifications, excuses to gamble, thoughts that have led to previous relapses and so on. Now as I understand it, in cognitive behavioural therapy undoing unhelpful thinking is a big part of what it’s all about and your counsellor provided academic document about how cognitive behavioural therapy works when its trying to deal with people addicted to gambling and it gives lots of examples of unhelpful thinking that causes people to believe they can continue gambling and its not a problem. Justifications about why gambling will work for them, for example, blaming other people if you relapse and things like that. Your unhelpful thought that you have put in here is that “I’ve hurt so many people”, how is that an unhelpful thought that is part of your gambling problem. The unhelpful thought being something that encourages you to go back to gambling.
Ms Frost: … Yes, the thought is “I’ve hurt so many people”. So, what happens is I get really down on myself, I get really really upset with myself, I feel horrible, and I start thinking I’ve hurt so many people, how am I gonna make things right. This is dealing with my regulating my emotions. So that’s what happens to me. I think I lock myself in my room and think… I’ve ruined my life, I’ve ruined people’s lives, I’ve hurt people, I’ve hurt so many people, I’m in jail, I’m not out there making things right and I go into a spiral. And that’s what I believe this was…
Ms Oppel: And how to cope with it, you responded “change my thinking which will lead to positive actions”
Ms Frost: … If you’re saying to yourself I’m not making this right you need to change your thought to how can I make this right… instead of saying I’ve f****** my whole life your thought should be how can I make my life better…
Ms Oppel: Ms Cidoni really highlights impulse control as a major problem you need to address to stop gambling, would you agree with that?
Ms Frost: I would agree that I struggled with impulse control.
…
Member: Have you discussed with Peter the addiction and his thoughts and if you get to stay, have you had conversations like that with him?
Ms Frost: Yes
Member: And what have you two discussed?
Ms Frost: The beginning discussions were just, why did I do it?... what was I thinking? Why didn’t I ask him for help? We’ve got kids… recently our discussions have been that he is hopeful that I have done all the work I can in here and that the kids miss me so much…
Ms Oppel: If he is hopeful of all that and he’s told you he is hopeful of all that, why didn’t you ask him to write you a supporting letter?
Ms Frost: It’s just really hard for me to reach out and we’re in a really good place… and I don’t want to rock the boat. It’s probably my own insecurities, there’s no exact reason.
…
Ms Oppel: My concern is that you’ve, you will be going out in a perhaps more vulnerable position than you were before. Before when you offended you had a family, you had a husband, children, your wider family and friends were supportive of you… and now you’ll be going out with what’s corroborated as support as your father and cousin, extremely limited family support. You also produced a couple of references from friends who live in Melbourne. I’m putting to you that your support in terms of the people, friends and family will be significantly less than you had before when you offended.
Ms Frost: I don’t believe so. I won’t have as many people supporting me… I’ve got my sister across the road, I’ve got my step-mum and these are supports that are now well aware… They supported me before, but they didn’t know I had a gambling addiction… The financial pressure, I’ve had almost all my debt wiped by my financial counsellor because I have been incarcerated… I will have that restitution to pay back, I understand that but I’m not trying to get anywhere fast… I don’t think I will have extreme financial pressure.
The Tribunal also relied upon Ms Cidoni’s report, the remarks of her Honour Judge Chambers, Ms De Giorgio’s and Ms Frost’s father’s evidence that they all found Ms Frost extremely remorseful of her actions.
Contrary to the Respondent’s view, the Tribunal accepted that Ms Frost has sought and engaged with all professional supports available to her whilst in prison to deal with her gambling addiction and mental health issues. All of Ms Frost’s actions demonstrated to the Tribunal that she was doing everything she can to be free of her gambling addiction, no longer engage in criminal activity and to be reunited with her young daughters.
The Tribunal relied on Ms De Giorgio’s oral evidence finding it thoughtful and based on a full appreciation of the issues of chronic gambling. The Tribunal having undertaken its own research found as highlighted in Ms De Giorgio’s testimony there is little research undertaken for gambling addiction or gambling transition and recidivism. The research does suggest that people definitely transition between different levels of gambling use and harm but the ability to stop start gambling is not clear. Unlike drug and alcohol addiction it is hard to assess if some is clean, there is no known medication to reduce or stop gambling and the outward signs of a gambling addiction can be easy to hide from the world.
The Tribunal was not persuaded by the Respondent that because there is no effective treatment of gambling addiction Ms Frost can fundamentally never be trusted again. The Tribunal concurs with Ms Frost’s representative that Ms Frost’s visa had not been revoked because of her gambling addiction but her fraud. The Tribunal is persuaded that Ms Frost has in place the necessary protective factors to ensure she will not gamble again and if she does will have the necessary help to stop before it spirals out of control to where she has to turn to deceiving others to fund her habit.
