Gouveia and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

[2024] AATA 239

Gouveia and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2024] AATA 239 (22 February 2024)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2023/9247

Re:Ricardo Bruno Gouveia

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Mr S Evans, Member

Date(s) of hearing:                 8 & 12 February 2024

Date of written reasons:         22 February 2024

Place:Sydney

Pursuant to section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), the Tribunal decides that the decision under review, being the decision of a delegate of the Minister dated 30 November 2023 not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa, is affirmed.

...............................[sgd]........................................

Mr S Evans, Member

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Applicant citizen of Portugal - visa mandatorily cancelled pursuant to section 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – where the applicant has a substantial criminal record section 501(6)(a) – sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months - review of decision to refuse to revoke mandatory cancellation under section 501CA(4) - where the applicant does not pass the character test –- Direction no. 99 considered - extensive offending history - history of poly drug use – diagnoses of schizophrenia and drug induced psychosis - significant risk of reoffending - Applicant continued to use illicit substances while in prison contrary to oral evidence – decision under review affirmed.

LEGISLATION

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)

Migration Act 1958

CASES

FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185

Suleiman and Minister for Immigration, and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594

SECONDARY MATERIALS

Direction no. 99 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA

REASONS FOR DECISION

Mr S Evans, Member

22 February 2024

1. The Applicant, Ricardo Bruno Gouveia, seeks review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (the Respondent) not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Class BB Subclass 155 Five Year Resident Return visa (the visa) pursuant to section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).[1]

   [1] G-Documents, G2, p. 7–30.

2. The Applicant was born in Portugal and is a citizen of that country. He is understood to have first arrived in Australia on 28 February 1987 age 6.[2]

   [2] Ibid, G3, p. 78, 201.

3. On 20 April 2022, the Applicant was sentenced at Fairfield Local Court to 12 months’ full-time imprisonment with a non-parole period of 9 months for the offence of ‘Enter dwelling w/i (steal)-T1’. The sentence was backdated to 30 September 2021 and concluded on 29 September 2022. He was eligible for parole on 29 June 2022.[3]

   [3] Ibid, p. 60, 212.

4. On 16 May 2022, the Applicant was notified that his visa had been cancelled pursuant to s 501(3A) of the Act based on the sentence imposed on 20 April 2022.[4] On 20 May 2022, the Applicant made representations seeking revocation of the cancellation of his visa.[5] He was invited to comment on information the Department had received concerning his criminal record on 24 May 2023 and 27 October 2023.[6]

   [4] Ibid, p. 203-204.

   [5] Ibid, p. 78-80.

   [6] Ibid, p. 95-100; 101-186.

5. On 30 November 2023, the delegate decided not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa (the reviewable decision).[7]

   [7] Ibid, G2, p. 7.

   RELEVANT LAW AND MINISTERIAL DIRECTION

6. Section 501CA of the Act applies where the Minister makes a decision under subsection 501(3A) to cancel a visa that has been granted to a person.

7. Subsection 501(3A) of the Act requires the Minister to cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test due to the operation of subsections 501(6)(a) and 501(7)(c).

8. Paragraph 501(6)(a) provides that a person does not pass the character test if they have a ‘substantial criminal record’. Paragraph 501(7)(c) provides that a person has a substantial criminal record if the person has been sentenced to a term of 12 months imprisonment or more.

9. The Minister may revoke the original cancellation decision pursuant to subsection 501CA(4) of the Act which provides that:

   (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.

10. Paragraph 500(1)(ba) of the Act provides the Tribunal with the power to review decisions of a delegate of the Minister under subsection 501CA(4) not to revoke a decision to cancel a visa.

11. The Minister has made written directions under section 499 of the Act which apply to decision-makers in the exercise of power under subsection 501CA(4). The relevant direction is Direction no. 99 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (the Direction or Direction 99).

12. Paragraph 5.2 of Direction 99 provides overarching principles which I have considered when reviewing the Applicant’s application. It relevantly provides:

    (1) Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia’s law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.

    (2) Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.

    (3) The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.

    (4) Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non-citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time.

    (5) With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia will generally afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age. The level of tolerance will rise with the length of time a non-citizen has spent in the Australian community, particularly in their formative years.

    (6) Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen’s conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation. In particular, the inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence and the other types of conduct or suspected conduct mentioned in paragraph 8.55(2) (Expectations of the Australian Community) is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient in some circumstances, even if the non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.

13. Part 2 of the Direction identifies the considerations the Tribunal must have regard to when determining whether to exercise the discretion to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa. The primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations, and one or more primary consideration may outweigh other primary considerations. However, other considerations should not be considered ‘secondary’ or of inherently less importance than primary considerations, and in certain circumstances one or more other considerations may outweigh primary considerations.[8]

    [8] Suleiman and Minister for Immigration, and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594, [23] per Colvin J.

14. The primary considerations in the Direction are:

    (1)protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;

    (2)family violence committed by the non-citizen;

    (3)strength, nature and duration of ties of the non-citizen to Australia;

    (4)best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision; and

    (5)expectations of the Australian community.

15. The other considerations set out in Direction 99 which must be taken into account where relevant include but are not limited to:

    a)legal consequences of the decision;

    b)extent of impediments if removed;

    c)impact on victims; and

    d)impact on Australian business interests.

    ISSUE TO BE DETERMINED

16. The issue for the Tribunal to consider is whether to revoke the original decision to cancel the Applicant’s visa pursuant to subsection 501CA(4) of the Act.

17. Subparagraph 501CA(4)(b) of the Act provides that the Tribunal may revoke the original decision if it is satisfied:

    (a)that the Applicant passes the character test; or

    (b)that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.

18. I am satisfied that the Applicant does not pass the character test by operation of s 501(6)(a) of the Act as he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months in the Local Court of New South Wales on 20 April 2022.[9] 

    [9] G-Documents, G3, p. 59-60.

19. Having found that the Applicant does not pass the character test, the sole issue for determination is whether the Tribunal can be satisfied that there is another reason why the mandatory cancellation of the visa should be revoked.

    EVIDENCE

    The Applicant’s evidence

20. The Applicant gave oral evidence at the hearing. He acknowledged making poor choices throughout his life. He said that being addicted to illicit drugs for most of his adult life had deprived him of the opportunity to live a normal life.

21. The Applicant gave evidence that throughout his childhood his parents spoke English at home and he could not speak Portuguese. The Applicant completed his schooling in Australia and left school in year 8 after which he worked in his father’s construction business. In his request for revocation, the Applicant writes he worked in construction between 1999 and 2005 and as a forklift driver between 2006 and 2009. He was employed as an excavator operator for a year between 2019 and 2020.[10]

    [10] G-Documents, G3, p. 91.

22. The Applicant gave evidence that he and his partner of 5 years, Ms R, had recently separated. He believes they are better off apart and that their relationship triggered his drug use.

23. Should he be released into the community, the Applicant intends to reside with his sister and her husband. The Applicant’s brother-in-law operates a small business and has offered him employment, which the Applicant has accepted.

    Evidence of Elizabete Ibrahim, the Applicant’s sister

24. Elizabete Ibrahim is the Applicant’s sister. She provided a written statement dated 16 January 2024 and gave oral evidence at the hearing.[11]

    [11] Applicant’s Materials, p. 1-2; Respondent’s Further Submissions, 13 February 2024, p.1.

