GVTK and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)
[2022] AATA 2751
•28 July 2022
GVTK and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2022] AATA 2751 (28 July 2022)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2022/3863
Re:GVTK
APPLICANT
AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member R Bellamy
Member A Julian-Armitage
Date of Decision: 28 July 2022
Date of Written Reasons: 24 August 2022
Place:Brisbane
The decision under review is affirmed.
.......................[SGD]................................... ..........................[SGD]................................
Senior Member R Bellamy Member A Julian-Armitage
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Non-revocation of mandatory cancellation of a Class EN Subclass 186 Employer Nomination (permanent) visa – where Applicant does not pass the character test – whether there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision – consideration of Ministerial Direction No. 90 – drug trafficking – mental illness – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
CASES
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 46 FLR 409
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185
Minister for Home Affairs v Buadromo [2018] FCAFC 151
Tahuriorangi and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2018] AATA 2158
SECONDARY MATERIAL
Commonwealth of Australia, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Final Report of the National Ice Taskforce, (6 October 2015)
Direction No 90 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member R Bellamy and Member A Julian-Armitage
24 August 2022
The Applicant is a biological male who recently expressed an intention to gender transition and wished to be referred to in these proceedings using female pronouns. Hence, while the Applicant was referred to using male pronouns in most of the evidence before the Tribunal, female pronouns are used in these reasons.
The Applicant is a 47 year old citizen of New Zealand and the United Kingdom. She was born and raised in New Zealand and moved permanently to Australia on a Special Category (Class TY) (Subclass 444) visa in December 2011 when she was 37 years old. She had previously visited Australia on multiple occasions since 1996 for short periods of time. The most recent visa held by her was a Class EN Subclass 186 Employer Nomination (permanent) visa (“visa”).[1] Her visa was recently cancelled due to her criminal offending. She asked the Tribunal to revoke that cancellation.
[1] Exhibit G1, G24, page 114.
Section 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) relevantly provides that the Minister must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if:
· the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because of the operation of paragraph (6)(a), on the basis of paragraph (7)(a), (b) or (c); and
· the person is serving a sentence of imprisonment, on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.
Pursuant to s 501(6)(a) of the Act, a person will not pass the character test if they have “a substantial criminal record”. Section 501(7)(c) of the Act relevantly provides that a person will have a substantial criminal record if they have “been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more”. On 5 December 2019, the Applicant was sentenced by the Supreme Court to concurrent terms of imprisonment with a head sentence of two years and nine months, with a non-parole period of eight months. What matters for present purposes is the term of imprisonment to which a person has been sentenced, not the amount of time they have actually served.[2] Accordingly, the Applicant does not pass the character test.
[2] See Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 46 FLR 409, 415-416.
On 13 July 2020, a delegate of the Minister (“the Respondent”) mandatorily cancelled her visa because she did not pass the character test and she was serving a sentence of imprisonment on a full-time basis in a custodial institution for an offence against a law of a State, being Queensland.[3]
[3] Exhibit G1. G24 page 114.
On 11 January 2022, the Applicant made written representations to the Respondent requesting revocation of the cancellation of her visa (“revocation request”).[4] Revocation of the mandatory cancellation of visas is governed by s 501CA(4) of the Act which provides:
The Minister may revoke the original decision if:
(a)the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation; and
(b)the Minister is satisfied:
(i) that the person passes the character test (as defined by section 501); or
(ii) that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.
[4] Exhibit G1. G9 pages 51 to 52.
On 5 May 2022, the Respondent decided not to revoke the cancellation.[5] On 13 May 2022, the Applicant lodged an application in this Tribunal for review of that decision.[6] The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the decision pursuant to s 500(1)(ba) of the Act.
[5] Exhibit G1. G3, page 11.
[6] Exhibit G1. G2 pages 3 to 8.
We are satisfied that the Applicant made the representations required by s 501CA(4)(a) of the Act and that she does not pass the character test. Thus, the issue is whether there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa. If there is, the Tribunal should revoke the original decision.[7]
[7] Minister for Home Affairs v Buadromo [2018] FCAFC 151.
The hearing of this application took place on 21 and 25 July 2022. The Applicant gave evidence via video conference as did her mother and brother (“Mr P”). Her sister (“Ms C”) gave evidence by telephone. The Tribunal also received the written evidence that is listed in the attached exhibit list, marked “Annexure A”.
It was apparent that, as the hearing of this matter approached, the Applicant’s mental health declined. A few weeks before the hearing, it appeared that she may not be able to meaningfully participate in the hearing. Pursuant to s 500(6L) of the Act, had the Tribunal not made a decision in this matter within 84 days of the Applicant having been notified of the reviewable decision, the reviewable decision would have been taken to be affirmed. Accordingly, for the Applicant to have a chance of getting her visa back it was necessary for the Tribunal to evaluate the available, relevant evidence and be in a position to make a decision by 28 July 2022.
The Applicant’s representative indicated that the Applicant wanted to proceed with the hearing and “share a bit about her life and give testimony to her circumstances”.[8] By the first day of the hearing, the Applicant’s mental health appeared to have improved somewhat, although she gave some evidence that appeared paranoid and irrational. We have borne her mental health in mind when evaluating her oral evidence. The Applicant’s criminal history is set out in a document called “Check Results Report” issued by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission.[9] She pleaded guilty to all of the offences contained therein and she has not, in the course of these proceedings denied having committed those offences - except for a couple of minor aspects: in the hearing she mentioned that a syringe that was found was not hers,[10] and she claimed that she had a script for some Diazapam that was found in her possession.
Determination of Whether There is Another Reason Why the Cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa Should be Revoked?
[8] Transcript, page 8, lines 5 to 7.
[9] Exhibit G1, G4 pages 25 to 28.
[10] Transcript, page 21, lines 24 to 26.
In applying s 501CA(4) of the Act, the Tribunal is bound by s 499(2A) to comply with any directions made under the Act. In this case, Direction No 90 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (“the Direction”) applies.
For the purposes of deciding whether or not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen’s visa, paragraph 5.2 of the Direction contains several principles that must guide a decision maker’s application of Part 2 of the Direction.
Those principles may be briefly stated as follows:
(1)Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on 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 measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
Paragraph 6 of the Direction provides that:
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.
Paragraph 8 of the Direction sets out four Primary Considerations that the Tribunal must take into account. They are:
(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.
Paragraph 9 of the Direction sets out four Other Considerations which must be taken into account. They are:
a)international non-refoulement obligations;
b)extent of impediments if removed;
c)impact on victims; and
d)links to the Australian community, including:
i)strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia; and
ii)impact on Australian business interests.
Paragraph 7(2) provides that the primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations, and paragraph 7(3) provides that one or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.
BACKGROUND AND OFFENDING
The Applicant was born in New Zealand. In December 2011, at the age of 37, she moved to Australia on a permanent basis with her then partner, “Mr D”. The Applicant had visited Australia on 11 occasions between 1996 and this date.
The Applicant indirectly attributed her offending to some traumatic experiences in her childhood and adulthood that she thinks caused mental health issues which contributed to her abuse of drugs and subsequent offending. We have included her evidence about these and her mental health in this background section.
According to the Applicant, when she was a child her father abused alcohol which resulted in domestic violence. Her mother tolerated this behaviour to her own detriment to support the Applicant and her siblings. The Applicant’s worry about her father’s behaviour caused significant anxiety and long-term depression.[11] Ms C gave evidence that their father was frequently drunk and that when he was intoxicated he was verbally aggressive. She said there was one instance of physical aggression: he punched a hole in a wall narrowly missing their mother’s head. She was around five years old at the time.[12] Based on her being five years old, the Applicant would have been around three years old at the time. It is notable that neither the Applicant’s mother nor Mr P, who as the eldest sibling would have been around seven years old at the time of that incident, mentioned any domestic violence in their evidence. It appears that the Applicant recalls a greater level of aggression than was there, although it can readily be accepted that her home life caused her anxiety.
[11] Exhibit G1, G12, page 70.
[12] Transcript, page 44, lines 6 to 25.
In 1994, at the age of 19, the Applicant commenced a relationship with Mr D who was six years older than her. In her revocation request, she described Mr D, when their relationship begun, as thoughtful and caring, showering her with affection and love. After completing tertiary studies, she moved to away to be with Mr D. She worked at a bank and later in call centres in management roles. She felt discriminated against in her job, an out of court settlement was reached with her employer, and she and Mr D relocated. She struggled with the personalities at her subsequent workplaces and started to consume alcohol in an unhealthy manner. The Applicant and Mr D moved back to Wellington to be with her parents after her father had a bad fall.[13]
[13] Exhibit G1, G12, pages 70 to 71.
According to Ms C the fall occurred in 2001.[14] The Applicant’s father’s health got worse, and he was later diagnosed with bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.[15]
[14] Exhibit G1, G16.
[15] Transcript, page 10, lines 1 to 5.