The Tribunal relied upon the various articles submitted by the parties to arrive at this conclusion. Based on the evidence the Tribunal accepted Ms Frost’s gambling was not driven by a desire for financial gain and was exasperated by her underlying undiagnosed mental health conditions. The Tribunal notes that Ms Frost is now receiving treatment and medication for her generalized anxiety, post-traumatic stress, and major depression diagnosed by Ms Cidoni.
Predictors of outcomes of psychological treatments for disordered gambling:
Overall, there is a growing interest in understanding the relationship between client and treatment characteristics and treatment outcomes in the gambling field. Based on the current available evidence, however, limited conclusions can be drawn. The results suggest that being male and lower levels of depression are the most consistent predictors of successful treatment outcomes, with significant findings identified across multiple evaluation periods. Other likely predictors of treatment success (at post-treatment and medium-term) include older age, having significant other, less severe pre-treatment gambling severity, lower levels of gambling behaviours, less alcohol use and greater number of sessions attended. Furthermore, potential predictors of treatment success, with significant findings identified at a single time- point only include employment status, ethnicity, no gambling debt, personality traits (i.e., neuroticism and impulsive sensation seeking), being in the action stage of change and a higher number of treatment sessions attended. In contrast, mixed results were identified for treatment goal. Moreover, education, income, preferred gambling activity, problem gambling duration, anxiety, any psychiatric comorbidity, psychological distress, substance use, prior gambling treatment and medication use were not significantly associated with treatment outcomes at anytime-point. Importantly, this review highlights the need for further research that employs consistent reporting frameworks and the examination of client, treatment and therapist predictor variables across long follow-up periods. The findings of this review have important implications for gambling treatment providers and researchers alike as new treatments are developed or personalised to meet individual needs. This is particularly relevant where characteristics are malleable and amenable to change.
study sighted in the International Gambling Studies:
In this study, sensation seeking and poor premeditation were the most robust predictors of future crime, suggesting that desire for excitement and acting without thinking were important factors in participants’ return to crime. It may be that additional measures that better capture trait need for excitement and action without forethought, or measures of related constructs, may have more fully explained these participants’ problem behaviours.
Third, it may be that an additional unmeasured construct unrelated to impulse control may have fully accounted for the relationship with gambling and crime. For example, association with criminal others or positive attitudes toward risky ventures could explain both behaviours. As such, there may be no direct causal link between gambling and recidivism, but some other feature may explain both behaviours, whether an unmeasured component of impulse control or a construct unrelated to impulse control.

Additionally, Counsel contended the best interest of Ms Frost’s nieces and nephews also weigh in favour of revoking the cancellation decision.
Respondent
Counsel contended moderate weight in Ms Frost’s favour should be afforded to this consideration.
Counsel submitted the factors that must be considered under Direction 110, which give rise to only moderate weight being assigned in Ms Frost’s favour, as follows:
·Ms Frost’s former partner Mr Frost currently fulfils the children's parental role.
·Ms Frost will be able to maintain communication via phone and social media, as per whatever arrangements she makes with Mr Frost. Ms Frost acknowledges that Mr Frost may bring her children to visit her in New Zealand, and the evidence would indicate he would have the financial means to do so.
·Ms Frost’s claim that it is her and Mr Frost's intention 'to have equal custody’ should also not be accepted by the Tribunal as there was no evidence of his agreement to this and there is evidence that he is disposed to limit contact.
·Ms Frost’s offending, and the pattern of offending to sustain her gambling addiction, impacted negatively on her children and she herself states it had 'a huge impact.' Ms Frost described spending money intended for groceries for the family on gambling, and Mr Frost coming home and questioning her about why 'there wasn't much food' and her blaming the children. Ms Frost herself admitted she didn't spend money on her daughters, every single cent went into gambling.
·Ms Frost used her daughter's name as an alias for a Facebook identity through which she repeatedly committed theft. Many of her victims were women and some were children; she promised a mother that she would provide a Disney Princess Birthday set up for her 4- and 1-year-old daughters but instead stole her money.
·There is a very real risk that Ms Frost will again become addicted to gambling, leading to offending and future incarceration which will again cause trauma for the children in the event that she is able to re-establish a positive relationship with them prior to that happening.
Summary finding
The Tribunal finds that there should be no dispute that it is obviously in the best interest of the minor children that their mother remains in Australia and the mandatory cancellation of her Visa is revoked.
The actual task for the Tribunal is not to somehow diminish the importance of this consideration, but to determine what weight to place on it. The Tribunal does not accept that Ms Frost’s younger child will have no memory of her, that the children’s father fulfils the parental role so that the absence of their mother will have no impact and that video calls will ensure an ongoing mother-daughter relationship. The extensive research on the imperativeness of parental figures particularly mothers in young children’s lives cannot be ignored. In the article from Ms Frost’s representative the author states:
In my psychiatric and therapeutic practice, I work with children and adults who as children experienced unexpected and lasting separation from their parents. Some fare better than others. Some struggle with major psychiatric disorders, whereas others have no psychiatric diagnosis. Yet, their feeling of safety and trust in others is compromised. The impact of separation trauma is everlasting.