25. In her statement Ms Ibrahim writes that she loves the Applicant. Should he be deported, she would miss her brother and fears she would not see him again. Ms Ibrahim said that their mother is a 72-year-old widow who loves the Applicant and would be devastated if he was deported to Portugal. Ms Ibrahim also confirmed the Applicant does not have family in Portugal.[12]

    [12] Applicant’s Materials, p. 1-2.

26. Ms Ibrahim understands that her brother’s addiction to drugs was the primary cause of his offending. She said that he is currently being treated for his drug addiction and receives monthly buprenorphine injections. He has completed the EQUIPS program and participated in SMART Recovery while in immigration detention, where he is also receiving drug and alcohol counselling. Having visited him in immigration detention and speaking to him daily, Ms Ibrahim has observed a significant improvement in the Applicant’s mental health and drug addiction. She said the buprenorphine injections were doing a ‘world of good’, and that her husband had also observed that the Applicant had changed.

27. Ms Ibrahim confirmed that her husband owns and operates a home renovation business, and he is prepared to employ the Applicant if he is released back into the community. She said that the Applicant had worked for her husband in the past and proven to be hard-working and trustworthy.

28. Should he be released into the community, Ms Ibrahim and her husband will allow the Applicant to live with them provided he does not use drugs or engage in criminal activity. She confirmed the Applicant had lived with them previously.

29. Ms Ibrahim has two adult children who she said maintain a relationship with the Applicant and often speak to him. Should he return to Portugal, she said that they would be affected personally and by the upset it would cause her their grandmother.

    Primary consideration 1 – Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct

30. The Tribunal must have regard to the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct. When considering the protection of the Australian community, Direction 99 requires decision-makers to have regard to:

    a)the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date; and

    b)the risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.

    The nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s conduct to date

31. In considering the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s conduct I am required to have regard to the factors set out in paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction.

    The Applicant’s offending and other conduct

32. The Applicant’s extensive criminal record is detailed in a Criminal Intelligence Commission report and all of his convictions since becoming an adult are detailed in Annexure A.[13] The Applicant’s first criminal conviction as an adult was on 12 November 1998 and he committed 116 further offences over the following 24 years.[14]

    [13] G-Documents, G3, p. 32–49.

    [14] Ibid; Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, Annexure A, p. 1-11.

33. The Respondent has set out a categorised summary of the Applicant’s offending in its Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions:[15]

    72 property, theft and dishonesty offences – including dealing with proceeds of crime, goods in custody, entering a dwelling with intent to steal, larceny, damaging / destroying property, entering premises, inclosed land or a vehicle / boat unlawfully, stealing property from a dwelling, aggravated enter dwelling with intent and in company, receiving / disposing of stolen property, dishonestly obtaining property by deception, stealing a motor vehicle, taking and driving a conveyance without consent from the owner, being carried in a conveyance taken without the owner’s consent, stealing from the person, and break and enter.

    14 violent and/or assault offences – including assaulting / intimidating / resisting or hindering police officers in the execution of duty, possession or use of a prohibited weapon without permit, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, demanding property with menaces with intent to steal, and custody of knife in a public place.

    18 driving offences – including driving vehicle with illicit drug present in blood, driving while licence suspended, driving while disqualified from holding a licence, driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, using an uninsured / unregistered vehicle, failure to give particulars to the other driver, negligent driving, failure to produce licence, non-compliance with P plates requirement, and driving in a manner dangerous to the public.

    7 public disorder and regulatory offences – including going onto or remaining on or in running lines, failure to wear a fitted face covering, non-compliance with COVID-19 directions, giving a false name to police, travelling / attempting to travel without a valid ticket, and behaving in an offensive manner or using offensive language in / near a public place / school.

    5 breach of custodial and/or bail conditions – including escaping from custody, and failing to appear in accordance with a bail undertaking.

    [15] Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, [11] – [11.5].

34. NSW Department of Corrective Services records indicate that the Applicant has been in custody or had bail revoked during the following periods:

Date	Period of time in full-time custody
14 August 2008 - 8 December 2009	1 year, 3 months, 24 days
9 June 2012 - 22 February 2013	8 months, 13 days
24 December 2019 - 2 March 2020	2 months, 7 days
9 March 2020 - 17 March 2020	8 days
26 March 2020 - 7 September 2020	5 months, 12 days
1 October 2021 - 29 May 2023	1 year, 7 months, 28 days

May 2021 offence

1. A police facts sheet details the offending for which the Applicant was sentenced on 20 April 2022, prompting the mandatory cancellation of his visa.[16] The Applicant was taken to the fact sheet during the hearing, and did not take issue with the facts as recorded.

   [16] G-Documents, G3, p. 61; G2, p. 11-12.

2. In summary, on 20 May 2021 the Applicant gained access to the premises of an NDIS service provider and stole items including a vacuum cleaner, iPhone and household goods which the store manager later estimated to be valued at $5,000. The following day police attended the location and were provided with CCTV footage capturing the Applicant entering and roaming inside the building.

3. On 9 August 2021, police were patrolling Parramatta Railway Station and the Applicant was stopped after leaving a train. After he provided his details the officers placed the Applicant under arrest for the break and enter offence.[17]

   [17] Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, [10] – [10.2]; G-Documents, G3, p. 62–63.

4. In sentencing the Applicant in the Fairfield Local Court, Magistrate Spence noted that the Applicant had ‘66 pages of antecedents’ which he said was ‘…probably one of the worst you could see for a man of [the Applicant’s] age’.[18]

   [18] G-Documents, G3, p. 59.

5. When asked about the offence during the hearing, the Applicant did not recall entering the building because he was under the influence of drugs at the time. He was unable to explain why he stole the items but speculated he was not in a ‘right state of mind’. He said that he had previously stolen items which he sold to buy drugs. He conceded that the offending was serious and said that he appreciates the effect it has on victims.  

   August and September 2021 offences

6. On 12 November 2021, the Applicant was sentenced in relation to offending which occurred on 24 August 2021 and 27 September 2021. The detail of the offending is set out in a police facts sheet dated 20 September 2021 and tendered to the Court for his appearance on 12 November 2021.[19]

   [19] Respondent’s Tender Bundle, p. 308-313.

7. According to the police facts, on 27 September 2021 police were conducting a morning patrol at Campbelltown railway station. At that time the Public Health Act required commuters to wear a face mask because of the pandemic. Police observed the Applicant on a platform without a face mask. Aware that he had an outstanding warrant, police approached the Applicant who became agitated and refused to cooperate. Police arrested him and requested he remove his backpack.

1. The Applicant began gesticulating his arms to stop police from holding him. He continued to resist arrest and stepped backward, causing police to lose their grip. The Applicant fell from the platform and begun running along the railway lines. Fearing for his safety, Sydney Trains were notified that the Applicant was on the railway tracks. The police were unable to locate him.[20]

   [20] Ibid.

2. About midday on 30 September 2021 the Applicant was seen entering a taxi without a face mask, as required by the prevailing public health order. Police caused the taxi to stop and approached the taxi to speak to the Applicant.