The Applicant’s mother recalled that the Applicant’s mental health problems arose as a young adult and “he was getting some sort of, you know, things for anxiety and things like that, yes”.[16]
[16] Transcript, page 52, lines 10 to 17.
At the age of 31, which would have been in around 2006, while in New Zealand, the Applicant started using methamphetamine recreationally. Initially she used it “once in a blue moon” then her usage increased to most weekends, with a short period when she used it more frequently, almost daily, when she was not working. Her use then became less frequent, around once per month.[17]
[17] Transcript, page 28, lines 4 to 14.
In December 2011, when the Applicant was 37 years old, she and Mr D moved to Australia permanently. According to the Applicant, she initially did not use methamphetamine after moving to Australia: she wanted to keep away from it. However, in a stressful situation she started using it again.[18] It appears she was referring to being bullied at work in 2012. She said this caused severe anxiety, and she quit her job. The resulting financial insecurity aggravated her anxiety. She claimed that later that year, in November, a person injected her with a “massive overdose” of methamphetamine. She said she did not let an ambulance take her to hospital when she overdosed, fearing she could get into trouble. She thought she was going to die for three months afterwards and suffered constant panic attacks. Her GP prescribed Valium and later antidepressants to help her cope, she also saw a psychiatrist a couple of times. Then she got another job and “fell into the whole going to work and just coping with the mental health issues”.[19] (The evidence is not consistent with respect to the timing of the overdose, with some mental health reports stating it was 2013[20] but nothing turns on this discrepancy).
[18] Transcript, page 28, lines 15 to 24.
[19] Transcript, pages 28 and 29.
[20] Exhibit A1(f); A1(d), page 18 of 70.
In February 2013, the Applicant’s grandmother died and in June 2013 her father committed suicide. Whilst her father’s death was traumatic for the whole family, it is not clear whether these events contributed to the panic attacks.
In June 2015, Mr P moved to Australia and he stayed with the Applicant and Mr D. Mr P had some funds of his own but he did not initially have a job so the Applicant supported him financially for a short period before he got a job in January 2016. The Applicant also provided Mr P, who had left a difficult marital situation, with emotional support. In December 2015, Mr D lost his job, leaving the Applicant to support him financially as well as Mr P. Mr P, Ms C and their mother all corroborated the Applicant’s evidence that she suffered from anxiety and severe panic attacks for several months around this time. The Applicant said stress in the workplace and stress in her relationship, as she was the only income earner, triggered a strong addiction to methamphetamine.[21]
[21] Exhibit G1, G10, page 64; G12; G18; G19; Transcript, page 28, lines 21 to 25.
According to the Applicant, at some point in 2016, she was bullied at another workplace and she resigned. After that she was in receipt of Centrelink benefits until she was incarcerated in September 2019.[22]
[22] Exhibit G1, G5, page 30; G5, page 31.
In July 2016, the Applicant’s mother and Ms C and her family all moved to Australia. Mr P moved out so their mother could move in with the Applicant and Mr D. However, their mother moved out a week later after an argument with Mr D, and she moved in with Mr P. According to Mr P, following that incident, the family gradually lost contact with the Applicant over the next three years.[23] Mr P recalls that over time, the Applicant totally withdrew from their family as she got dragged into the drug scene, lost everything and started living on the streets. The family would lose contact with her for months at a time until she came back out of the blue asking for money. Mr P had no idea where the Applicant was living.[24] He did try to “invite [the Applicant] around to our new place and things”, but she declined several times and they did not hear back from her very often and eventually lost contact.[25] Ms C recalled that before the Applicant went to prison, she cut the family off. They tried to contact her, but she changed her phone number a lot.[26] Ms C last saw the Applicant in around July or August 2016.[27] The Applicant indicated that she distanced herself from her family as she did not want them to be involved with anything to do with drugs.[28]
[23] Exhibit G1, G19, Exhibit A5.
[24] Exhibit G1, G19.
[25] Transcript page 55 lines 1 to 5.
[26] Transcript, page 46, lines 40 to 45.
[27] Transcript, page 43, lines 1 to 5.
[28] Transcript, page 25, lines 39 to 41.
The Tribunal asked the Applicant if she had made an effort to seek rehabilitation in 2016 and 2017 when her drug use was increasing. She indicated she had treatment that involved “maybe going to a psychiatrist, or a psychologist” but that it was “not directly about addiction”.[29]
[29] Transcript, page 31, lines 25 to 29.
The Applicant and Mr D had an open relationship.[30] In 2017, she was involved with a man, “Mr E”. This, on the Applicant’s evidence, led to a home invasion of the apartment she shared with Mr D. The Applicant gave evidence that she was upset with Mr D and that Mr E punched Mr D in the face. She had to physically fight to get Mr E out of their apartment. A few days later, Mr E made a threat by text message. Two weeks later, Mr E committed a home invasion. The landlord then locked the Applicant and Mr D out of their apartment.[31] In her revocation request she indicated that Mr D became violent towards her when she did not stop using drugs.[32] Also, in the hearing she indicated that after the home invasion Mr D he began to engage in very significant physical violence against her.[33]
[30] Exhibit A1(d), page 38 of 70.
[31] Transcript, page 13, lines 1 to 25. There were references in the written material to two home invasions but the Applicant only mentioned one in the hearing.
[32] Exhibit G1, G10, page 64.
[33] Transcript, page 30, lines 1 to 15.
According to the Applicant she used methamphetamine intravenously for two to three years and the last time she used it was just before going to gaol. It appears that this intravenous use occurred in 2017 to 2019. It is not apparent exactly when, but there was a period when, according to the Applicant, she really wanted to address her drug addiction and she went to the Biala City Community Health Centre (“Biala”), and arranged to see a counsellor and, she thinks, a psychiatrist. She decided that what they could do for her as an outpatient was probably not suitable for her and her level of addiction.[34]
[34] Transcript, page 27, line 37 to page 28, line 2.
In November 2017, the police executed a search warrant at a place occupied by the Applicant. She admitted to having methamphetamine in her bedroom. The police found around 7.5 grams of the drug as well as a metal grinder that the Applicant said had been used to mull cannabis.[35] The Applicant was subsequently charged and issued with a notice to appear in court at a later date.
[35] Exhibit R2, R3 page 95.
On 13 February 2018 a Domestic Violence Order (‘DVO’) was issued naming Mr D as the respondent and the Applicant as the aggrieved. The conditions allowed Mr D and the Applicant to have contact with each other but prohibited Mr D from perpetrating domestic violence against the Applicant. The DVO was to remain in force for five years.
On 16 March 2018, the Applicant attended court and was convicted of the November 2017 drug possession offence. She was convicted and fined, and the conviction was not recorded.
On 29 March 2018, the police executed a search warrant at a short-term rental property where the Applicant was living with Mr D. In the Applicant’s bedroom, the police found methamphetamine, cannabis, 20 Diazepam tablets and two Viagra tablets (with no bottle, script or proof of purchase), a bottle of liquid that contained Alkyl Nitrate (a restricted drug), three sets of digital scales, a spoon with black residue and multiple clip seal bags with white residue. The police examined the Applicant’s mobile phone and found a large number of drug related messages between the Applicant and other people. The messages revealed that the Applicant had engaged in supplying dangerous drugs, being methamphetamine, on fifteen occasions on ten days between 15 and 28 March 2018, including the day before she was sentenced for possession of methamphetamine, the day she was sentenced and the days after she was sentenced.[36]
[36] Exhibit R2, R3, p10; R4, pages 114 to 115; G5, pages 29 to 31.
Pursuant to the relevant offence provision, doing an act preparatory to supplying counts as supplying. The Applicant was charged with multiple offences including supplying dangerous drugs.
According to the Applicant, she dealt drugs to feed her own drug habit and provide a roof over her head. She considers that between March 2018 and September 2019 she was extremely addicted, and that her addiction changed her behaviour.[37]
[37] Transcript, page 32, line 40 to page 33, line 5.
On 4 April 2018, the police executed a search warrant in a hotel room booked under the Applicant’s name. They found a bag containing personal documents and identification in the name of the Applicant and 34.5 Diazepam tablets. Nearby they found the needle portion of a syringe. The police subsequently contacted the Applicant who initially said she would bring a letter from her doctor or a current prescription for the Diazepam. She later said she did not have either but that a particular pharmacy would have the script on file. The police arranged for her to contact that pharmacy and the staff confirmed the Applicant did not have any current prescriptions on file. Only then did the Applicant admit to having obtained the Diazepam from another person, without a script.[38]
[38] Exhibit R2, R4, pages 116 to 117.
The Applicant gave evidence before the Tribunal that she pleaded guilty with respect to the Diazepam because she had a script but the script she had was more than 12 months old.[39] We prefer the contemporaneous police evidence, which appears to be an impartial account, to the Applicant’s self-serving evidence.
[39] Transcript, page 21, lines 25 to 38.
