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

This matter concerned an application by the Applicant for review of the Minister's decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa. The Applicant, who arrived in Australia as a young child, had an extensive criminal history spanning approximately 30 years. The primary issue was whether the Applicant passed the character test as defined by section 501(6) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), and if not, whether there was another reason to revoke the cancellation decision under section 501CA(4) of the Act.

The court was required to determine two key issues: first, whether the Applicant failed to pass the character test due to a substantial criminal record, and second, if he did fail the character test, whether there was another compelling reason to revoke the visa cancellation. In considering the latter, the court was directed by Direction No 90 to take into account various primary and other considerations, including the protection of the Australian community, the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct, the risk to the community, the best interests of minor children, expectations of the Australian community, links to the Australian community, the impact on victims, and the future needs of the Applicant's twin sons.

The court found that the Applicant did not pass the character test due to his substantial criminal record, which included a sentence of imprisonment of 12 months or more. However, in assessing whether there was another reason to revoke the cancellation, the court considered the extensive evidence presented. This included the Applicant's significant health issues, his long ties to Australia, and the severe impact his removal would have on his twin 17-year-old sons with autism, who required constant care. The court also noted the Applicant's fear of returning to the United Kingdom, where he had no family support and expressed suicidal ideation if deported. Despite the community's expectations weighing against revocation, the court was satisfied that the impediments to the Applicant's removal, particularly concerning the care of his sons and his own mental health, constituted another reason to revoke the cancellation decision.

Consequently, the Reviewable Decision was set aside and substituted with a decision to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa.