Hale and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration)

[2019] AATA 5534

Hale and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration) [2019] AATA 5534 (17 December 2019)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number:          2019/6121

Re:Clinton Hale  

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Home Affairs

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Member Tigiilagi Eteuati

Date:17 December 2019

Place:Brisbane

The decision under review is affirmed

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

Member Tigiilagi Eteuati

Catchwords

MIGRATION – Non-revocation of mandatory cancellation of Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa – Applicant does not pass character test –– whether there is another reason why the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa should be revoked – consideration and application of Ministerial Direction No 79 –– decision under review affirmed

Legislation
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Cases
Afu v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1311
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 500
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185
Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1166
HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 202
Marzano v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 66
Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594
Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] HCA 15
Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 348
YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466

Secondary Materials

Direction No 79 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s501CA

REASONS FOR DECISION

Member Tigiilagi Eteuati

17 December 2019

BACKGROUND

1. This is an application by Clinton Trevor Hale (“the Applicant”) for review of a decision made by the delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs (“the Minister” or “the Respondent’) on 23 September 2019 to refuse to revoke, under section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”), the cancellation of the Applicant’s Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa (“TY 444 visa”).

2. The Applicant first arrived in Australia in 1982 as a three-year-old child.

3. While a TY 444 visa is technically a temporary visa, it allows its holder to remain indefinitely in Australia. When the holder of a TY 444 visa departs Australia, the visa ceases but, subject to a person continuing to meet the visa criteria, they are granted a new TY 444 visa when they re-enter Australia.

4. The Applicant was last granted a TY 444 visa on his last arrival in Australia on 30 June 1993 after he had been living in New Zealand for three years having departed Australia on 23 April 1990. It was this visa that was cancelled under section 501(3A) by the Minister’s delegate on 17 May 2019.

5. The Applicant has an extensive criminal history. He began offending in 1995 as a child and was convicted for his last offences in March 2019. There was a period from between 2000 to 2010 when the Applicant did not commit any offences.

6. On 14 March 2014, the Department notified the Applicant that it was considering cancelling his visa under section 501 on character grounds. On 23 June 2014 the Department sent the Applicant a letter indicating that it had decided not to cancel the Applicant’s visa. That letter included the following formal warning:

   “Please note that visa cancellation may be reconsidered if you commit further offences or otherwise breach the character test in the future. Disregard of this warning will weigh heavily against you if your case is reconsidered.”

7. On 2 April 2015, the Applicant was convicted of a number of offences and sentenced to an effective sentence of 3 years imprisonment.

8. On 3 August 2015, the Applicant’s TY 444 visa was cancelled under section 501(3A) of the act on the basis that the Applicant did not pass the character test as set out in section 501(6)(a) of the Act (when read with section 501(7)(c)) as he had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than 12 months and was serving a full-time term of imprisonment.

9. On 4 August 2015, the Applicant sought that the cancellation decision be revoked.

10. On 23 August 2016, the Department wrote to the Applicant indicating that, after considering the Applicant’s representations, the Minister’s delegate had decided to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa. A further warning was given to the Applicant as follows:

    “Please note: the decision to revoke the original decision does not mean that you cannot be reconsidered for cancellation on character grounds in the future in the event of further criminal offending by you.”

11. The Applicant was convicted of further offences without a term of imprisonment being imposed in January, June and December 2018.

12. On 21 March 2019, the Applicant was convicted of a number of offences and sentenced to an effective term of imprisonment of 18 months.

13. On 17 May 2019, the Applicant’s visa was cancelled under section 501(3A) of the Act, for the second time, on the basis that the Applicant did not pass the character test as set out in section 501(6)(a) of the Act (when read with section 501(7)(c)) as he had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than 12 months and was serving a full-time term of imprisonment.

14. On 23 May 2019, the Applicant sought that the cancellation decision be revoked.

15. On 23 September 2019, the Minister refused to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s TY 444 visa. The decision record was given to the Applicant by hand on 24 September 2019. On 26 September 2019, the Applicant applied to this Tribunal for review of that decision.

16. The matter was heard on 2 December 2019. For the reasons below, I have found that the Minister’s delegate’s decision, to refuse to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa, is the correct decision and I have affirmed that decision.

    ISSUES

17. Pursuant to section 501CA(4) of the Act, the Minister may revoke the decision made under section 501(3A) of the Act to cancel the Applicant’s visa. Subsection 501CA(4) provides:

    (4)The Minister may revoke the original decision if:

    (a)the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation; and

    (b)the Minister is satisfied:

    (i)     that the person passes the character test (as defined by section 501); or

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

18. The Applicant was invited to make representations to the Minister about revocation of the cancellation of his visa and he made representations in accordance with the invitation. Thus, section 501CA(4)(a) of the Act is satisfied in this case.

19. The two remaining issues are:

    a.Whether the Applicant passes the character test as defined in section 501 of the Act; and

    b.Whether there is another reason why the decision to cancel the Applicant’s visa should be revoked.

20. If the Tribunal finds that the Applicant passes the character test or that there is another reason why the decision to cancel the Applicant’s visa should be revoked, the cancellation decision must be revoked.

21. The Tribunal considers that the meaning of “another reason” in subparagraph 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act is a reason other than that the Applicant passes the character test. The Full Court of the Federal Court has found that there is no residual discretion to be exercised once the Minister (and in this case, the Tribunal) finds that the Applicant passes the character test or there is another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked. The Full Court has also found that the “reason” in subparagraph 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act does not mean “any reason” but rather the determinative reason for revocation arrived at after a balancing of factors both in favour and against revocation.

22. In Marzano v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 66 the Full Court of the Federal Court (Collier J, with whom Logan and Murphy JJ agreed), after citing with approval the reasons of North ACJ at paragraphs [38] and [39] of his decision in Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[2016] FCA 1166, stated at [31] and [32]:

    “I agree with this analysis. The primary Judge in these proceedings found, and the parties are ad idem, that s 501CA(4)(b) requires the Minister to revoke the cancellation if he or she is satisfied of relevant requirements. To that extent his Honour held that “may” in s 501CA(4)(b) means “must”.

    I consider that this is a correct construction of s 501CA(4)(b).

    In relation to the question whether s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) contemplates an evaluative process on the part of the Minister, I respectfully adopt the reasoning of North ACJ in Gaspar [2016] FCA 1166 at [38]- [39]. In so doing, I note that the section does not, for example, require the Minister to revoke a cancellation decision if the Minister finds “any” reason why the cancellation decision “could” be revoked”. The requirement that the Minister revoke a cancellation decision if he or she determines that there is another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked, imports an assessment by the Minister of the propriety of a revocation decision, balancing factors both in favour and against revocation. This is the exercise upon which the Minister clearly embarked in this case. It follows that I respectfully agree with the view formed by his Honour at [52] and [53] of the primary Judgment.”

23. If the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant passes the character test or that there is another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked the Tribunal must find in the Applicant’s favour. The appropriate decision in these circumstances would be for the decision refusing to revoke cancellation to be set aside and for a decision in substitution to be made revoking the cancellation decision.

    EVIDENCE

24. The Tribunal has considered all of the evidence permissibly before it including the documents described in section 501G of the Act (“G Documents” or “G1”), the documents tendered into evidence by the Applicant and marked as exhibits A1 to A3 and the documents tendered into evidence by the Respondent and marked as exhibits R1 and R2. The evidence contained in these documents is discussed throughout this decision: see ‘Annexure A’ to this decision.

25. The Tribunal is of course aware of the restrictions on the consideration of certain evidence contained in sections 500(6H) and (6J) of the Act. The Tribunal has not had regard to any evidence provided in support of Applicant’s case which was not provided to the Respondent at least two clear business days prior to the hearing. However, in accordance with the decision of the High Court in Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] HCA 15, the Tribunal has considered the evidence of witnesses provided in answer to questions in cross-examination by the Respondent and questions from the Tribunal.

26. A summary of evidence of witnesses is provided below from paragraph 46 of these reasons.

    DOES THE APPLICANT PASS THE CHARACTER TEST?