3. The Applicant became aggressive and argumentative with police officers and claimed he was COVID-19 positive. Police concluded he was affected by drugs and believed he may be carrying a prohibited drug or drug implement. The Applicant exited the taxi and continued his aggressive behaviour and attempted to flee from police. Both officers took hold of the Applicant in an effort to detain him. He resisted by throwing his body weight in an effort to break their grip, forcing the officers onto the railway into the path of oncoming vehicles. They continued in their efforts to restrain the Applicant during which one of the officers was pushed off balance and fell, causing pain to her right hand. The Applicant continued resisting and took hold of the right hand of the officer who had fallen to the roadway, causing her significant pain. The officer was later taken to hospital where doctors confirmed she had sustained a spiral fracture to the fifth finger of her right hand. The fracture required surgeries insert screws to stabilise it. She was unable to work and the injury caused significant discomfort.

4. After his arrest, a check of the Applicant’s phone revealed he had received a text message from New South Wales Health informing him that he had tested negative for COVID-19. Police alleged that the Applicant claimed to be COVID-19 positive to intimidate officers into limiting their exposure to him and providing him an opportunity to escape.[21]

   [21] Ibid.

   Previous warnings

5. The Applicant was formally warned by the Department in March 2013 that his visa may be considered for cancellation. In January 2014, the Department advised his visa would not be cancelled but that visa cancellation may be reconsidered should he commit further offences.[22] After further offending, the Applicant’s visa was cancelled on 9 July 2020.[23] The Applicant was detained until the Department revoked the cancellation decision on 24 December 2020.[24] The Applicant signed a declaration on 24 December 2020 that he understood if he engaged in further criminal or other serious conduct visa cancellation on character grounds may occur in which case both past conduct and previous relevant information could be reconsidered by the Department.[25]

   [22] G-Documents, G3, p. 184, 196.

   [23] Ibid, p. 190-195.

   [24] G-Documents, G3, p. 187-188.

   [25] Ibid, p. 189.

6. The Applicant has been convicted of 116 offences over the course of 24 years, and the cumulative effect of his offending increases its seriousness.[26] He has served multiple terms of imprisonment. The frequency of the Applicant’s offending has increased over time, and he has progressively incurred increasing sentences for his offending. It is of particular concern that the Applicant has continued to offend despite being formally warned his visa may be cancelled and having his visa cancelled once before.[27] In considering the seriousness of his offending, I take into account that some of the offending occurred while he was on bail, parole or good behaviour bonds and the offending for which he was convicted on 10 August 2022 included a crime against police officers in the performance of their duties.

   [26] G-Documents, G3, p. 32-49; Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, Annexure A, p. 1-11.

   [27] Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, [37] - [45].

7. Having regard to the factors set out in paragraph 8.1.1(1) of Direction 99, I find the Applicant’s conduct is serious.

8. Subparagraph 8.1.2(1) of Direction 99 provides that in considering the protection of the Australian community, I should have regard to the Government’s view that the Australian community’s tolerance for any risk of future harm lessens as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Subparagraph 8.1.2(2) provides that in assessing the risk posed by a non-citizen to the Australian community, I should consider, cumulatively: 

   (a)the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and

   (b)the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account available information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen reoffending and evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of decision, with weight to be given to the time spent in the community since the non-citizen’s most recent offending. 

   The nature of future harm

9. Most of the Applicant’s convictions have involved theft, property damage and dishonesty offences. His offending also includes crimes of violence or threats of violence and driving offences including driving under the influence of drugs. Should the Applicant commit similar offences in the future, it may result in significant financial and physical harm to individuals in the community.   

   The likelihood of further criminal or other serious conduct  

10. The Applicant recognises his offending has caused significant harm to the community for which he says he is remorseful. He accepts that his offending has often occurred while he has been under the influence of drugs, so that he can obtain drugs, or both. He argues he has made significant progress overcoming his drug addiction and is confident he will continue his recovery should he be released into the community. In this regard the Applicant has contacted ONE80TC regarding residential rehabilitation but was unable to secure a placement while he remains in immigration detention. However, he says he is committed to residential rehabilitation and can rely on the support of his sister and brother in-law, who are prepared to offer stable accommodation for the medium term and employment.

11. Without medication, the Applicant has experienced cravings to use drugs. He said the monthly injections of buprenorphine significantly reduce his risk of relapse as he is not required to maintain daily compliance as he was with the methadone program. Should he return to the community, the Applicant plans to transfer his current treatment plan to a doctor and to continue the counselling he has been receiving in immigration detention.

12. The Applicant submits he has a strong foundation from which to progress his recovery and that he has learnt from previous, unsuccessful attempts at recovery. Except for using cannabis when he was transferred from prison to immigration detention, it was his evidence he had not used drugs since being arrested on 30 September 2021. He gave evidence that drugs are readily available in immigration detention, and his continued sobriety while in detention demonstrates his resolve and the progress he has made in overcoming his addiction.  

13. In both 2011 and 2020, the Applicant’s sentences were suspended for him to undergo the Drug Court Program, which he failed to complete on both occasions.[28] On 4 May 2020, Senior Judge Dive stated that the Drug Court Program was a ‘very short and unsuccessful program’ and that the Applicant was ‘returned to custody after only a few days on the program and served a short period of sanctions. He was required to serve sanctions for a further 3 weeks, after which his Drug Court Program was terminated’. [29]

    [28] G-Documents, G2, p. 14; G3, 64-66.

    [29] Ibid, G3, p.64.

14. The Applicant gave evidence that his opioid dependence – which is treated using buprenorphine - has been the driver of most of his problematic drug use. However, the evidence supports a conclusion he was a regular user of other illicit substances, notably methamphetamine.[30] A pre-sentence report, dated 28 November 2007, notes the Applicant ‘has an extensive history of poly drug use where the offender’s drug of choice was cannabis and methylamphetamine’.[31] In a separate report, dated 3 May 2013, Corrective Services report the Applicant ‘acknowledged that he had also been dependent upon Crystal methamphetamine (Ice)’.[32]

    [30] Respondent’s Tender Bundle, p. 420.

    [31] Ibid, p. 275.  

    [32] Ibid, p. 253.

15. Corrective Services records also indicate that contrary to his oral evidence, the Applicant continued to use illicit substances while in prison. A note dated 24 October 2022 records:

    Richard also reported he is using Buprenorphine illegally in custody and has requested several blood tests as he is worried he will contract a blood born disease using shared needles. Richard reports an ongoing addiction to Heroine which he ingests via injection.[33]

    [errors in original]

    [33] Ibid, p. 235.

16. An immigration detention clinical record dated 2 June 2023 states that the Applicant admitted to smoking ‘bupe’.[34] On 7 September 2023, he tested positive for buprenorphine, methamphetamine, THC, MDMA in a UDS.[35] A note following a GP consultation records that he used ‘ice’ twice a week and had used cannabis the day before.[36] On 16 October 2023, the Applicant reported using methamphetamines once every 2 to 4 weeks in detention. On 17 October 2023, he reported having used heroin in September 2023.[37]A report dated 13 November 2023 states that the Applicant last used methamphetamine ‘a few weeks ago’, and heroin ‘6 months ago’.[38]

    [34] Ibid, p. 428.

    [35] Ibid, p. 392, 453.

    [36] Ibid, p. 393.

    [37] Ibid, p. 386 – 387.

    [38] Ibid, p. 380.