According to a police report, on 31 May 2018, Mr D breached the DVO by swearing at the Applicant and pushing her out of a door.
At some point in 2018, the Applicant contracted HIV.[40] She had contracted syphilis in 2017.[41] At the time she contracted these diseases she was sexually active with people other than Mr D.[42]
[40] Exhibit A1, page 1.
[41] Exhibit A1, page 2.
[42] Transcript, page 30, lines 15 to 20.
On 22 January 2019, the police were called to an illegally parked vehicle registered to the Applicant. The police found a driver’s licence that did not belong to her. It was in a plastic bag in the boot with other items. She claimed she found it on the street three to four weeks earlier. The Applicant was subsequently charged with unlawful possession of suspected stolen property.[43]
[43] Exhibit R2, R4, pages 5 to 6.
On 24 January 2019, the police intercepted a vehicle driven by the Applicant. They searched her and the vehicle. The Applicant had $410 in cash and an unused hypodermic needle in her possession. She tested positive for methamphetamine and admitted recent drug use. During the search, the Applicant's mobile phone received numerous calls and messages. The mobile phone was seized and examined. Analysis revealed that the Applicant had supplied (or done acts preparatory to supplying) dangerous drugs on at least 14 occasions. The Applicant was subsequently charged with multiple counts of supplying a dangerous drug.[44]
[44] Exhibit R1, R3, pages 3 to 13.
The Applicant’s bank records from January to June 2019 revealed that she had at least 11 regular customers from whom she received approximately $12,253 between 3 January and 5 June 2019. She received an additional $8,288 from other sources. There were a total of 148 transactions. Messages on the Applicant’s mobile phone indicated that she pursued drug debts, boasted about product quality, required extra payment for delivery and obtained drugs on credit. There are a couple of messages that appear designed to entice people to buy methamphetamine, which can be described as touting the drug. The Applicant was charged with trafficking dangerous drugs, being methamphetamine.[45]
[45] Exhibit R1, R5.
When the Applicant committed those supply and trafficking offences, she was already facing multiple supply charges dating back to March 2018.
On 20 June 2019, the Applicant hired some heavy machinery from a business. It was worth $33,000 in total. She failed to return the machinery telling the business that it had been stolen. The business made a report to the police. As a result of the machinery being stolen, the insurance underwriter paid $24,000 and the business paid $1,000 in excess.[46] It appears that the business was therefore left $10,000 short.
[46] Exhibit R1, R4, page 9.
On 10 July 2019, the police searched the Applicant’s belongings and found a set of digital scales with residue. The Applicant said she used them to weigh drugs to avoid an overdose. The police found another set of digital scales and several clip seal bags. They searched her mobile phone and found messages relating to drugs and drug activity. She was issued with a notice to appear in relation to charges of possessing things used in the commission of a drugs offence. She was also issued with an Identifying Particulars Notice and she failed to comply with that notice. When the police later spoke with her about her failure to comply, she said she did not understand why she had to comply with the notice. She was charged with contravening a requirement.
In early September 2019, after being granted bail, the Applicant breached the bail undertakings by failing to appear in court on the date specified and by “couch surfing” with friends rather than living at the authorised address required by the bail conditions.[47]
[47] Exhibit R2, R3, page 86.
On 17 September 2019, the Applicant attended a police station on an unrelated issue. The police took the opportunity to ask her about the item of heavy machinery. She told the police a story involving an unknown male whom she claimed to have spent the night with before she hired the machinery as a favour to him. She claimed she suspected he intended to steal the machinery and that before parting ways, he threatened “If you tell anyone I will smash your vertebrae with a sledgehammer” and “I will find you and I will kill you”. When challenged by the police about this, for example, the fact that she never reported these threats to the police, she gave several versions surrounding payment for the machinery before showing information on her mobile phone banking application which contradicted her version. She did not provide any identifying information about the male except to describe his general appearance and a possible accent. She was arrested and remanded in custody.[48] We find the explanation put forward by the Applicant implausible and we do not accept it.
[48] Exhibit R2, R3, pages 90 to 91.
After the Applicant was incarcerated, she resumed contact with her family.
There is before the Tribunal a document entitled “Offender Case File” which appears to contain contemporaneous file notes about the Applicant while she was incarcerated between 20 September 2019 and 20 May 2020.[49]
[49] Exhibit G1, G8.
A note made on 20 September 2019 indicates the Applicant was assessed for suicide and self-harm risk. This appears to have been a routine assessment upon the Applicant entering custody. The note indicates that the Applicant reported having been diagnosed with a mental health condition and that she was not currently taking medication. She said she was coping well in relation to a trauma that occurred in her early adulthood (although the trauma was not identified). She was accommodated at the Arthur Gorrie Correctional Centre at that time.
An entry dated 20 November 2019 indicated that the Applicant appeared to be mixing well within the unit and that she had a broken collarbone. There was no explanation of how she came to have a broken collarbone.[50]
[50] Exhibit G1, G8, page 42.
Around 16 December 2019 the Applicant was moved to the Brisbane Correctional Centre. No mental health concerns were recorded at that time.[51]
[51] Exhibit G1, G8, page 39.
In December 2019, the Applicant was convicted of possession of dangerous drugs (on 29 March 2019) and sentenced to two years and nine months imprisonment. She was also convicted of 15 offences of supplying dangerous drugs (between 15 and 28 March 2019) and sentenced to 18 months imprisonment (concurrent) with release on parole after serving eight months.
The learned sentencing Judge’s remarks included the observation that the conviction in March 2018 for drugs offences should have been a warning to her, yet she continued to offend. His Honour described the supplies as “commercial” given the amounts were characteristically 1.75 grams which yielded the Applicant between $400 to $500 each. His Honour mentioned that Mr D had been living with the Applicant where the drugs were found and that he had been dealt with for less serious offences. In relation to the seriousness of the Applicant’s offending, His Honour said:
“I say it’s seriously criminal because I see the results of it here when I have to deal with significant offences of violence leading to murder and attempted murder and manslaughter. Very, very frequently the people who commit those offences these days are people who are high on methylamphetamine. It seems to create in some people very violent tendencies and that’s one very good reason why it’s a dangerous drug and why it’s prohibited. And in seeking to take advantage of that drug’s propensity with people who are addicted to it, you have entered into a very, very dangerous territory and something with your maturity you should have known better about.
It has serious consequences on you and your family, obviously. But it also has terribly serious consequences on those people who use it and that’s why we have to be in the position to impose serious punishment on offenders like you to generally deter other people from using it and from supplying it and from being in possession of it.”[52]
[52] Exhibit G1, G5, pages 30 and 31.
Some less serious offences that were detected on 29 March 2018 were dealt with at a later date.
On 22 January 2020, the Applicant was moved to the Woodford Correctional Centre (“Woodford”). The offender case file did not note any mental health concerns. Nor was there any mention of any concerns about the Applicant’s safety or well-being. Further, it was noted all through the records in the case file that there were no issues that would prevent the Applicant from sharing a cell.
An entry dated 11 May 2020 indicated that the Applicant had asked to be moved although she said she did not have any fears for her safety. We do not have before us any file notes relating to the rest of the Applicant’s time in prison.
In July 2020, the Applicant’s visa was cancelled. In late August 2020, the Applicant was convicted of:
·one offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug between 3 January and 5 June 2019;
·14 offences of supplying a dangerous drug; and
·one offence of possessing a thing used in connection with supplying a dangerous drug (syringe).
The learned sentencing Judge described the trafficking as “street level” and found that the Applicant’s dealing was consistent during the five-month period and that it provided her with some form of income. For the trafficking offence, His Honour sentenced the Applicant to two years and three months imprisonment, cumulative with the term of imprisonment already being served. For the other offences, the Applicant was not further punished.
In November 2020, the Applicant was sentenced to six months imprisonment for “fraud – dishonestly cause detriment” in relation to the heavy machinery. She was also convicted and not further punished for some less serious offences that had not yet been dealt with.[53]
[53] Exhibit G1, G4, page 26.
A security risk classification report dated in December 2021 noted that in February 2021 the Applicant was the victim of an assault in prison, although no details were given.[54]
[54] Exhibit G1, G8, page 36.
The Applicant’s mother recalled that when the Applicant was first incarcerated, she was very traumatised and that she seemed to cope better as time went on. However, when she was at Woodford, she became delusional and very paranoid about things. She was sexually abused there and had a breakdown.[55]
[55] Transcript, page 49, line 39 to page 59, line 11.
Ms C recalled that she visited the Applicant regularly when she was at Woodford and that she had a breakdown and was put into isolation for three days for her safety. She visited the Applicant shortly after that happened and the Applicant was “an absolute mess”. She then found out that the Applicant had been sexually assaulted in prison. The Applicant became extremely paranoid, believing she was under surveillance and secretly being given hormones – she thought her breasts were growing.[56]
[56] Transcript, page39, line 39 to page 40, line 9.