27. Section 501(6) relevantly provides:

    (6) For the purposes of this section, a person does not pass the character test if:

    (a)the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by subsection (7)); or

    …

28. Section 501(7) relevantly provides:

    (7) For the purposes of the character test, a person has a substantial criminal record if:

    …

    (c)the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more; or

    …

29. The Applicant will be taken to have a substantial criminal record, and thus not pass the character test, if he has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.

30. Section 501(12) of the Act provides that “imprisonment” includes any form of punitive detention in a facility or institution.

    Offending history

31. An Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission report for the Applicant dated 17 June 2019 records the Applicant as having the following disclosable court outcomes:[1]

    [1]     Exhibit G1, G Documents, G08, pages 47 – 53, Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission report, dated 17 June 2019.

Court	Court Date	Offence	Court Result
Redcliffe Magistrates Court	21 Mar 2019	Enter dwelling with intent by break at night (on 12/06/2018)	Conviction recorded sentenced imprisonment of 18 months concurrent
Enter premises and commit indictable offence by break (on 09/06/2018)	Conviction recorded sentenced imprisonment of 15 months concurrent
Stealing (on 29/07/2018)	Conviction recorded sentence imposed of 12 months concurrent.
Common assault (on 29/07/218)	Conviction recorded sentence imposed of 8 months concurrent.
Wilful damage (on 09/02/2018)	Conviction recorded sentence imposed of 8 months concurrent.
Possessing dangerous drugs (on 08/07/2018)	Conviction recorded
Possessing dangerous drugs (on 16/07/2018)	Conviction recorded
Possesses utensils or pipes etc that had been used (on 16/07/2018)	Conviction recorded
Contravene direction or requirement (between 01/07/2018 and 12/07/2018)	Conviction recorded
Unlawful use of motor vehicles aircraft or vessels - use (on 29/07/2018	Conviction recorded
Redcliffe Magistrates Court	06 Dec 2018	Failure to appear in accordance with undertaking (on 30/07/2018)	Conviction recorded fined $400
Caboolture Magistrates Court	11 Jun 2018	Stealing (on 07/06/2018)	Conviction recorded fined $950
Pine Rivers Magistrates Court	29 Jan 2018	Stealing (on 23/12/2017)	Conviction recorded fined $600
Rockhampton District Court	02 Apr 2015	Two charges of enter or be in premises with intent to commit indictable offences by break (two charges on 04/05/2014, on or about 04/05/2014). Unlawful use of motor vehicles aircraft or vessels – use used/intended for indictable offence (on or about 04/05/2014 Dangerous operation of a vehicle (on or about 04/05/2014)	On all charges Conviction recorded sentenced imprisonment 3 years concurrent MDL disqualified period 9 months
Wilful damage (on or about 04/05/2014)	Conviction recorded sentenced imprisonment 12 months concurrent
Unlawful use of motor vehicles aircraft or vessels - use (on or about 03/05/2014)	Conviction recorded sentenced imprisonment 6 months concurrent
Assault or obstruct police officer (on 04/05/2014)	Conviction recorded sentenced imprisonment 6 months concurrent
Stealing (on 09/01/2014)	Conviction recorded sentenced imprisonment 1 month concurrent
Possessing dangerous drugs (on 06/05/2014)	Conviction recorded sentenced imprisonment 1 month concurrent
Breach of suspended sentence imposed on 23/08/2013 (Re: breach of original original offences)	Breaches proven on all charges suspended sentence fully invoked to be served cumulative parole eligibility date 2 September 2015
Rockhampton Magistrates Court	17 Mar 2014	Contravention of domestic violence order (on 4/01/2014)	Conviction recorded find $300
Rockhampton Magistrates Court	23 Aug 2013	Breach of probation order imposed on 3.12.12 (Re: original offences)	Conviction recorded fined $400 Resentenced for original offences Sentenced imprisonment 4 months suspended until 22.08.15
Stealing (on 27/06/2013)	On all charges conviction recorded sentenced imprisonment 6 months concurrent
Stealing (on 26/06/2013)	On all charges conviction recorded sentenced imprisonment 4 months concurrent
