Gordon-Stables and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 2296

Gordon-Stables and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) [2025] ARTA 2296 (24 October 2025)
Applicant/s:  Joanne Dayana Gordon-Stables
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number:                2025/4535

Tribunal:Senior Member Lyford
Place:Perth
Date of decision: 24 October 2025
Date of written reasons: 30 October 2025

Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Statement made on 30 October 2025 at 10:52am
........................................................................
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – decision of delegate of Minister not to revoke mandatory cancellation of visa – character test – Direction 110 – primary and other considerations – protection of Australian community – nature and seriousness of the conduct – sold/supplied trafficable quantity of methylamphetamine – risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct – family violence by the non-citizen – strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia – impact of decision on non-citizens immediate family members in Australia – other ties non-citizen has to the Australian community – best interests of minor children – expectations of the Australian community – extent of impediments if non-citizen removed to New Zealand – Non-revocation Decision is affirmed
LEGISLATION
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) – s 15AB
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – s 499(2A) – s 501 – s 501(3A) – s 501(6) – s 501(7) – s 501CA – s 501CA(3) - s 501CA(4)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) – reg 2.52(2) - reg 2.55(3) – reg 2.55(5)
Misuse of Drugs Act 1981 (WA) – s 32A
CASES
Au v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 125
Bartlett and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2017] AATA 1561
BNY23 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 608
CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138
Dalzell and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2024] ARTA 17
Falzon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 262 CLR 333
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185
Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 153 ALD 338
Kanara and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] AATA 132
Khalil v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 271 FCR 326
Lasalo v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCAFC 82
LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2024) 98 ALJR 610
Lum and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] AATA 792
Main v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 446
Minister for Home Affairs v G (2019) 266 FCR 569
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Ali (2000) 106 FCR 313
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Peralta Montes [2025] FCA 667
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs v McQueen (2024) 94 ALJR 594
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Viane (2021) 274 CLR 398
NBMZ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 220 FCR 1
Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 96 ALJR 497; [2022] HCA 17; 275 CLR 582
QJYD and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] AATA 1
Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634
Re Harrison v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2006] AATA 47
Re Harrison and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2009) 106 ALD 666
Re MBBG and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] ARTA 53
Re RRRB and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] ARTA 471
Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 235 CLR 286
Siale v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FCA 608
Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (2023) 296 FCR 582
Tahuriorangi and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] AATA 2158
Tanielu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 225 FCR 424
Taulahi v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 246 FCR 146
Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 256 CLR 203
VKTT and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2020] AATA 649
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Cth), Direction No. 110 — Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA, commencing 21 June 2024, align="left">Department of Home Affairs, Illicit Drugs Action Plan,
decision in this matter was made on 24 October 2025 and provided to the parties with a note that written reasons would be provided within a reasonable time. These are those written reasons.[1]
Statement of Reasons
INTRODUCTION
[1] Khalil v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 271 FCR 326 at [41] and [48].

By application filed on 6 August 2025, the Applicant seeks review of a decision of a delegate of the Respondent, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Minister), dated 1 August 2025, not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s Special Category (Class TY) (Subclass 444) visa (visa), pursuant to s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Migration Act). This decision was made on the basis that the Minister was not satisfied that the Applicant passed the ‘character test’ or that there was ‘another reason’ why the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa should be revoked.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.[2]
[2] The Hearing Book, lodged with the Tribunal on behalf of the Respondent (comprising 550 pages), was marked as ‘Exhibit 1’ on the first day of this review application on 13 October 2025 (HB).
BACKGROUND
The Applicant is a 55-year-old citizen of New Zealand (DOB: 25 March 1970), who first arrived in Australia on 2 January 1978, aged seven years old: HB62.
Except for two brief trips back to New Zealand, in 2012 and 2016, the Applicant has resided in Australia for over 47 years: HB62. The Applicant was granted the visa on her most recent return to Australia on 18 November 2016: HB168.
The Applicant has committed 73 offences in Australia over a 32-year period (from 1992 to 2024): HB69 – HB72.
2009 formal warning
On 13 August 2009, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (Department) issued the Applicant a ‘Formal Counselling Letter’, warning the Applicant for the potential of visa cancellation under s 501 of the Migration Act if she received any further criminal convictions, as follows (2009 formal warning):
It has come to the department’s attention that you have a criminal record…
…
The purpose of this letter is to warn you that any further criminal convictions, or any other conduct on your behalf that comes within the scope of subsection 501(6), could result in consideration of the cancellation of your visa. The consequences of visa cancellation under section 501 of the Act include removal of the former visa holder from Australia and, in certain cases, bars on re-entering Australia: HB160.
On 19 September 2009, the Applicant acknowledged receipt of the 2009 formal warning: HB165.
2015 Revocation Decision
On 1 July 2014, the Applicant was convicted, in the Rockingham Magistrates Court, of the following offences:
·‘No authority to drive – suspended’;
·‘Possession of a prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply (Methylamphetamine)’; and
·‘Possession of prohibited drugs with intent to sell or supply (Cannabis)’,
and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, for the above offences, to be served concurrently over 12 months: HB71.
On 5 January 2015, the Applicant’s visa was mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act on the basis that the Applicant had a ‘substantial criminal record’ because of the 1 July 2014 conviction: HB154 – HB155.
By letter dated 25 February 2015, a delegate of the Minister notified the Applicant that the power under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act was enlivened, and the cancellation decision dated 5 January 2015 was revoked (2015 Revocation Decision): HB157 – HB158. The 2015 Revocation Decision contains the following ‘warning’:
Please note: this decision does not mean that your case cannot be reconsidered again on character grounds in the event of further criminal offending by you. In addition, the decision maker added the following warning to you:
Ms Gordon-Stables needs to be aware that the delegate has carefully considered whether to revoke her mandatory cancellation and noting her previous warning in 2009 her case was very finely balanced. While in this instance the delegate has decided to revoke her cancellation and reinstate her visa, if Ms Gordon-Stables wishes to ensure her visa is not cancelled in the future it is in her best interests not to reoffend: HB157.
