GQXN and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)
[2022] AATA 441
•15 March 2022
GQXN and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2022] AATA 441 (15 March 2022)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2021/10270
Re:GQXN
APPLICANT
AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal:Dr L Bygrave, Member
Date:15 March 2022
Place:Sydney
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
................................[SGD]........................................
Dr L Bygrave, Member
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – mandatory cancellation of visa – special category (subclass 444) temporary visa – where visa cancelled because Applicant did not pass the character test – substantial criminal record – Ministerial Direction No. 90 – primary considerations – protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct – family violence – best interests of minor children in Australia – expectations of Australian community – other considerations – extent of impediments if removed – links to the Australian community – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 499, 500, 501, 501CA
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Direction No. 90 – Migration Act 1958 – Direction under section 499 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (15 April 2021).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Dr L Bygrave, Member
15 March 2022
INTRODUCTION
The Applicant is a 41-year-old male who is a citizen of New Zealand. He arrived in Australia on 22 March 1996 and was granted a special category (subclass 444) temporary visa (visa).
On [redacted] January 2021, the Applicant was convicted in the Beenleigh Magistrates Court (QLD) of offences including ‘enter premises and commit indictable offence’ and ‘enter dwelling with intent by break’ and was sentenced to a global term of imprisonment of 18 months.[1]
[1] Exhibit G-G4, pages 23-24.
On 22 January 2021, the Applicant was notified by the Department of Home Affairs (the Department) that his visa was cancelled under subsection 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) because he did not pass the character test on the following ground: he had a ‘substantial criminal record’ as defined in subsection 501(7) of the Act by virtue of having been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more (the original decision).[2]
[2] Exhibit G-G13.
Pursuant to section 501CA of the Act, the Applicant submitted a Request for Revocation of a Mandatory Visa Cancellation under S501(3A) form to the Department on 8 February 2021.
On 23 December 2021, a delegate of the Minister[3] decided not to revoke the original decision to cancel the Applicant’s visa.
[3] Referred to in the decision as ‘Delegate of a Minister administering the Migration Act 1958’.
On 24 December 2021, the Applicant filed an application for review of this decision to the General Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal).
The matter was heard by the Tribunal in Sydney on 24 and 25 February 2022. The Applicant did not have legal representation; he attended the hearing and provided oral evidence via videoconference from Brisbane Immigration and Transit Accommodation.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION AND POLICY
The power to revoke a visa cancellation
Subsection 501(3A) of the Act provides that the Minister must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if the Minister is satisfied the person does not pass the character test because of the operation of subsections 501(6) and 501(7).
Subsection 501(6) of the Act defines the character test. Relevantly, paragraph 501(6)(a) of the Act states that a person does not pass the character test if the person has a ‘substantial criminal record’ as defined by subsection 501(7). Subsection 501(7) of the Act includes the provision that, for the purposes of the character test, a person has a ‘substantial criminal record’ if ‘the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more’.
In accordance with subsection 501CA(4) of the Act, the Minister may revoke the original cancellation decision if the person makes representations and the Minister is satisfied that the person passes the character test or there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked. This is a discretionary power.
I am satisfied that the Applicant does not pass the character test in subsection 501(6) of the Act because his criminal record, which includes a sentence of 18 months imprisonment, meets the statutory definition of a ‘substantial criminal record’ in subsection 501(7) of the Act. Consequently, pursuant to subparagraph 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act, I consider whether there is another reason to revoke the original decision to cancel the Applicant’s visa.
The power of the Tribunal to review the decision to cancel the Applicant’s visa is provided by subsection 500(1) of the Act. The Minister has given written directions as to the exercise of the power to review the decision under subsection 499(1) of the Act and subsection 499(2A) of the Act provides that these directions must be complied with.
The relevant direction is Direction No. 90 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (Direction no. 90), which commenced on 15 April 2021.
Direction no. 90
Direction no. 90 provides the following guidance on how the discretion is to be exercised:
6. Exercising the discretion
Informed by the principles in paragraph 5.2, a decision-maker must take into account the considerations identified in sections 8 and 9, where relevant to the decision.
The Minister sets out the principles in paragraph 5.2 that provide a framework to approach the task of deciding whether to revoke a mandatory visa cancellation under section 501CA of the Act. These principles are:
(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. However, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.
(5)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 8.4(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 measureable [sic] risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
Primary considerations are listed in section 8 of Direction no. 90 as follows:
(1)protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(2)whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;
(3)the best interests of minor children in Australia; and
(4)expectations of the Australian community.
Other considerations are set out at section 9 of Direction no. 90. These include (but are not limited to):
(1)international non-refoulement obligations;
(2)extent of impediments if removed;
(3)impact on victims;
(4)links to the Australian community, including:
(a)strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia; and
(b)impact on Australian business interests.
Section 7 of Direction no. 90 states that in applying the primary and other considerations: information and evidence from ‘independent and authoritative sources’ should be given appropriate weight; primary considerations ‘should generally be given greater weight’ than the other considerations; and one or more primary considerations ‘may outweigh other primary considerations’.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 1: PROTECTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL OR OTHER SERIOUS CONDUCT
Paragraph 8.1 of Direction no. 90 outlines the Government’s commitment to protecting the Australian community ‘from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens’ and requires that I give consideration to:
(a)the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s conduct to date; and
(b)the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
The nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s conduct to date
The Applicant was born in New Zealand in 1980. He visited Australia on two occasions as a child prior to his arrival in Australia on 22 March 1996. He has not departed Australia since this time.
The Applicant provided details about his life in New Zealand in an undated written statement filed with the Tribunal on 21 February 2022 and in oral evidence at the Tribunal hearing. The Applicant said he lived with his mother and stepfather as a child: he was physically abused by his stepfather and began to skip school and run away from home. He said that he commenced drinking alcohol at a young age as a coping mechanism; ‘to make [his] thoughts and feelings go away’.[4] The Applicant said he was later sent to live with his biological father for about five months but was beaten by his father when he discovered the Applicant was skipping school. He subsequently ran away from his father’s home.