The feeling of safety and the associated ability to bond with others, the ability to detect and respond to threat, as well as the ability to regulate one’s own emotions and stress are vital. Early reprogramming of neural circuits underlying these functions can directly or indirectly alter the child’s physical, emotional and cognitive development and causes lifelong changes.
The Tribunal accepted the evidence of Ms Frost’s father and the submission of her cousin Ms Johnson that Ms Frost has played a significant and positive role in her daughters’ lives. Ms Johnson’s statement of 9 December 2024:
It has been hard for G and she has cried for her mum. It would be really hard for them to be separated from their mother. Peter hasn’t allowed much contact with her girls so I don’t know how he would make it work for Ashlee to keep the relationship with her daughters if she went back to New Zealand.
I will always be there for Ashlee regardless of whatever happens. I want her to be a better person for herself and also for her daughters. It will be an adjustment for her to come out of prison but we will be there to support her through it as she needs us
Whilst there is no dispute that Ms Frost’s risk of separation from her children is very much of her own making, nevertheless the Tribunal cannot conceive of anyone accepting that it is children’s best interest to be separated from their mother. The Tribunal reflected on the words of Prime Minister Gillard in the National Apology for Forced Adoptions on 21 March 2013:
Today, this Parliament, on behalf of the Australian people, takes responsibility and apologises for the policies and practices that forced the separation of mothers from their babies, which created a lifelong legacy of pain and suffering.
The Tribunal concurs with the submission of Ms Frost’s representative that there is no substitute for physical contact and endorsed by the Senior Members Tavoularis’s and Nikolic’s findings in Khalil and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2022] AATA 3563 at 116:
‘the general proposition that indefinite separation of children from a parent has the potential to cause them harm. Moreover, contact by telephone and video calls is a poor substitute for close physical contact between children and loving parents’
The Tribunal finds that the best interest of Ms Frost’s daughter’s G and J would be greatly impacted by the cancellation their mother’s visa. The Tribunal based on the evidence was persuaded that Ms Frost would never have any meaningful contact with her daughters in the future if her visa was cancelled.
The Tribunal made no finding in respect of the impact of Ms Frost’s nieces and nephews as there was insufficient evidence before the Tribunal to make a determination.
The Tribunal must consider as rightly, pointed out by the Respondent, the cumulative weight to be given to the protection and expectations of the Australian community and determine does this consideration, the best interest of the children, outweigh the seriousness of Ms Frost’s offending and the risk of her reoffending.
I find that this consideration weighs heavily in favour of revocation.
Primary Consideration 5: Expectations of the Australian community
This consideration expresses that where a non-citizen has breached the expectation that they obey the law, or engage in serious conduct in breach of the expectation, that they not be allowed to remain in Australia (8.5(1)). The Direction also provides that non-revocation may be appropriate due to the particular nature of character concerns that arise, including from acts of family violence, and commission of crimes against government representatives or officials, regardless of whether there is a measurable risk of physical harm to the Australian community (8.5(2)-(3)). The Tribunal is not to conduct an independent assessment of what might constitute community expectations in a particular case (8.5(4)).
The Direction highlights specific categories of identified offences: 8.5(2)(a) - acts of family violence; 8.5(2)(c) - commission of serious crimes against, inter alia, women and children, and serious crimes of a violent or sexual nature; 8.5(2)(d) - commission of crimes against government representatives due to the positions they hold, or in the performance of their duties.
Submissions
Ms Frost
Counsel contended the Tribunal should give less weight to this norm as there is limited risk of Ms Frost re-offending.
Counsel submitted Ms Frost does not pose a real risk of harm to the Australian community as she has engaged in extensive rehabilitation and therapy in custody.
Counsel contented this assessment was supported by Ms De Giorgio’s evidence who said that with the work Ms Frost has done in custody and the supports that she has put in place she was less likely to return to gambling. But Ms De Giorgio also stated there were no guarantees however even if Ms Frost wanted to gamble she would have significant hurdles to surmount including extensive bans and supports who are now fully aware of the extent of her addiction.
Counsel contented Ms De Giorgio’s evidence clearly demonstrated the Tribunal could have comfort Ms Frost was a low risk of reoffending. Counsel noted Ms De Giorgio stated she would not have come to court to speak on behalf of many people she has worked with but she had been blown away by the work Ms Frost has done on herself to deal with her addiction and it was her professional assessment that she would trust Ashlee on the outside.
Respondent
Counsel contended the Tribunal should give significant weight to this consideration in favour of a determination that there is not another reason for revoking the visa cancellation.