17. Some of the reports repeat the Applicant self-reported regarding his substance abuse. At the hearing it was apparent that the Applicant had genuine difficulty recalling some details relating to his drug use and mental health. That said, I am not persuaded that the Applicant has been sober since his arrest in September 2022 as he stated at the hearing.

18. The Applicant has been diagnosed with schizophrenia, which is detailed in an Intensive Correction Order Assessment Report prepared for an appearance at the Central Local Court on 16 November 2012. The Report states in part:

    When questioned about his mental health the [Applicant] advised that he was diagnosed with drug induced psychosis four years ago. He denied any mental health issues, however, upon perusal of Service records it was noted that Mr Gouveia was diagnosed with Schizophrenia in 2006 but has not received any ongoing treatment. The [Applicant] was questioned about this again at which time he again denied the diagnosis. The [Applicant’s] Service records were further reviewed and it was established that the [Applicant] was diagnosed with Schizophrenia in 2006 and he had previously been challenged about not disclosing the condition during the preparation of reports as recently as June 2012 when he reported that he has never received treatment for the condition, nor does he believe that it affects him. It appears that Mr Gouveia has not been honest with this Service in relation to his mental health issues as there is a significant amount of conflicting information about what treatment he has received in relation to his Schizophrenia that he currently denies suffering from.[39]

    [errors in original]

    [39] Ibid, p. 257–258.

19. It was the Applicant’s oral evidence that he had previously taken Olanzapine to treat his schizophrenia. He confirmed during the hearing that he is not currently taking medication for any mental health conditions, and gave evidence he had been unaffected by schizophrenia for 2 to 3 years. Contrary to his evidence, when he appeared in the Local Court Campbelltown on 10 August 2022, it was submitted on his behalf that:  

    … that [the Applicant’s] taking anti-psychotic medication whilst in custody and he tells me that that’s so because he tells me he’s hearing voices at this point in time. He also tells me he has a history of mental illness, and drug induced psychosis, a lot of psychological and mental issues in the past. I think they predominantly relate to his drug use, your Honour.[40]

    [40] G-Documents, G3, p. 53.

20. In his request for revocation the Applicant writes he had been diagnosed with drug induced psychosis, that his mental health will need to be addressed and that he takes Seroquel.[41] The evidence before the Tribunal is that the Applicant’s mental health condition has been a factor in his offending. The Applicant’s evidence regarding the condition and treatment has, at times, been inconsistent and inaccurate, as demonstrated in the assessment report cited above. Should the Applicant return to the community, it is unclear how the Applicant intends to treat or manage his condition. As his mental health has been a factor in his offending to date, I consider this increases the risk to the community.  

    [41] Ibid, p. 92.

21. The Applicant has reported being sexually assaulted by a family member when he was around 7 years of age and of being sexually abused while in correctional facilities as both a youth and an adult.[42] However, there is very little information regarding these incidents, how it may have contributed to his offending or how it affects his plans for rehabilitation.

    [42] Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, [53]; G-Documents, G3, p. 90, 150.

    Protection of the Australian community – conclusion

22. I have found that the Applicant’s offending is serious. The Applicant has expressed remorse for his offending and has shown some insight into the effect on others and the significant role substance abuse has played in his offending.

23. The Applicant’s claim to have made significant progress in overcoming his substance abuse is undermined by the evidence of his continued drug use since his arrest in September 2021.[43] Given his extensive history of substance abuse and his past resistance to community-based rehabilitation attempts, I consider there is a significant risk he will continue to use illicit drugs should he return to the community. The Applicant has also continued to offend despite having served multiple terms of full-time custody and having his visa cancelled in 2020. Having regard to these factors and his extensive offending history, I consider there is a significant risk he will reoffend in the future.

    [43] Respondent’s Tender Bundle, p. 386–387.

24. For these reasons, this primary consideration weighs strongly in favour of not revoking the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa. 

    Primary consideration 2 - Family violence committed by the non-citizen

25. The second primary consideration is whether the conduct engaged in by the Applicant constituted family violence. Family violence is defined in Section 4 of Direction 99 to include violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person’s family or causes the family member to be fearful. Paragraph 8.2(3) of the Direction sets out a list of factors that the Tribunal must consider in assessing the weight to be given to this consideration. They relevantly include the frequency of the conduct, the cumulative effect of repeated acts of family violence and the rehabilitation achieved since the person’s last known act of family violence. 

26. There are references to domestic violence episodes in which the Applicant is identified as ‘a person of interest’ or ‘the accused’ in the documents which are in evidence. These include an incident on 20 March 2019 and an incident at the Applicant’s home in April 2004.[44] Untested, the documentation is insufficient to conclude the Applicant engaged in family violence. It follows that I accept the Respondent’s submission that there is no evidence that the Applicant has engaged in conduct that constitutes family violence.

    [44] Ibid, p. 51-59, 101, 170.

27. As such, this consideration weighs neutrally. 

    Primary consideration 3 – The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia

28. I am required to consider the impact of the decision on the Applicant’s immediate family members in Australia as well as the strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, permanent residents and people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely. Subparagraph 8.3(4) provides that consideration weight should be given to the fact that a non-citizen has been ordinarily resident in Australia during and since their formative years.

29. The Applicant has significant ties to the Australian community. His remaining immediate and extended family reside in Australia, including his sister, brother and mother. The Applicant stated that he has a strong relationship with his mother and sister, but is not close to his brother. He speaks to his sister every day. The Applicant has an auntie, uncles and cousins who he speaks to occasionally, usually at family events such as weddings and funerals.

30. The Applicant’s sister Elizabete Ibrahim gave evidence that the Applicant’s permanent removal to Portugal would have a profound effect on both she and her mother. She gave evidence that the Applicant also regularly speaks to her two adult children. Ms Ibrahim claimed her children would be directly affected by the Applicant’s removal and indirectly through the emotional toll it would have on her and their grandmother.

31. In his request for revocation the Applicant stated that he had an Australian citizen partner Ms R. He wrote they had been together since June 2018 and that Ms R would experience a decline in her mental health should he be removed. He described Ms R as a loving and caring woman who he planned to marry as she is supportive and helpful.[45] He claimed she would be heartbroken without him and had a history of self-harm. He said the couple had spoken every day but with reduced frequency owing to Ms R undergoing dental surgery.  

    [45] G-Documents, G3, p. 84.

32. At the hearing the Applicant confirmed he no longer intended to maintain a relationship with Ms R. Although Ms R does no use drugs she consumes alcohol. The Applicant expressed concerns that Ms R ‘triggered’ his substance abuse and their relationship contributed to his relapse following his release from immigration detention on 24 December 2020. He confirmed Ms R had not visited him in detention, which he attributed to her not having been vaccinated.

33. Despite the Applicant’s stated intention to remain separated from Ms R, he maintains significant and long-lasting connections to the Australian community, particularly with his sister and his mother. Corrective Services reports indicate that the Applicant’s mother and sister were committed to the Applicant, providing accommodation and attending court with him.[46]

    [46] Respondent’s Tender Bundle, p. 263.

34. The Applicant has contributed positively to the community during the limited periods he has maintained employment. He worked with his father when he left school in 1999 after which he appears to have maintained employment until 2007, when he stopped working due to his drug use. It appears that he did not maintain steady employment for long periods in the intervening period to 2019.[47]

    [47] G-Documents, G3, p. 91.