2017 Revocation Decision
On 24 March 2017, the Applicant was convicted of ‘No Authority to Drive – Suspended’ and received a sentence of 8 months imprisonment: HB70.
On 12 April 2017, the Applicant’s visa was mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act on the basis that she had a ‘substantial criminal record’ because of the 1 July 2014 convictions (see [7] above) and the 24 March 2017 driving offence: HB146 – HB147.
On 31 May 2017, a delegate of the Minister found that the power under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act was enlivened, and revoked the cancellation decision dated 12 April 2017 (2017 Revocation Decision): HB151 – HB152. The 2017 Revocation Decision contains the following ‘warning’:
Please note: this decision does not mean that your case cannot be reconsidered again on character grounds in the event of further criminal offending by you: HB151.
Non-revocation Decision
On 21 January 2022, the District Court of Western Australia convicted the Applicant of the following ten offences, for which she received a total effective sentence of six years imprisonment:
·one count of ‘Possess a prohibited drug (Methylamphetamine)’, and fined $500;
·six counts of ‘Offer to sell/supply a prohibited drug to another (Methylamphetamine)’, and sentenced to 2 years and 9 months’ imprisonment (cumulative);
·one count of ‘Attempt to possess prohibited drugs with intent to sell or supply’, and sentenced to 9 months’ imprisonment (concurrent); and
·two counts of ‘Possession of prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply (Methylamphetamine)’, and sentenced to 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment (concurrent) (Index Offending): HB70 and HB92.
On 28 April 2023, the Applicant’s visa was mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act on the basis the Applicant had a ‘substantial criminal record’ because of the Index Offending: HB139 – HB144.
On 1 May 2023, the Applicant made representations to have the cancellation revoked under s 501CA of the Migration Act: HB169 – HB175.
On 2 August 2024, the Applicant was convicted, whilst incarcerated, of ‘Aggravated home burglary and commit’ and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment: HB70.
On 1 August 2025, a delegate of the Minister found that the power under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act was not enlivened, and notified the Applicant of their decision not to revoke the cancellation of her visa (Non-revocation Decision): HB43 – HB44.
On 6 August 2025, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the Non-revocation Decision: HB38 – HB42.
CRIMINAL HISTORY
The Applicant’s criminal history is set out in ‘Annexure A’ attached (Annexure A).
As stated above, the Applicant has:
(a)committed 73 offences in Australia; and
(b)been sentenced to terms of imprisonment in 2009, 2013, 2014, 2017, 2022, and 2024 in Australia,
over a 32-year period (from 1992 to 2024): Annexure A and HB69 – HB72.
Notably, the Applicant’s offending in Australia over a 32-year period (from 1992 to 2024), includes the following:
·Numerous traffic offences between 1992 and 2019, including ‘No motor drivers licence’, ‘Careless driving’, ‘No authority to drive – suspended’, ‘Driving under the influence’, ‘Exceed speed limit in a speed zone’ and ‘False name (Driver)’;
·‘Possess a prohibited drug (Amphetamine)’, ‘Possess a prohibited drug (Cannabis)’ and ‘Possession of prohibited drugs with intent to sell or supply’ (on 22 July 2008);
·‘Possession of prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply (MDMA)’ and ‘Possession of prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply (Methylamphetamine)’ (on 13 March 2009);
·‘Possess a prohibited drug’ (Cannabis and/or Methamphetamine) (on 7 April 2009, 1 July 2014, 24 October 2016, 27 October 2017 and 28 January 2022);
·‘Stealing’ (on 22 July 2008);
·‘Carried (possessed) an article with intent to cause fear to someone’, ‘Possessed a controlled weapon’ and ‘Possessed a prohibited weapon’ (on 1 July 2014); and
·‘Aggravated home burglary and commit’ (on 2 August 2024): Annexure A.
2009 sentences
The Applicant was first sentenced to a term of imprisonment, by the District Court of Western Australia, on 13 March 2009, for:
·one count of ‘Possession of a prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply (MDMA)’ (12 months’ sentence); and
·one count of ‘Possession of a prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply (Methylamphetamine)’ (18 months’ sentence),
with the sentences to be served concurrently: HB72.
The circumstances of this offending are described by the sentencing judge, Martino DCJ, as follows:
In the early hours of Friday, 15 February last year police officers stopped a car that you were driving in the Rockingham area. They found that you had in your possession 29 MDA tablets weighing a total of 9.15 grams. Those tablets are the subject of count 1.
They also found in your possession a total of 15.09 grams of methylamphetamine with percentage purity ranging from approximately 34 to 42 per cent. Those drugs are the subject of count 2…: HB129.
Martino DCJ noted that on the morning of the trial, the Applicant pleaded guilty to count 1, ‘Possession of a prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply (MDMA)’: HB129. However, in relation to count 2, ‘Possession of a prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply (Methylamphetamine)’:
…At trial you admitted [to] the possession of the methamphetamine, but maintained that you did not intend to sell or supply the drugs. That explanation was obviously not accepted by the jury and the jury was no doubt influenced not only by the amount of the drug, but also other indicators of dealing, such as lists: HB129.