[4] Exhibit A1.
At the age of 15 years, the Applicant was sent by his mother to Australia to live with his aunt (who he later learned was his grandmother) and uncle to avoid child protection services in New Zealand. He attended school in Brisbane until year 11 and has subsequently undertaken periodic employment in warehousing and construction.
The Applicant has two children from his first relationship; his son, ‘A’ is 23 years old, and his daughter, ‘B’ is 21 years old. The Applicant said he has not seen ‘A’ or ‘B’ for 17 years; however, he spoke with ‘A’ by telephone three years ago and spoke with ‘B’ by phone about three weeks prior to the Tribunal hearing. He said that neither ‘A’ nor ‘B’ know that his visa has been cancelled.
The Applicant has been in a relationship with ‘C’ since 2013. He told the Tribunal that they separated about one month prior to him going to jail in September 2020 and they resumed contact by telephone about one week before his hearing at the Tribunal. The Applicant has three children with ‘C’; two daughters, ‘D’ aged nine years and ‘E’ aged six years, and a son, ‘F’ who is two and a half years old. ‘C’ also has two older children from a previous relationship; a daughter, ‘G’ is 21 years old, and a son, ‘H’ is 16 years old. The Applicant said that ‘H’ currently lives with his biological father.
The Applicant’s criminal history
The Applicant’s criminal record is detailed in an Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) report dated 13 January 2021, which is summarised at Annexure A. The ACIC report shows the Applicant has been convicted of multiple offences in the Courts from [redacted] March 1998 (when he was under 18 years old) to [redacted] January 2021. At the Tribunal hearing, the Applicant accepted this record of his convictions was an accurate account of his offending.
The Applicant’s criminal history is primarily characterised by property and dishonesty-related offences, and breaches of Court-imposed orders. However, I note the Applicant was convicted and fined for the offences ‘assaults occasioning bodily harm’ on [redacted] July 1999 and ‘DVA breach of domestic violence order’ on [redacted] August 2002.[5]
[5] Exhibit G-G4, pages 26-27.
The Applicant has also had convictions that resulted in extended periods of imprisonment.
On [redacted] November 2006, the Applicant was convicted of the offence, ‘grievous bodily harm’, in the Brisbane District Court and sentenced to a term of imprisonment for two years and seven months.
A Schedule of Facts document outlined the Applicant’s offence of grievous bodily harm that occurred on or about [redacted] October 2002. The Applicant read this document at the hearing and agreed with the following facts:
·the Applicant knew the victim and they were both drinking at a night club;
·the Applicant approached the victim as he believed the victim was ‘making advances towards other girls at the club’;
·the Applicant struck the victim in the face with his fist;
·the Applicant then ‘ran from the premises’; and
·the victim was taken to hospital suffering a ‘fractured left orbital floor’ and ‘subsequently had surgery and [was] fitted with a prosthetic eye socket’.[6]
[6] Exhibit TB-R3, page 72.
Judge Dick, in her sentencing remarks, noted the Applicant was being sentenced for about ‘25 offences’ that included dishonesty and traffic offences, but primarily the offence of grievous bodily harm. The Judge observed the ‘grievous bodily harm offence [was] four years old’ and the Applicant had not ‘demonstrated much rehabilitation since then’ but had also ‘not been convicted of any offence of violence since that time’.[7]
[7] Exhibit G-G7, pages 37-40.
On [redacted] November 2008, the Applicant was convicted of the offence in the Brisbane District Court, ‘stealing by clerks and servants’, and sentenced to imprisonment for three years.
In sentencing remarks, Chief Judge Wolfe noted the Applicant ‘pleaded guilty to one count of stealing as a servant the sum of $38,755’ and referred to his ‘history of drug and other substance abuse, which is reflected in [his] criminal history’.[8] Chief Judge Wolfe then stated to the Applicant:
You are now aged 28 and you obviously realise what a mess you have made of your life and the lives of those who are near and dear to you because of your addiction. The crime you committed was part of a phony robbery set up so that police would not realise, the offenders thought, that two of the employees of a tavern were part of this operation to steal $38,000. You fell in with their suggestion that you and a friend pretend to hold up one of those employees in the car park and then come inside with a gun to purport to rob the tavern…
You were a party then to this crime, which carries the same maximum as if you had been charged with stealing property over the value of $5,000, which is 10 years. Having regard to the authorities referred to, in your case, in the circumstances to which I have referred, three years should be the head sentence. The usual discount of one third, no more, will be given to you.[9]
[8] Exhibit G-G6, page 32.
[9] Exhibit G-G6, page 33.
On [redacted] January 2021, the Applicant was convicted in the Beenleigh Magistrates Court of the offences ‘stealing’, ‘possess tainted property’, ‘wilful damage’, ‘trespass–entering or remaining in dwelling or yard’, ‘enter premises and commit indictable offence’ and ‘enter dwelling with intent by break’.[10] For the offences, ‘enter premises and commit indictable offence’ and ‘enter dwelling with intent by break’, he was sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months to be served concurrently with sentences for his other offences.[11]
[10] Exhibit G-G4, pages 23-24.
[11] Exhibit G-G4, pages 23-24.
The facts of these offences are listed in a Queensland Police Service Sentencing Schedule that details the events of the seven charges that occurred from June to September 2020. At the Tribunal hearing, the Applicant accepted the charge of ‘enter dwelling with intent by break’ were an accurate reflection of the facts but denied, could ‘not recall’ or provided alternate explanations to the facts of the other charges. He also acknowledged that he was drinking alcohol ‘everyday’ and using ice during this period. The Applicant said that he pleaded guilty to all seven charges to ‘get them dealt with’ and he did not expect to be sentenced to 18 months in prison.[12] He also said he was not represented by a lawyer in Court, a comment that is not consistent with remarks made by the Magistrate that referred to submissions about sentencing made by the Applicant’s ‘solicitor’ (set out in the paragraph below).