35. The Applicant’s parents separated in 2000 and the Applicant maintained a close relationship with his father. The sentencing remarks from his appearance in the District Court of NSW on 31 January 2013 state that the Applicant had been caring for his father who was sick with cancer prior to his arrest.[48] He passed away six months after being diagnosed and I take into account this contribution to the community.

    [48] Respondent’s Tender Bundle, p. 328-329.

36. The Applicant has been ordinarily resident in Australia during and since their formative years. Though his offending began at a young age, I attribute significant weight in favour of revocation to the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa in recognition of his having resided in Australia since age 6.  

1. Overall, this consideration weighs heavily in favour of revoking the cancellation decision.

   Primary consideration 4 – Best interests of minor children affected by the decision

2. Direction 99 requires the Tribunal to make a determination about whether refusal to grant the Applicant’s visa is in the best interests of any minor children in Australia affected by the decision. The Direction at subparagraph 8.4(4) sets out a number of factors to be considered in assessing the best interests of minor children. These include the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the person, the extent to which the person is likely to play a positive parental role in relation to the child, the likely effect that any separation from the person would have on the child, whether there are any other people who fulfil parental roles with the child, any known views of the child, and any evidence that the person abused or has neglected the child or, that the child has otherwise suffered from trauma from the person’s actions including through exposure to family violence.

3. Towards the end of the hearing the Applicant stated that he is the godfather of his friend Adrian’s two children – Child A, age 6 and Child B, age 4. This information had not previously been before the Tribunal, and notably the Applicant did not identify the children in the revocation request of 20 May 2022 where he was asked to list ‘all other minor children’ in his life.[49]

   [49] G-Documents, G3, p. 87.

4. Section 500(6H) of the Act places limitations on the tribunal having regard to evidence provided by a review applicant unless it has been provided to the Minister at least 2 business days before the review hearing. The Respondent argues the ‘two-day rule’ applies to the Applicant’s evidence regarding his godsons.

5. By way of background, a directions hearing was arranged for 1 February as the Applicant had yet to submit any additional evidence or witness statements. The Applicant did not attend the scheduled directions hearing. Another directions hearing was held on 5 February during which the Applicant was informed he was required to provide witness statements by the end of that day. The Applicant did not provide any statements that day but did provide a statement from his sister on 7 February, a day before the hearing which was listed on 8 and 9 February 2024. In response to the delayed submission the Tribunal agreed in consultation with the parties to move the second day of hearing to enable the Applicant to call his sister as a witness.

6. I agree with the Respondent that the Applicant has been provided sufficient opportunity to submit new material. The Applicant’s godsons were not mentioned in any documentation since the revocation request of 20 May 2022, in which he wrote ‘nil’ where asked to list all minor children including biological children, adopted children, step-children’.[50] Having regard to the circumstances and s 500(6H) of the Act, I have decided not to consider the best interests of Child 1 and Child 2. 

   [50] Ibid, p. 85.

7. For these reasons, this primary consideration is afforded neutral weight. 

   Primary consideration 5 - Expectations of the Australian community

8. Paragraph 8.5 of Direction 99 requires me to consider the expectations of the Australian community. Subparagraph 8.5(1) relevantly states: 

   The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia.

9. In FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs[51] (FYBR) the Full Federal Court decided by majority that it is not for the decision-maker to assess what the expectations of the Australian community are for the purpose of applying this consideration. That is, it is not for the Tribunal to determine for itself the expectations of the Australian community by reference to an applicant’s circumstances or evidence about those expectations. Rather, the expectations of the community that decision makers are required to consider are those set out at paragraph 11.3 of Direction 65, the direction considered in that case which is analogous to paragraph 8.5 of Direction 99.

   [51] [2019] FCAFC 185, [93].

10. The Direction lists specific conduct which the Australian community as a whole expects would raise serious character concerns and an expectation that the person would not hold an Australian visa. The nature of the Applicant’s offending, which includes violent crimes and crimes against police officers in the commission of their duties, is such that the community as a norm would expect that his visa be cancelled. When allocating weight to this primary consideration, I also take into account principle 5.2(5) of the Direction which provides that Australia will generally afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life or from a very young age.

11. Having regard to the provisions of Direction 99 and the Applicant’s criminal offending, I find that the community’s expectations weigh in favor of not revoking the cancellation of the visa.  

    OTHER RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS

    Other consideration B - Extent of impediments if removed

12. I am required to consider the extent of any impediments that the Applicant may face if removed from Australia in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards in Portugal in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country.

13. The Applicant has resided in Australia from age 6, returning briefly to Portugal with his family on two occasions – first between February to April 1996 age 15-16 years and for three months between July to October 2001 age 21.[52] When he visited Portugal he was assisted by his parents who both speak Portuguese. Should he return to Portugal, he fears he would face significant difficulties as he does not speak Portuguese.

    [52] G-Documents, G3, p. 200-202.

14. The Applicant confirmed he has transferable skills having worked as a machine operator and with formwork. In custody he worked in food preparation and in the kitchen. He does not believe the skills would be transferrable to Portugal because he would be unable to speak the language.  

15. In his revocation request the Applicant wrote he wanted to stay in Australia as it is the only country he knows, he needed treatment for his mental health, and his family live in Australia.[53] He gave evidence that he does not have relatives or friends in Portugal who might be able to provide any practical or emotional support to him in that country.

    [53] Ibid, p. 80.

16. At 43 years of age the Applicant is relatively young and is in good physical health but has serious mental health and substance abuse issues. The Respondent submits that the Applicant’s concerns regarding his inability to speak Portuguese are largely negated as English is widely spoken in Portugal. Nonetheless, I accept not speaking the official language can be expected to make finding employment in Portugal more difficult. I also expect it will make it difficult for the Applicant to secure accommodation, health care and access to government services.  

17. Absent family or friends on who he can rely for practical and emotional support, the Applicant can expect to face serious challenges and face considerable difficulty establishing himself, particularly when he first arrives in the country.

18. For these reasons, this consideration is afforded significant weight in favour of revoking the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.

    CONCLUSION

19. The Applicant has struggled with drug addiction and abuse for most of his adult life. His offending, which has largely been to support his drug habit or a consequence of his drug use, has reflected this reality. While the nature of the offending has generally been at the lower end of the scale in terms of seriousness, the frequency and cumulative effect make it much more serious. He has continued to offend despite multiple terms of full-time imprisonment and having previously had his visa cancelled. The Applicant claims he is determined to remain sober, but his prospects of doing so appear limited despite the support of his sister as he has continued to use drugs while in immigration detention. For these reasons, the primary consideration of the protection of the Australian community weighs very heavily against revocation of the cancellation decision. The expectations of the Australian community also weigh strongly against revocation.

20. The Best interests of minor children affected by the decision and family violence weigh neutrally. The strength, nature and duration of the Applicant’s ties to Australia weigh in favour of revocation. The Applicant’s mother and sister are committed to the Applicant and want him to remain in Australia where they support him. Considerable weight is given to the fact that he has resided in Australia since his formative years. Despite limited evidence of the Applicant having formed links more generally in the community, this primary consideration is afforded substantial weight.

21. Should the Applicant return to Portugal he can expect to face considerable impediments. The language difference will hinder his ability to re-establish himself and impede his access to ongoing treatment of his addiction and serious mental health condition. He has no known support or relatives in Portugal. Other consideration B favours revocation of the cancellation decision and is afforded considerable weight.

