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

[2023] AATA 3716

GPBL and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2023] AATA 3716 (11 October 2023)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number(s):      2023/3787

Re:GPBL  

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Senior Member R Bellamy

Date of decision:     11 October 2023

Date of Reasons:     14 November 2023

Place:Brisbane

The Tribunal sets aside the reviewable decision dated 2 March 2023 and remits the matter to the Respondent for reconsideration in accordance with the following directions:

1. The Applicant satisfies the criterion in section 36(1C)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ('the Act').

2. Section 36(2C)(b)(ii) of the Act is not engaged by the Applicant.

……………………[SGD]………………….

Senior Member R Bellamy

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – refusal to grant a Protection visa – whether Applicant meets the criterion for a Protection visa in section 36(1C)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 – also consideration of s 36(2C)(b)(ii) of the Act – whether Applicant has been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime – whether the Applicant is a danger to the Australian community – evidence of rehabilitation – decision under review set-aside

LEGISLATION

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)

Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

CASES

DOB18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 63

DMQ20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 514

DMQ20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 84

KDSP v Minister of Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCAFC 108

SLGS v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 104

SECONDARY MATERIALS

UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES, ADOPTED IN 1951, AS AMENDED BY THE 1967 PROTOCOL RELATING TO THE STATUS OF REFUGEES (‘REFUGEES CONVENTION’).

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member R Bellamy

14 November 2022

BACKGROUND

1. The Applicant is a 41 year old citizen of Iran who arrived in Australia when he was five years old. From the age of around 11, the  Applicant worked with his father in his painting business and in some other jobs. He then went into concreting and ran his own concreting business from 2008 to around 2014.

2. The Applicant has a long history of criminal offending. In 2022 his Resident Return (Subclass 155) visa was cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) on character grounds. He applied for a Protection (Class XA) (Subclass 866) visa (“visa”). A delegate of the Minister (“the Respondent”) accepted that he met the refugee criteria but decided that he had been convicted of a particularly serious crime and he was a danger to the community. Thus, he did not satisfy s 36(1C) of the Act, which is an essential criterion for a Protection visa, so his application was refused under s 65 of the Act. For the same reasons, the delegate determined that he did not satisfy the complementary protection criteria (in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act) because of s 36(2C)(b) of the Act.

3. The Applicant asked the Tribunal to set-aside the delegate’s decision. The Tribunal has the power to review the decision under to s 500(1)(c) of the Act. The hearing of this application proceeded on 10 and 11 October 2023. The Applicant gave evidence in person and Dr Emily Kwok, clinical and forensic psychologist, gave evidence by telephone. The Tribunal also received the documentary evidence that is listed in the attached exhibit list, marked “Annexure A”.

   THE LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

4. Section 65 of the Act relevantly provides that, after considering a valid application for a visa, if the Minister is satisfied that:

   ·criteria for the grant of the visa have been satisfied (including any health criteria);

   ·the grant of the visa is not prevented by other sections of the Act; and

   ·any visa application charge payable has been paid;

   the Minister is to grant the visa. If not so satisfied, the Minister is to refuse to grant the visa.

5. Subsection 36(1A) of the Act provides that:

   An Applicant for a protection visa must satisfy:

   (a)  both of the criteria in subsections (1B) and (1C); and

   (b)  at least one of the criteria in subsection (2).

6. Paragraph 36(1C)(b) of the Act provides:

   “A criterion for a protection visa is that the Applicant is not a person whom the Minister considers, on reasonable grounds:

   …

   (b)  having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, is a danger to the Australian community.

7. Section 5M of the Act provides that “a particularly serious crime” for the purposes of
   s 36(1C)(b) includes a crime that consists of a “serious Australian offence”. Section 5 of the Act relevantly provides that “serious Australian offence” means an offence against a law in force in Australia, where:

   (a)  the offence:

   (i)  involves violence against a person; or

   (ii)  is a serious drug offence; or

   (iii)  involves serious damage to property; or

   … and

   (b)  the offence is punishable by:

   (i)  imprisonment for life; or

   (ii)  imprisonment for a fixed term of not less than 3 years; or

   (iii)  imprisonment for a maximum term of not less than 3 years.

8. Additionally, in relation to the complementary protection criteria in s 36(2)(aa) of the Act, paragraph 36(2C)(b) of the Act provides:

   “A non-citizen is taken not to satisfy the criterion mentioned in paragraph (2)(aa) if:

   …

   (b)  the Minister considers, on reasonable grounds, that:

   …

   (ii)  the non-citizen, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime (including a crime that consists of the commission of a serious Australian offence or serious foreign offence), is a danger to the Australian community.

   ISSUES

9. The issues before the Tribunal were:

   (a)whether the Applicant has been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime; and

   (b)whether the Applicant is a danger to the Australian community.

10. There was some dispute about whether any of the offences of which the Applicant had been convicted satisfied the definition of “serious Australian offence” and whether findings of guilt for some assaults were convictions where the convictions were not recorded. During the hearing, I determined that the Applicant had indeed been convicted of a particularly serious crime and gave brief reasons, however there is no need to give detailed written reasons because I am satisfied that the Applicant is not a danger to the Australian community.

    MEANING OF DANGER TO THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY

11. Subsection 36(1C) of the Act was enacted to codify the effect of Article 33(2) of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, adopted in 1951, as amended by the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (‘Refugees Convention’).

12. Article 33(1) of the Refugees Convention provides that:

    No Contracting State shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

13. Article 33(2) of the Refugees Convention provides that:

    The benefit of the present provision may not, however, be claimed by a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgment of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country.

14. In DOB18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 63 (“DOB18”) Logan J made the following observations at [83]:

    In the context in which s 36(1C) of the Act and Art 33(2) of the Refugee Convention are found, it strikes me as inherently unlikely that it was intended that a person in respect of whom it is accepted a Protection obligation is, prima facie, owed, because he is a refugee, might be returned to face persecution, perhaps death, on the basis of nothing more than a “risk”, perhaps small. In my view, read in context, “danger” in s 36(1C) means present and serious risk.”

15. In DMQ20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 514 at [42] Collier J observed that “the question whether a person constitutes a danger to the Australian community is one of fact and degree”. 