When the Applicant was asked in the hearing what precipitated the breakdown she had in prison, she said sexual assaults and constant sexual harassment including jokes about her sexuality from inmates and officers, and she gave examples of derogatory jokes about her sexuality. She added:
“being locked in a confined space and someone calling you a whore and a slut and then feeling like you’re forcibly having – you feel like you need to have sex with them just to calm them down.”[57]
[57] Transcript, page 11, line 27 to page 12, line 15.
The Applicant was under the care of the prison mental health services from 10 March 2021 to shortly before she was paroled to immigration detention.[58] She was being managed by way of the “Prisoners of Concern (Transgender)” process.[59]
[58] Exhibit A1(d), page 66 of 70.
[59] Exhibit G1, G8, pages 36 and 37.
The Applicant was paroled from prison to immigration detention on 10 January 2022. A Queensland Government Transfer of Care document dated in January 2022, completed by the prison mental health service, and signed off by a “psychiatrist/consultant psychiatrist”, noted a diagnosis of “mental and behavioural disorders due to use of other stimulants, including caffeine, harmful use”. A 15 year history of severe methamphetamine abuse and a family history of bipolar disorder was noted.[60] In the hearing, the Applicant agreed that her drug use had contributed to her mental health issues.[61]
[60] Exhibit G8, pages 36 and 37.
[61] Transcript, page 30, lines 20 to 21.
The Transfer of Care record did not link the deterioration in the Applicant’s mental health to an assault in custody although it stated that the Applicant had a torrid time in custody due to her effeminate presentation. It said in this context and the ending of her 26 year relationship, she began to speak about transitioning her gender, then she began to express bizarre ideation about being secretly given drugs to soften her skin and assist with the transition.
There is also a notation that the Applicant tested positive for amphetamines which she denied using. The test was apparently done at a hospital. The hospitals records were not summonsed. There is no test result certificate before the Tribunal and the Corrective Services file notes on the Applicant and the security classification report do not indicate that she ever failed a drug test. At the hearing, the Applicant said that she did not ever knowingly take amphetamine in prison.[62]
[62] Transcript, page 25, lines 20 to 30.
On the evidence before us, we are not satisfied that the Applicant took amphetamine while in prison, however, on her own evidence she admitted to having tried suboxone twice. She said it did not have any effect and she decided not to use it again. She did not have medical approval to take it: she got it from another prisoner.[63]
[63] Transcript, page 21, lines 4 to 13.
The Transfer of Care record also stated, about the Applicant:
“I am not convinced that he has a Gender Identity Disorder due to the longitudinal history and how this wish was expressed and developed. There was no evidence of a long-term discomfort with his gender but a strong attraction to very “masculine” men and a significant disappointment and being unable to establish a long-term intimate relationship. In addition, as there was some evidence at times of a morbid shift of his mental state with the development of either delusions or overvalued ideas, and the longitudinal history of serious substance abuse, the timing of the desire to transition had to be considered as relevant as he is now middle-aged. We have concerns about how this intention was managed by DCS staff.”
It was noted in this document that while at Woodford the Applicant was often in an environment of threat and under more stress than usual for a prisoner, and that this may have been relevant to the development of her more paranoid thinking.[64]
[64] Exhibit A3, page 2 of 3.
On 11 January 2022, the Applicant submitted a revocation request in which she said “I have also realised that I have gender [dysphoria] and would like to pursue hormone replacement therapy…” She put forward this and the support that she would need from her family in Australia as a reason why she should not be deported.[65]
[65] Exhibit G1, G9 and G10.
Furthermore, in her revocation request she claimed to have been sexually molested by a stranger in a public toilet when she was 11 years old. She said she told no-one and suffered in silence. She struggled with feelings of shame and worthlessness about her sexuality in a community where being homosexual was scorned and ridiculed. She said her disquiet about who she was as a human being, and her feeling different in terms of her sexuality and gender, contributed to her sense of worthlessness. She said at the age of 16 she started an unhealthy relationship with alcohol.[66]
[66] Exhibit G12, page 70.
In the hearing, the Applicant said the sexual assault was very traumatic causing her to withdraw from friends and family and become a very sad young man. She said she thought it had led to very dysfunctional behaviours with other men and that there was a link between the trauma she had experienced and the depression that had occurred in her life.
According to Ms C, her first visit with the Applicant in immigration detention was “really good, it was normal, and then, as time went on, because he’s in isolation, his mental health got considerably bad”.[67]
[67] Transcript, page 41, lines 1 to 5.
The notes of a psychiatric review conducted on 14 January 2022 by a psychiatrist from the IHMS include an impression of a low-grade psychotic disorder likely triggered by methamphetamine use, gender identity disorder and amphetamine dependence in remission. It was also recorded that the Applicant was talking to Mr D regularly. The notes indicate that there were a few months in 2013, when the Applicant would drink up to two bottles of red wine at night due to stress. This stopped after the drug overdose. She reported that when she first tried methamphetamine she loved it, she was full of euphoria. She claimed she was drugged in prison to induce different states of mind, looking for reactions. She also claimed to have been kidnapped in Auckland while using methamphetamine, and to have been an escort for a period and to have had some very bad experiences including fearing that she would be murdered. She said she had been a sex addict. She claimed that she was kidnapped, held at gunpoint, stun-gunned and made to do a home invasion with two carloads of people in relation to a drug debt of hers. She claimed that a sonar communication system was being used in the hotel where she was accommodated, and that the system was used in prison too. The psychiatrist noted auditory hallucinations and that she had gently discussed with the Applicant that she thought some of her thinking was psychotic in nature and that the surveillance she described was likely not accurate. She noted that the Applicant did not wish to take medication.[68]
[68] Exhibit A1(d) page 68 of 70.
In early February 2022, the Applicant told an IHMS doctor that she had been sexually assaulted in prison. It was noted that she was expressing paranoid delusional thoughts.[69] She again complained about being in hotel accommodation and said she wanted to be accommodated at the Brisbane Immigration Transit Accommodation (“BITA”) rather than a hotel where she was because she wanted more social interaction.[70] The BITA facility only houses male detainees.
[69] Exhibit A1(d), page 55 of 70
[70] Exhibit A1(d), page 54 of 70.
IHMS notes dated 7 February 2022 include that the Australian Border Force had told the Applicant she could not be moved to BITA because she identifies as a woman, and she was very upset about that, noting that she spent two and a half years in a men’s gaol, and that she felt discriminated against, saying “it’s inhumane and demoralising”. She said her mental health was affected by “lack of human contact”.[71]
[71] Exhibit A1(d), page 54 of 70
An IHMS file note dated 19 February 2022 records the Applicant claiming that the public health system gave her HIV.
The notes of a psychiatric review conducted on 16 March 2022[72] include an impression of ongoing mild perceptual disturbances not currently reaching a threshold to be considered a psychotic disorder, ongoing gender identity disorder with aspects of this being driven by long-term sense of being somewhat different to other boys and also seeking what the Applicant perceived to be a restart to her life, and amphetamine dependence in remission. The notes include that the Applicant did not want to take antipsychotic medication.[73] Further, the Applicant reported that Mr D was transitioning to be a woman and the relationship had gone toxic. She said her previous friendships were based on drugs and she did not build quality relationships with people. She referred to Mr D pressuring her to work and earn money which was not working out well for her. She had used alcohol and drugs to manage stress.[74]
[72] Exhibit A1(d), pages 36 of 70 to 39 of 70.
[73] Exhibit A1(d) page 68 of 70,
[74] Exhibit A1(d), pages 36 of 70 to 39 of 70.
On 5 May 2022, the reviewable decision was made and eight days later the Applicant applied to the Tribunal to review that decision.
An IHMS progress note, dated 28 May 2022, recorded that the Applicant gave a fanciful, paranoid and grandiose personal history. This included that various public health officials and an ex-police officer had (separately) sexually abused her in New Zealand.[75]
[75] Exhibit A1(d), 27 of 70.
An IHMS record dated 1 June 2022 listed the Applicant’s diagnosis as a psychotic disorder.[76] Records dated 8 and 12 June 2022 listed the diagnosis as schizoaffective disorder. She continued to express paranoid delusional beliefs.[77] Throughout June 2022, the Applicant’s medication was adjusted, and while in mid-June 2022 she reported no side effects and that she thought it was working well, the seemingly paranoid thoughts persisted.[78]
[76] Exhibit A1(d), page 18 of 70.
[77] Exhibit A1(d), pages 2 and 6 of 70.
[78] Exhibit A1(d), pages 1 of 70 to 3 of 70.
On 4 July 2022[79] the Applicant wrote to the Tribunal. In that letter she claimed that since her arrival in Australia she has been under constant surveillance and interference by government authorities who indirectly encouraged her addiction to methamphetamines. She expressed other apparently paranoid, delusional beliefs. She said she did not believe there was a way to avoid offending at the time as it was maliciously orchestrated from end to end. She indicated that with proper assistance she could resist the temptation others might put in front of her and refuse to engage in criminal activity, and that she wished to attend a treatment facility to help with her drug addiction and mental health.