Counsel contended Ms Frost has failed to obey Australian laws, has breached the Australian community’s expectations in this regard by committing cumulatively, considered, very serious fraud, exploiting the circumstances of the pandemic and her victims’ inability to verify travel arrangements as well as their ignorance of online purchasing and their economic vulnerabilities at that time.
Counsel submitted there is a high risk of Ms Frost committing further offences of a very serious nature, and that risk is unacceptable. In such circumstances, the Australian community’s expectation is that her visa cancellation not be revoked.
Summary finding
When considering this factor, the Tribunal notes the matter of LZGG and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2020] AATA 107 where the Member observed:
In considering the harm and potential risk to the Australian community if the Applicant were to reoffend in the future, the Tribunal is mindful of the nature and seriousness of his offending and the vulnerability of his victim. However, this is mitigated by his remorse, guilty plea, sincere efforts at rehabilitation and assessment as being at low risk of reoffending.
When balancing the seriousness of the offence and the risk of reoffending, the Tribunal has decided that medium weight in favour of non-revocation is to be given to this Primary Consideration.
And the matter of FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185:
As Mortimer J said in Tanielu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 673; (2014) 225 FCR 424 at [127], the visa cancellation and refusal powers conferred by s 501 of the Act involves the evaluation of "competing and conflicting interests as between an individual who may be excluded from Australia and the interests of the Australian community". The relative weight to be ascribed to each consideration bearing on the exercise of the discretion is a question in respect of which reasonable minds may differ. The Direction generally requires the decision-maker to give relatively more weight to some considerations than to others so as to achieve like results in like cases, so far as that may be done without imposing impermissible fetters on the discretion conferred on the decision-maker. The expectations of the Australian community is one such consideration.
Before proceeding further it must be emphasised that cl 11.3 does not purport to preclude the decision-maker from reaching his or her own view as to whether the non-citizen should or should not be granted a visa, as the decision-maker must necessarily do. The question that arises on this appeal is not whether the decision-maker is precluded from doing so, but whether the decision-maker's own assessment of the appropriate outcome is relevant to the task of identifying the content of the expectations of the Australian community under cl 11.3 of the Direction. The clause implicitly recognises that the decision-maker's assessment as to whether or not a visa should be granted may differ from the expectations of the Australian community, as the government has deemed those expectations to be.
I have accepted the Minister's submission that cl 11.3 is intended to give effect to the principle that the Minister may make a statement of the government's views about the expectations of the Australian community, which statement may be acted on by the person conferred with the power in a particular case, as recognised in Uelese. In my view, the task of the decision-maker is to identify what is the "government's view" about community expectations in the particular case, to "have due regard" to that view and to "generally" afford that view more weight than other non-primary considerations in accordance with cl 8(4). The phrase "may be appropriate" does not permit the decision-maker to equate the expectations of the Australian community (as expressed in cl 11.3) with the decision-maker's own view as to the preferable outcome in the ultimate exercise of the discretion. To construe cl 11.3 in that way would be to ignore the fact that the clause is intended to express a consideration that is capable of being given more weight relative to "other considerations" in the exercise of the discretion, as cl 8(4) of the Direction generally requires. The primary judge was correct to say that importing into cl 11.3 all countervailing factors bearing on the ultimate decision would render cl 8(4) of the Direction unworkable.
Having regard to all that is said above, cl 11.3 should be understood as expressing a deemed community expectation that all persons who have committed serious criminal offences giving rise to character concerns should have their visa applications refused. The nature of the character test is such that the deemed expectation will arise in most if not all cases falling for consideration under s 501(1) of the Act, having regard to the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen's conduct, assessed in accordance with cl 11.1. The text of the clause emphasises that it may be appropriate to act in accordance with that expectation, so anticipating a class of cases in which it may not be appropriate to do so.
The question of whether it is appropriate to act in accordance with the deemed community expectation is in all cases left for the decision-maker to determine in the ultimate exercise of his or her discretion. Flexibility in the decision-making process is reinforced by cl 8(4), which requires no more than that the government's assessment of community expectations is "generally" to be afforded greater weight than the "other considerations" listed non-exhaustively in cl 12. The word "generally" contemplates a case in which the decision-maker considers it appropriate not to afford the expectation of the Australian community more weight than favourable countervailing factors arising for consideration under cl 12. There may be cases in which it is not appropriate to give the community expectations discerned under cl 11.3 any weight at all.
In my view, the degrees of tolerance referred to in cl 6.3(5) and cl 6.3(7) are matters that fall for consideration by the decision-maker in the ultimate exercise of his or her discretion. They are factors that may be taken into account in determining whether it is appropriate to give more or less weight to a deemed community expectation of visa refusal that might otherwise arise simply because of the nature of the non-citizen's character concerns or offences.
The community expectations, as I construe cl 11.3(1), speak normatively; they are to be applied in every case but they are not expressed in relation to any particular case. This means that it would be wrong for the decision-maker to ask themselves a question along the lines of "what would the community expect in this case?" It is also incorrect to construe the community expectation as expressing or requiring, in any particular case, either the grant or the refusal of the visa. In a particularly egregious case, the weight to be afforded the community expectations would be such that a refusal might be thought to be inevitable, and at the other end of the spectrum a refusal might be thought to be unlikely, but in neither case and in all the area in-between the community expectation will not express or require one or the other. That is a matter for the decision-maker.
And the matter of Tanielu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 673:
In turn, a risk of harm posed by an individual can only be ascertained by evaluating the seriousness of any future harm which might be caused and the likelihood of that harm occurring.
The Tribunal considered that a finding proportionate to the nature and circumstances of Ms Frost’s offending which has resulted in serious harm to the community needed to be determined.
The Tribunal accepts that the Australian community has a low tolerance for exploitation of innocent victims and fraudulent related crime, which although nonviolent and financial in nature still leaves a long-lasting impact on victims. The Tribunal accepts the Respondent’s contention that this consideration and the protection of the Australian community cumulatively weigh against revocation of Ms Frost’s visa cancellation. However, the Tribunal considers there are mitigating factors which bode well for Ms Frost and regardless of the updated Ministerial direction it is still up to the decision maker to arrive at their own determination of the weight to place on the consideration.
The Tribunal considered the following information that supported the finding that Ms Frost was of minimal risk of reoffending, has demonstrated remorse, made full admissions of her offending and how she conducted her fraud, plead guilty at the earliest time, voluntarily committed to repay monies taken, has significant supports in place to ensure she now does not return to gambling and in turn offending and has the most pressing need to stay on the straight and narrow for her 2 young daughters.
The sentencing remarks of Her Honour Judge Chambers:
43You were arrested in Townsville, Queensland, on 9 November 2022 and extradited to Victoria on 10 November 2022.
44 You were interviewed by police on 10 November 2022, during which you made full admissions regarding your offending. You explained that your offending began in 2017 but snowballed in 2019 in order to fund your gambling addiction. You told police you earned $90,000 a year while employed by CSL but said you gambled the majority of your income through Sportsbet and other online betting agencies. You told police you purchased travel credits and sold them to receive more money to gamble.
45 You provided detailed information to the police about the manner of your offending. You explained that you would purchase online flight credits and on sell those credits for cash. You told police you did this by purchasing a flight before cancelling it in order to obtain a credit which you would then on-sell, online, to associates or friends. You admitted that you also booked hotels for friends and associates using the credits, then kept the money.
46 You told police you had refunded a lot of the money but were surprised when the police told you the actual amount stating you could not keep track of the transactions or the amounts.
47 The police investigation included an analysis of your betting accounts from 2017 to 2022 which revealed you deposited a total of $847,403.32 and withdrew a total of $72,151.42.
Emma Gladwell, Clinician, Women's interventions Team, Forensic Intervention Services, Corrections Victoria in a letter of support for Ms Frost’s reconsideration dated 20 February 2024 stated:
I currently supervise the Peer Listener Program at the Dame Phyllis Frost Centre (DPFC).
Peer Listeners can provide information regarding prison culture, processes, and policies, and refer women to services available at this location. They are expected to build connections and foster a welcoming and safe environment by establishing appropriate boundaries, and role-modelling positive behaviours. This important job requires Ms Frost to abide by principles of privacy and confidentiality, to remain substance-free, and to refrain from engaging in prison incidents that may result in institutional infringements.
From the outset, myself and other prison staff noted Ms Frost's willingness to engage in her role effectively and undertake a range of duties. She has been an enthusiastic, committed, and valuable member of the team. Ms Frost has demonstrated a proactive attitude to her work and has displayed great initiative regarding ways to support women at DPFC.
Jacob Little, co-founder of About Time For Justice in a letter of support for Ms Frost dated 7 June 2024 stated:
As a result of our meeting and observing her exceptional work and skills in supporting her peers, Ashlee has been offered employment as a Peer Worker at About Time for Justice upon her release from custody. As part of this employment, Ashlee will engage with a support group affiliated with About Time for Justice. This group is dedicated to advocating for survivors of institutional abuse and provides a platform for members to work on their personal development, fostering positive mindset changes and emotional healing.
[ln] the time I have worked with Ashlee, she has always been sincere and has shown genuine remorse for her actions. Ashlee is dedicated to addressing her issues to live a good life and becoming a beneficent member of society. Her enthusiasm for personal growth and learning is evident not only in how she conducts herself daily but also in how she mentors others to do the same.
ln conclusion, I very much believe in Ashlee, her positive qualities and her genuine desire to succeed.