Contravene direction or requirement (on 26/06/2013)	Conviction recorded fined $150
Contravene direction or requirement (on 16/01/2013)	Conviction recorded fined $150
Rockhampton Magistrates Court	3 Dec 2012	Wilful damage (on 23/09/2012) Possessing dangerous drugs (on 23/09/2012) Possessing anything used in the commission of crime (on 23/09/2012) Possess utensils or pipes etc that had been used (on 23/09/2012) Possession of a knife in a public place or a school (on 23/09/2012) Enter premises and commit indictable offence (on 30/10/2011)	On all charges conviction recorded probation period 18 months restitution $250.51
Rockhampton Magistrates Court	19 Nov 2012	Contravene direction or requirement (on 02/10/2012)	Conviction recorded fined $100
Rockhampton Magistrates Court	08 Aug 2011	Drunk or disorderly in premises to which a permit/license relates (on 24/07/2011) Fail to leave licensed premises (on 24/07/2011) Obstruct police officer (on 24/07/2011)	On all charges no conviction recorded fined $400
Rockhampton Magistrates Court	05 Jan 2000	Unauthorised dealing with shop goods (on 18/12/1999)	Convicted and fined $300
Rockhampton Magistrates Court	18 Dec 1998	Unauthorised dealing with shop goods (on 01/12/1998)	Convicted and fined $200
Rockhampton Magistrates Court	02 Dec 1998	Breach Bail Act (contempt) (on 27/07/1998)	Convicted and sentenced 1 month imprisonment
Fraud (on 29/05/1998) Stealing (on 29/5/1998)	On all charges convicted and sentenced 6 months imprisonment
Fraud (on 19/05/1998) Receiving (on 19/05/1998)	On all charges convicted and sentenced 6 months imprisonment
Breach of probation order imposed on 15/07/1997	Breach proven order revoked dealt with for original offences on all charges convicted and sentenced imprisonment 12 months
Rockhampton Magistrates Court	15 Jul 1997	Possession of property suspected of being stolen or unlawfully obtained (on 19/03/1997) Possession pipe used in connection with smoking dangerous drug (on 26/03/1997)	On each charge convicted and sentenced 14 days imprisonment concurrent
Break, enter and steal (five charges on or about 27/2/1997, 10/6/97 and between 15 and 18 March 97) Attempted break and enter dwelling house with intent (on 30/03/1997) Break and enter place with intent (on 30/03/1997) Four counts of break and enter dwelling house with intent (four charges on or about 21/03/1997, 23/03/1997 and 24/03/1997) Eight counts of stealing (8 charges on or about 17/01/1997, 23/03/1997 and 24/03/1997) Four counts of false pretences (4 charges on or about 17/01/1997, 21/03/1997, 23/03/1997 and 24/03/1997) Attempted false pretences (on 17/01/1997)	On each charge convicted and sentenced 4 months imprisonment probation 3 years concurrent total restitution $5343.20
Rockhampton Magistrates Court	03/01/1997	Breach probation order imposed on 19/02/1996 (Re original crimes)	For breach convicted and fined $300 Resentenced for original offences as follows: 1st charge convicted and fined $100 conviction recorded restitution $156.34 2nd charge convicted and fined $100 conviction recorded restitution $203 3rd charge convicted and fined $100 conviction recorded restitution $215
Rockhampton Magistrates Court	13 Dec 1996	Breach probation order imposed on 19/02/1996	Order cancelled fined $300 for probation breaches on each charge convicted and fined $100 restitution $156.36 total restitution $418
Rockhampton Magistrates Court	8 Nov 1996	Stealing (on 23/10/1996)	Convicted and fined $200
Breach bail undertaking (on 7/11/1996)	Convicted and fined $75
Rockhampton Magistrates Court	21 Jun 1996	Unlawful take shop goods away (on 24/05/1996)	Convicted and fined $75
Unlawful take shop goods away (on 24/05/1996)	Convicted and fined hundred and $150
Unlawful take shop goods away (on 24/05/1996)	Convicted and fined $120
Rockhampton Magistrates Court	19 Feb 1996	Break, enter and steal (on 03/02/1996) Two counts of wilful and unlawful destruction of property in the night time (two charges on 03/02/1996)	On all charges no conviction recorded probation 12 months community service 40 hours total restitution $814.36
Rockhampton Children’s Court	27 Jul 1995	Wilful and unlawful damage to property (18/07/1995)	Good behaviour bond 3 months