16. On appeal (DMQ20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 84 (“DMQ20”) the Full Court endorsed Collier J’s reasoning. In particular, Rares J opined that the concept of what is “a danger” involves an evaluation along a spectrum comprising, first, the probability or likelihood of the occurrence of an event or circumstance and, secondly, the consequence of its occurrence.[1] His Honour considered that the word “danger” connotes that there are reasonable grounds to perceive a threat of serious, or potentially serious, consequences if the situation said to pose the danger were ignored.[2] 

    [1] At [53].

    [2] At [54].

17. The plurality (Thomas and Snaden JJ) considered that to perceive “danger” is to embark upon a process of speculation, which may be informed by historical and other assessments (for example, as to a visa Applicant’s criminal history and the measures that he or she has taken to rehabilitate). They said “danger” is a binary proposition: a person, circumstance or thing that presents a sufficient likelihood of sufficient harm will bespeak the presence of danger, even though there remains a prospect — and perhaps, in some cases, a likelihood — that the harm might never be realised. There may well be no relevant distinction to be drawn between a person who is a danger to others and a person who might be such a danger.[3]

    [3] At [110].

18. In SLGS v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs[2023] FCAFC 104, Jackson J, with whom Rares and Snaden JJ agreed, observed that it would be consistent with DMQ20 for a decision maker to consider whether the risk that the harm will eventuate goes beyond that which is contemplated in ordinary personal interactions, and that the concept of danger combines an assessment of how probable harm is with an assessment of the severity or seriousness of the harm if the probability eventuates.[4]

    [4] At [82].

    BACKGROUND AND CRIMINAL OFFENDING

19. The Applicant has an extensive and disgraceful history of traffic offending. He has also committed offences involving possession of drugs and drug-related items, property offences, breaches of bail and contravening police directions or requirements, possession of weapons, and assault. His criminal history goes for many pages. He has been remanded in custody and sentenced to terms of imprisonment on multiple occasions, only to resume offending when released. He has breached suspended sentences and parole. His visa was cancelled in 2016 and, after it was returned to him, he re-offended. 

20. I do not have the facts of all of his offending before me. What follows is a summary of his traffic and other offending with focus on the more significant incidents. I will then address why I am persuaded that the Applicant has finally turned a corner and is no longer a danger to the Australian community.

21. At the age of 14 the Applicant first consumed marijuana. On 19 November 1998, he (then aged 16) was convicted in the Children’s Court of robbery in company. He was sentenced to 18 months’ probation. The Applicant said he was with a friend at a local shopping centre who approached another person to sort out a debt and that he played no active part. This offence occurred a long time ago and the Applicant has not done anything of a similar nature since then. I am satisfied that there is not a material risk of any further offending of that nature.   

22. Between 1999 and 2004 the Applicant was caught speeding multiple times, including speeding by more than 45 kmph on one occasion. He also drove while his license was suspended more than once, while disqualified more than once, while under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol three times, and he drove an unregistered vehicle more than once.  

23. The Applicant admitted that he had been a hoon driver in his youth for a few years. He was on his late teens an early twenties during this period. Also during this period he tried MDMA (ecstasy) and later methamphetamine. In 2002, he was caught in possession of cannabis and cultivating cannabis (one plant).

24. In January 2005 he drove while unlicensed and disqualified from getting a licence, and he contravened a direction or requirement.

25. According to the Applicant he stopped using drugs for several years. It appears he also stopped committing traffic infringements until 2011. 

26. In November 2008, the Applicant was out with a few friends. They were intoxicated, they started talking to some women and they got into an altercation with some men who were with the women. The Applicant was stabbed in the fight. He was found guilty of three offences of common assault, was fined and released without a conviction being recorded.

27. There followed a three year period of good behaviour.

28. In November and December 2011, the Applicant was caught speeding twice, overtaking on the left, and failing to drive within the line markings. Throughout 2012, he committed many more traffic infringements, including speeding (multiple including by more than 30kmph), failing to stop at a red light and drug-driving. In May and June 2012, the Applicant was caught with dangerous drugs and related items. He thinks the dangerous drug was cannabis.

29. In September 2012 the Applicant was the victim of a brutal home invasion. He refused to make a compliant or cooperate with the police so there was no prosecution, but the police notes indicate that during the night, several men broke into the Applicant’s home and attacked him with bat, causing injuries including a head wound. He eventually escaped and a friend took him to hospital where he got over 100 stitches to his face and head. His foot was badly damaged. The police found obvious signs of a break in, and blood stains and spatter in the bedroom.

30. According to the Applicant, after that he became very paranoid about everything, was confused, and began to isolate himself from people. He saw his doctor for depression and was prescribed Xanax to treat anxiety and panic. I have no difficulty accepting this event was terrifying and traumatic, and that the Applicant suffered the psychological effects that he described.

31. The Applicant said he became dependent on prescription drugs and, about six months later, he obtained methamphetamine from someone at work to counteract the Xanax. He stopped taking Xanax but was addicted to methamphetamine. His concreting business eventually broke down due to his drug addiction.

32. In late 2012, the Applicant breached his bail and committed drug possession offences. He was also found in possession of prohibited explosives and weapons.

33. During 2013, the Applicant continued to use drugs and commit driving offences including speeding by more than 30kmph, drug-driving and dangerous driving. He also breached bail conditions and committed “burglary and commit indictable offence”. With respect to that, there was a person who owed his friend money. He and his friend went to the person’s home expecting him to be there, but when he was not, they climbed the fence and entered the home anyway.

34. In July 2013, the Applicant was given a four month suspended prison sentence. He breached that by committing more offences and he was remanded in custody in August 2013. On 8 November 2013, the suspended sentence was fully invoked, he received some other shorter sentences of imprisonment, and he was released on parole immediately. On 25 November 2013, he breached bail, and was found in unlawful possession of weapons and drug utensils. He was returned to custody.  