22. On balance, I find that the correct and preferable decision is to affirm the reviewable decision. 

    DECISION

23. Pursuant to section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), the Tribunal decides that the decision under review, being the decision of a delegate of the Minister dated 30 November 2023 not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa, is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 100 (one hundred) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member S. Evans.

...............................[sgd]................................

Associate

Dated: 22 February 2024

Date(s) of hearing:	8 & 12 February 2024
Date final submissions received:	13 February 2024
Applicant:	Self-represented
Solicitors for the Respondent:	M. Teo, Australian Government Solicitor

ANNEXURE

Date	Event	Penalty
21.10.1998	Offence: Drive whilst disqualified (First instance warrant) Conviction: 05.02.1999	Periodic detention: 4 months Disqualification: 12 months
	Offence: Resist police (first instance warrant) Conviction: 05.02.1999	Fine: $500 Court fee: $52
22.10.1998	Offence: Drive in a manner dangerous to the public Conviction: 17.06.1999	Severity appeal: 12.11.1998 Sentenced: 17.06.1999 – Periodic detention: 5 months; Disqualification: 3 years, 6 months
	Offence: Drive while disqualified from holding licence Conviction: 17.06.1999	Severity appeal: 12.11.1998 Sentenced: 17.06.1999 – Periodic detention: 5 months; Disqualification: 3 years, 6 months
04.07.2001	Offence: Destroy or damage property Conviction: 31.10.2006	Warrant issued / executed: 14.07.2005 Taken into account on Form 1
20.08.2002	Offence: Receive property – theft<$5000 Conviction: 19.05.2009	Warrant issued / executed: 15.08.2008 Imprisonment: 3 months
04.12.2004	Summary: The applicant requested the victim’s computer, was denied, and proceeded to steal it. A confrontation ensued, leading to a physical altercation where the applicant punched the victim and pushed their mother.
	Offence: Assault occasioning actual bodily harm-T2 Conviction: 13.05.2011	s 25(2) Warrant issued / executed: 15.06.2005, 14.07.2005, 07.09.2005, 03.11.2005 s 9 Bond: 31.10.2006 (NB: common assault-T2 as a back-up charge) Sentence suspended under Drug Court Act, s 7(3): 23.03.2010 Call up: 13.05.2011 – Imprisonment: 6 months
	Offence: Steal property in dwelling-house<$2000 Conviction: 13.05.2011	s 25(2) Warrant issued / executed: 15.06.2005, 14.07.2005, 07.09.2005, 03.11.2005 s 9 Bond: 31.10.2006 (NB: common assault-T2 as a back-up charge) Sentence suspended under Drug Court Act, s 7(3): 23.03.2010 Call up: 13.05.2011 – Imprisonment: 4 months
15.06.2005	Offence: Fail to appear in accordance with bail undertaking (2 counts) Conviction: 31.10.2006	s 25(2) Warrant issued / executed: 14.07.2005, 07.09.2005, 03.11.2005 Sentenced: 31.10.2006 – Fine: $10
15.06.2005	Offence: Fail to appear in accordance with bail undertaking Conviction: 31.10.2006	Fine: $10
13.07.2005	Offence: Not comply P1 licence-no P plates (class C) Conviction: 14.07.2005	Fine: $200; Court fee: $65
	Offence: Driver/rider refuse to produce licence Conviction: 14.07.2005	Fine: $200; Court fee: $65
02.10.2005	Offence: Steal from the person Conviction: 11.10.2006	s 12 bond: 11.10.2006 Sentence suspended under Drug Court Act, s 7(3): 23.03.2010 Call up: 13.05.2011 – Imprisonment: 21 months, NPP: 13 months
	Offence: Demand property with menaces with intent to steal-T1 Conviction: 11.10.2006	s 12 bond: 11.10.2006 Sentence suspended under Drug Court Act, s 7(3): 23.03.2010 Call up: 13.05.2011 – Imprisonment: 6 months
29.10.2005	Offence: Enter inclosed land not presc premises w/o lawful excuse Conviction: 17.11.2005	Fine: $750; Court fee: $65
30.10.2005	Offence: Breach of bail Conviction: 18.01.2006	Bail order made
03.02.2006	Offence: Resist officer in execution of duty-T2 Conviction: 31.10.2006	Taken into account on Form 1
	Offence: Use offensive language in/near public place/school Conviction: 31.10.2006	Taken into account on Form 1
	Offence: Breach of bail Conviction: 15.02.2006	Bail order made
15.02.2006	Offence: Resist or hinder police officer in the execution of duty Conviction: 13.05.2011	s 25(2) Warrant issued / executed: 08.03.2006, 29.03.2006 s 9 Bond: 31.10.2006 Sentence suspended under Drug Court Act, s 7(3): 23.03.2010 Call up on 13.05.2011 – Imprisonment: 4 months
	Offence: Behave in offensive manner in/near public place/school Conviction: 13.05.2011	s 25(2) Warrant issued / executed: 08.03.2006, 29.03.2006 s 9 Bond: 31.10.2006 Sentence suspended under Drug Court Act, s 7(3): 23.03.2010 Call up on 13.05.2011 – Imprisonment: 1 month
08.03.2006	Offence: Fail to appear in accordance with bail undertakings Conviction: 31.10.2006	Fine: $10
10.03.2006 -25.03.2006	Offence: Breach of bail Conviction: 29.03.2006	Bail order made
27.06.2006	Offence: Break and enter building (steal) value <=$15000-T1 Conviction: 13.05.2011	Sentence suspended under Drug Court Act, s 7(3): 09.12.2009 Remanded to Drug Court: 17.09.2009 Sentenced: 13.05.2011 – Imprisonment: 12 months
08.10.2006	Offence: Larceny-T2 Conviction: 13.05.2011	Sentence suspended under Drug Court Act, s 7(3): 09.12.2009 Remanded to Drug Court: 17.09.2009 Sentenced: 13.05.2011 – Imprisonment: 8 months
12.01.2007	Offence: Larceny-T2 Conviction: 13.05.2011	Sentence suspended under Drug Court Act, s 7(3): 08.12.2009 Remanded to Drug Court: 17.09.2009 Sentenced: 13.05.2011 – Imprisonment: 8 months
	Offence: Destroy or damage property<$2000 Conviction: 13.05.2011	Sentence suspended under Drug Court Act, s 7(3): 08.12.2009 Remanded to Drug Court: 17.09.2009 Sentenced: 13.05.2011 – Imprisonment: 8 months
13.11.2007-14.11.2007	Offence: Larceny value<$2000 Conviction: 13.05.2011	Sentence suspended under Drug Court Act, s 7(3): 08.12.2009 Remanded to Drug Court: 17.09.2009 Sentenced: 13.05.2011 – Imprisonment: 8 months
	Offence: Destroy or damage property<$2000 Conviction: 13.05.2011	Sentence suspended under Drug Court Act, s 7(3): 08.12.2009 Remanded to Drug Court: 17.09.2009 Sentenced: 13.05.2011 – Imprisonment: 8 months