[12] Oral evidence of the Applicant, 25 February 2022.
In his sentencing remarks, Magistrate Kilner noted the Applicant has ‘a history going back to 1998 of similar offending’ and stated:
I acknowledge that there was some reduction in your criminal activity for a period of some 12 months, maybe a little bit longer, but this recent spate of offences, some seven offences, would indicate that you’ve returned to your old ways and, quite frankly, people are entitled to have their property respected, to have their property untouched in the same way that you would want nobody to interfere with your property. I’m told it was done out of need and it was done in an effort to support your children, but absolutely nothing has been provided to me to validate that…
I’m told that you have the prospects of employment immediately upon release, yet for the last nearly 20 years you’ve only been able to get sporadic employment. Miraculously, you’ve got steady employment should you be released from custody. It really just defies logic…So, quite frankly, the only real mitigation is your plea of guilty…
Your history has shown that you continue to commit offences despite having received, firstly, probation, secondly, terms of imprisonment. You continue to commit these offences, and the only option that I really have available to me is a term of imprisonment. Your solicitor argues for 12 months. The prosecution argues for two years. It’s my view that in relation to the most serious of the charges, enter premises, you be sentenced to a term of 18 months imprisonment on each of those; on the stealing, the wilful damage, the tainted property, six months imprisonment; on the trespass, one month imprisonment; all to be served concurrently.[13]
[13] Exhibit G-G5, page 29.
On 16 February 2010, the (then) Department of Immigration and Citizenship wrote to the Applicant to advise that his visa ‘may be liable for cancellation under section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 on character grounds’.[14] The letter stated that his visa would not be cancelled ‘on character grounds at this time’ and provided the following ‘formal warning’:
Please note that visa cancellation may be reconsidered if you commit further offences or otherwise breach the character test in future. Disregard of this warning will weigh heavily against you if your case is reconsidered.[15]
[14] Exhibit G-G8, page 41.
[15] Exhibit G-G8, page 41.
Despite this formal warning in 2010, the Applicant continued to offend as shown by his criminal record set out in the ACIC report and summarised at Annexure A.
The Applicant’s driving and traffic offences
The Applicant’s traffic record shows he committed the traffic and driving offences between February 2002 and March 2019, which included: unlicenced driving (11 occasions); driving under the influence of alcohol (two occasions); and speeding (two occasions).[16]
[16] Exhibit TB-R5.
At the hearing, the Applicant told the Tribunal that he had never obtained a driver’s licence, although he held a learner’s licence for a period.
Consideration
Having regard to the relevant factors in subparagraph 8.1.1(1) of Direction no. 90, I make the following findings about the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s conduct to date:
·The Applicant was convicted of the violent offence of ‘grievous bodily harm’, which is conduct that is considered ‘very serious’.
·The Courts have imposed sentences of imprisonment on the Applicant; notably, two years and seven months for the offence of ‘grievous bodily harm’, three years for the offence of ‘stealing by clerks and servants’, and 18 months for the offences, ‘enter premises and commit indictable offence’ and ‘enter dwelling with intent by break’. These sentences of imprisonment reflect the seriousness of the Applicant’s offending.
·There is a cumulative effect as the Applicant’s offending spans over a period of 23 years and he has continued to offend despite repeated warnings from the judicial system.
·The Applicant received a formal warning in writing from the Department in February 2010 that any further offending could result in the cancellation of his visa.
Based on the evidence, I am satisfied that the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s conduct weighs very heavily against exercising the discretion to revoke the cancellation of his visa.
The risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct
Subparagraph 8.1.2(2) of Direction no. 90 sets out that, in assessing the risk that may be posed by the Applicant to the Australian community, I must have regard to, cumulatively:
·the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community if he engages in further criminal or serious conduct; and
·the likelihood of him engaging in further criminal or serious conduct, taking into account:
oinformation and evidence on the risk of him re-offending, and
oevidence of rehabilitation at this time, giving weight to time spent in the community since his most recent offence.
The Applicant’s criminal record shows he has been primarily convicted for property and dishonesty offences, and breaches of Court-imposed orders. The Applicant’s traffic record is also extensive, particularly his 11 offences of unlicensed driving.
However, the Applicant has also been convicted of violent and serious offences including ‘assaults occasioning bodily harm’ ([redacted] July 1999), ‘DVA breach of domestic violence order’ ([redacted] August 2002) and ‘grievous bodily harm’ ([redacted] November 2006). The sentencing remarks for his conviction for the offence, ‘stealing by clerks and servants’ ([redacted] November 2008) further referred to him coming into the tavern ‘with a gun to purport to rob the tavern’, although the Applicant told the Tribunal he ‘didn’t have a gun’ but put his ‘hand under his shirt’ to make it look like he had a gun.[17]
[17] Exhibit G-G6, page 33 and Oral evidence of the Applicant, 25 February 2022.
Based on the Applicant’s past offending, I am satisfied that – if the Applicant engages in further criminal or serious conduct – the nature of any harm to individuals or the Australian community would be wide-ranging. It could include financial and emotional harm to people and their property, physical harm to people due to bodily injuries and/or harm to road users.
In regard to the Applicant’s likelihood of engaging in further criminal or serious conduct, I note there is no objective psychological report or pre-sentencing report/s before the Tribunal assessing his recidivism.
Both in his written statement filed on 21 February 2022 and in his oral evidence to the Tribunal, the Applicant explained that his criminal offending was a result of his alcohol and substance abuse, which – in turn – was due to the trauma he experienced as a child in New Zealand. The relationship between the Applicant’s criminal offending and his alcohol and substance abuse was also noted in the sentencing remarks of Chief Judge Wolfe on [redacted] November 2008.