1. In addition, the Applicant has an extensive traffic violation record as detailed by the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads Traffic Record for the Applicant. The Applicant has no less than 37 traffic violations and has had his license suspended on numerous occasions. The Applicant’s traffic offences span from 1998 to 2018 and include, but are not limited to: exceed speed limit by 30 km or more; driving under the influence of alcohol; unlicensed driving; failed to stop at red light; disqualified driving; fail to wear seatbelt; make U-turn on section controlled by traffic lights; drive put in motion motor vehicle under the influence of liquor; driver not have proper control of vehicle; drive while relevant drug is present; and dangerous driving.

1. I am satisfied the Applicant has a substantial criminal record for the purposes of section 501(6)(a) when read with section 501(7)(c) of the Act, as the Applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than 12 months.

2. Consequently, I am satisfied that the Applicant does not pass the character test.

3. The only remaining issue is whether there is another reason why the decision to cancel the Applicant’s visa should be revoked.

   IS THERE ANOTHER REASON WHY THE CANCELLATION OF THE APPLICANT’S VISA SHOULD BE REVOKED?

4. In considering whether there is another reason why the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa should be revoked, the Tribunal must comply with any directions made by the Minister pursuant to section 499 of the Act. In this case Direction No 79 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s501CA (“the Direction”) applies. The Direction provides guidance for decision-makers in determining, relevantly, whether there is another reason why the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa should be revoked.

5. Paragraph 8(1) of the Direction provides that decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case.

6. The relevant considerations in relation to consideration of revocation of a cancellation decision are contained in Part C of the Direction.

7. Paragraph 13 of the Direction provides for three primary considerations. They are:

   (a)Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;

   (b)The best interests of minor children in Australia; and

   (c)Expectations of the Australian community.

8. Paragraph 14 of the Direction provides for other considerations. They include, but are not limited to:

   (d)International non-refoulement obligations;

   (e)Strength, nature and duration of ties;

   (f)Impact on Australian business interests;

   (g)Impact on victims; and

   (h)Extent of impediments if removed.

9. Subparagraphs 8(3) to (5) of the Direction provide:

   (3) Both primary and other considerations may weigh in favour of, or against, refusal, cancellation of the visa, or whether or not to revoke a mandatory cancellation of a visa.

   (4) Primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations.

   (5) One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.

10. In Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594 Colvin J stated at [23]:

    “… Direction 65 makes clear that an evaluation is required in each case as to the weight to be given to the 'other considerations' (including non-refoulement obligations). It requires both primary and other considerations to be given 'appropriate weight'. Direction 65 does provide that, generally, primary considerations should be given greater weight. They are primary in the sense that absent some factor that takes the case out of that which pertains 'generally' they are to be given greater weight. However, Direction 65 does not require that the other considerations be treated as secondary in all cases. Nor does it provide that primary considerations are 'normally' given greater weight. Rather, Direction 65 concerns the appropriate weight to be given to both 'primary' and 'other considerations'. In effect, it requires an inquiry as to whether one or more of the other considerations should be treated as being a primary consideration or the consideration to be afforded greatest weight in the particular circumstances of the case because it is outside the circumstances that generally apply.”

11. The Tribunal considers that Colvin J’s assessment regarding the various considerations in Direction 65 apply equally to the considerations in the Direction.

12. The principles in paragraph 6.3 of the Direction reflect community values and standards with respect to determining whether the risk of future harm from a non-citizen is unacceptable and are to inform the consideration of each of the primary and other considerations.

13. The principles in paragraph 6.3 provide a framework within which decision-makers should approach their task of deciding whether to revoke cancellation. The principles in paragraph 6.3 are 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)The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they commit serious crimes in Australia or elsewhere

    (3) A non-citizen who has committed a serious crime, including of a violent or sexual nature, and particularly against women or children or vulnerable members of the community such as the elderly or disabled, should generally expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.