2013 sentences
On 10 February 2013, the Applicant was pulled over by the police while driving a Ford vehicle on Safety Bay Road, Waikiki, and it was ascertained that she was not authorised to drive: HB117. On 10 June 2013, she was sentenced, in the Magistrates Court of Western Australia, with two counts of ‘No authority to drive’ and received sentences of imprisonment of 12 months and 8 months (concurrent), suspended for 15 months, until September 2014: HB71. At the hearing on 10 June 2013, the Applicant told Magistrate Temby that, on 10 February 2013, she went to visit a friend at their house in Safety Bay and was accompanied by her daughter and daughter’s partner, who drove the vehicle there. The Applicant said that she drove the vehicle on the way home because her daughter and her partner had an argument, and her daughter’s partner threatened to take the car. Further, the Applicant said that her daughter had been drinking and she had a spare key, so she drove the car home: HB119. The Applicant was subject to a suspended imprisonment order for her 10 February 2013 offending: HB102.
2014 sentences
On 5 May 2013, the Applicant was caught driving a Holden vehicle in Port Kennedy while she was not authorised to drive: HB99.
On 4 October 2013, the police searched the Applicant’s house in Port Kennedy, pursuant to a warrant, and found 2.91 grams of methylamphetamine, in three small clip seal bags, in her bedroom, which she claimed she shared with people in the house who provided a monetary exchange for the drug: HB98.
During the search, they also found 64.93 grams of cannabis in the Applicant’s kitchen, along with an electric shock weapon, a can of pepper spray, and a serrated-edged knife which she claimed she used ‘when someone comes to the door’: HB65 – HB66.
On 1 July 2014, the Applicant was sentenced, in the Rockingham Magistrates Court, to various terms of immediate imprisonment for the 2013 offending to be served concurrently, over a total period of 12 months: HB71. The Applicant’s suspended term of imprisonment, from 10 June 2013, was also reactivated on 1 July 2014: HB 114.
2017 sentences
On 24 March 2017, the Applicant was sentenced, in the Rockingham Magistrates Court, to eight months’ imprisonment for one count of ‘No authority to drive – suspended’ and, on 23 May 2017 the Applicant was sentenced, in the Rockingham Magistrates Court, to six months’ imprisonment for ‘No authority to drive – cancelled’.
2022 sentence – Index Offending
The offending which led to the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa, the Non-revocation Decision, and this review application was the Index Offending. The circumstances of the Index Offending are as follows: HB83 – HB93.
The Index Offending took place from 25 May 2019 to 24 July 2019.
As stated above, on 21 January 2022, the District Court of Western Australia convicted the Applicant of the following ten offences, for which she received a total effective sentence of six years’ imprisonment:
(a)one count of ‘Possess a prohibited drug (Methylamphetamine)’, and fined $500;
(b)six counts of ‘Offer to sell/supply a prohibited drug to another (Methylamphetamine)’, and sentenced to 2 years and 9 months’ imprisonment (cumulative);
(c)one count of ‘Attempt to possess prohibited drugs with intent to sell or supply’, and sentenced to 9 months’ imprisonment (concurrent); and
(d)two counts of ‘Possession of prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply (Methylamphetamine)’, and sentenced to 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment (concurrent): HB70 and HB92.
The Applicant pleaded guilty to seven of the ten offences, namely she pleaded guilty to:
·six counts of ‘Offer to sell/supply a prohibited drug to another (Methylamphetamine)’; and
·one count of ‘Attempt to possess prohibited drugs with intent to sell or supply’.
In the sentencing remarks, the sentencing judge, Lemonis DCJ, describes the ‘key aspects’ of these seven offences, to which the Applicant pled guilty, as follows:
In respect of count 3, you agreed to supply .5 grams of methylamphetamine to another person. In respect of count 4, you agreed to supply 1.75 grams of methylamphetamine to another person. In respect of count 5, you agreed to supply .5 grams of methylamphetamine to another person for 2, which I infer as a reference to $200.
In respect of count 6, you agreed to supply 7 grams of methamphetamine to another person. In respect of count 7, you agreed to supply 1.75 grams of methylamphetamine to another person. In respect of count 8, you attempted to possess 8.2 grams of methylamphetamine for the sum of $1,800. The methylamphetamine was comprised of 6.6 grams with a purity of 80 per cent and a further 1.6 grams of unknown purity.
The only reason that offence was no completed was because the police intercepted the person, a Mr Kirk, who was going to provide you with the drugs. And he was intercepted in the alleyway near to your home.
In respect of count 9, you agreed to supply 14 grams of methylamphetamine to another person…: HB85.

However, the Applicant pleaded not guilty to the two counts ‘Possession of prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply (Methylamphetamine)’, for which she was found guilty after trial.
As noted by Lemonis DCJ, in his Honour’s sentencing remarks, this offending occurred while the Applicant was sitting in the passenger seat of a car, which was stopped by police, who found 43.47 grams of methylamphetamine in a pouch in the glovebox: HB85. The police also found seven separate bags of methylamphetamine in the Applicant’s handbag (1.09 grams in total), which she did not dispute possession of at the trial: HB86.