In a personal circumstances form completed on 10 March 2021, the Applicant wrote:
I take full responsibility for my offending. My new charges [Court date [redacted] January 2021] I think I was harshly punished for the enter premises was a big misunderstanding. I had reason to believe it was my mates place. I didn’t take anything from the premises. I broke a window and rang my mate [to tell him] I had broken his window. When I realised it wasn’t his place I left. I had no intention of breaking into that person’s place and I wrote a letter to the owner apologising for the damages and offered to pay for the window.
…
I’m willing to do everything I can to not reoffend again. I’m 40 years old now and have a loving, caring family who need their partner, Dad, home. I’m on the waiting lists for courses that will help me for this bad behaviour I seem to get involved in and need to change my ways of living. I fully understand now the damages I have caused my family, friends and community.[18]
[18] Exhibit G-G17, page 105.
In his written statement filed with the Tribunal on 21 February 2021 and at the hearing, the Applicant said that he had ‘graduated twice’ from a ‘drug free unit’ at a correctional centre and previously completed the courses, ‘getting smart and pathways’.[19] He said he intended to go to a rehabilitation centre, ‘Reto To Hope’, if the mandatory cancellation of his visa is revoked. The Applicant said he has had contact with a person at ‘Reto To Hope’ and been told he has a place if he is released from detention; however, he was unable to provide any supporting documentation to the Tribunal. He also told the Tribunal that he began seeing a mental health nurse at the Brisbane Immigration and Transit Accommodation three weeks prior to his hearing.
[19] Exhibit A1.
The Applicant said that after completing rehabilitation at ‘Reto To Hope’ he intends to go to Western Australia to ‘get away and start again’.[20] He said a friend lives in Western Australia and has promised him a job in construction and his partner, ‘C’, and their children will accompany him to Western Australia.
[20] Oral evidence of the Applicant, 25 February 2022.
Considering the Applicant’s written and oral evidence, I find he has shown limited insight into the seriousness of his offending over a 23-year-period. For example, he told the Tribunal his ‘only’ violent offence was the ‘grievous bodily harm’ offence he was convicted of in 2006: he acknowledged the effect of this offence on the victim only after he was asked to read the victim’s impact statement that outlined the physical, emotional and financial impact of his injuries.
In relation to his other serious offences, the Applicant provided reasons for or downplayed his offending, sometimes blaming the actions of other people or stating that he ‘wasn’t at a good place’.[21] He said his alcohol and substance abuse and subsequent offending was due to the behaviour of other people, such as his ex-partner cheating on him or seeing his mother and stepfather at the funeral of his aunt (grandmother) in early 2020.
[21] Exhibit A1.
I accept the evidence of the Applicant shows he experienced an extremely traumatic and violent childhood, and this led to his alcohol and substance abuse. Indeed, the Applicant provided articulate and detailed oral evidence about his childhood. However, there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant has sought counselling (until three weeks prior to the Tribunal hearing) or any other form of psychological assistance to deal with his past trauma. He has also had limited engagement with rehabilitation courses to address his offending behaviour, despite repeated warnings from the judicial system.
In view of all the evidence, I accept the Applicant’s intention to attend a rehabilitation centre to deal with his alcohol and substance abuse. However, I place limited weight on this in view of his repeated offending over a period of 23 years after warnings from the Courts and attending rehabilitation courses. I also note the Applicant has spent no time in the community since his most recent offending, and so has not been able to demonstrate that he has reformed and is unlikely to relapse.
The Applicant filed written statements from five friends and his partner, ‘C’.
Statements from friends of the Applicant described him as someone who is ‘polite’, ‘responsible’ and ‘treats people with respect and kindness’, a ‘family person’ and a ‘hard worker’.[22] However, none of these statements referred to the Applicant’s criminal record and two of the Applicant’s friends who also provided oral evidence at the Tribunal hearing only knew about the Applicant’s ‘traffic fines’ or that he is in prison because ‘he’s in trouble’.[23] I therefore place limited weight on this evidence.
[22] Exhibits A3-A7.
[23] Oral evidence of authors of Exhibits A3 and A6, 24 February 2022.
The written statement by ‘C’ dated 11 February 2022 described the violent and abusive circumstances of the Applicant’s childhood, and noted:
[The Applicant] has never been given a fair chance in life. He has been dealt so many blows but keeps going for the sake of his children. [The Applicant] has told me that he is finally at the point in his life when he knows that he can finally be happy and live a normal life. He has a family that he wants to provide a stable life for and three children that deserve to have a father who loves them and be part of their lives. [The Applicant] also has full time work to go into if he is granted the chance to keep his visa.[24]
[24] Exhibit A2.
I accept that ‘C’, as the Applicant’s partner since 2013, is an appropriate person to explain the circumstances of his past. However, I place limited weight on her evidence for the following two reasons. First, in her oral evidence to the Tribunal, ‘C’ confirmed that she had not spoken with the Applicant until about one week before the Tribunal hearing; that is, she had no contact with the Applicant in the period from September 2020 to mid-February 2022. Second, ‘C’ told the Tribunal that she knew ‘most of [the Applicant’s] criminal history’ but then only referred to his ‘driving offences’ and said she was not aware that he had any convictions for violent offences.[25] Given ‘C’’s minimal recent contact with the Applicant and her lack of knowledge about his past criminal offending, I do not consider her evidence about the Applicant’s likelihood of reoffending to be informed, objective or credible.
[25] Oral evidence of ‘C’, 25 February 2022.
For these reasons, I cannot be satisfied that the Applicant will not reoffend if he is released into the Australian community. In considering the harm and potential risk to the Australian community if he were to reoffend in the future, I am mindful of the nature and seriousness of his offending behaviour over a period of 23 years. I also view any harm that would occur if he engaged in further criminal conduct to be an unacceptable risk to the Australian community.