[79] Exhibit A2.
The Applicant’s family testified that the Applicant is on new medication which requires adjustment, and her condition fluctuates.[80] Ms C thought the Applicant’s mental health was currently “really good” and his mother described it as “a lot better now, he’s been given some new medication which has stopped the paranoia and all the other things that he was saying” although it made her physically restless and needed adjustment.[81] However, the Applicant continued to express seemingly delusional beliefs throughout the hearing. In relation to her earlier claim that her offending was maliciously orchestrated, she said she believed numerous authorities worked together to facilitate her ability to get methamphetamine.[82]
[80] Transcript, page 50, lines 6 to 10.
[81] Transcript, page 41, line 22; page 50, lines 5 to 10.
[82] Transcript, page 26, lines 29 to 43.
The Applicant remains in immigration detention, accommodated in a hotel. Mr P lives with their mother in Brisbane. Ms C and her family still live in Brisbane. The Applicant’s parole period expires on 19 November 2024.
Mr D provided letters of support for the Applicant in this matter. In those he spoke very positively and sympathetically about the Applicant. He said he had been unhappy with the Applicant’s drug use and described being highly traumatised by two home invasions. He indicated that he had distanced himself from the Applicant and that he came to regret this as the Applicant had needed his support. He made what might have been a veiled admission to having been violent towards the Applicant although it is not clear. He talked about his own traumatic experiences, his decision to transition to a woman and the impact on him of a non-revocation decision. Mr D did not give evidence. As the hearing drew nearer, the Applicant made disclosures that Mr D had been quite abusive in the last few years of the relationship and, in the hearing itself, she alleged that Mr D had engaged in coercive control from the start of the relationship.[83] Whilst there was no definitive evidence to the effect, it appears that Mr D would not accompany the Applicant to New Zealand if she were deported. Furthermore, the Applicant’s representative indicated that the Applicant does not currently want Mr D’s support. This would appear to be so as her family members spoke of her having no support whatsoever if she were to be removed to New Zealand. Whilst there is some evidence that seems to implicate Mr D in some drug offences, there is a lack of evidence before us upon which to base a coherent impression of Mr D. It is impossible to gauge his character and, therefore, whether his evidence can be relied on to any extent. For that reason, we give it no weight.
[83] Transcript, page.29, lines 45 to 48.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 1 - PROTECTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY
Paragraph 8.1 of the Direction requires decision-makers to keep in mind the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. The Tribunal should have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that this country confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, that they will respect important institutions and that they will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
In determining the weight applicable to this Primary Consideration, paragraph 8.1(2) of the Direction requires us to 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
When assessing the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s criminal offending or other conduct to date, the Tribunal must have regard to the following relevant matters:
(a)…
(b)…
(c)…the sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes;
(d)the frequency of the non-citizen’s offending and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;
(e)the cumulative effect of repeated offending;
(f)…;
(g)….
The Applicant committed some 53 offences over a two year period. Those offences included, but were not limited to, supply and trafficking of methamphetamine and dishonesty offences. She also drove a vehicle under the influence of methamphetamine which is serious conduct that puts other road users at risk.
The Applicant supplied methamphetamine to a significant number of people over a significant period for financial gain. She encouraged people to purchase it from her. It is reasonable to infer that at least some of her customers were struggling with drug dependence or mental health problems.
The learned Judge who sentenced the Applicant for the first series of supply offences pointed out that very frequently people whom he dealt with for offences of violence leading to murder, attempted murder and manslaughter were high on methylamphetamine when they committed those offences, and that the drug has terribly serious consequences for those who use it. The Final Report of the National Ice Task Force, 2015 (“the Report”) includes a chapter entitled “Impacts of Ice” which contains the following passages concerning the negative effects of methamphetamine on individuals and the community:
“…ice use can result in immense damage to a user’s physical health, occasionally resulting in death. It can have a range of psychological, cognitive and behavioural effects which researchers are only beginning to fully grasp.”
“Methamphetamine use is associated with a number of extremely serious negative health effects. While high profile consequences, such as psychosis, are given prominence in the public debate, the sequelae [health consequences] extend far beyond this. This is a drug class that causes serious heart disease, has serious dependence liability and high rates of suicidal behaviours.”
“The physical effects of a toxic dose include nausea, chest pains, tremors, increased body temperature, increased heart rate, breathing irregularities and seizures. Anyone can have a toxic reaction to ice…In Australia in 2011 there were hundred and one accidental drug deaths identified as involving methamphetamine. Deaths caused by psychostimulants such as ice are usually caused by seizures, heart failure or respiratory failure, but can also be caused by brain haemorrhage, strokes or kidney failure.”
“There is a strong correlation between use of ice and mental health issues. The most common mental health issues experienced by methamphetamine users are psychosis, depression and anxiety…While there is a strong correlation between drug use and mental issues, the relationship is not definitive of a causal relationship. In some cases drugs are used subsequently to experiencing mental health symptoms and in other cases drugs drug use may lead to the development of mental health issues. There also may be factors that lead to both mental health problems and drug use. [In one survey of dependent methamphetamine users who had mental health issues] around 70% said the mental health issues appeared after they began using the drug. There mental health problems tended to coincide with problematic methamphetamine use.”
“…the Townsville Community Ice Task Force said in its submission ‘People are displaying extremely violent behaviour when they are coming down off ice. Domestic violence is rising due to ice. People are doing more break and enters due to ice. Ice doesn’t discriminate, it affects everyone in the community.”
“…one parent said ‘Our son is a recovering Ice addict, he is well now but we have been through 14 years of hell. There have been car accidents, suicide threats and attempts, and, of course, as with the great majority of addicts theft from us and his siblings. Our other two children have been distressed by seeing the impact on our son’s behaviour on us as his parents. The emotional toll of trying to keep him alive has been enormous for me and I suffered an emotional breakdown. I continue to struggle with depression and anxiety’”.
“The Foster Care Association of the ACT observed some of the effects on children…‘Many of these children have parents who are heavily involved with illegal drugs, including ice/methamphetamines. Many of these children are directly exposed to drugs-in utero, through second-hand smoke and been (sic) given illegal drugs directly or indirectly. many of these children are exposed to the chaotic, neglectful and violent environment that so often goes hand-in-hand with their parents’ drug use.’”
The Report also details a multiplicity of secondary impacts including the risks of violence posed to ambulance and emergency workers by methamphetamine users.[84] Given these impacts, circulating methamphetamine in the community is very serious. Added to that, the Applicant committed the first series of supply offences at time when she was being dealt with by the Magistrates court for drug possession, and she committed the second series of supply offences and the trafficking offence when she was facing charges for the first series of supply offences. The Applicant received substantial terms of imprisonment for these offences that included periods of actual custody.
[84] Exhibit R2, R6, pages 191 to 204.
The Applicant was found to be unlawfully in possession of suspected stolen property, and she committed a fraud involving property valued at over $30,000. She was sentenced to six months imprisonment for the fraud.
The imposition of a custodial term upon an offender is normally considered the last resort in the sentencing hierarchy. The sentences of imprisonment imposed for the drugs offences and the fraud offence are indicative of their objective seriousness.
Given the Applicant committed over 50 offences in a two year period, her offending was frequent. The Applicant’s offending appears to have become more serious over time, starting with drug possession and moving to supply, a significant fraud and trafficking. The most readily apparent cumulative effect of the Applicant’s repeated offending is that a very harmful drug was circulated within the Australian community over a significant period of time. Further, considerable resources of the criminal justice system were expended on investigating, apprehending and dealing with the Applicant who continued to offend despite that intervention.
The Applicant’s offending, in totality, is very serious.
The Risk to the Australian Community Should the Applicant Commit Further Offences or Engage in Other Serious Conduct
Paragraph 8.1.2(1) of the Direction provides that, in considering the risk to the Australian community, a decision-maker should have regard to the Government’s view that the Australian community’s tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.
Paragraph 8.1.2(2) provides that, in considering the risk to the Australian community, a decision-maker must have regard to the following relevant factors on a cumulative basis:
(a)the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and
(b)the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account available information and evidence on the risk of the non- citizen re-offending; and evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since the most recent offence.
With respect to the nature of harm to the community if the Applicant were to again become involved in the unlawful circulation of methamphetamine, we refer to what the learned Judge who sentenced the Applicant for the first series of supply offences said and to the parts of the Report extracted above. Further, as stated by Senior Member Tavoularis in this Tribunal:
“The often catastrophic health consequences for gullible, naïve and addicted consumers of these substances frequently involves very serious illnesses and related maladies. There is nothing passive or non-violent about frequently disastrous effects of these substances, not just on individuals who consume them but on families forced to deal with the unpredictable conduct of a family member affected by them”. [85]
[85] Tahuriorangi and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2018] AATA 2158 at [46]
The nature of harm should the Applicant engage in further driving under the influence of methamphetamine includes an increased risk of traffic accidents which can result in serious injury or death. The nature of harm from further dishonesty offences of the kind the Applicant committed includes significant financial loss and disruption to individuals and businesses.
We are satisfied that were the Applicant to re-offend, the nature of harm to individuals and/or the Australian community includes very serious physical, psychological and material harm.
We do not have the benefit of current, independent, expert evidence on the Applicant’s risk of re-offending if she were to be released into the wider Australian community. We will rely on the evidence we do have before us to ascertain the likelihood of re-offending.
When the Applicant was in the community, she continued to use and supply methamphetamine despite the intervention of the criminal justice system. She has not used methamphetamine since that time, nearly three years ago. She does not currently have a diagnosed drug dependency. While there was no evidence about this, we are prepared to infer that any physiological dependence would have abated by now. However, social and psychological factors play a role in drug use and relapse, and the Applicant’s ability to refrain from drug use in the wider community has not been tested. Indeed, she did not refrain from drug use while in prison as she used suboxone twice. The Applicant has done very little in the way of rehabilitation to reduce the possibility of relapse: in January 2020 she completed a short substance abuse intervention course in prison[86] and although she asked to do more, none were offered.
[86] Exhibit G1, G11, page 69.
Apart from trying suboxone twice, it appears that the Applicant was of good behaviour in prison and has not incurred any breaches in immigration detention.
In December 2021, the Applicant was given a low security classification.[87] This assessment was undertaken for the purpose of managing the Applicant in prison, not in the wider community which does not have the level of structure and surveillance as the custodial environment. The security classification report stated that the Applicant was considered not to require “the level of structured supervision afforded to prisoners managed as a high security” because:
·given the nature of her offending her current risk could be managed in accordance with a low security classification (without any real elucidation of why that was);
·there was no evidence of an elevated risk that the Applicant would escape or try to escape;
·a Risk of Reoffending Prison Version (“RoR-PV”) assessment that was done six months earlier gave the Applicant a score of 1 which indicated she was in the category of prisoners who pose a low risk of further general offending;
·there was no recorded history of self-harm or evidence suggesting the Applicant posed a risk to herself; and
·her violation history and case notes reflected generally appropriate behaviour and compliance, and her previous accommodation in “residential” demonstrated her ability to regulate her behaviour in that less restrictive environment.
[87] Exhibit G1, G8, pages 35 to 38.
The RoR-PV report is not before us so we cannot tell what was taken into account. The Case Notes are before us and they do not include the Applicant’s unpermitted use of suboxone. The security risk report strongly encouraged the Applicant to engage in any substance abuse intervention courses that were offered, which we think indicates that the author of the report (the Chief Superintendent of Sentence Management Services) did not consider that her issues with drugs were resolved. Given the qualifications we have mentioned we cannot place much weight on the security assessment in terms of the Applicant’s risk of re-offending in the wider community.
The Applicant indicated that she understood the impact of drugs on the community and she expressed remorse and shame for having provided drugs to others. She described being imprisoned as a significant wakeup call that will forever act as a deterrent to using drugs.[88] Given the Applicant’s drug use turned to an addiction which led to her choosing to sell drugs to others to support herself and her addiction, and probably to her commission of the dishonesty offences, it can readily be inferred that further drug use is likely to lead to further offending of that nature. Currently, the Applicant is not holding herself completely accountable for her involvement with methamphetamine in Australia and this appears to be a function of her mental illness. The Applicant’s successful rehabilitation partly relies on her considering herself to be completely responsible for the decisions she makes concerning drugs, i.e. ensuring she avoids drug use. It also partly relies on her choosing to deal with any future drug problem in a lawful way. If her aversion to returning to prison signals a change in her attitude to breaking the law, that has not yet been tested.
[88] Exhibit G1, G10, page 64.
The Applicant’s mother, Ms C and Mr P are all aware of her offending and they each consider that she will not re-offend. Mr P qualified his opinion by saying that the risk of reoffending is pretty negligible as long as she gets the right support. Ms C was not aware that the Applicant took drugs in prison yet when informed of that, she adhered to her evidence that the Applicant would never touch drugs. Accordingly, her evidence seemed more wishful than realistic. Some letters of support from friends of the Applicant and of her family spoke sympathetically of her and expressed optimism that she could rehabilitate but they did not point to any concrete evidence of rehabilitation thus far.
The Applicant experienced trauma in her childhood and she struggled with her sexuality. She has abused drugs or alcohol at various times since she was 16 years old. Sometimes her drug use was recreational. Other times she has used drugs or alcohol in an effort to self-medicate due to stress or anxiety or because she had become addicted. The records also indicate that the Applicant has sought psychological help at various times over the years since her mid to late twenties for stress and drug use.[89]
[89] Exhibit A1(d), page 66 of 70.
In Australia, the Applicant quickly resumed using methamphetamine when she experienced stress and she continued using it even after a terrifying overdose. Her current mental condition is far from stable. It is not clear from the evidence before us whether there was a sexual assault in prison that preceded her recent mental breakdown, or how, if there was, that can be reconciled with the Applicant’s wish to be accommodated at BITA which houses male detainees. However, there is a record of an assault, the Applicant told her family she had been sexually assaulted, and she appears to genuinely believe she was sexually assaulted. An opinion expressed in the Transfer of Care record was that the environment of stress and threat in the Woodford Correctional Centre may have contributed to the development of more paranoid thinking. The Applicant has a history of stress leading to substance abuse.
The Applicant has now been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder. Her condition fluctuates and her medication is still being adjusted. She currently suffers from delusions that are paranoid and traumatic. Added to that, she considers she has gender dysmorphia and wishes to undergo hormone replacement therapy.
The Applicant will be on parole until 19 November 2024 and her parole conditions require her to engage with a psychologist or psychiatrist as directed, and submit to random alcohol and drug testing, a night-time curfew and a regular regime of reporting. She understands the terms of her parole and wishes to enter a treatment facility as an outpatient or inpatient to help with her drug addiction and mental health.[90] She said:
“The challenge for me is really to come to terms with what was previously an undiagnosed mental health issue and these issues are quite complex and I think are quite serious, and having grappled with that my entire life and not really having a clear diagnosis around it has really lead to significant challenges and significant problems which have occurred throughout my life in varying degrees so my mental health is definitely a focus area and the second focus area would be around the traumatic events that have occurred in my life and the impact that that’s had on me as a human being…”.[91]
[90] Exhibit A2.
[91] Transcript, page 8, line 45 to page 9, line 11.
The Applicant expressed relief that she now has a diagnosis, indicating that she can now do something about it, that “it’s life changing”.[92] She also acknowledged that addressing her mental health and drug problems would be “incredibly hard” while expressing confidence that she could do it successfully if she is here with her family, who have been her supports in prison and detention and who understand what she is going through. She intends to live with her mother so she will have the “proper support and love to get well”.[93] The Applicant intends to transition after completing treatment to address her childhood trauma, her mental health condition and her drug addiction. She said working on these along with her gender dysmorphia is key to her success.[94] We note the reservations expressed in the Transfer of Care record about the Applicant’s feelings of gender identity disorder and whether her desire to transition was managed appropriately by Department of Corrective Services staff. It is unclear whether undergoing a gender transition would assist the Applicant’s mental health as she hopes it will. The Applicant also needs to develop ways to cope with stress and anxiety that do not involve drug and alcohol abuse.
[92] Transcript, page 33, lines 29 to 33.
[93] Exhibit A2.
[94] Exhibit A2.
The Applicant’s family all said they would provide emotional support, help her attend appointments, make sure she takes her mediation, look after her, and make sure she abides by the parole rules and does not associate with anyone she should not associate with.[95] Between 2016 and 2019, the Applicant was estranged from her family while she was drug dependent, suffered a relationship breakdown, couch surfed and supported herself by selling methamphetamine. Her family made some efforts to contact her but they were unsuccessful. While their intentions are admirable, it is not known whether they could curb dysfunctional or destructive behaviour should the Applicant start going down that path or whether they could ensure she gets the treatment she needs for the multiple problems that contribute to the risk of her taking drugs and committing offences. Further it is currently not known exactly what treatment the Applicant needs for schizoaffective disorder: her medication is not fully effective and is still being adjusted.
[95] Transcript, page 50, lines 25 to 35; page 41, lines 44 to 48; page 55, lines 9 to 14.
The Applicant’s parole conditions will act as a protective factor if she remains engaged with the parole service. They will not assist if she stops reporting, leaves her mother’s home and eludes the police. She previously moved around in breach of bail undertakings and trafficked in methamphetamine for five months before the police discovered she was doing that.
Despite the current good intentions of the Applicant and her family, her diagnosis, and the lengthy period that she would be on parole should her visa be returned to her, we are of the view that there remains a substantial risk that she will return to drug use and consequently commit offences as she did previously. The harm that the circulation of methamphetamine causes in the community is so serious that any material risk of further offending of that nature is unacceptable. This Primary Consideration weighs very heavily against the Applicant.
FAMILY VIOLENCE
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant has been convicted of an offence, found guilty of an offence, or had charges proven, that involve family violence. There is also no information or evidence from independent and authoritative sources indicating that the Applicant is, or has been, involved in the perpetration of family violence. This Primary Consideration is not relevant.
THE BEST INTERESTS OF MINOR CHILDREN IN AUSTRALIA
Paragraph 8(3) of the Direction compels a decision-maker to consider the best interests of a minor child in Australia. Under paragraph 8.3(1), the Tribunal must determine whether non-revocation under section 501CA is or is not in the best interests of a child affected by the decision.
The Direction sets out a number of factors to take into consideration with respect to the best interests of minor children in Australia. Those include, relevantly:
· the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the non-citizen. Less weight should generally be given where the relationship is non-parental, and/or there is no existing relationship and/or there have been long periods of absence, or limited meaningful contact (including whether an existing Court order restricts contact);
· the extent to which the non-citizen is likely to play a positive parental role in the future, taking into account the length of time until the child turns 18, and including any Court orders relating to parental access and care arrangements;
· the impact of the non-citizen’s prior conduct, and any likely future conduct, and whether that conduct has, or will have a negative impact on the child;
· the likely effect that any separation from the non-citizen would have on the child, taking into account the child’s or non-citizen’s ability to maintain contact in other ways; and
· whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child.
The Applicant claimed that the best interests of her niece and nephew, who are the children of Ms C, would be affected by the decision. The Applicant’s nephew was born in 2009. The Applicant claimed she had a relationship with him in New Zealand but had not seen him in Australia. She had only minor contact with her niece in New Zealand who was born in 2013. She would like to be involved in their lives[96] and she claims that if she is deported it would be very damaging to both children as they would not be able to see her, and vice versa, on a regular basis.[97]
[96] Exhibit G1, G10, pages 61 and 62.
[97] Exhibit G1, G10, page 62.
Department of Home Affairs movement records show that since relocating to Australia in December 2011, the Applicant has left Australia on two occasions for periods of between one and three weeks.[98] Ms C’s family lived in New Zealand between 2010 and 2016 before relocating to Australia. Accordingly, the Applicant could only have spent very limited time with her niece and nephew in person. The children have two parents fulfilling the parental role. They do not rely on her in any way. If she remains in Australia, and abstains from drug use and other antisocial behaviour, there is some potential for her to play a positive role in their lives in a non-parental role. On this basis, this Primary Consideration weights in favour of revocation but only to a very limited extent.
THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY
[98] Exhibit G1, G23, page 111.
The relevant paragraphs in the Direction
Paragraph 8.4(1) of the Direction provides that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. It further stipulates that where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that she may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the government not to allow the non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia.
Paragraph 8.4(2) of the Direction directs that a visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences are such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa.
Paragraph 8.4(3) of the Direction provides that the above expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
Paragraph 8.4(4) of the Direction provides guidance on how the expectations of the Australian community are to be determined. This paragraph 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.
Paragraph 8.4(4) is consistent with the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185.
The Applicant moved to Australia when she was 37 years old and she commenced offending nearly six years after moving to Australia. She engaged in very serious criminal conduct and continued doing that despite the intervention of the criminal justice system. She made only a minimal effort to address her drug addiction in a way that did not involve committing offences to enable her drug use. There are also the dishonesty offences and an instance of drug-driving. Her offending and other serious conduct constitutes a very serious breach of the trust of the Australian community, and it demonstrates a disregard for the laws of the community she seeks to re-enter. There is a substantial risk that the Applicant will commit further offences of the kind she previously committed.
Primary Consideration 4 weighs heavily against revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
It is necessary to look at the Other Considerations listed at paragraph 9 of the Direction. We will now consider each of the four stipulated sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d).
(a) International non-refoulement obligations
The Applicant does not make any claims with respect to Australia’s non-refoulement obligations, and none arise on the evidence. This Other Consideration is not relevant.
(b) Extent of Impediments if Removed
As a guide for exercising the discretion, paragraph 9.2 of the Direction directs a decision-maker to take into account the extent of any impediments that the non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account:
(a)the non-citizen’s age and health;
(b)whether there are any substantial language or cultural barriers; and
(c)any social, medical and/or economic support available to that non-citizen in that country.
The Applicant is 47 years old. She is a citizen of both New Zealand and the United Kingdom, meaning either could be the receiving country if she removed from Australia. The Applicant has always indicated that removal from Australia would mean living in New Zealand, which seems realistic given she spent her childhood and a fair part of her adulthood in New Zealand and she has never lived in the United Kingdom. We proceed on the basis that the Applicant would elect New Zealand rather than the United Kingdom if she were to be removed from Australia.
Having lived in New Zealand for the first 37 years of her life, the Applicant will not face any substantial language or cultural barriers. We accept that the Applicant does not have any family in New Zealand who she could rely on for support. Nor does she appear to have any friends or family friends there who would help her.
The Applicant expressed concern that with her criminal history she would not be able to obtain employment in “corporate” where she has worked her entire life. She said her employment opportunities are almost non-existent. She expressed concern that because she is already struggling with her mental health, being in New Zealand alone without the support of her family, she will not cope and would become destitute. She also feels she needs the support of her family as she undergoes hormone replacement therapy.[99] She said the stress of leaving her family will be overwhelming.[100] She said the stress of leaving her family will be overwhelming.[101] The Applicant’s family expressed concern about her having to navigate the social security system, find accommodation, a GP, and mental health and drug rehabilitation facilities alone, without their help, including making sure she attends doctors. They do not think she would cope mentally.
[99] Exhibit G1, G9 and 10.
[100] Exhibit G1, G10, page 67.
[101] Exhibit G1, G10, page 67.
Whether or not the Applicant’s criminal record would preclude her from the sort of work she is capable of doing, as a New Zealand citizen, she will be entitled to government income support. The Applicant spent 19 years of her adult life in New Zealand, obtained employment and accommodation there, secured a payout from an employer after a dispute arose, moved cities, travelled back and forth between New Zealand and Australia, and engaged with psychological services in New Zealand. Further, in the grip of a methamphetamine addiction, without help from her family, she was capable of making enquiries with a drug rehabilitation service (Biala) in Australia. We are satisfied that the Applicant is capable of finding accommodation and the like, and accessing services and financial support, in New Zealand.
The Applicant suffers from syphilis and she is HIV positive. She has recently been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder. She requires treatment for these conditions, and if she is returned to New Zealand she will need to engage immediately with treatment providers. The Applicant plans to commence hormone replacement treatment now that she identifies as female. It was not disputed that the level of health and mental health treatment available in New Zealand is comparable with that in Australia.
The Applicant has a tendency to resort to drug and alcohol abuse at times of stress or anxiety, and we have found that there is a substantial risk that she would do that in the wider community and that would lead to further offending. Drug use would not necessarily result in the Applicant not being able to re-establish herself or maintain basic living standards, and, given New Zealand’s mental health system is comparable to Australia’s, she would have access to rehabilitative services. This Other Consideration does not invite decision-makers to consider how any proclivity a non-citizen might have towards acting unlawfully might affect their ability to establish themselves and maintain basic living standards.
Ms C would not move back to New Zealand if the Applicant is removed there because her husband has a good job here, she has two children in school here and her son suffers from anxiety and has problems dealing with change. The Applicant’s mother initially said she could not move because she could not afford to buy a property in New Zealand. When asked if she could rent, she said she did not want to return to New Zealand: her grandchildren are here and she prefers to stay here. Mr P indicated that he would rather stay in Australia but his concerns about the Applicant being in New Zealand without support would potentially be reason to return to New Zealand with her.
There is an incongruity between the Applicant’s mother’s apparent worry that the Applicant will not cope without family support in New Zealand and her unwillingness to move there to provide that support. We think her evidence about what would happen to the Applicant in New Zealand was exaggerated, and that Ms C is overly pessimistic. If Mr P’s concerns about the Applicant come to pass, he would potentially return to New Zealand to help the Applicant.
No-one put forward any reason why the Applicant’s family could not assist her and provide emotional support from Australia. While it would be beneficial for the Applicant have her family physically proximate, so they could provide accommodation and practical and emotional support, it is not the case that her family could not help at all from a distance. For example, it is well known that a person can nominate another person to deal with social services on their behalf. Further, Ms C had virtual visits with the Applicant in prison and there is no apparent reason that could not continue.
We do not accept that any difficulties the Applicant would face in New Zealand would prevent her from re-establishing herself and maintaining basic living standards in the context of what is generally available to other New Zealand citizens.