2024 sentence
While incarcerated for the Index Offending, the Applicant was sentenced to an aggravated burglary offence on 2 August 2024, the circumstances of which are set out in the sentencing remarks, of the sentencing judge, Petrusa DCJ (HB74 – HB75), and are, in summary, as follows:
·The offending relates to conduct that occurred in November 2021, involving the home and property of Kate Bain (Ms Bain). In 2021, Ms Bain was sentenced to immediate imprisonment and was taken to Melaleuca Women’s Prison. Prior to being incarcerated, Ms Bain was living at a property, in Furnissdale, Western Australia, with her 17-year-old daughter and others, who continued to live at that house after Ms Bain’s incarceration;
·The Applicant was already in prison at that time and very shortly after Ms Bain’s arrival, she became aware that Ms Bain owed a debt to another inmate, Jodie Wright (Ms Wright), who had the cell near her. The Applicant obtained information about Ms Bain’s home and belongings from Ms Wright and on 6 September 2021, telephoned her co-offender, and ex-partner, Karamaina Anderson (Mr Anderson), and told him to go to Ms Bain’s house and take her property in satisfaction of Ms Bain’s debt to Ms Wright;
·The Applicant provided Mr Anderson the address and layout of Ms Bain’s house, information about the presence of others, the type of property he was likely to find and what he should take. Further, the Applicant encouraged Mr Anderson when he suggested that he use violence;
·Mr Anderson agreed to commit the burglary, suggested he would use violence, and told the Applicant he would take others with him when he committed the burglary. Mr Anderson and the Applicant also discussed what would be done with the property once it was stolen;
·On 7 September 2021, Mr Anderson told the Applicant he would be committing the offence that day. At 2am on 8 November 2021, two men wearing masks and hoodies broke into Ms Bain’s house, smashed open the front door, leaving only the top part of the door intact. This woke Ms Bain’s daughter, who went to investigate and was confronted by the two men, one of whom was holding a hammer;
·The men demanded to know where Ms Bain was, saying she owed money, and that they were there to collect items in satisfaction of that debt. Ms Bain’s daughter directed the men to Ms Bain’s property and they put the property into bags. They took property to the car before returning to take more. In addition to Ms Bain’s clothing, the men took some drill bits, a longboard, bow, and a wall lamp. As they drove off, a BB gun was fired at the house; and
·Later that morning, Mr Anderson called the Applicant and said, ‘the deed was done’ and discussed what property was taken. On 29 March 2022, the police spoke to Mr Anderson, who admitted he had discussed a home burglary with the Applicant and that he had agreed to do it and told the Applicant he had done it: HB74 – HB75.
In sentencing, Petrusa DCJ told the Applicant that she was criminally responsible for the burglary because she ‘counselled or procured its commission’: HB75.
Parole
The Applicant is currently being held at the Boronia Pre Release Centre (a minimum security facility) and is eligible for parole on 1 August 2026: HB336 – HB337.
ISSUES
The issues for consideration by the Tribunal are:
(a)whether the Applicant passes the ‘character test,’ as defined in s 501(6) of the Migration Act; and if not,
(b)whether there is ‘another reason’ why the Visa Cancellation Decision should be revoked under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, having regard to the considerations prescribed by Direction No 110 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (Direction 110).
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Revocation of decision to cancel visa
Section 501CA of the Migration Act relevantly provides:
(1)       This section applies if the Minister makes a decision (the original decision) under subsection 501(3A) (person serving sentence of imprisonment) to cancel a visa that has been granted to a person.
…
(4)       The Minister may revoke the original decision if:
(a)      the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation; and
(b)      the Minister is satisfied:
(i)       that the person passes the character test (as defined by section 501); or
(ii)       that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.
‘Character test’
The ‘character test’ is defined in s 501(6) of the Migration Act. Relevantly, a person will not pass the character test if they have a ‘substantial criminal record’: s 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act.
The phrase ‘substantial criminal record’ is defined in s 501(7) of the Act and includes circumstances where a person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more: s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act.
Pursuant to s 501(3A)(a)(i) and (b) of the Migration Act, the Minister must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the ‘character test’, because they have a ‘substantial criminal record’, as defined in s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act, and is serving a sentence of imprisonment, on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State, or a Territory. That is, failure of the ‘character test,’ in s 501(6) of the Migration Act, arises as a matter of law.[3]
[3] Re Harrison and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2009) 106 ALD 666 at [63].
Power to revoke original decision
When a visa is mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act, the Minister must:
(a)give the person concerned written notice of the decision which sets out the original decision: s 501CA(3)(a)(i) of the Migration Act;
(b)give the person concerned particulars of the relevant information: s 501CA(3)(a)(ii) of the Migration Act; and
(c)invite the person to make representations to the Minister regarding the revocation of the original decision: s 501CA(3)(b) of the Migration Act.
Under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, the Minister may revoke the original (visa cancellation) decision if:
(a)representations have been made by the applicant in accordance with an invitation to make such representations about revocation of the cancellation: s 501CA(4)(a) of the Act; and
(b)the Minister is satisfied that:
(i)the person passes the ‘character test’ in s 501(6) of the Migration Act: s 501CA(4)(b)(i) of the Migration Act; or, if not,
(ii)there is ‘another reason’ why the original decision should be revoked: s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act.
A decision under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act (i.e. to revoke the original decision) involves an assessment and evaluation of the factors for and against revoking the original decision.[4]
[4] Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 153 ALD 338.
The Tribunal is required to undertake a ‘weighing and balancing’ exercise, weighing up the relevant considerations in Direction 110 and the Applicant’s representations against one another to come to the correct or preferable decision.[5]
[5] Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (ART Act), s 56(1)(a); Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 (Drake (No 2)) at 636; Shi v Migration Agents Registration Authority (2008) 235 CLR 286 at [140]; CRNL v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 138 at [35].
The Tribunal (decision-maker) must then ask itself whether it is satisfied that there is ‘another reason’ to revoke the visa cancellation.[6] In Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs (2022) 275 CLR 582 (Plaintiff M1/2021) at [22], the High Court described s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act as conferring ‘a wide discretionary power’ to revoke the mandatory cancellation if the decision-maker (here, the Tribunal on review of a delegate’s decision) is satisfied there is ‘another reason’ why the cancellation should be revoked. In Plaintiff M1/2021, the majority held (at [22]) that the assessment of whether there is, in fact, ‘another reason’ is to be undertaken by reference to the representations made by the Applicant.[7]
[6] Au v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 125 at [21]–[26].
[7] See also Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Viane (2021) 274 CLR 398 at [13]–[15]; Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs v McQueen (2024) 94 ALJR 594 at [6].