On balance, I am satisfied the primary consideration of protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct weighs very strongly against exercising the discretion to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 2: FAMILY VIOLENCE COMMITTED BY THE APPLICANT
Subparagraph 4(1) of Direction no. 90 defines family violence as ‘violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person’s family (the family member), or causes the family member to be fearful’. Examples of behaviour that may constitute family violence include ‘repeated derogatory taunts’ and ‘intentionally damaging or destroying property’.
Direction no. 90, at subparagraph 8.2(1), states ‘the Government has serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of…remaining in Australia’. Subparagraph 8.2(3) outlines the factors I must consider in relation to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the Applicant. These factors relevantly include:
·the frequency of the Applicant’s behaviour and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;
·the cumulative effect of repeated acts of family violence; and
·rehabilitation achieved at the time of my decision since the Applicant’s last known act of family violence, including:
othe extent to which he accepts responsibility for his conduct;
othe extent to which he understands the impact of his behaviour on his partner and her children; and
oefforts to address factors which contributed to his conduct.
Documents produced under summons by the Queensland Police Service show the Applicant has been subject to two Domestic Violence Orders (DVOs).
The first DVO related to events on [redacted] November 2015, when police were called to the home of the Applicant and ‘C’ after they had a ‘loud verbal argument’ in the presence of four children and the Applicant made verbal threats towards ‘C’.[26] As a result of this incident, the Applicant was subject to a DVO from [redacted] November 2015 to [redacted] November 2017 in relation to ‘C’ and four children.[27]
[26] Exhibit TB-R1, page 34.
[27] Exhibit TB-R1, page 35.
In oral evidence to the Tribunal, both the Applicant and ‘C’ accepted that this argument had occurred, although ‘C’ said she was not sure if she had ‘overexaggerated’ her fear about the Applicant’s behaviour as she had ‘recently had a baby’.[28]
[28] Oral evidence of ‘C’, 25 February 2022.
The second and current DVO related to incidents on [redacted] March 2020, when the Applicant returned to the home he shared with ‘C’, her two children from a prior relationship (‘G’ and ‘H’) and their three children (‘D’, ‘E’ and ‘F’). The Applicant ‘became aggressive’ towards ‘C’ in the garage and threw a stool. ‘C’ attempted to leave the home by car with their baby, ‘F’, and ‘G’ made attempts to stop the argument. The Applicant picked up a pole and smashed ‘G’’s bedroom window. As a result of this incident, the Applicant was subject to a DVO from [redacted] June 2020 to [redacted] June 2025 in relation to ‘C’ and five children.[29]
[29] Exhibit TB-R1, page 40.
In oral evidence to the Tribunal, the Applicant denied physically hurting anyone but accepted that his behaviour was affected by drugs. ‘C’ also gave oral evidence to the Tribunal in which she said this incident occurred just after the Applicant’s aunt (grandmother) had passed away and he ‘was not good at that point in time’.[30]
[30] Oral evidence of ‘C’, 25 February 2022.
Three days prior to the Tribunal hearing, ‘C’ emailed a written statement to the Tribunal dated 21 February 2022 stating that she had attended the Magistrate’s Court to get this DVO amended so that the Applicant is allowed to have contact with his children.[31]
[31] Exhibit A2.
Based on the evidence, I make the following findings:
·The Applicant has committed acts of family violence (‘repeated derogatory taunts’ and ‘intentionally damaging or destroying property’) and consequently, has been subject to two DVOs. He is currently subject to the terms of a DVO that expires on [redacted] June 2025. This DVO was amended on [redacted] February 2022 to allow the Applicant to have contact with his children.
·There is no objective information before the Tribunal about the Applicant’s rehabilitation including the extent to which he accepts responsibility for his conduct that led to the DVOs and/or understands the impact of his behaviour on his partner and her/their children.
·There is no objective evidence before the Tribunal to show the Applicant has made efforts since 2020 to address the factors, such as his alcohol and substance abuse, which may have contributed to his conduct.
For completeness, I note the Applicant’s criminal record set out in the ACIC report referred to a conviction for the offence, ‘DVA breach of domestic violence order’, on [redacted] August 2002.[32] However, there is no other information before the Tribunal in relation to this conviction and so I cannot be satisfied this offence constitutes family violence.
[32] Exhibit G-G4, page 26.
Based on my findings, I am satisfied the primary consideration of family violence committed by the Applicant weighs strongly against exercising the discretion to revoke the decision to cancel the Applicant’s visa.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 3: BEST INTERESTS OF MINOR CHILDREN IN AUSTRALIA AFFECTED BY THE DECISION
Subparagraph 8.3(4) of Direction no. 90 lists the factors I must consider in considering whether cancellation of the Applicant’s visa is in the best interests of a minor child (under 18 years old at the time of the refusal) affected by the decision. The relevant factors include:
·the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the Applicant (placing less weight where the relationship is non-parental, there is no existing relationship or long periods of absence, or limited ‘meaningful contact’);
·the extent to which the Applicant is likely to play a positive parental role in the future taking into account the length of time until the child turns 18 years old;
·the impact of the Applicant’s prior and future conduct, and whether that will have a negative impact on the child;
·the likely effect any separation would have on the child; and
·whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role for the child.
In a ‘personal circumstances form’ completed on 10 March 2021, the Applicant listed his three children with his partner ‘C’: two daughters, ‘D’ aged nine years and ‘E’ aged six years, and a son, ‘F’ who is two and a half years old. The Applicant wrote that he plays ‘a big part’ in his children’s lives ‘today’ and he speaks ‘on the phone at least 3 times a day to them as well as to his partner.’[33] He also wrote that his ‘partner is struggling with our kids on her own and it breaks my heart I’m not with her to support her with our kids’.[34] He stated:
I made a promise I would never do what my father did to me. I never knew my Dad and always said to myself if I ever had kids I would never do that to mine, I would support my partner and kids to the best I can.[35]
[33] Exhibit G-G17, pages 96 and 98.