35. In January 2014, the Applicant was sentenced to eight months imprisonment and some shorter terms and given a parole eligibility date – 23 April 2014. It appears that he got parole because on 24 April 2014, the police saw the Applicant walking along a street carrying a small black bag. When they approached, he threw the bag into the front garden of a nearby house. He denied ever having had possession of the bag. The police found two mobile phones and $700 in cash on the Applicant. The black bag contained three clip seal bags of methylamphetamine, electronic scales, unused glass pipes and four tablets labelled diazepam.

36. At around 5pm on Tuesday 10 November 2015, in Coomera on the Gold Coast, the police saw the Applicant driving a rental car that had not been returned on time. They gave chase with lights and sirens and attempted to intercept the Applicant. However, he sped away and drove evasively. Even after two sets of stingers deflated the tyres, he continued evading the police, and in doing so he drove on the wrong side of the road, swerved between lanes, mounted kerbs and drove on footpaths. Eventually, he was driving on the steel wheel rims. He ultimately stopped when he collided with a police car which damaged his car so much that it was immobilised.

37. The Applicant refused to exit the vehicle. A police dog was deployed and entered the front passenger side of the vehicle. Here is where the police account diverges from the Applicant’s account. The police account is that the Applicant punched the dog in the face several times, then punched his handler who was trying to restrain him, causing lacerations to the officer’s ear and temple. Meanwhile, another officer sustained a deep gash to his arm after he broke a window, reached through and struggled with the Applicant. According to the police, the dog bit the Applicant on the hand and arm. The police finally managed to subdue the Applicant with capsicum spray, and he was arrested at 5.30pm.

38. A police officer who had observed this saw a pillowcase wrapped around what looked like a concealed firearm on the front passenger seat. He told another police officer who unravelled the cloth covering it, revealing a loaded sawn-off shot gun and several shotgun shells. There was a large machete on the back seat and knuckle dusters were found in a duffel bag in the front passenger footwell. The police found methamphetamine crystals, MDMA tablets, viagra, xanax, electronic scales, two used syringes and fireworks. The Applicant was taken to hospital, then he was taken to the police watch house and remanded in custody.

39. The account the Applicant gave to Dr Kwok and the Tribunal was different in some key respects. He said he had borrowed the car from a friend who he had met in gaol. He did not have drugs in his system at the time but he was using methamphetamine frequently in that period and it affected his thought processes. He said “it makes you a bit cold; it makes you a bit numb…You're more of a reactive person than responsive person; panic, paranoid…”. He said if he had been thinking clearly, he would have pulled over and not made such a big ordeal out of nothing. Instead, he panicked. I note that the car had been rented by another person and the police did not charge the Applicant with drug driving.  

40. The Applicant denied having hit the police dog. He gave some context to that denial. He said he loves dogs, has never hit a dog and does not believe that hitting a dog has the effect that people think that it has. He recalled that his own dog ran across the road once and rather than hit her, he gave the scruff of her neck a squeeze so she would know she should not do that. He claimed he had held the police dog with both hands so it would not bite him, but in all the commotion it could have looked like he was punching the dog. He also disputed that the dog had bitten him and pointed to the lack of medical evidence of any bite injury even though he was taken to hospital afterwards. He claimed the other police officer was punching him to get him to let go of the dog, so he pushed him in the face to get him away. The Applicant readily conceded that he had brought this all on himself. He remembered an officer putting his baton through the window but did not recall that officer’s arm being gashed. According to the Applicant a charge of serious assault on a police officer was downgraded after his lawyer requested the police camera footage, although I note that the original charge sheet did not contain any charge of serious assault.

1. The Applicant pleaded guilty to two charges of assault or obstruct police officer in relation to the dog and the officer and many others. I do not have an agreed statement of facts before me, so it is not apparent whether the Magistrate accepted that the Applicant had punched the police dog and police officer as opposed to having assaulted them by holding or pushing them. At the very least, I am satisfied that the Applicant refused to exit the vehicle, unlawfully applied force to a police officer’s face resulting in injury to that officer, and unlawfully applied force to a police dog which may have resulted in injury but that is not known. I accept that the Applicant was afraid of the dog and that is why he acted the way he did. I accept that he brought all of this on himself and that he did so when his thinking was impaired by drugs. My finding about that is supported by Dr Kwok’s evidence that fear, paranoia and selfishness can very likely be exacerbated by a drug addiction and that using or seeking drugs can impair a person’s judgement.      

2. The Applicant denied that he owned any of the weapons found, or that he even knew they were in the car, but he admitted ownership of the other items. He claimed the shot gun had not been on the front seat, but that he saw police pull it out from under the front passenger seat and unwrap it. He said the machete was not out in the open on the back seat. When it was put to him that his evidence differed from the police report he said he thought the police found the items and moved them, then detectives who arrived later saw them in the places they had been moved to. To accept the Applicant’s account, I have to accept that a police officer gave a false account and I am not prepared to do that based on the evidence before me. I am satisfied that the weapons were where the police said they were, which means the shot gun and machete were in clear view of the Applicant although the shot gun was wrapped up. Possibly the Applicant’s memory of the event is unclear because of his state of mind at the time, or possibly he knowingly lied in his evidence to the Tribunal, which would be very concerning. Dr Kwok was asked if a person’s memory of an event that happened 10 or 12 years ago, which was quick and involved trauma, could be incomplete or even incorrect in some details. Dr Kwok replied that it could, and that laying down memories could also be impaired by drug addiction. This event occurred eight years ago, however I accept that Dr Kwok’s evidence is nevertheless pertinent and therefore the Applicant could have been genuinely mistaken in his recollection of it. 

3. On 17 March 2016, the Applicant was sentenced for a multitude of offences and traffic infringements arising out of this incident. In addition to assault or obstruct police officer (x2), the offences included unlawful possession of weapons, carry weapon in public place while loaded or capable of being discharged, offence in relation to unauthorised and prohibited explosives and dangerous operation of a vehicle. He was given several concurrent sentences of imprisonment with a total effective sentence of 14 months imprisonment, with a parole release date of 9 April 2016.

4. The Applicant told Dr Kwok he was involved in a car accident in 2014/2015 that caused injuries to his neck. As the accident was not serious, he did not seek treatment at the time. I note that this appears to be the November 2015 incident and the Applicant subsequently required an operation.   

5. On 30 March 2016, the Applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for one year and nine months for possessing dangerous drugs (schedule 1 drug quantity of or exceeding schedule 3 but less than schedule 4) with respect to the methamphetamine he had in the black bag in April 2014. He was given the same parole release date. 

6. At this time, the Applicant had a newborn son who he has not seen due to being imprisoned. This child is now seven yeas old.   

7. On 6 April 2016, the Applicant’s visa was mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Act. He asked for the cancellation to be revoked. In his revocation request, it was said on his behalf that having his visa cancelled was a “wake up call”, that he and his family had become aware of the significant chance that he would be deported to Iran, and he knew what would happen to him there. Further, his new born child was put forward as motivation to rehabilitate. In a letter written by him, he expressed remorse and promised to be a better person for himself and other people. 

8. The visa cancellation was revoked on 11 May 2017, and the Applicant was issued with a formal warning. The Applicant lived with his parents, and he established contact with his son and his son’s mother, Ms N.

9. The Applicant later described his re-entry to the community as one of the most traumatic experiences of his life. He had been told his visa was cancelled a day before he thought he was getting out of prison. His and Ms N’s plans of living as a family and starting over were suddenly gone. Then, again, without warning, he was transferred to Christmas Island where he had many problems with his mental and physical health, including needing surgery on his spine and processing the trauma of being separated from his son. He did not feel confident in his abilities as a father and he struggled with the expectations of his parents. He found refuge in drugs.

10. The Applicant also mentioned that his son did not know him, and he found it hard to bond with him. Her also said in the hearing that, as his son is so young, it is hard to keep his attention in phone calls. I find the Applicant’s honesty about this refreshing. He has never made any attempt exaggerate his importance in his son’s life and leverage that to get his visa back. Rather, he has consistently admitted to having let his son and Ms N down, ands acknowledged the detrimental impact his behaviour has had on his relationship with them both. It is admissions like this that give me confidence that the Applicant was reasonably genuine in the evidence he gave in the hearing of this matter.     

11. In August 2017, the Applicant was found with drug utensils, a restricted drug, a knife in a public place, tainted property (receiving and possession) and dangerous drugs. He also committed unlawful use of a motor vehicle (x2). In March 2018 he was given a total effective sentence of ten months imprisonment, suspended. 

12. On 16 December 2018, the police executed a search warrant at a place where the Applicant was present, and they found a small quantity of cannabis on his person. He refused to give his name and address. With respect to the Applicant’s cannabis use, he said he started smoking it to help him relax after a day of physically demanding work, and then in the later stages of his methamphetamine addiction, he smoked it to help with withdrawal symptoms and also to help with pain from injuries to his spinal cord.

13. On 30 December 2018, a vehicle was stolen and the police detected it being driven at 146kmph in a 100kmph zone. The Applicant was driving it. The police gave chase and he accelerated up to around 180kmph. He wove in and out of traffic through a residential district. He went down a dead end and got bogged. His lawyer at the time told the Magistrate who sentenced the Applicant for these offences that he had no memory of the offending and thinks his drink might have been spiked at a party he attended earlier. He was remanded in custody until 26 March 2019.

14. On 21 May 2019, the Applicant was found by the police lying in a garden bed, highly intoxicated and unable to stand. He gave a false name. He was breaching a curfew in his bail conditions by being there at that time.

15. In June 2019, the Applicant was sentenced to multiple concurrent terms of imprisonment, with a total effective sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment, and immediate release on parole. In November 2019, he was found in unlawful possession of restricted drugs, utensils, dangerous drugs (x2), a knife in a public place and unlawful use of motor vehicle and his parole was returned to custody.

16. In January 2020, the Applicant’s visa was mandatorily cancelled again. This time the cancellation was not revoked. In April 2020, the Applicant was given suspended sentences for the offences he committed in November 2019. 

17. The Applicant was transferred to immigration detention in September 2020.

18. The Applicant wrote to the Respondent in January and April 2021 stating that he had taken the right steps to address the negative factors leading up to his drug addiction and had worked hard to stay on track. Having been clean from drugs for so long, he had time to reflect and he had learnt valuable lessons. However, in May 2021, he spoke abusively to staff after being told he could not smoke. In June 2021, a small amount of cannabis was found in his room which was in the Fraser compound of the Brisbane immigration detention centre. He initially denied it was his, but he now concedes that he smoked a cannabis cigarette that was given to him. In the hearing he claimed that this incident happened when he was first in detention, in high security, and it was only raised some months later when he was in low security. However, the incident report, dated in June 2021, reads as though it is contemporaneous, and it states that the Applicant was in Fraser compound, which the Applicant said is the high security compound. I am satisfied that the Applicant smoked cannabis in June 2021.   

    IS THE APPLICANT A DANGER TO THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY?

19. It is well accepted that one of the best predictors of future behaviour is past behaviour. The Applicant’s past behaviour includes possession of drugs and related items, driving offences, possession of weapons and explosives, assaults and property offences (including driving stolen vehicles). There has never been any finding by a court that the Applicant was involved in the supply of drugs. His involvement with drugs appears confined to personally consuming them, which is a crime that harmed him. However, his drug use led him to commit other offences that have the clear potential to cause harm to others in the community.

20. The assaults were drug or alcohol related in that he was drunk when he was involved in the fight in 2008 and his thinking was adversely affected by his drug addiction when he decided to evade police in 2015. There is no evidence that he engaged in unprovoked violence due to alcohol consumption or that he was violent when he had drugs in his system. It is obvious that violent offences of the kind the Applicant committed cause physical injury and potentially also psychological harm. Behaving the way the Applicant did in November 2015 when he resisted police, assaulted a police dog and assaulted a police officer, is completely unacceptable.      

21. Property offences cause financial and other kinds of harm.

22. The Applicant described the weapons offences as part of his drug behaviours. He said he had never shot a gun in his life, but he was “collecting stupid stuff” while he associated with the wrong group of people. “Wrong group of people” seems like a very understated way to describe the people he was associating with at the time. He admitted to having had possession of a flick-knife and knuckle-dusters in the past. He described it as:

    “more ornamental stuff than anything to be doing with violence…It's just stupid stuff that you think is cool while you're in that drug-seeking attitude and mind and you've got those type of people around you”.

23. While there is no evidence that the Applicant ever used a weapon or explosive to threaten or hurt anyone, or that he ever dealt in those things, his possession of weapons still caused a risk of harm. He was associating with drug users and people he knew from prison. They may have been prepared to use his weapons to harm people. It is difficult to think of a more dangerous weapon to be carrying around than a loaded sawn-off shotgun. If I accept that the Applicant was not aware that this weapon was in the car he was driving, that only highlights how reckless his drug-affected lifestyle was at that time and therefore what a danger he was to the community. 

24. Most of the driving offences were committed during periods when the Applicant was using drugs. Some were not, particularly some speeding and driving unlicensed or unregistered in his youth when, by his own admission, he was a hoon driver. Those speeding offences included very high-range speeding which is inherently dangerous. The drug or alcohol related driving offences also include conduct that is inherently dangerous, such as driving under the influence and going through red lights, and indeed there are two separate incidents that gave rise to convictions for dangerous driving among other driving offences. Further, this type of offending was reasonably frequent, and the dangerous driving in 2015 lasted for around half an hour.    

25. Given all of this, it seems miraculous that no-one was ever hurt (except the Applicant) by his reckless and dangerous driving. In particular, the chase in 2015 took place in a residential area between 5.00 and 5.30pm on a weekday when there would have been a reasonable amount of traffic on the road and pedestrians around. The Applicant drove dangerously on the roads and he drove on footpaths. If he returns to drug use and again has a reckless attitude to driving it seems very likely that he will engage in similar behaviour on the roads.      

26. It was contended on behalf of the Applicant that traffic offences are not inherently harmful because they do not always result in harm. Rather, they can create a risk of harm, and one must then look at the probability that the risk will result in actual harm. It was also contended that there are proportionally very few road fatalities in Australia, driving offences are only one contributor to road fatalities, and there is some tolerance of driving offences in the Australian community. The National Road Safety Strategy 2021-30[5] and the Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics (‘BITRE’), Road Trauma Australia 2022 Statistical Summary, published in 2023[6] were put forward in support of this.

    [5] Exhibit A5.

    [6] Exhibit A5.

27. The BITRE includes the following statistics:

    ·in 2022, there were 1,194 road crash deaths, which is 4.6 fatalities per 100,000 of the population; and

    othose fatalities were made up of 555 driver deaths, 182 passenger deaths, 164 pedestrian deaths, 244 motorcyclist deaths and 35 pedal cyclist deaths;

    o726 deaths were caused by single vehicle crashes and 468 deaths were caused by multiple vehicle crashes;

    ·In 2021, of 723 deaths, 137 involved a driver who failed an alcohol test, which is a percentage of 18.9%.

28. It was contended that, based on this report, the baseline risk of a fatality for a passenger, pedestrian or cyclist (excluding motorcycles) would be around 0.0015 percent, based on an Australian population in 2022 of 25.996 million. This is does not assist the Applicant. If 381 pedestrians, passengers and cyclists were killed in motor vehicle accidents on Australian roads in 2022, out of a national population of some 26 million people, then that is 381 too many. If drivers and motorcyclists are included – and why should they not be – it was 1,194 people who were killed, and that is 1,194 too many. Further, the statistic does not capture all of the people adversely impacted by motor vehicle accidents including those who are seriously injured and secondary victims (e.g. loved ones and dependants of those killed or permanently impaired). The National Road Safety Strategy indicated that in 2018 more than 40,000 people were hospitalised as a result of road accidents.

29. The National Road Safety Strategy identified factors such as road infrastructure and the condition of vehicles as impacting road safety. It identified some behaviour that is not necessarily illegal as risky behaviour, such as driving while fatigued, distracted or inattentive, or walking near or on roads after drinking alcohol or taking illegal drugs. This information does not assist the Applicant either. Road rules obviously aim to create a margin for error because driving conditions will seldom be perfect, vehicles may have unknown faults, and people do not always operate with optimal skill, concentration and judgment. It is important to obey road rules to maintain this margin. On many occasions the Applicant drove in the way that would have obliterated the margin for anyone in his path. His illegal driving went far beyond that which is contemplated in ordinary personal interactions.      

30. In relation to the contention that there must be a certain level of traffic offending that is tolerated by the community as it is rare for people to have their licenses taken away or to be imprisoned for traffic offences, I note that the Applicant had his license taken and he received sentences of imprisonment for some of the driving offences he committed. The Respondent contended that the risk of harm from the operation of a motor vehicle while speeding or under the influence of drugs should certainly not be accepted as one that is contemplated by road users when they get into their car and it is not one that the community accepts. I agree.  

31. As stated earlier, in DMQ20 Rares J described danger as a combination of the risk of something happening and the consequence of its occurrence. His Honour referred to a threat of serious “or potentially serious” consequences.  Thomas and Snaden JJ stated that:

    “a person, circumstance or thing that presents a sufficient likelihood of sufficient harm will bespeak the presence of danger, even though there remains a prospect — and perhaps, in some cases, a likelihood — that that harm might never be realised. There may well be no relevant distinction to be drawn between a person who is a danger to others and a person who might be such a danger.”

    (Emphasis added)

32. The consequences of repeated dangerous traffic infringements is the creation of a serious risk that a collision will occur between the Applicant’s vehicle and another vehicle, cyclist or pedestrian, or that evasive action taken by others will cause a separate accident. The harm from traffic accidents often includes physical injury and damage to property. It can include serious injury, permanent impairment or death. Therefore, the risk of further offending of this kind includes “potentially serious consequences”. In the case of driving offences that are inherently reckless, and where the absence of resulting injuries or fatalities is often a matter of luck, I do not consider that the improbability of resulting injuries or fatalities assists the Applicant. I consider that he is in the category of people contemplated by the Federal Court in DMQ20 who, if he continues to commit serious driving offences, might be a danger to others and is appropriately treated as though he is a danger to others.   

33. I now turn to whether the Applicant has adequately addressed his predisposition to abuse substances, associate with criminals and engage in antisocial behaviour such as possessing weapons and driving stolen cars, his preparedness to use violence in some situations, his attitude to road rules and his disrespect for authority. I am particularly mindful that when the Applicant’s visa was cancelled in 2016, he was not using drugs and he said he was motivated to reform, yet he went back to drugs only a few months after getting his visa back. I am also mindful that he has, in the past, lived a drug-free and law abiding life for an extended period.   

34. The Applicant has been in custody since November 2019. He spent around 12 months of his prison sentence (about 90% of his stay) in in the residential part of the prison which I accept represents consistent good behaviour on his part, first to earn that transfer and then to keep it. He said he did not prioritise rehabilitation courses in gaol because he was more focussed on working and getting himself into residential accommodation. This would have kept him away from drugs and anti-social inmates, and given him a way to occupy his time productively. I accept that this in itself indicates a commitment to rehabilitation.

1. The Applicant claimed that, except for the one incident involving cannabis, he has not used substances since being incarcerated, which is around four and a half years. There is no evidence to the contrary. In immigration detention, the applicant moved from high security through medium security to the minimum security residential compound. I accept that this indicates good behaviour. He has quit smoking cigarettes to prove to himself that he could give up something addictive and because he does not want to be controlled by any form of addiction. He has also given up caffeine.

2. The Applicant claimed that officers tend to steer younger detainees towards him so they do not have the same mentality as in prison. This was not challenged and I accept it. The Applicant was elected to represent the detainees in each compound he was in. This involves regular meetings with Border Force, SERCO Management, International Health and Medical Services (“IHMS”) and other services in the detention centre. His role is to advocate for the needs of detainees and liaise with detention centre staff in a positive and respectful way. I accept that this is indicative of good behaviour and maturity. The Applicant has helped to start a volleyball club, get boxing bags for the gym and arrange for more comfortable couches and changes to the food provided.

3. It appears that this role has assisted the Applicant to develop a healthy respect for authority. He said before this experience, he often did not understand the importance of certain structures and procedures and he was not respectful of people in authority. However, he now has insight into the importance of developing positive relationships and respecting the need to follow procedures. It changed his perspective. He is also proud of the achievements of the committee and he sees how rewarding positive behaviour can be.

4. The Applicant engaged to a limited extent in rehabilitative courses before July 2022, but he has made much more of an effort since then. In June 2022, Senior Member Tavoularis declined to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa. I asked the Applicant if he started doing rehabilitation programs to assist him to obtain a Protection visa after a differently constituted Tribunal did not revoke the cancellation of the visa he had. He said no, that comments made, and advice given, by SM Tavoularis led him to decide that “this has got to stop and I’ve really got to do something about my drug use, my drug addiction, because that's not the person I want to be”.

5. The Applicant also attributed his change in attitude to the extended period in detention which gave him a lot of time to think. He described it as “maybe the best thing that's ever happened” to him because of the change he has been able to make by having this time for himself. He thinks he has matured and grown a lot as a person. He is no longer a drug user or a drug seeker. Whereas before he did not realise he had a problem, now that he is in recovery, he has the tools to appreciate how much damage his drug addiction caused to his life and the lives of others. He expressed deep regret and accepted full responsibility for his actions. He said he is determined to make a positive contribution to the Australian community, and he does not want to be a person who takes drugs. He does not want his son to see him as a drug addict. He has such a negative view of drugs now he does not think he would ever be attracted to drugs again.

6. Separately, he acknowledged his unacceptable driving history. He said initially he felt he needed to keep driving to run his business and later his judgement was clouded by his drug use. He admitted to not having taken his driving incidents as seriously as he should have, and quite correctly described his actions as immature and irresponsible. 

7. The Applicant has now completed an online driving offenders course through the police. Participants are recorded and they cannot “just scroll through your phone while you’re doing it. If they see you doing that, they just won't give you the certificate”. There were three sessions, but they could not be done all at once. In the Applicant’s words:

   “…you can't just sit there and just smash it out. You got (sic) to do it, take a bit of time, reflect on it, and then go back, because they ask you questions about the course previously”.

8. The Applicant indicated that he now recognises that being on the road is a privilege. He added that:

   “People have lost lives; people have lost friends; people have lost family.  It's a serious – it's very serious.  It's dangerous.  It's irresponsible, and it's something that I could never forgive myself for if I ever did get into that situation.”

9. He now says he will ensure his driving behaviour meets the expectations of the Australian community if he is allowed to return to the community and to drive again.

10. Dr Emily Kwok interviewed the Applicant for approximately 1.5 hours on 24 April 2023 and produced a report. At the date of the report, the Applicant had completed the Respectful Man course and had four counselling sessions with Dr Abak. He was engaging in the Certificate of Alcohol and Other Drugs course and the Smart Recovery program, and he had started the Circuit Breaker course and the 12-week “Do It” drug and alcohol treatment program run by Serco as well as the “Bend Don’t Break” course.

11. The applicant told Dr Kwok that he had done about six sessions of drug and alcohol counselling as part of his previous parole conditions, but he “didn’t take them seriously at the time.” In relation to his previous relapse following the revocation the first visa cancellation, he said he was stuck in the cycle of going back to his old friends and getting back on drugs. He was feeling lost and lonely. However, he said this time he had used his time in detention “very wisely” and that he had got to know himself and his core values. When he was asked about that, he said he had “has found joyfulness and integrity” and that he was “probably feeling the best in a long time.” In the hearing, I asked him about his values, and he said being a good role model for his son, independent and reliable. He said a person should be respectful towards others, understand the role they play in the community, and be able to contribute towards the community. He said he wanted to be someone his parents approved of and that a good person in their eyes is someone who is understanding, caring, empathetic, responsible and consistent. His evidence did not seem rehearsed or otherwise insincere.  

12. Dr Kwok was of the view that the Applicant accepted responsibility for his drug-related and driving offences. She thought he had developed an adjustment disorder after the home invasion that that maladaptive coping resulted in further impairments in his social and occupational functioning as well as contributing to further criminal activities. Dr Kwok noted that the Applicant expressed regret for the burglary offence; he recalled the impact on him of the home invasion and said he should not have caused the same experience for another person (although I note that no-one was home when the Applicant committed the burglary and there is no evidence that any violence was intended had someone been home).