Grant Young Senior Prison Officer Dame Phyllis Frost Centre Department of Justice and Community Safety in an undated report stated:
ln summary, Ashlee has shown considerable personal growth, responsibility, and a genuine commitment to rehabilitation, making her a positive role model within the facility. Her ongoing efforts and supportive network will be invaluable as she transitions to life outside custody.

The Tribunal understands the Australian community has a very low tolerance with scammers and rightly so, but the Australian community does have a significant tolerance for gambling. The Tribunal notes with concern the ease at which Ms Frost could access sporting sites to lose over $847,403 and win $72,151 this would perhaps indicate our law makers need to do more in this space to assist problem gamblers.
I have found that Ms Frost, as the Member did in LZGG, when you balance the seriousness of her offending and the risk of reoffending, I have decided that medium weight in favour of non-revocation is to be given to this consideration.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
In making a decision under ss 501(1), 501(2) or 501CA(4) of the Act, the considerations below must also be taken into account, where relevant, in accordance with the following provisions. These considerations include (but are not limited to):
·Legal consequences of the decision;
·Extent of impediments if removed; and
·Impact on Australian business interests.
Legal consequences of the decision
The Direction reminds decision-makers to be mindful that unlawful non-citizens are liable for removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable (see s 198 of the Act), noting that s 197C(1) of the Act provides that, for the purposes of s 198, it is irrelevant that Australia has non-refoulement obligations in respect of an unlawful non-citizen.
Submissions
Ms Frost
Counsel contented that if Ms Frost’s visa cancellation is not revoked she will be liable for removal from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable and would be unable to re-enter Australia where almost all of her immediate and extended family reside.
Counsel submitted Ms Frost’s ability to see her children will be dependent on her ex-partner’s willingness and financial and practical ability to take the children to New Zealand to visit her. Counsel submitted Ms Frost’s evidence had been she did not know how or if Mr Frost would bring the children to visit her in New Zealand and her father’s evidence was he thought that it would be maximum once a year visit if at all.
Counsel submitted both Ms Frost and her father gave evidence that she currently does not have meaningful communication with her children via zoom or phone because this is too difficult for them.
Counsel submitted Ms Frost’s ability to communicate in a meaningful form or interact with her young children, particularly of pre-school age would be impossible if her visa was revoked. Counsel contended that telephone and video communication would not be a meaningful way to maintain a mother-daughter relationship.
Counsel submitted there was a real question around whether or not Ms Frost would have any contact with her children again if her visa was cancelled. Counsel submitted whether Ms Frost’s ex-partner would bring the children to New Zealand or allow zoom calls given his previous conduct in saying that he would facilitate contact but not following through on his promises.
Respondent
Counsel contented this consideration should be given neutral weight by the Tribunal.
Counsel accepted that a consequence of Ms Frost’s visa cancellation and its non-revocation is that it will be very difficult for her to return to Australia; and this is the intended legal consequence of the protective regime.
Summary finding
The Tribunal concurred with the parties that the legal consequence of Ms Frost’s visa cancellation would be her removal and inability to return to Australia, noting his Honour Judge Feutrill’s recent decision in Rano v Minister for Home Affairs, Minister for Cyber Security [2024] FCA 1003:
Relevantly, the legal consequence of the Minister’s decision is that the applicant will be removed from Australia and cannot satisfy the special return criteria in cl 5001 of Sch 5 of the Regulations. In substance, that means that the applicant is ineligible for most classes of visa that would otherwise relate to him. That is not a matter of speculation. It is not necessary to wait for an application for a visa to be made to know that he cannot be granted a visa in any of the applicable classes. Therefore, the practical reality in human terms that flows from the legal consequences of the Minister’s decision is that the applicant will be removed from Australia and, thereafter, will be precluded from travelling to, entering and (or) remaining in Australia unless he is able to bring himself within the criteria of a visa class to which the special return criteria does not apply. In much the same way that a legal consequence may be characterised as ‘indefinite detention’, the legal consequence here may be characterised as removal and ‘indefinite exclusion’ from Australia. Moreover, in my view, not only is that a legal consequence it is manifestly a purpose of the applicable statutory framework and scheme that includes s 501(3).
It is evident that a purpose of specifying that the special return criteria be satisfied for the various visa classes in Sch 2 is that persons who have had their visas cancelled under s 501(3) cannot satisfy the visa criteria and, therefore, cannot be granted visas in those classes and lawfully travel to, enter and (or) remain in Australia. It would plainly defeat a purpose of s 501(3) of the Act if persons who have had their visas cancelled on the grounds of national interest could, upon removal from Australia, immediately be granted a visa and return to Australia because all other criteria for the grant of that visa are satisfied.
It follows that the applicant’s indefinite exclusion from travel to, entry and (or) remaining in Australia was a legal consequence of a decision to cancel his visa under s 501(3) of the Act. Accordingly, that was a consideration the Minister was bound to take into account.