    (4)In some circumstances, criminal offending or other conduct, and the harm that would be caused if it were to be repeated, may be so serious, that any risk of similar conduct in the future is unacceptable. In these circumstances, even other strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa.

    (5)Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by people 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 in relation to a non-citizen who has lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.

    (6)Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa Applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, reflecting that there should be no expectation that such people should be allowed to come to, or remain permanently in, Australia.

    (7)The length of time a non-citizen has been making a positive contribution to the Australian community, and the consequences of a visa refusal or cancellation for minor children and other immediate family members in Australia, are considerations in the context of determining whether that non-citizen’s visa should be cancelled, or their visa application refused.

    Summary of evidence of witnesses

14. The following is a summary of the evidence before the Tribunal including evidence of witnesses who appeared before the Tribunal. The evidence referred to below includes evidence provided in written statements submitted to the Department and the Tribunal and evidence given by the witnesses at the hearing in response to questions in cross examination and from the Tribunal.

    The Applicant

15. The Applicant is an un-partnered, 40-year-old man. The Applicant was born in 1979 in Auckland, New Zealand. The Applicant first arrived in Australia on 13 March 1982 as a 3-year-old. The Applicant’s ‘Movement History’ indicates that he has travelled overseas and returned to Australia between 31 July 1984 and 5 September 1984. The Applicant returned to New Zealand on 23 April 1990 and resided in New Zealand for three years before returning to Australia on 30 June 1993. The Applicant indicated that he had returned to New Zealand with his mother as his grandfather had been ill at the time.

16. The Applicant indicated that he left home in approximately late 1995 when he was 16 years old. He claims that he was abused physically, sexually and mentally and that he was hung, bashed, and drugged. The Applicant indicated that he was admitted to the Rockhampton Hospital psychiatric ward as a result of the abuse. The Applicant attributes his drug abuse and criminal offending in large part to the abuse that he claims to have suffered.

17. In sentencing the Applicant for his offences on 2 April 2015, the sentencing judge made some remarks in relation to the abuse that the Applicant had claimed to have suffered. The sentencing judge said:

    “I want to say something of your personal circumstances. You came from New Zealand to Rockhampton when you were 15. You led a somewhat difficult life in the sense that you left home at the age of 16 after completing year 10 education. You became quickly involved in drugs. You were involved in a significant incident with another man who was significantly older than you and who you’d met at the time you were using drugs. It seems that he attacked you. There’s some disagreement about the exact circumstances of it, but it seems that whether solely because of it or whether as a result of it and other factors, you served a period of six months in a mental health unit at Rockhampton Hospital.

    Whatever occurred, the assault was perceived by you as serious and it may well have been serious. He was initially charged with an attempt to kill, but that was later downgraded, and he pleaded to two charges of assault occasioning bodily harm. The QP9 indicates that the offending involved assaulting you, on the first occasion, pushing you on the ground, kneeing you at the chest and bashing your head on the gutter, and on the second occasion, punching you in the face numerous times resulting in black eyes, swelling to your face, scratches and bruising. Your counsel submits that the offending was significantly more serious. She does that on the basis of your instructions. Ultimately, I can’t make an absolute conclusion about those things. But it does seem that, whatever happened, your perception was that you were attacked in a most violent way and it precipitated your spending the period of time that I’ve mentioned in the mental unit at the Rockhampton Hospital.”

18. The Applicant indicated that after the abuse he suffered, he used drugs to self-medicate in order to deal with the trauma that he suffered from the abuse. He said that he began committing crimes of dishonesty including theft and stealing in order to fund his drug addiction.

19. The Applicant indicated that there was a period from between 2000 to 2010 when he did not commit any offences. He said that did not offend during that period as he entered into a stable long-term relationship with a woman and that his daughter was born of that relationship in 2002. The Applicant indicated that he ceased taking drugs during that period because he was in a stable relationship and had a young daughter. The Applicant’s daughter is currently 17 years old. The Applicant has not seen or heard from his daughter since 2012 or 2013 as her mother did not want her to see him as he was using drugs. The Applicant hopes to re-establish contact with his daughter when she turns 18. The Applicant indicated that between 2000 and 2010 he was employed in demolition.