19.12.2007-20.12.2007	Offence: Destroy or damage property<$2000 (3 counts) Conviction: 13.05.2011	Sentence suspended under Drug Court Act, s 7(3): 08.12.2009 Remanded to Drug Court: 17.09.2009 Sentenced: 13.05.2011 – Imprisonment: 8 months
	Offence: Larceny value<=$2000-T2 Conviction: 13.05.2011	Sentence suspended under Drug Court Act, s 7(3): 08.12.2009 Remanded to Drug Court: 17.09.2009 Sentenced: 13.05.2011 – Imprisonment: 8 months
01.01.2008-19.02.2008	Offence: Steal motor vehicle-T1 Conviction: 22.07.2009	Severity appeal: 19.05.2009 Warrant issued / executed: 15.08.2008 Sentenced: 22.07.2009 – Imprisonment: 18 months, NPP: 13 months
	Offence: Larceny value<$2000 Conviction: 19.05.2009	Warrant issued / executed: 15.08.2008 s 10A conviction with no other penalty
09.01.2008-10.01.2008	Offence: Break and enter building (steal) value <=$15000-T1 Conviction: 13.05.2011	Sentence suspended under Drug Court Act, s 7(3): 08.12.2009 Remanded to Drug Court: 28.10.2009 Sentenced: 13.05.2011 – Imprisonment: 19 months, NPP: 13 months
16.01.2008	Offence: Enter building/land w/i commit indictable offence-T1 Conviction: 22.07.2009	Severity appeal: 19.05.2009 Sentenced: 22.07.2009 – Imprisonment: 18 months, NPP: 13 months
	Offence: Take & drive conveyance w/o consent of owner-T2 Conviction: 22.07.2009	Severity appeal: 19.05.2009 Sentenced: 22.07.2009 – Imprisonment: 18 months, NPP: 13 months
12.02.2008-19.02.2008	Offence: Drive on road etc while licence suspended Conviction: 19.05.2009	Warrant issued / executed: 15.08.2008 s 10A conviction with no other penalty; Disqualification: 12 months
18.02.2008-19.02.2008	Offence: Take & drive conveyance w/o consent of owner Conviction: 13.05.2011	Sentence suspended under Drug Court Act, s 7(3): 08.12.2009 Remanded to Drug Court: 17.09.2009 Sentenced: 13.05.2011 – Imprisonment: 8 months
19.02.2008	Offence: Goods in personal custody suspected being stolen (not m/v) Conviction: 19.05.2009	Warrant issued / executed: 15.08.2008 Imprisonment: 4 months
	Offence: Use unregistered registrable Class A motor vehicle Conviction: 19.05.2009	Warrant issued / executed: 15.08.2008 s 10A conviction with no other penalty
	Offence: Use uninsured motor vehicle Conviction: 19.05.2009	Warrant issued / executed: 15.08.2008 s 10A conviction with no other penalty
	Offence: Custody of knife in public place Conviction: 19.05.2009	Warrant issued / executed: 15.08.2008 s 10A conviction with no other penalty
29.02.2008-01.03.2008	Offence: Take & drive conveyance w/o consent of owner-T2 Conviction: 22.07.2009	Severity appeal: 19.05.2009 Sentenced: 22.07.2009 – Imprisonment: 15 months, NPP: 10 months
07.03.2008-08.03.2008	Offence: Larceny value > $5000 & <=$15000-T1 Conviction: 13.05.2011	Sentence suspended under Drug Court Act, s 7(3): 08.12.2009 Remanded to Drug Court: 17.09.2009 Sentenced: 13.05.2011 – Imprisonment: 8 months
	Offence: Larceny value <=$2000-T2 (2 counts) Conviction: 13.05.2011	Sentence suspended under Drug Court Act, s 7(3): 08.12.2009 Remanded to Drug Court: 17.09.2009 Sentenced: 13.05.2011 – Imprisonment: 8 months
15.03.2008	Offence: Not give particulars to other drivers Conviction: 24.07.2008	Warrant issued / executed: 15.08.2008 Fine: $500; Court fee: $73
	Offence: Negligent driving (not occasioning death/gbh) Conviction: 24.07.2008	Warrant issued / executed: 15.08.2008 Fine: $300; Court fee: $73
	Offence: Drive while under the influence of alcohol or other drugs Conviction: 22.07.2009	Warrant issued / executed: 15.08.2008 Severity appeal: 19.05.2009 Sentenced: 22.07.2009 – Disqualification: 12 months
	Offence: Drive on road etc while licence suspended Conviction: 22.07.2009	s 25(2) Warrant issued / executed: 24.07.2008, 15.08.2008 Severity appeal: 19.05.2009 Sentenced: 22.07.2009 – Disqualification: 12 months
19.04.2008-20.04.2008	Offence: Larceny-T2 (2 counts) Conviction: 13.05.2011	Sentence suspended under Drug Court Act, s 7(3): 08.12.2009 Remanded to Drug Court: 17.09.2009 Sentenced: 13.05.2011 – Imprisonment: 8 months
08.05.2008	Offence: Larceny value>$15000 Conviction: 13.05.2011	Sentence suspended under Drug Court Act, s 7(3): 08.12.2009 Remanded to Drug Court: 17.09.2009 Sentenced: 13.05.2011 – Imprisonment: 8 months
20.05.2008	Offence: Be carried in conveyance taken w/o consent of owner Conviction: 13.05.2011	Sentence suspended under Drug Court Act, s 7(3): 08.12.2009 Remanded to Drug Court: 17.09.2009 Sentenced: 13.05.2011 – Imprisonment: 8 months
24.07.2008	Offence: Fail to appear in accordance with bail undertaking Conviction: 19.05.2009	Warrant issued / executed: 15.08.2008 Imprisonment: 3 months
09.08.2008	Offence: Larceny value>$2000&<=$5000-T2 (2 counts) Conviction: 13.05.2011	Sentence suspended under Drug Court Act, s 7(3): 08.12.2009 Remanded to Drug Court: 17.09.2009 Sentenced: 13.05.2011 – Imprisonment: 8 months
14.08.2008	Offence: Drive on road etc while licence suspended Conviction: 22.07.2009	Severity appeal: 19.05.2009 Sentenced: 22.07.2009 – Disqualification: 2 years
06.04.2012	Offence: Enter inclosed land not presc premises w/o lawful excuse Conviction: 16.11.2012	s 10 conviction with no other penalty; Court fee: $83
	Offence: Drive while disqualified from holding a licence Conviction: 16.11.2012	Imprisonment: 6 months; Court fee: $83; Disqualification: 2 years cumulative
18.04.2012	Offence: Destroy or damage property<$2000 Conviction: 16.11.2012	Imprisonment: 6 months; Court fee: $83
	Offence: Larceny value<$2000 Conviction: 16.11.2012	Imprisonment: 6 months
	Offence: Enter inclosed land no presc premises w/o lawful excuse Conviction: 16.11.2012	Fine: $100; Court fee: $83
04.05.2012	Offence: Steal motor vehicle Conviction: 16.11.2012	Imprisonment: 18 months, NPP: 8 months; Court fee: $83
	Offence: Take & drive conveyance w/o consent of owner-T2 Conviction: 16.11.2012	Imprisonment: 18 months, NPP: 8 months; Court fee: $83
20.05.2012-21.05.2012	Offence: Larceny value>$2000-T2 Conviction: 13.12.2013	Referral to NSWDC: 04.10.2012 Sentenced: 13.12.2013 – Taken into account on Form 1