Overall, based on the other considers I find that this other consideration weighs slightly in favour of revocation.
Extent of impediments if removed
The Tribunal must consider the extent of impediments a non-citizen may face if removed to their country of origin, in ‘establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country)’ (9.2(1)). Specific factors to take into account are their age, health, any ‘substantial language or cultural barriers’, and any social, medical or economic help available.
Submissions
Ms Frost
Counsel contented Ms Frost does not have meaningful relationships with any family members in New Zealand and if she is removed to New Zealand, she will have almost no family support.
Counsel submitted Ms Frost’s father’s evidence that he hopes she will be supported by his extended family members and her currently estranged brother would appear aspirational rather than based in evidence, especially as Ms Frost was not even aware her brother had returned to New Zealand.
Counsel submitted Ms Frost faced a real prospect of homelessness and a decline in her mental health if is she is returned to New Zealand as she will be without any family, in particular, being permanently separated from her daughters.
Counsel submitted Ms Frost has been diagnosed with the following conditions: Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, Gambling Disorder (severe) and Alcohol Use Disorder. In prison Ms Frost has established connections with various therapists to support her mental health issues upon her release into the Australian community and would not have these connections, resources and supports in New Zealand to assist with her mental health or recovery from her gambling addiction.
Respondent
Counsel submitted that there was little difference in Ms Frost’s prospects of establishing herself and maintaining basic living standards if she is removed to New Zealand compared with her prospects of doing so in Australia.
Counsel submitted whilst it would appear dubious her estranged brother would support Ms Frost in New Zealand there were other family in New Zealand who would be able to support her.
Counsel submitted besides her father there was little family or social support in Australia for Ms Frost, and the kinds of post-prison services she intends to access would also be available to her in New Zealand. Counsel submitted Ms Frost’s evidence had been she would be able to access ongoing mental health treatment in New Zealand.
Counsel submitted Ms Frost’s employment prospects there would be no different from here, as her skills and qualifications would be recognised.
Summary finding
The Tribunal concludes that Ms Frost would have no practical difficulties in re-assimilating if returned to New Zealand as she would not have any language or cultural barriers. However, the Tribunal did concur with Ms Frost’s representative that she may face difficulty in finding employment and housing if she was forced to return particularly as she no longer would have the protection, support, and love of her close-knit family to ensure she did not relapse.
The Tribunal accepts that Ms Frost may face financial and emotional hardship if she were to have her visa revoked as the evidence was not conclusive on whether she would have access to support networks, ongoing counselling support for her gambling addiction or post prison release support in finding work as she would in Australia.
I therefore consider I am unable to give this particular factor specific weight for or against revocation. The Tribunal concluded that after an initial period of adjustment, Ms Frost would be able to reestablish herself in New Zealand with the most significant impediment being the prospect of never seeing her daughters again.
Accordingly, I find that this consideration weighs only slightly in favour of revocation.
Impact on Australian business interests (paragraph 9.3)
The Tribunal must consider any impact on Australian business interests if the Applicant is not allowed to remain in Australia, noting that an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision under s 501CA would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project or important service in Australia.
The Tribunal does not consider that there will be any impact on Australian business interests if Ms Frost’s visa remains cancelled or is restored. The Tribunal finds that this Other Consideration is therefore not engaged.
CONCLUSION
Consistent with the Direction, the Tribunal has given weight of various degrees to the primary and other considerations. In applying the considerations (both primary and other), information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight. Primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations. One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations. However, as held in Jagroop v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] 241 FCR 461, ‘the weighing process in each case is in substance left, as it must be, to the individual decision-maker exercising the power under s 501’.
As the Tribunal has found Ms Frost does not pass the character test it has carefully considered all the evidence before it and weighed up the relevant considerations as guided by the Direction in considering whether there is another reason why the cancellation of her visa should be revoked.
Of the Primary Considerations the Tribunal found:
·That protection of the Australian community slightly weighs in favour of revocation. Whilst Ms Frost’s offending was serious and has resulted in the significant financial loss and stress to individuals, it was not an act of violence, and she has shown great remorse and taken every step possible rehabilitate to ensure she never offends again.
·The expectations of the Australian community weighs against revocation, given the serious nature of Ms Frost’s offending.
·The strength, nature and duration of ties to the Australian community, and the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision both weigh strongly in favour of revocation. The likely outcome of this decision if not revoked would be the complete breakdown of any relationship between Ms Frost and her two very young daughters.
·The remaining consideration concerning family violence weighs neutrally.
Of the other considerations, I have found that Legal consequences of the decision and Extent of impediments if removed both weigh slightly in favour of revocation. The remaining consideration concerning business interests weighs neutrally.