20. The Applicant indicated that the relationship broke down in around 2012 and the Applicant returned to using drugs shortly thereafter. The Applicant returned to offending to support his drug addiction. He entered into another relationship with a woman who was a drug user and they would take drugs together. The Applicant indicated that prior to meeting this woman he had been using marijuana and speed. He said that the woman introduced him to prescription opioids.

21. The Applicant indicated that he could not recall receiving a warning letter from the Department in 2014. He was obviously aware that his visa was cancelled on 2015 as he was taken into immigration detention after he was released from criminal detention and wrote to the Department seeking that the cancellation of his visa be revoked. The cancellation of the visa was revoked in 2016 while the Applicant was being held on Christmas Island. During his time in immigration detention the Applicant had begun an online relationship with another woman who lived in Brisbane. Following the Applicant’s release from detention in 2016, he moved to Brisbane to be with the woman he had met online. Although the Applicant had not previously lived in Brisbane, he established himself there, obtained employment and made new friends including the three witnesses that gave evidence before the Tribunal.

22. The Applicant said that he had an argument with his girlfriend on 12 June 2018. He said that he went to a bar where he met a man who offered him the methamphetamine “ice”. The Applicant said that he initially resisted the offer but ultimately used the ice. He said that this was the first time he had used ice. He said that the man convinced him to break into a house with him to steal goods located in the house. The Applicant indicated that from that date, he continue to commit crimes in order to fund his methamphetamine addiction.

23. The Applicant’s parents, two sisters and his brother live in Australia. His parents wrote to the Department in support of the Applicant when his visa was cancelled in 2015. None of his family members have provided the Department or the Tribunal with a letter in support of the Applicant regarding the current cancellation of his visa. In their late letter dated 22 August 2015, the Applicant’s parents referred to the abuse which the Applicant suffered before stating:

    “…Ultimately you can say Clinton choose [sic] his life’s pathway and we suppose this is true however we think Clinton has never truly recovered and seeks drugs to hide the pain when life events turn bad for him and then he needs more money and reverts to stealing and other stupid acts.

    Fast forward to now and Clinton is finally aware of the gravity of his situation and realises this may be his last chance to live a normal life in his home town with a close association with his family including his daughter. Clinton needs our and your help to find a fulfilling life in the only place he can call home.”

24. The Applicant said that none of his family members had provided letters in support of him in relation to this cancellation as they believed that it was the Applicant’s responsibility to deal with his problems himself. He said that in the past his family had not visited while he was in prison. However, the Applicant indicated that if he were released from detention he would be welcome in the homes of any of his family members.

25. The Applicant indicated that he had a number of nieces and nephews in Australia. He said that his sister Tiffany had two children; a son aged 5; and a daughter aged in her early teens. He said that his sister Selena had a son aged 15 and a daughter aged 4. He said that his brother had a daughter aged 3. The Applicant admitted that he had had only very limited contact with these children in recent years because he had been in detention or had been using drugs. He said that he had been closer with the older two who are now teenagers prior to returning to drug use in around 2012.

26. The Applicant indicated that his previous partner had a son aged 10 who he maintained contact with by telephone.

27. The Applicant has also had contact with the one-year-old son of his best friend, Tchae.

28. The Applicant said that, if he was allowed to remain in Australia, he would never reoffend. He said that he was now 40 years old and that he was too old to continue to take drugs and to get in trouble with the law. He said that he had “an actual problem” in relation to his drug use and offending that he would never be able to address unless he received psychological assistance. He said that he had had a 30 minute conversation with a psychologist who he had been referred to. The Tribunal had before it a letters from the psychologist indicating his willingness to work with the Applicant on a long-term basis.

29. The Applicant indicated that he had been offered employment with a friend working as a removalist with his friend’s removalist business. He said that he had previously worked with the business on a part-time basis.

30. The Applicant also indicated that he would be supported by his friends and especially his best friend, Tchae.

31. The Applicant gave evidence that he had recently completed rehabilitation programs. These included a 12 session drug offender intervention and treatment program by Lives Lived Well and a two-day substance abuse program. The Applicant also completed a day-long foster dog carer program.