13. Dr Kwok considered the likelihood that the applicant would engage in criminal or other serious conduct to be a function of his engagement in, and responsiveness to, treatment that addresses his drug use and pattern of antisocial attitudes and behaviours, as well as his ability to maintain a prosocial support network in the community. She said the applicant needs to actively remain disconnected from his previous antisocial associations, and this is more likely if he gains employment, finds positive leisure activities, and connects with prosocial community groups. In addition, she recommended sessions with a clinical or forensic psychologist to address his poor coping and antisocial attitudes.

14. Dr Kwok concluded that there was a moderate risk of re-offending if the applicant did not receive adequate treatment. In response to the question, “Is [the applicant] a risk/threat/danger to the Australian community”, Dr Kwok answered moderate and that the risk would reduce if the applicant responded to intervention that is focussed on relapse prevention and treatment that targets his poor coping and pattern of antisocial attitudes and behaviours. As “risk”, “danger” and “threat” were used interchangeably, I take Dr Kwok’s answer to simply re-state the risk of re-offending. Dr Kwok clarified in the hearing that the risk was of general re-offending but, more realistically, it relates to the types of offending the applicant has previously engaged in. She opined that the risk would decrease if the Applicant remained in Queensland on a permanent and stable basis in order to access consistent support from his family and partner and have contact with his son.  

15. Dr Kwok noted that family support is a positive factor although the Applicant had the support of his partner and family the last time he relapsed. She considered his prognosis to be positive as he had started treatment in detention and demonstrated a willingness to continue treatment in the community, demonstrated insight into the relationship between his drug use and offending, expressed remorse for his offending behaviours, and he no longer met the criteria for a mental health condition. She noted that he was responding to drug counselling and was in remission from Substance Use Disorder. She noted that the fact that the Applicant had quit smoking added to her confidence that he would not relapse to drug use.   

16. The Respondent made the very valid points that the Applicant’s ability to remain abstinent in the community should be released from detention is untested, and he has relapsed on previous occasions after being released from custody. Indeed, the first time the Applicant’s visa was cancelled, he expressed remorse and promised to change. He had family support and he had a baby son. Yet, he relapsed into drug use shortly after he was given his visa back, although he did not go on to offend as seriously as he had before. So what has changed this time?

17. One difference is the Applicant’s ability to acknowledge and describe how drug use affected him and his bad attitude to driving. This was noted by Dr Kwok, and it was apparent in the Applicant’s evidence in the hearing. Another is the rehabilitation he has undertaken this time. Some of that was noted in Dr Kwok’s report. He has done more since, including more sessions with Smart Recovery, completion of the Circuit Breaker course, some short courses, Positive Parenting Drug and Alcohol Abuse 101, and Understanding Addictions.

18. At the date of the hearing in this matter, the Applicant had attended 57 sessions of the SMART Recovery program. These are group sessions that he described as “focussing on [cognitive behaviour therapy], focussing on being accountable, making specific, manageable goals for yourself, creating a support network for yourself, listening, and giving advice where you can to other people and absorbing advice from other people.” He continues to engage with this program to keep himself accountable and to have a support network. He did the “Respectful Man” course to learn how to be a better partner and parent. An anger management course which taught him about Cognitive Behavioural Therapy which helped him to understand the emotional triggers that led to certain behaviours, and gave him strategies to better manage his behaviour.

19. The applicant used the strategies he learnt in these courses to quit smoking. He said one of the courses he did showed him the roles and responsibilities of people dealing with clients who are drug addicts - the caring role and responsibilities that have. He realises now they are helping, and the whole system is about helping the drug addict, whereas he previously thought the system was against him.

20. The Applicant was under the impression that Dr Abak was a psychologist, however in the hearing it became apparent that Dr Abak does not have that qualification. That means the Applicant has not yet engaged in counselling sessions with a clinical or forensic psychologist as Dr Kwok recommended, however he now intends to do that. I have seen the Applicant’s Drug Prevention Relapse Plan which appears to be insightful and realistic.

21. In the hearing, I asked Dr Kwok questions around whether she though the Applicant was being sincere with respect to insight and remorse. She said there are indications when a person is minimising or in denial about their behaviour. Generally, when a person says they feel remorse or sorrow for what they have done, she asks questions like “Who were the victims? When you say you are sorry for the victims, who were the victims? What impact did your behaviours have on the victims?” to gauge whether they have genuine insight. The Applicant identified the victims and, with respect to the home invasion he experienced, he compared his own pain and the psychological impact on himself with the victim of the burglary. She thought that demonstrated empathy and genuine insight. I then asked, with respect to the dangerous driving in 2015:

    “Is that something that's possible, that a person can – who seems to have no empathy at one particular time, under the influence of drugs or in a drug-using phase, can actually develop so that they then are capable of having empathy?”

22. Dr Kwok responded:

    “It can because during the earlier period of time when he was experiencing the drug addiction, his emotions would have been very much affected. He would not have the ability to engage in empathy if he does not have the emotion capacity at that time under the influence of drugs.  Nor can he engage in the proper thinking processes when that was affected by his drug addiction also”.

23. According to the Applicant, if he gets a visa, he will continue his rehabilitation journey in the wider community. That includes, but is not limited to, a three month drug and alcohol program with Goldbridge Rehabilitation Service and the recommended counselling. He intends to accept a job offer in the building industry from a person he has previously worked with who does not use drugs. He provided a letter containing an offer of employment from that person’s business.[7] He has previously performed various labour jobs at building sites including plastering, rendering, formwork and steelwork.

    [7] A4.

24. The Applicant’s parents and brother currently reside in Queensland. He speaks with his parents a few times a week and with his brother every few weeks. They provided letters of support. The Applicant intends to live with his parents and gradually increase the time he spends with Ms N and his son according to what Ms N is comfortable with. He explained:

    “I’ve got to respect her life and where she’s at and whatever rules and whatever she’d like to do and how she likes to live her life. So I’ll live with mum, and I’ve got a room at [Ms N’s] house as well so I can reintegrate easily, so I don’t have to be full-time in her face all of a sudden at home. And I just want things to happen naturally and progress easily and comfortably, more so for her. I'll respect her wishes.” 