[34] Exhibit G-G17, page 98.
[35] Exhibit G-G17, page 96.
The Applicant wrote one-page statements about his relationships with each of his three minor children with ‘C’. He stated that he speaks with ‘D’ ‘most days on the phone’ and ‘draws her pictures to colour in’, and they have a ‘pretty strong bond’.[36] He wrote that he has ‘contact’ with ‘E’ ‘every day or most days’, he missed her ‘going to school’ and she ‘makes [him] cards’.[37] The Applicant noted that he has been ‘a part of his son’s life since he was born and have never left his side’, his son ‘is the one struggling the most’ as they are ‘really close’.[38] He wrote that his son ‘asks for him every day’ and his partner says his son ‘gets really upset when he asks to see’ his father.[39]
[36] Exhibit G-G17, page 101.
[37] Exhibit G-G17, page 102.
[38] Exhibit G-G17, page 103.
[39] Exhibit G-G17, page 103.
At the hearing, the Applicant told the Tribunal that he has two older children (a son, ‘A’ aged 23 years and a daughter, ‘B’ aged 21 years) who he has not seen for 17 years. While ‘A’ and ‘B’ are no longer minor children, documents produced under summons included an undated letter written by the Applicant in the period of 2009–2010 and sent to the Department (related to the formal letter he received from the Department dated 16 February 2010 that any further offending could result in the cancellation of his visa). The Applicant wrote:
The main reason why I don’t want my visa cancelled is so that I can be a father to my kids and be there for them when they need me. I always said I would never disown my kids like my Dad did with me. I want to be given this chance…to catch up on the time I have missed watching them grow up… [I] have missed them so much I cannot explain my feelings.[40]
[40] Exhibit TB-R6.
The Applicant also told the Tribunal that ‘C’ has two older children; her daughter, ‘G’ is 21 years old, and her son, ‘H’ is 16 years old but currently lives with his biological father. There is no oral or written evidence about the Applicant’s parental role with ‘H’, who is a minor child.
I accept the Applicant has a parental role in the lives of his three biological children (‘D’, ‘E’ and ‘F’) and his stepson (‘H”), all of whom are under the age of 18 years. I place substantial weight on the effect any separation from the Applicant would have on these children.
However, I also have concerns about inconsistencies in the Applicant’s evidence regarding the nature and duration of his relationship with these children since he was jailed in September 2020. For example:
·The Applicant wrote on 10 March 2021 that he speaks to his children and partner ‘at least 3 times a day’.[41]
·In his oral evidence on 24 February 2022, the Applicant said he had only ‘just begun’ speaking with his kids as he had ‘not spoken with them for 18 months’.[42]
·In his oral evidence on 25 February 2022, the Applicant said he had continued to speak to his children (via his partner’s mobile phone) ‘approximately’ three times a week since being incarcerated in September 2020. ‘C’ also gave oral evidence to the Tribunal their children ‘loved their Dad’ and spoke to him regularly.[43]
[41] Exhibit G-G17, page 98.
[42] Oral evidence of the Applicant, 24 February 2022.
[43] Oral evidence of ‘C’, 25 February 2022.
I note the Applicant’s written claims of daily contact by telephone with his partner and their children are not consistent with the current DVO that ‘prohibits’ him from contacting ‘C’ (including by telephone). The Applicant’s statements in March 2021 that he talked with his partner about their children are also not consistent with either his or ‘C’’s oral evidence, which was that they had not spoken in the period from about August 2020 to one week prior to the Tribunal hearing.
I also have concerns about the genuineness of the Applicant’s evidence in relation to his children in view of the similar claims he made about the importance of maintaining contact with his older children, ‘A’ and ‘B’, to the Department in 2010.
As there is no objective supporting evidence before the Tribunal, I place less weight on the assertions by the Applicant and ‘C’ regarding the regularity of his contact with his children since August-September 2020. I also place less weight on these relationships in view of the Applicant’s past conduct that has included acts of family violence and for which he is currently subject to a DVO.
Finally, I note that all four minor children affected by this matter have been in the parental care of their mother, ‘C’, since the Applicant was imprisoned in September 2020. ‘C’ told the Tribunal she lives with her children in a house that her parents built; her parents live on the neighbouring property and assist her to care for and raise her children.
Considering all the evidence in relation to the factors set out in subparagraph 8.3(4) of Direction no. 90, I am satisfied the primary consideration of best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision weighs strongly for exercising the discretion to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 4: EXPECTATIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY
Subparagraph 8.4(1) of Direction no. 90 provides:
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.
In subparagraph 8.4(2) of Direction no. 90, the Minister states that non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa may be appropriate because character concerns or offences are such that the Australian community would expect the person should not continue to hold a visa; and the Australian community expects the Australian government can and should cancel the visas of non-citizens if they raise serious character concerns through conduct including acts of family violence and/or serious crimes of a violent nature. Further, expectations of the Australian community ‘apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community’: subparagraph 8.4(3) of Direction no. 90.
Subparagraph 8.4(4) of Direction no. 90 states:
This consideration is about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole, and in this respect, decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government’s views as articulated above, without independently assessing the community’s expectations in the particular case.
Considering the requirement of paragraph 8.4 and the principles set out in paragraph 5.2 of Direction no. 90, I am satisfied the Australian community expects a non-citizen will obey Australian laws, not cause harm to individuals or the Australian community, and the Australian government should cancel the visa of a non-citizen if they commit serious crimes.
I have set out the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s criminal conduct over a 23-year-period and the risk to the Australian community if he were to commit further offences in paragraphs 25–37, 40–41 and 43–60 above. I have also set out acts of family violence committed by the Applicant that resulted in him being subject to two DVOs at paragraphs 63–71 above. I am satisfied that the Applicant’s offending, which commenced approximately two years after he began living in Australia, has involved convictions for serious crimes as shown by the Courts imposing sentences of imprisonment.