The Tribunal fully appreciates that Ms Frost has breached the expectation that she be a law-abiding citizen who respects Australian institutions. As a general principle, the Direction establishes that on this basis Ms Frost’s visa should be cancelled. However, overall, the Tribunal did find that her circumstances taken on the whole and balancing the serious of her crimes, her remorse and rehabilitation that they raise concerns of sufficient seriousness to warrant the outcome that her visa remain cancelled.
Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that there is another reason that the mandatory cancellation of Ms Frost’s visa should be revoked.
For the reasons given above the Tribunal sets aside the decision dated 24 January 2024 not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of Ms Frost’s Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa and substitutes it with the decision that there is another reason why the mandatory cancellation should be revoked.
DECISION
Pursuant to s 105 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), the Tribunal sets aside the reviewable decision. In substitution the Tribunal finds there is another reason under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to revoke the mandatory cancellation of Ms Frost’s visa.

I certify that the preceding 177 (one-hundred and seventy-seven) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of General Member A. E. Burke

.................................[SGD].......................................
Associate
Dated: 31 December 2024

Date(s) of hearing: 12 and 13 December 2024

Counsel for the Applicant
Ms Ruth Hamnett

Solicitors for the Applicant: Carina Ford Immigration Lawyers

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Ms Catherine Oppel
Australian Government Solicitor

COURT DATE	OFFENCE	COURT RESULT
1 Sep 2023	OBTAIN FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE BY DECEPTION (all up 14 counts)	17 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT. 12 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT. 10 MONTHS OF SENTENCE CONCURRENT 8 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT ON EACH COUNT. 7 MONTHS OF EACH COUNT CONCURRENT AND CONCURRENT 5 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT. 4 MONTHS OF SENTENCE CONCURRENT. TO PAY $8900.00 COMPENSATION 4 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT ON EACH COUNT. 3 MONTHS OF EACH COUNT CONCURRENT AND CONCURRENT 1 MONTH IMPRISONMENT CONCURRENT. 12 MONTHS OF THIS ORDER CUMULATIVE TO OTHER ORDER THIS DAY. TO PAY $700.00 COMPENSATION 22 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT 12 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT. 9 MONTHS OF SENTENCE CONCURRENT 8 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT. 6 MONTHS OF SENTENCE CONCURRENT 6 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT. 4 MONTHS OF SENTENCE CONCURRENT 4 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT. 3 MONTHS OF SENTENCE CONCURRENT 1 MONTH IMPRISONMENT CONCURRENT
	USE A FALSE DOCUMENT TO PREJUDICE OTHER (3 charges)	4 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT ON EACH COUNT
	ATT.TO OBTAIN FINAN. ADVAN. BY DECEPTION	2 MONTHS IMPRISONMENT CONCURRENT
5 May 2023	OBTAIN FINANCIAL ADVANTAGE BY DECEPTION MAKE A FALSE DOC. TO PREJUDICE OF OTHER	Aggregate 7 DAYS imprisonment. Cumulative.
	OBTAIN PROPERTY BY DECEPTION	Aggregate 21 DAYS imprisonment. Cumulative. Pay compensation $13961.00
	OBTAIN PROPERTY BY DECEPTION (7 charges)	Aggregate 21 DAYS imprisonment. Cumulative.
	OBTAIN PROPERTY BY DECEPTION	90 DAYS imprisonment. Base sentence
4 Nov 2022	FRAUD - DISHONESTLY OBTAINS PROPERTY FROM ANOTHER	CONVICTION RECORDED SENTENCED IMPRISONMENT: 18MO TO BE SUSPENDED FOR: 3Y CONCURRENT
26 Oct 2010	Never licensed person drive vehicle on road-2nd+ offence	CONVICTION WITH NO OTHER PENALTY : DISQUALIFICATION : 3 YEARS COMMENCING 26/10/2010 DISQUALIFICATION (HABITUAL OFFENDER): QUASHED DISQUALIFICATION (HABITUAL OFFENDER) : QUASHED
8 April 2009	Drive vehicle on road or road related area, m/v tax not paid	FINE : $100 COSTS - COURT : $73
	Driver of Class A vehicle with expired registration label	FINE : $100 COSTS - COURT : $73
	Never licensed person drive vehicle on road-2nd+ offence	FINE : $500 COSTS - COURT : $73 DISQUALIFICATION : 3 MONTHS COMMENCING 08/04/2009
	Use uninsured motor vehicle	FINE : $250 COSTS - COURT : $73
	Use unregistered registrable Class A motor vehicle	FINE : $250COSTS - COURT : $73
22 Jan 2009	Never licensed person drive vehicle on road-1st offence	FINE : $500 COSTS - COURT : $73

Date(s) of hearing:	12 and 13 December 2024
Counsel for the Applicant	Ms Ruth Hamnett
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Carina Ford Immigration Lawyers
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Ms Catherine Oppel Australian Government Solicitor