	Offence: Enter inclosed land not presc premises w/o lawful excuse Conviction: 13.12.2013	Referral to NSWDC: 04.10.2012 Sentenced: 13.12.2013 – Taken into account on Form 1
21.05.2012	Offence: Dishonestly obtain property by deception-T1 (4 counts) Conviction: 13.12.2013	Referral to NSWDC: 04.10.2012 Sentenced: 13.12.2013 – Taken into account on Form 1
22.05.2012	Offence: Aggravated enter dwelling w/i – offender in company-SI Conviction: 13.12.2013	Committed for sentence: 04.10.2012 Sentenced: 13.12.2013 – s 12 bond, Imprisonment: 21 months
	Offence: Aggravated break and enter w/i-in company-SI Conviction: 31.01.2013	Sentenced: 31.01.2013 – Taken into account on Form 1
23.05.2012-24.05.2012	Offence: Larceny value>$2000 & <=$5000-T2 Conviction: 13.12.2013	Referral to NSWDC: 04.10.2012 Sentenced: 13.12.2013 – Taken into account on Form 1
09.06.2012	Offence: Possess or use a prohibited weapon without permit-T2 Conviction: 16.11.2012	Breach of Bail: 13.06.2012 Sentenced: 16.11.2012 – Imprisonment: 2 months
	Offence: Goods suspected stolen in/on premises (not m/v) (12 counts) Conviction: 16.11.2012	Breach of Bail: 13.06.2012 Sentenced: 16.11.2012 – Imprisonment: 6 months
	Offence: Goods suspected stolen in/on premises (m/v) Conviction: 16.11.2012	Breach of Bail: 13.06.2012 Sentenced: 16.11.2012 – Imprisonment: 6 months
	Offence: Receive/dispose stolen property-min. indict. off. >$5000-T1 Conviction: 13.12.2013	Referral to NSWDC: 04.10.2012 Sentenced: 13.12.2013 – Taken into account on Form 1
	Offence: Breach of bail Conviction: 13.06.2012	Bail order made
04.07.2017	Offence: Steal property in dwelling-house Conviction: 09.10.2017	Fine: $300
28.01.2019	Offence: Resist officer in execution of duty-T2 Conviction: 04.05.2020	Sentenced: 15.03.2019 – Community Corrections Order: 12 months Sentence suspended under Drug Court Act, s 7(3): 02.03.2020 Sentenced: 04.05.2020 – Imprisonment: 12 months aggregate, NPP: 8 months
19.03.2019-20.03.2019	Offence: Larceny value<$2000-T2 (2 counts) Conviction: 04.05.2020	Warrant issued / executed: 20.11.2019, 24.12.2019 Remanded to Drug Court: 16.01.2020 Sentence suspended under Drug Court Act, s 7(3): 02.03.2020 Sentenced: 04.05.2020 – Imprisonment: 12 months aggregate, NPP: 8 months
	Offence: Destroy or damage property<$2000-T2 (3 counts) Conviction: 04.05.2020	Warrant issued / executed: 20.11.2019, 24.12.2019 Remanded to Drug Court: 16.01.2020 Sentence suspended under Drug Court Act, s 7(3): 02.03.2020 Sentenced: 04.05.2020 – Imprisonment: 12 months aggregate, NPP: 8 months
26.03.2019	Offence: Enter vehicle or boat without consent or owner/occupier Conviction: 12.11.2019	Fine: $300
31.07.2019	Offence: Drive, licence suspended under s 66 Fines Act – 1st off Conviction: 16.10.2019	Fine: $750; Disqualification: 3 months
	Offence: Drive vehicle, illicit drug present in blood etc – 1st off Conviction: 16.10.2019	Fine: $750; Disqualification: 3 months
21.12.2019	Offence: Goods in personal custody suspected being stolen (not m/v) Conviction: 04.05.2020	Sentence suspended under Drug Court Act, s 7(3): 02.03.2020 Remanded to Drug Court: 17.2.2020 s 25(2) Warrant issued / executed: 03.02.2020 Sentenced 04.05.2020 – Imprisonment 12 months aggregate, NPP: 8 months
23.12.2019	Offence: State false name to police officer Conviction: 02.03.2020	Remanded to Drug Court: 16.01.2020 s 10A conviction with no other penalty
	Offence: Travel or attempt travel without a valid ticket – adult Conviction: 02.03.2020	Remanded to Drug Court: 16.01.2020 s 10A conviction with no other penalty
	Offence: Resist officer in execution of duty-T2 Conviction: 04.05.2020	Sentence suspended under Drug Court Act, s 7(3): 02.03.2020 Remanded to Drug Court: 16.01.2020 Sentenced 04.05.2020 – Imprisonment 12 months aggregate, NPP: 8 months
20.05.2021-21.05.2021	Offence: Enter dwelling w/i (Steal) Conviction: 20.04.2022	Warrant issued / executed: 01.10.2021 Sentenced: 20.04.2022 – Imprisonment: 12 months, NPP: 9 months
11.08.2021	Offence: Drive vehicle, illicit drug present in blood etc – 2nd + off Conviction: 30.11.2021	Community Correction Order: 12 months
	Offence: Drive, licence suspended under s 66 Fines Act – 1st off Conviction: 30.11.2021	s 10A conviction with no other penalty
27.09.2021	Summary: Police approached the applicant at the train station for his failure to wear a face mask. During the arrest process, applicant resisted and fell from the platform on the railway lines where he escaped.
	Offence: Go onto or into or remain on or in running lines etc Conviction: 10.08.2022	s 10A conviction with no other penalty
	Offence: Goods in personal custody suspected being stolen (not m/v) Conviction: 10.08.2022	s 10A conviction with no other penalty
	Offence: Not wear fitted face covering in public transport/taxi etc Conviction: 10.08.2022	s 10A conviction with no other penalty
	Offence: Escape police custody-T1 Conviction: 09.12.2022	Severity appeal: 10.08.2022 Sentenced: 09.12.2022 – Imprisonment: 30 months aggregate, NPP: 20 months
	Offence: Resist or hinder police officer in the execution of duty Conviction: 09.12.2022	Severity appeal: 10.08.2022 Sentenced: 09.12.2022 – Imprisonment: 30 months aggregate, NPP: 20 months
30.09.2021	Offence: Assault police officer in execution of duty cause abh-T1(2 counts) Conviction: 09.12.2022	Severity appeal: 10.08.2022 Sentenced: 09.12.2022 – Imprisonment: 30 months aggregate, NPP: 20 months
	Offence: Assault officer in execution of duty-T2 Conviction: 09.12.2022	Severity appeal: 10.08.2022 Sentenced: 09.12.2022 – Imprisonment: 30 months aggregate, NPP: 20 months
	Offence: Intimidate police officer in execution of duty w/o abh-T2 (Attempt) Conviction: 09.12.2022	Severity appeal: 10.08.2022 Sentenced: 09.12.2022 – Imprisonment: 30 months aggregate, NPP: 20 months
	Offence: Deal with property proceeds of crime < $100000-T2 Conviction: 10.08.2022	s 10A conviction with no other penalty
	Offence: Not comply with noticed direction re s 7/8/9 - COVID-19 Conviction: 10.08.2022	s 10A conviction with no other penalty