(c) Impact on victims
There is no evidence before the Tribunal relating to the impact that the Applicant’s continued presence in Australia would have on any victims. This Other Consideration is therefore not relevant.
(d) Links to the Australian Community
Paragraph 9.4 of the Direction requires that decision-makers must have regard to the Applicant’s links to the Australia community.
There are two factors which we must assess in determining the degree of weight allocable to Other Consideration (d). They comprise: (1) the strength, nature and durations of ties to Australia; and (2) the impact on Australian business interests.
The strength, nature, and duration of ties to Australia
The Applicant moved to Australia in December 2011 as an adult, at the age of 37. She was first charged with a drug offence in 2017 and she commenced supplying methamphetamine to members of the Australian community in early 2018, six years after moving to Australia.
The Applicant contributed to the community through gainful employment from 2012 to 2017. After that, she was reliant on government income support. Since September 2019, she has been remanded in custody, serving sentences of imprisonment or in immigration detention. She was employed while in prison. There is no evidence before us that the Applicant engaged in voluntary work or otherwise contributed to the Australian community.
The Applicant has limited social ties to the Australian community but there are some supportive letters from friends before the Tribunal.[102] What ties her most closely to the Australia community are the members of her immediate family, being her mother, Ms C and Mr P. They all claim to have very close relationships with the Applicant, however, that seems to be a recent development. While they all grew up in the same household, the siblings have spent little time together as adults. Ms C lived overseas for many years as an adult. She returned to Wellington, where the Applicant lived at the time, in around 2010/2011.[103] The Applicant then moved to Australia in 2011. Ms C and her family moved to Brisbane in 2016 but lost contact with the Applicant later that year. Similarly, when Mr P was asked when he and the Applicant had lived in the same city or town, he said until the Applicant was about 19 to 20 and then not “not again until 2015, so I hadn’t lived with him for quite some time”.[104] The Applicant’s mother remained in New Zealand after the Applicant moved to Australia. In 2016 she came to Australia because all her children were going to be there[105] but she had little contact with the Applicant.
[102] Exhibit G1, G20, G21 and G23.
[103] Transcript, page 44, lines 27 to 41.
[104] Transcript, page 56, lines 37 to 42.
[105] Transcript, page 44, line 42 to page 45, line 7.
Since the Applicant’s incarceration, her family have rallied to support her and she has accepted their support. They each expressed a great deal of worry about her being alone and without adequate support in New Zealand. The Applicant’s mother is 73 years old and she suffers from ill health including fatigue with low iron and bronchiectasis which is a chronic lung disease.[106] There was a suggestion that she also suffers from depression.[107] According to the Applicant’s mother, the prospect of the Applicant being removed to New Zealand has been extremely stressful. There is no medical evidence that the stress has caused a worsening of her medical conditions and possibly her depression, although it is well accepted that stress tends to lower the body’s ability to cope with adversity. Ms C said that is the Applicant is deported she would be devastated as it would feel like losing her father again. She thinks her mental health would be affected.[108] Shortly after the Applicant had a breakdown in prison, Ms C broke out in atopic dermatitis over her entire body which her dermatologist attributed to stress.[109] Ms C’s implication in giving that evidence appears to be that the Applicant’s breakdown was so stressful for her that it affected her physical health. Ms C thinks the Applicant would not survive alone in New Zealand and it would result in tragedy for the whole family.[110] Mr P said the Applicant’s removal to New Zealand would be totally devastating to him and the family, and that they need to be a family again.[111] It does not appear that the Applicant’s mother could afford to visit her in New Zealand and the prospects of Ms C and her family visiting are limited.
[106] Exhibit G1, G18, page 102.
[107] Exhibit G1, G12 page 70.
[108] Transcript page 42 lines 16 to17.
[109] Exhibit A4.
[110] Exhibit A4.
[111] Transcript, page 55, lines 32 to 38.
The sole likely impact on Ms C and the Applicant’s mother of the Applicant being deported appears to be that they will worry about her welfare. The same could be said about Mr P although he has also has a wish for the family to all be together. We do not accept that the situation for the Applicant in New Zealand would be as dire as the Applicant’s family forecast, however we accept that, as long as they worry about the Applicant, it will cause emotional hardship, stress and anxiety. There is a possibility that those impacts will in turn negatively affect Ms C’s physical health and worsen the Applicant’s mother’s existing conditions, although there is no medical evidence to this effect. Militating against that is the possibility that Mr P would move to New Zealand to help the Applicant. That would presumably alleviate her family’s anxiety to some extent but it would adversely impact Mr P because he would have to leave his family and employment here in the short or long term.
None of the Applicant’s family members rely on her for financial, emotional or practical support, so her deportation will not adversely impact them in those respects.
Impact on Australian business interests
There is neither a claim by the Applicant, nor is there any other relevant evidence to suggest that her removal from Australia would adversely impact on Australian business interests. Therefore, no weight can be allocated in relation to paragraph 9.4.2 of the Direction.
Conclusion: Other Consideration (d)
For the reasons given, this Other Consideration weights in favour of revocation but not to a great extent.
CONCLUSION
The Applicant has been diagnosed with a serious mental illness which necessarily involves hardship for her. She faces many challenges dealing with that, the trauma in her background and her intention to transition gender. It would obviously be preferable for her to be able to face those things with the close support of her immediate family, and it would be preferable for them too. As is often the case in these matters, the non-citizen’s realisation that they must deal with their problems and their family’s commitment to assertively help them do that, has come too late - after serious offences have been committed and the risk of re-offending and the harm from re-offending is too much for the Australian community to tolerate. The Applicant has breached the trust of the Australian community by engaging in offending of a very damaging nature and there is a real, and unacceptable, risk of repeated offending. Ultimately, Primary Consideration 3 and Other Considerations (b) and (d) combined cannot outweigh Primary Considerations 1 and 4 combined.
Application of the Direction therefore favours the non-revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
DECISION
The decision under review is affirmed.
I certify that the preceding 161 (one hundred and sixty-one) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member R Bellamy and Member A Julian-Armitage
................................[SGD]........................................
Associate
Dated: 24 August 2022
Date of hearing: 21 and 25 July 2022 Advocate for the Applicant:
Dr Marianne Van Galen- Dickie
Sisters Inside
Solicitor for the Respondent Mr Ben Dube
Sparke Helmore
ANNEXURE A – EXHIBIT LIST
EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE PARTY DATE OF DOCUMENT DATE RECEIVED G1 Section 501 G-Documents (G1 to G25 paged 1 to 143) R - 26 May 2022 A1 Applicant's Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (paged 1 to 11) and attachments:
a. Edwards and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2021] AATA 2985 (20 August 2021)
b. Transfer of Care documents from The Park Centre for Mental Health dated 6 January 2022.
c. C.M Marra ‘Neurosyphilis’ Current Therapy in Neurologic Disease (2006) (7/E) (5 pages)
d. IHMS Clinical Records (88 pages)
e. Case notes of Greg Hutcheon, Psychologist dated 28 February 2022 (7 pages)
f. Apollo Mental Health Assessment dated 26 January 2022 (5 pages)
g. Photograph of the Applicant
h. QLD Corrective Services Parole Documents (8 pages)
i. N. Papalia, J.R.P Ogloff, M. Cutajar & P.E Mullen. ‘Child Sexual Abuse and Criminal Offending: Gender-Specific Effects and the Role of Abuse Characteristics and Other Adverse Outcomes’. Child Maltreatment. 2018; 23(4): 399-416.
j. Transcript of Proceedings of the Supreme Court Queensland dated 5 December 2019 (26 pages).
k. D. Howard, Report of the Special Commission of Inquiry into crystal methamphetamine and other amphetamine type stimulants. NSW Government (January 2020) Vol 1; Vol 1 Part A; and Vol 3.
l. Lives Lived Well ‘Specialist Centre - Services and Specialist Areas’ and ‘Live in & Recover’ (Web Pages)
A - 4 July 2022 A2 Statement of the Applicant (4 pages) A 4 July 2022 4 July 2022 A3 Statement of the Applicant’s Mother (3 pages) A July 2022 4 July 2022 A4 Statement of Ms C (4 pages) A 3 July 2022 4 July 2022 A5 Statement of Mr P (1 page) A 4 July 2022 4 July 2022 A6 Queensland Police Service Court Brief dated 31 May 2018 (9 pages) A 31 May 2018 7July 2022 A7 Applicant’s Reply (2 pages) and attachment - QNADA – ‘Salvation Recovery Services - Moonyah’ (Web Page) A 13 July 2022 13 July 2022 R1 Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (paged 1 to 17) R - 11 July 2022 R2 Respondent’s Tender Bundle (R1 to R8, paged 1 to 469) R - 11 July 2022 T1
Material from the New Zealand Ministry of Health regarding Healthcare in New Zealand (9 pages) T
-
25 July 2022
0
5
0