Gavi and Minister for Home Affairs (Citizenship)

This matter concerned an application for Australian citizenship by Edson Gavi, who was seeking review of a decision by the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse his application. The dispute centred on whether Mr Gavi met the "good character" requirement stipulated by the *Citizenship Act 1948* (Cth). The case was heard by Deputy Boyle P.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the meaning and application of the "good character" requirement under the *Citizenship Act 1948* (Cth) in the context of an applicant's past conduct, specifically convictions for unlawful and indecent assault, breach of protective bail, and making a false or misleading declaration. The court was required to consider whether the applicant's enduring moral qualities demonstrated that he was likely to uphold and obey the laws of Australia, as guided by the Citizenship Policy and relevant case law.

Deputy Boyle P reasoned that the term "good character" is not statutorily defined but is elaborated upon in the Citizenship Policy, which decision-makers are generally bound to apply unless there are cogent reasons not to. The court adopted the definition from *Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs*, which characterises "good character" as referring to a person's enduring moral qualities, rather than their community standing. This involves an objective assessment of whether the applicant is likely to obey Australian laws. The court noted that a person with past convictions may still demonstrate good character through reformation, while conversely, a person of good repute might objectively be of bad character. The applicant's past convictions and alleged false declarations were central to this assessment.