Direction 110
A decision under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, whether there is ‘another reason’ to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa, must be made in accordance with any written directions under the Migration Act: s 499(2A) of the Migration Act.
Relevantly, the Tribunal must comply with Direction 110 in considering a request for revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act, providing a legislative constraint on the Tribunal’s process of reasoning.[8] However, as stated by the Full Court in Singh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (2023) 296 FCR 582 at [23] and [81], the principles enunciated by Brennan J in Drake (No 2), and subsequent cases concerning the Tribunal’s ability to depart from governmental policy, remain applicable.[9]
[8] See LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2024) 98 ALJR 610 at [33].
[9] See Minister for Home Affairs v G (2019) 266 FCR 569; Lasalo v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCAFC 82 at [27].
Principles
The eight ‘Principles’ listed in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110 provide the framework within which decision-makers should approach their task of deciding whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen’s visa under s 501CA of the Migration Act.
The eight ‘Principles’ listed in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110 are as follows:
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 noncitizens 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 non-citizen poses a measurable 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-citizens’ conduct, or 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 non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm the Australian community.
(emphasis added)
Primary considerations
Informed by the eight ‘Principles’ in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, the Tribunal (decision-maker) must take into account the five ‘primary considerations’ in section 8 of Part 2 of Direction 110, in deciding whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA(4) of the Act.
The five ‘primary considerations,’ in section 8 of Part 2 of Direction 110, are:
(a)protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct: paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110;
(b)whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence: paragraph 8.2 of Direction 110;
(c)the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia: paragraph 8.3 of Direction 110;
(d)the best interests of minor children in Australia: paragraph 8.4 of Direction 110; and
(e)expectations of the Australian community: paragraph 8.5 of Direction 110.
Other considerations
Informed by the eight ‘Principles’ in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, the Tribunal (decision-maker) must also take into account the three ‘other considerations’, in paragraph 9 of Part 2 of Direction 110, insofar as they are relevant.
The three ‘other considerations,’ in paragraph 9 of Part 2 of Direction 110, include, but are not limited to, the:
(a)legal consequences of the decision under s 501 or s 501CA of the Migration Act: paragraph 9.1 of Direction 110;
(b)extent of impediments if removed: paragraph 9.2 of Direction 110; and
(c)impact on Australian business interests: paragraph 9.3 of Direction 110.
Applying the primary and other considerations
Section 7 of Part 2 of Direction 110 provides:
(1)In applying the considerations (both primary and other), information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight.
(2)The primary consideration at 8.1….(protection of the Australian community) is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations. Otherwise, primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than other considerations.
(3) One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.
(emphasis added)
CONSIDERATION
Representations in accordance with invitation
On 28 April 2025, the Applicant was notified of the mandatory cancellation of her visa (for the third time), by hand, which is the method prescribed by reg 2.55(3)(a) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Migration Regulations): HB139 – HB144. The Applicant was taken to have received the notice when it was handed to her: reg 2.55(5) of the Migration Regulations.
Regulation 2.52(2)(b) of the Migration Regulations prescribes that any representations seeking revocation of a mandatory visa cancellation must be made to the Minister within 28 days after the person is given notice of the cancellation. On 1 May 2023, the Applicant made representations seeking revocation of the Visa Cancellation Decision, being within the prescribed 28-day period: HB169 – HB175. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant made representations to the Minister in accordance with the invitation, as required under s 501CA(4)(a) of the Migration Act.
‘Character test’
It is not in dispute, and the Tribunal accepts based on the evidence before it, that the Applicant does not pass the ‘character test’, because of the operation of s 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act, as she has a ‘substantial criminal record’, as defined in s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act.
‘Another reason’
It follows that the sole issue to be decided by the Tribunal is whether there is ‘another reason’ why the decision to mandatorily cancel the Applicant’s visa should be revoked:

s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act.
This involves an evaluative process requiring the Tribunal to examine factors for and against revoking the cancellation, and an assessment and evaluation of those factors leading to the formation of a view as to whether the cancellation should be revoked.[10]
[10] Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1166 at [38].
For the following reasons, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is ‘another reason’ why the decision to mandatorily cancel the Applicant’s visa should be revoked. In reaching its decision, the Tribunal, informed by the eight ‘Principles’ in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, has, as set out below, ‘taken into account’:
(a)the five ‘primary considerations’ (in section 8 of Part 2 to Direction 110); and
(b)the three ‘other considerations’ (in section 9 of Part 2 to Direction 110).
FIRST PRIMARY CONSIDERATION: PROTECTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL OR OTHER SERIOUS CONDUCT (PARAGRAPH 8.1 OF DIRECTION 110)
Safety of the Australian community is the highest priority
In applying paragraph 8.1 of Direction 110, the Tribunal must be informed by the eight ‘Principles’ set out in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110 and outlined at [23] above.
Paragraph 8.1(1) of Direction 110 states:
When considering protection of the Australian community, decision-makers should keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. 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. In this respect, decision-makers should have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
(emphasis added)
The safety of the Australian community as being the highest ‘priority’ is also stated as a ‘priority’ in the ‘Principle’ in paragraph 5.2(2) of Direction 110.
Direction 110 was made on 7 June 2024 and commenced on 21 June 2024. It replaced Direction 99 which did not contain the principle that ‘the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government’. The safety of the Australian community as being the highest ‘priority’ of the Australian Government, and in the application of Direction 110 by decision-makers, is reflected in the media release, published on 7 June 2024 by the Minister, Hon Andrew Giles MP (who authored both Directions 99 and 110), announcing Direction 110 as follows:[11]
[11] See also Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 15AB.