Based on the evidence and having regard to the principles and requirements in Direction no. 90, I find the Australian community would have a very low tolerance of the Applicant’s conduct and would expect the Government to not allow him to remain in Australia.
I am satisfied the primary consideration of expectations of the Australian community weighs very strongly against exercising the discretion to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS IN DIRECTION NO. 90
Section 9 of Direction no. 90 lists the other considerations that I must also take into account in deciding whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa. The other considerations that are relevant in this matter are:
·extent of impediments if the Applicant is removed from Australia; and
·links to the Australian community, namely the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant’s ties to Australia.
For completeness, I find no evidence before the Tribunal that shows the considerations of international non-refoulement obligations, impact on victims or impact on Australian business interests are relevant to these proceedings.
Other Consideration: Extent of impediments if the Applicant is removed from Australia
The extent of impediments if the Applicant is removed from Australia relates to his capacity to reside in, establish himself and maintain ‘basic living standards’ in his ‘home country’ of New Zealand. Pursuant to subparagraph 9.2(1) of Direction no. 90, I must consider his ‘age and health’, whether there are any ‘substantial language or cultural barriers’, and any ‘social, medical and/or economic support’ available to him in New Zealand.
The Applicant is 41 years old. He has provided no evidence of any medical issues and told the Tribunal that he has no physical health conditions or mental/psychological conditions. I find the Applicant’s age and health would not impede his removal from Australia.
The Applicant was born and raised in New Zealand until he was 15 years old. I find there is no evidence of any language or cultural barriers to the Applicant living in New Zealand.
As a citizen of New Zealand, I am satisfied the Applicant would have access to medical and economic support. While he would need to establish himself and find accommodation and employment in New Zealand, there is no evidence before the Tribunal to show he would be unable to maintain basic living standards in New Zealand.
However, I accept the evidence of the Applicant that he would have no social support from any of his family members in New Zealand. The Applicant told the Tribunal that his mother, stepfather and stepsiblings live in New Zealand but, in view of the trauma he experienced as a child, he would have no contact with these relatives. He also said he has an older brother in New Zealand but has had no contact with him since they were children.
I also accept that the Applicant has the social support of his partner, their children and some friends in Australia, and the offer of employment. I find that the Applicant would experience distress if he is removed from these social supports and the opportunity for employment.
On balance and considering all the evidence, I am satisfied the other consideration of the extent of impediment if the Applicant is removed from Australia has a neutral weighting in exercising the discretion to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
Other Consideration: Strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia
In considering the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant’s ties to Australia, subparagraphs 9.4.1(1) and (2) of Direction no. 90 stipulate that I must consider any impact of the decision on the Applicant’s ‘immediate family members’ in Australia, and I must have regard to:
·how long the Applicant has resided in Australia, including whether he arrived as a young child, noting that:
oless weight should be given where he began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and
omore weight should be given to time he has spent contributing positively to the Australian community;
·the strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.
The Applicant came to Australia when he was 15 years old. He has now lived in Australia for 26 years and has never returned to New Zealand. Since completing year 11 at high school, the Applicant has been employed periodically in warehousing and construction jobs. He estimated to the Tribunal that he has worked for approximately six or seven years of the 26 years he has lived in Australia. I consider this employment to be a positive contribution.
However, as set out in paragraphs 25–37, the Applicant’s criminal record commenced less than two years after he arrived in Australia. He has an extensive and serious history of criminal convictions as well as a lengthy traffic record over a period of 23 years.
The Applicant has a partner, five biological children and two stepchildren who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia. I have set out the evidence and my findings about the Applicant’s relationship with his children at paragraphs 73–83. I also note the Applicant has not seen his eldest children, ‘A’ and ‘B’, for 17 years and there is no evidence before the Tribunal about the Applicant’s current relationship with his stepchildren, ‘G’ and ‘H’.
Both the Applicant and ‘C’ told the Tribunal that, if the Applicant’s visa is not cancelled and he is released into the Australian community, they will move to Western Australia with their three children. However, while ‘C’ said that she and the children were excited to move to Western Australia, paradoxically, she said she would not move to New Zealand because she could not be separated from her older two children.
While I accept the appeal of a ‘new beginning’ for the Applicant, ‘C’ and their children in Western Australia, I must place limited weight on this information as there are a range of issues for the Applicant and ‘C’ to resolve prior to resuming their relationship and living in Western Australia. First, the Applicant remains subject to the conditions of a DVO in relation to ‘C’ and their children until [redacted] June 2025 (despite a variation to these terms on [redacted] February 2022). Second, the Applicant has committed to attending rehabilitation for an extended period (he told the Tribunal ‘eight months’) if he is released into the Australian community. Third, the Applicant and ‘C’ only resumed contact one week before the Tribunal hearing and had not spoken in the preceding 17 months. Fourth, ‘C’ has stable accommodation, the support of her parents who live next door and her two older children living with her or close by; despite her oral evidence, it is unclear whether she would leave her home, the support of her parents and her older children to move to Western Australia.
In view of the evidence, I am satisfied the other consideration of strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia weighs for exercising the discretion to revoke the decision to mandatorily cancel the Applicant’s visa.
CONCLUSION
I am satisfied that:
·the first primary consideration (protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct) and fourth primary consideration (expectations of the Australian community) weigh very strongly against exercising the discretion to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation;
·the second primary consideration (whether the conduct constituted family violence) weighs strongly against revoking the mandatory visa cancellation; and
·the third primary consideration (best interests of minor children in Australia) weighs strongly for exercising the discretion to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
In relation to the other considerations, I find:
·the extent of impediments to the Applicant if he is removed from Australia has a neutral weighting in exercising the discretion to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa; and
·the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia weighs for exercising the discretion to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
Section 7 of Direction no. 90 states that primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than other considerations. I find no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest this weighting should not apply to the circumstances of the Applicant.