25. The Applicant wants to become financially independent, look after his family, and be a good role model to his son. I accept that his son is important to him and he is “committed to being the father he deserves”.

26. Ms N provided a letter of support. She said the Applicant is in constant contact with their son and she needs his support raising him. However, it is evident that her relationship with the Applicant has been interrupted because she will not tolerate drugs. I am satisfied that she will not put up with him if he resumes drug taking. His parents have a close relationship with Ms N. When he was asked if they would support Ms N if she, hypothetically, were to say “He’s back on the drugs. I’ve had a gut full of this”, he said “Everyone would turn their back on me…Everyone’s had a gut full of me.” The Applicant’s parents were in the hearing room when he said that. The three most important adults in the Applicant’s life, who control his access to the most important person in his life, being his son, are prepared to take a very firm stance, and the Applicant understands and respects that. While Dr Kwok did not delve much into this, it seems an ideal motivator for positive behaviour and a strong deterrent against negative behaviour. 

27. In additional to the Applicant’s parents and Ms N, the Applicant has the support of his brother, two cousins, an aunt and uncle, and two close friends who do not use drugs. He has cut ties with anyone involved in drugs and crime. He indicated that if any of those people were to contact him, he would briefly respond with “Look, I don't really take drugs anymore and I’m not involved with drugs anymore, but here’s a link for the SMART Recovery course…If you want to change your life” but he cannot associate with people who are on drugs.

28. The Applicant’s descent into a methamphetamine addiction occurred in the wake of a terrifying home invasion that resulted in adjustment disorder and problems with prescribed medication. Methamphetamine is known to be extremely addictive to some people, and the Applicant kept relapsing after periods of abstinence while in prison and detention. However, he has been clean of methamphetamine and away from drug-using associates for over four years now. He now sets a positive example to other detainees. He had one lapse involving a small amount of cannabis over two years ago. While it is possible that another event as destabilising as a home invasion could happen to the Applicant in the future, traumatic events of that magnitude are relatively rare. Further, the applicant now has more positive supports in place and he has the confidence of having quit smoking in an environment where smoking is permitted. What is most significant is that it is clear to me that the Applicant has come to a point in his life, or been forced to a point in his life, where he realises that it is not in his interests to behave the way he was behaving. There is an element of self-interest and self-preservation that is driving his change in perspective, change in attitude and commitment to rehabilitation. I am satisfied that this will continue as long as he values his freedom, his parents’ respect, and his relationship with his son.   

29. I am satisfied that the Applicant is in a much better position now to stay off drugs that he has been in the last 12 years. I am also satisfied that his attitude towards driving, authority and his place in the community has vastly improved. As he has continued to have treatment, and is responding well, his risk of re-offending is somewhere below moderate.  

30. The Applicant’s previous violent behaviour seems quite aberrant for him. He has never engaged in violence while sober and unaffected by a drug addiction. He was in a drunken altercation in which he was stabbed 15 years ago, and he used physical force to resist arrest eight years ago when he was impaired by a substance addiction. I am satisfied that that there is a low risk that he would engage in violence at the level of common assault if affected by alcohol or a drug addiction. There is no evidence that the Applicant has a problem with alcohol and he rarely drinks. 

31. The hoon driving the Applicant engaged in when he was in his late teens/early twenties, that did not seem related to any substance addiction, came to an end two decades ago. There were several years between 2003 and 2011 when the Applicant did not commit any traffic offences, except for unlicensed and disqualified driving in 2005. The vast majority of the traffic offences that he committed after that period were committed in the context of a serious drug addiction. I am also satisfied that the recent changes in the Applicant’s attitude towards driving and in general mean that relapse into drug use will not necessarily result in the commission of the sorts of driving offences that are inherently risky that he was committing from 2012 onwards. I am satisfied that the risk of further driving like that is remote as long as the Applicant stays on course with his rehabilitation, and there are strong indications that he will.

1. I do not consider that any further property offences or possession of weapons, drugs or drug utensils carry a sufficient likelihood and risk of serious harm to give rise to a danger to the community.               

2. I do not consider that the Applicant is a danger to the Australian community.

   DECISION

3. The Tribunal sets aside the reviewable decision dated 2 March 2023 and remits the matter to the Respondent for reconsideration in accordance with the following directions:

   1. The Applicant satisfies the criterion in section 36(1C)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ('the Act').

   2. Section 36(2C)(b)(ii) of the Act is not engaged by the Applicant.

I certify that the preceding 108 (one hundred and eight) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member R Bellamy

..................................[SGD]......................................

Associate

Dated: 14 November 2023

Date(s) of hearing:

10 and 11 October 2023

Applicant:

Mr Wild of Counsel

Instructed by Neha Vaidyanathan, Refugee & Immigration Legal Service

Respondent: 

Ms Cody Allen
Sparke Helmore

ANNEXURE A – EXHIBIT LIST

EXHIBIT	DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE	PARTY	DATE OF DOCUMENT	DATE RECEIVED
T1	T-Documents T1 to T17 Total Pages: 596	R	Various	5 July 2023
T2	[Redacted]  and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2022] AATA 2217 (22 June 2022)	T	12 July 2022	-
A1	Report of Doctor Emily Kwok Total Pages: 12	A	20 May 2023	26 July 2023
A2	Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions Total Pages 27.	A	Various	2 August 2023
A3	Applicant’s Additional Evidence A1 to A22. Total Pages: 56	A	Various	2 August 2023
A4	Applicant’s Reply Total Pages: 6	A	31 August 2023	31 August 2023
A5	Applicant’s Further Evidence F1 to F11 Total Pages: 101	A	Various	31 August 2023
A6	Applicant’s Further Evidence FF1 to FF6 Total Pages: 8	A	Various	06 October 2023
A7	Letter from the Applicant Total Pages: 7	A	No date	9 October 2023
A8	Applicant’s Outline of Submissions Total Pages: 10	A	8 October 2023	9 October 2023
R1	Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions. Total Pages: 17	R	23 August 2023	23 August 2023
R2	Respondent’s Tender Bundle TB1 to TB8 Total Pages: 458	R	Various	23 August 2023