Today, I have signed Ministerial Direction 110, a new, revised Direction to strengthen the consideration of community safety in Australia’s migration system.
Since coming to office, the Government has refused and cancelled a large number of visas on character grounds in the interests of community safety.
However, it is clear the AAT has made a number of decisions independently of Government that do not reflect the Government’s intent or meet community expectations.
Since the beginning of last week, I have cancelled 40 visas in the national interest.
Today, we take the next step in strengthening our cancellation system to better reflect community expectations.
Ministerial Direction 110 is guided by two key principles; the protection of the Australian community and common sense.
This new revised Direction makes crystal clear that the Government expects the protection of the Australian community be given greater weight in visa decisions.
….
The revised Direction makes it clear that the safety of the Australian community is the Government’s highest priority – and includes this as a key principle of the decision-making framework.
….
Ministerial Direction 110 is an important step in ensuring that our migration system works in our national interest, and visa decisions are in line with common sense and the safety of Australians.
Community safety is and always will be our Government’s highest priority.
(emphasis added)

Accordingly, the phrase ‘safety of the Australian community,’ in the ‘Principle’ in paragraph 5.2(2) of Direction 110 and the first ‘primary consideration’ in paragraph 8.1(1) of Direction 110 (Protection of the Australian community) is directed at the ‘risk’ posed by a non-citizen to the safety of the Australian nation should they be granted a visa. It is not directed at the potential consequences for a segment of the Australian community (such as the non-citizen’s family members) should the visa not be granted or restored. The Tribunal must assess whether a non-citizen’s continued presence in Australia would ‘be opposed to the safety and welfare of the nation.’[12]
[12] Falzon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 262 CLR 333 at [94].
Protection of the Australian community
Paragraph 8.1(2) of Direction 110 states that, when considering the Protection of the Australian community, decision-makers must consider the:
(a)nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date: paragraph 8.1.1 of Direction 110; and
(b)risk to the Australian community, should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct: paragraph 8.1.2 of Direction 110.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal considers that the first ‘primary consideration’ (Protection of the Australian community) weighs heavily against revocation.
Nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s conduct to date (paragraph 8.1.1 of Direction 110)
Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 110 provides:
a)without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community:
i. violent and/or sexual crimes;
ii. crimes of a violent and/or sexual nature against women or children;
iii.acts of family violence, regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed;
(emphasis added)
The fact that the Applicant’s drug-related criminal offending/conduct does not specifically fall within the range of conduct that paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 110 states ‘may’ be considered ‘very serious,’ does not exclude it from being ‘very serious’, for the purpose of paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 110. This much is obvious from the use of the words ‘without limiting the range of conduct’ which appear at the commencement of paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 110. That is, conduct which may be considered as ‘very serious’, for the purpose of paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 110 is not exhaustive.
The Tribunal considers that the nature of the Applicant’s offending/conduct to date is, overall, objectively ‘very serious’, for the purpose of paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 110. Relevantly, the nature of the Applicant’s conduct, which includes ‘violent’ offending, is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations are insufficient to justify the revocation of the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa: paragraphs 5.2(7) and (8) of Direction 110.
Aggravated burglary
First, the Applicant’s aggravated burglary offence, in which she engaged while serving a term of imprisonment for the Index Offending, was a violent offence which is considered ‘very serious’: paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a)(i) of Direction 110. The ‘very serious’ nature of the offence is supported by the sentencing remarks, dated 2 August 2024. Judge Petrusa found this offending was:
'clearly serious', and noted that 'this is a home invasion, and home invasions involving forceful entry into someone's home, which is either known or suspected to be occupied, accompanied by threatened or actual - and/or actual violence, are significantly serious forms of burglaries, and this burglary had all of those features. It was premeditated. It occurred in company, at a time when one could reasonably expect people to be at home, and there were people present. Considerable force was used to get into the house. A weapon was brought into the home, albeit it's not suggested that it was brandished around in any way but, nonetheless, when the perpetrators were leaving the area, a BB gun was fired. So it's a serious offence' (G7, 47- 48). It was observed that it was clear the offending was being done for the benefit of the applicant who procured this offending (G7, 43 and 48).
Index Offending
Noting, as stated above, that the types of crimes that are to be viewed as ‘very serious’ for the purpose of paragraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 110 is not exhaustive, the Tribunal considers that the Applicant’s Index Offending should be objectively viewed as ‘very serious’, having regard to the broader community impacts and the public costs of commercial drug distribution.
The Tribunal has previously recognised, on numerous occasions, that drugs ‘cause real and serious harm to the Australian community’.[13]
[13] For example, see Kanara and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] AATA 132 at [32] per SM Toohey.
The ‘very serious’ nature of the Applicant’s Index Offending is demonstrated in the sentencing remarks of Judge Lemonis, who found:
the combination of that quantity and the purity is such that considerable harm could have been caused to members of the community if the drug had been distributed. Furthermore, you were in possession of this parcel of drugs for the purpose of commercial gain' (G8, 55).
Driving/traffic offences
The Applicant has also been convicted of a significant number of driving/traffic offences, with 14 convictions on record for driving whilst suspended or not having held a licence (G6, 36-37). In addition to the numerous offences involving driving without a valid licence, the Applicant also has a driving under the influence offence, two offences for driving in excess of 0.05%, excessive speeding and careless driving. The sentences the Applicant received included fines, licence disqualification and terms of imprisonment (G6, 38-39).
The Tribunal has often regarded driving offences to be of a very serious nature: QJYD and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] AATA 1 (QJYD). In QJYD, the Tribunal commented:
Road traffic laws are in place to protect the community, including innocent road users, from harm. Additionally, repeated breaches of road traffic laws tend to indicate a disregard for laws and authority generally, an inability to distinguish right from wrong, and a selfish disregard for the safety of innocent members of the community who share the roads (at [51])… there is a potential to lose control of a motor vehicle whilst driving under the influence of alcohol, which can have catastrophic consequences to innocent members of the community. Therefore, the Tribunal agrees that these offences are serious (at [66]).