Weighing all the relevant primary considerations and other considerations, I am satisfied there is not another reason to revoke the original decision to cancel the Applicant’s visa.
For these reasons, the decision made by a delegate of the Minister on 23 December 2021 to not revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa is affirmed.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
I certify that the preceding 112 (one hundred and twelve) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Dr L Bygrave, Member
....................................[SGD]....................................
Associate
Dated: 15 March 2022
Date(s) of hearing: 24 and 25 February 2022 Applicant: In person Solicitors for the Respondent: Mr Jake Kyranis, Sparke Helmore Lawyers ANNEXURE A
| DISCLOSABLE HISTORY | ||||
| SOURCE | COURT | YEAR | OFFENCE | RESULTS |
| QLD | Magistrates Court | 2021 | Stealing Possess tainted property | On all charges conviction recorded sentenced imprisonment: 6mo concurrent |
| QLD | Magistrates Court | 2021 | Trespass – entering or remaining in dwelling or yard | Conviction recorded sentenced imprisonment: 1mo concurrent |
| QLD | Magistrates Court | 2021 | Enter premises and | On all charges conviction recorded sentenced |
| QLD | Magistrates Court | 2020 | Re: breach of order extended on [redacted] | Suspended sentence fully invoked |
| QLD | Magistrates Court | 2020 | Possessing dangerous drugs | Conviction recorded |
| QLD | Magistrates Court | 2019 | Re: breach of order imposed on [redacted] | Suspended sentence |
| QLD | Magistrates Court | 2019 | Stealing | Conviction recorded |
| QLD | Magistrates Court | 2018 | Unlawful use of motor vehicles aircraft or vessels - use | Conviction recorded |
| QLD | Magistrates Court | 2017 | Contravene direction or requirement | Conviction recorded Fined: $600.00 |
| QLD | Magistrates Court | 2017 | Possess tainted property | Conviction recorded |
| QLD | Magistrates Court | 2016 | Contravene direction or requirement | Conviction recorded Fined: $600.00 in default imprisonment: 24d |
| QLD | Magistrates Court | 2016 | Contravene direction or requirement | Conviction recorded Fined: $100.00 |
| QLD | Magistrates Court | 2014 | Contravene direction or requirement | On all charges conviction recorded Fined: $750.00 |
| QLD | Magistrates Court | 2013 | Wilful damage of police property | On all charges |
| QLD | Magistrates Court | 2013 | Fail to stop motor vehicle | No conviction recorded released absolutely |
| QLD | Magistrates Court | 2011 | Fail to stop motor vehicle Assault or obstruct police officer | On all charges |
| QLD | District Court | 2008 | Stealing by clerks and servants | Conviction recorded |
| QLD | District Court | 2008 | Supplying dangerous drugs | Sentenced imprisonment: 3mo all terms of imprisonment to be served concurrently |
| QLD | District Court | 2006 | Enter premises and commit indictable offence by break (6 chgs) Wilful damage (2 chgs) Stealing Stealing from the person | Conviction recorded |
| QLD | District Court | 2006 | Failure to appear in accordance with | Conviction recorded not further punished |
| QLD | District Court | 2006 | Breach of suspended sentence (re: breach bail undertaking) | Breach proven |
| QLD | Magistrates Court | 2005 | Contravene direction or requirement | Convicted and fined $600 I/D IMP. 10 days |
| QLD | Magistrates Court | 2004 | Breach bail undertaking | Convicted and sentenced 1 month imprisonment |
| QLD | Magistrates Court | 2004 | Behave in a disorderly manner Obstruct police officer (2 chgs) | One penalty imposed: |
| QLD | Magistrates Court | 2003 | Behave in a disorderly manner | No conviction recorded |
| QLD | District Court | 2003 | Breach of probation order imposed (re: original chgs) | Breach proven |
| QLD | Magistrates Court | 2002 | DVA breach of domestic violence order | Convicted and fined $350 |
| QLD | District Court | 2001 | Breach probation and breach community service imposed (re: enter dwelling & commit, UUMV x 2, enter premises commit & break and receiving) | Breaches proven |
| QLD | Magistrates Court | 2001 | Behave in a disorderly manner | No conviction recorded |
| QLD | Magistrates Court | 2001 | Breach of fine option order re: breach of bail conditions, breach of bail undertaking on court date [redacted] | Order revoked completed nil hours of 68 hours |
| QLD | Magistrates Court | 2001 | Behave in a disorderly manner | Convicted and fined $100 I/D IMP. 2 days |
| QLD | District Court | 2000 | Enter or in dwelling & commit indictable offence Unlawful user of motor vehicle (2 chgs) Enter premises and commit an indictable offence + break Receiving property obtained in Queensland | On all charges: |
| QLD | Magistrates Court | 1999 | breach fine option orders x 3 (re: UUMV, wilful damage, breach bail) | Orders revoked |
| QLD | Magistrates Court | 1999 | Assaults occasioning bodily harm | Convicted and fined $420 |
| QLD | Magistrates Court | 1999 | Breach bail conditions Breach bail undertaking | One penalty imposed: |
| QLD | Magistrates Court | 1999 | Application for fine option order re: UUMV Application for fine option order re: wilful damage Application for fine option order re: breach bail | Granted |
| QLD | Magistrates Court | 1998 | Unauthorised dealing with shop goods | Convicted and fined $90 |
| QLD | Magistrates Court | 1998 | Unlawful user of motor vehicle | No conviction recorded fined $400 in default imprisonment 11 days |
| QLD | Magistrates Court | 1998 | Wilful damage | Convicted and fined $525 in default imprisonment 18 days Convicted and fined $300 in default imprisonment 12 days Compensation $400 in default imprisonment 16 days |
| QLD | Magistrates Court | 1998 | Wilful damage | Convicted and fined $300 I/D IMP. 2 days compensation $400 I/D IMP. 16 days |
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Natural Justice
-
Statutory Construction
0
0
0