The Tribunal views the Applicant’s significant number of driving/traffic offences over a sustained period as ‘serious’ and demonstrative of a blatant disregard for Australian laws, authority and the Australian community, especially other road users. As submitted by the Respondent (HB8 at [40]), it is apparent from the repeated nature of the offending that the Applicant has demonstrated a persistent disregard for the law and, when viewed in the context of the objective ‘very serious’ nature of the Applicant’s Index offending, weighs heavily against revocation.
Sentence/s imposed
Paragraph 8.1.1(1)(c) of Direction 110 provides that in considering the nature and ‘seriousness’ of the Applicant’s criminal offending to date, the Tribunal must have regard to ‘the sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes’, noting that, when reviewing the Minister’s decision whether there is ‘another reason’ to revoke a mandatory visa cancellation, the Tribunal may not impugn or ‘go behind’ either the conviction or the sentence.[14]
[14] Minister for Immigration Multicultural Affairs v Ali (2000) 106 FCR 313 at [42]; Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 256 CLR 203 at [5], [44], [102], and [104].
As stated above, the Applicant has received sentences of imprisonment in 2009, 2013, 2014, 2017, 2022 and 2024: HB70 – HB72. It is well-recognised that sentences involving terms of imprisonment are the last resort in the sentencing hierarchy.[15]
[15] Re Harrison v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2006] AATA 47 at [63].
The sentencing remarks for the Applicant’s aggravated burglary offence noted that ‘the seriousness of this offending is such that only a term of immediate imprisonment is appropriate’ and a greater sentence was imposed on the Applicant as opposed to her co-offender in circumstances where she had a more serious and extensive criminal history, was in custody at the time she commissioned the offence, and she was not deterred by the fact that the calls were being recorded: HB81.
Where a court has sentenced an offender to a term of custodial imprisonment, this should be viewed as a reflection of the objective ‘seriousness’ of the offences involved: paragraph 8.1.1(1)(c) of Direction 110.
Frequency of offending and trend of increasing seriousness
It is clear from the evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant’s offending has been frequent and there is a trend of increasing seriousness: paragraph 8.1.1(1)(e) of Direction 110.
The Applicant has committed 73 offences over a 32-year period: HB69 – HB72. From 2009, the Applicant’s offending escalated resulting in her receiving sentences of imprisonment in 2009, 2013, 2014 and 2017, followed by more substantial terms of imprisonment in 2022 and 2024.
Judge Petrusa made the following observations, in her Honour’s sentencing remarks, dated 2 August 2024, on the continuing and escalated nature of the Applicant’s offending:
…you have a lengthy criminal record, predominantly for offences involving drugs and traffic matters.
You have been sentenced to all manners of disposition, including sentences of imprisonment. Notwithstanding this, you have continued to offend, and it would seem that your offending has escalated such that, on 21 January 2022, you were sentenced to a total effective sentence of six years’ imprisonment, backdated to 25 September 2020, for offences relating to possession of dangerous drugs with intent to sell or supply, and the offer of drugs for sale.
It is also clear that despite being in custody, you were not deterred from counselling criminal offending. Clearly then, issues of personal deterrence are a significant sentencing consideration…: HB76.
The Tribunal’s view is that it cannot, objectively, be said that the Applicant’s offending is a one-off mistake but, rather, reflects a consistent pattern of behaviour that endangers the Australian community: paragraph 8.1.1(1)(e) of Direction 110. This behaviour is entirely inconsistent with the expectation, as set out in the ‘Principle’ in paragraph 5.2(1) of Direction 110, that non-citizens are law-abiding and will respect important Australian institutions, such as Australia’s law enforcement framework.
Cumulative effect of repeated offending
The Tribunal considers that the cumulative effect of the Applicant’s repeated offending is ‘very serious’, and has resulted in significant use of police and court resources: paragraph 8.1.1(1)(f) of Direction 110. As stated above, the frequency and nature of the Applicant’s offending demonstrate a continuing disregard for the laws of Australia and the safety of the Australian community.
Re-offended after formal warning
The Applicant continued to offend despite being formally warned by the Department, on 13 August 2009, as to the effect that further offending could have on her migration status: see [6] above and HB160.
In her oral evidence at the hearing the Applicant said she does not recall the 2009 formal warning. However, the Applicant demonstrated her awareness of the 2009 formal warning by signing and returning the acknowledgement of receipt of the 2009 formal warning on 19 September 2009: see [6] above and HB165.
Furthermore, as stated in the ‘Background’ above, on each of 5 January 2015 and 12 April 2017, the Applicant’s visa was mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act on the basis that she had a ‘substantial criminal record.’ Both of those cancellations were revoked by a delegate of the Minister. As noted above, in the 2015 Revocation Decision, the delegate of the Minister observed the Applicant:
…needs to be aware that the delegate has carefully considered whether to revoke her mandatory cancellation and noting her previous warning in 2009 her case was very finely balanced…if Ms Gordon-Stables wishes to ensure her visa is not cancelled in the future it is in her best interests not to reoffend: see [10] above and HB157.
The Applicant signed acknowledgement of the 2015 Revocation Decision, and the fact that she can again be considered for cancellation of her visa in the future, on 25 February 2015: HB159.
The Applicant was also warned, in the 2017 Revocation Decision, that she can again be considered for cancellation of her visa on ‘character grounds’ in the event of further criminal offending by her: see [13] above and HB151.
Despite the 2009 formal warning and two previous visa cancellations and informal warnings, the Applicant continued to offend: paragraph 8.1.1(1)(h) of Direction 110.
WA Police Records
Records obtained by the Respondent, under summons, from Western Australia Police Force (WA Police Records) confirm that the Applicant has been convicted of 38 offences between 1999 and 2024 (HB396 – HB131) and provide the following further detail regarding the circumstances of the Applicant’s offending:
·on 16 July 2021, the Applicant was arrested for breaching bail (failing a urine test) and 0.2g of Methylamphetamine was found on her person at the time. The Applicant claimed that a friend had left it at her home and she had taken it with her so that her adult son would not find it: HB143. The Applicant was convicted in the Rockingham Magistrates Court, on 28 January 2022, for ‘Possess a prohibited drug’, and fined $500: HB396;
·on 17 April 2019, a loan account was established with ANZ bank for an amount of $11,000 (ANZ Bank Loan). The ANZ Bank Loan was established by fraudulent means without the ‘knowledge or consent’ of the person to whom the loan was granted: HB414. On 18 April 2019, $3000 and $5000 was transferred from the account to the Applicant’s bank account. On 10 August 2020, the Applicant was convicted and sentenced to a one-year Community Based Order and fined $225.90: HB326;
·on 4 October 2013, the Applicant was at home when the police attended the address and executed a Misuse of Drugs Act search warrant. Police found an electric shock weapon in working order, which the Applicant admitted ownership of, a can of pepper spray, and a serrated edged knife at her front door: HB445 – HB446. In relation to the serrated edged knife located near her front door, the Applicant stated ‘It’s there if I need it when someone comes to the door’. The Applicant was charged (HB445 – HB226) and on 1 July 2014, among other drug related offences, the Applicant was convicted of ‘Possessed a controlled weapon’, ‘Possessed a prohibited weapon’ and ‘Carried (possessed) an article with intent to cause fear that someone will be injured or disabled’: HB71 and HB399;
·on 13 May 2007, the Applicant returned home, to the home she was living at the time with her daughter, alcohol and drug affected. Following an argument, the Applicant’s daughter asked that she leave. The Applicant became angry and kicked a hole in the bedroom door. The Applicant’s minor granddaughter and her daughter’s younger brother were in the home at the time: HB503; and
·on 7 August 2007, a 24-hour police order was issued against the Applicant, with her daughter named as the protected person: HB262 and see HB25 at [2].
Following a warning against self-incrimination by the Tribunal, the Applicant accepted that the abovementioned offending occurred (for which she did not receive a conviction) in her oral evidence at the hearing.
As stated above, the Applicant has been convicted of a significant number of driving/traffic offences with 14 convictions on record. In addition, the WA Police Records indicate that the Applicant has not held a driver’s licence since 15 June 1994: HB452.
The Applicant’s offending history, as set out above (at [20] to [40]) and established from the WA Police Records, demonstrates a persistent and wilful disregard for the law over a sustained period. This pattern of offending by the Applicant is clearly not isolated incidents, but, rather, represents a repeated and escalating disregard for her Australian legal obligations and the safety of the Australian community, which is paramount: paragraph 8.1(1) of Direction 110.
Conclusion: Nature and seriousness of the conduct (paragraph 8.1.1 of Direction 110)
For the above reasons, and as informed by the ‘Principles’ in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, the Tribunal considers the ‘nature and seriousness’ of the Applicant’s criminal conduct to date to be ‘very serious’: paragraph 8.1.1 of Direction 110.
In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal notes that a majority of the Full Court recently held that the Tribunal is not bound by the expressed views as to the ‘seriousness’ of certain conduct found within paragraph 8.1.1(a) and (b) of Direction 110 and, instead, the Tribunal is required to assess for itself the ‘nature and seriousness’ of a non-citizen’s conduct to date and the weight that should be attributed to this consideration.[16]
[16] BNY23 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 608 at [107]; Siale v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2025] FCA 608 at [34]; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Peralta Montes [2025] FCA 667 at [89]–[90].
For the above reasons, the Tribunal considers that the ‘nature and seriousness’ of the Applicant’s criminal offending to date weighs heavily against revocation.
Risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct (paragraph 8.1.2 of Direction 110)
The Tribunal must also consider the ‘risk’ to the Australian community, should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct: paragraph 8.1.2 of Direction 110. Some conduct, and the harm that would be caused, if repeated, is so serious that any risk it may be repeated may be ‘unacceptable’: paragraph 8.1.2(1) of Direction 110.
In assessing the ‘risk’ posed by the non-citizen to the Australian community, the Tribunal must have ‘regard to,’ cumulatively:
(a)the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct: paragraph 8.1.2(2)(a) of Direction 110; and
(b)the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or serious conduct, taking into account:
(i)information and evidence on the risk of the Applicant reoffending; and
(ii)evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community, if any, since his most recent offence: paragraph 8.1.2(2)(b) of Direction 110.
The concept of ‘risk’ and whether it is ‘unacceptable,’ for the purpose of paragraph 8.1.2(1) of Direction 110, is not the same thing as the ‘likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct’, for the purpose of paragraph 8.1.2(2) of Direction 110.[17]
[17] See Re RRRB and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] ARTA 471 at [74].
Direction 110, directs the Tribunal’s ‘risk’ assessment by expressly stating that, informed by the ‘Principles’ in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 110, the:
(a)Australian Government is committed to ‘protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens’: paragraph 8.1(1) of Direction 110;
(b)Australian Government views that certain types of conduct may be considered by it and the Australian community as ‘very serious’ and ‘serious’: paragraph 8.1.1(1) of Direction 110; and
(c)Australian Government’s view is that ‘the Australian community’s tolerance of any further risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases’: paragraph 8.1.2(1) of Direction 110.