    Applicant’s offending

32. The Applicant has been found guilty or convicted of some 80 crimes from 1995 to 2019. He has been sentenced to imprisonment on five occasions. On three of those occasions he has been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 12 months or more. He has also committed almost 40 traffic violations.

33. The Applicant’s offending between 1995 and 2000 is detailed above under his offending history. The Applicant’s first offences involved damaging or destroying property, break and enter type offences and shoplifting. The Applicant began to breach his probation orders and was sentenced to his first term of imprisonment in 1997. In 1998 the Applicant was convicted of breaching the Bail Act, fraud and stealing in breach of his probation order. He was sentenced to 13 months imprisonment for these offences and at the hearing he indicated that he served all 13 months at that time. In 2000 the Applicant was convicted of unauthorised dealing with shop goods and fined.

34. It appears that the Applicant did not offend between 2000 and 2011 although he did commit some 18 traffic offences during this period. The Applicant explained that he did not offend during this period as he was involved in a long term relationship and a child was born of this relationship in 2002. The relationship lasted until 2011 or 2012.

35. From 2011 to 2012, the Applicant committed numerous offences which he attributed to returning to drug addiction. He was not sentenced to imprisonment in relation to these offences. In August 2013, the Applicant was convicted of a number of offences including stealing and breach of probation order and sentenced to an effective term of imprisonment of 6 months. This was the third time that the Applicant had been sentenced to a period of imprisonment.

36. On 14 March 2014, the Department notified the Applicant that it was considering cancelling his visa under section 501 of the Act on character grounds. On 23 June 2014, the Department sent the Applicant a letter indicating that it had decided not to cancel the Applicant’s Visa. That letter included the following formal warning:

    “Please note that visa cancellation may be reconsidered if you commit further offences or otherwise breach the character test in the future. Disregard of this warning will weigh heavily against you if your case is reconsidered.”

37. On 2 April 2015, the Applicant was convicted of a number of offences and sentenced to a number of terms of imprisonment with an effective sentence of 3 years imprisonment. The sentencing judge described the most serious offending as follows:

    “You've been convicted before me of six indictable matters and four summary offences. They all relate to events over the 3rd and 4th of May except in respect of two of the summary matters, one of which involves possession of drugs on the 6th of May which were detected after your arrest on these matters, and a search was made of your premises, and a minor, but earlier offence of stealing some clothing in conjunction with your then partner in January of 2014.

    The offences of the 3rd and 4th of May were serious. You initially unlawfully used a motor vehicle, driving it past the residence of your partner a number of times and then returning it from whence you'd obtained it. That was count 1 and carries a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment, but, as I say, the circumstance of that unlawful use were minor. Subsequently, you returned and again used that motor vehicle. Count 2 relates to your breaking and entering of the Rockhampton Regional Waste and Recycling premises.

    You used that car to drive through the locked front gates causing damage to the gates and then jamming open the lock of an office building. You then removed a safe, detaching it from the floor of those premises. The safe contained $838. The safe itself was later recovered from Gracemere Landfill in an unrepairable condition. The value of the safe was some $3300. So the total loss there was a little in excess of $4000. You refused to provide an interview and made no admissions to police in respect of that matter. That’s count two on the indictment and carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

    Count 3 relates to the unlawful use of the motor vehicle to facilitate the commission of a crime. It’s inextricably wound up with count 4 and count 5 and also with the second summary offence, an assault or obstruct of a police officer, and the third summary offence of driving a motor vehicle without a driver’s license. You used the vehicle to drive to the Yepoon area looking for premises in which to break into. That conduct associated with the use of the vehicle in that way and to which I will subsequently refer is count 3, and it carries a maximum sentence of 10 years imprisonment.

    You saw premises owned by or occupied by Keppel Outdoor Products, and saw a generator through the front windows of those premises. To get to the back of the premises, there were locked chain link gates. You drove through those gates with the vehicle causing damage to the pole and, no doubt, to the Hilux itself. That constitutes count 4, an offence of wilful damage carrying a maximum period of five years imprisonment. You then obtained entry to those premises and removed two generators, placing them in the back of the vehicle. That constitutes count 5, entering with intent by break and stealing and carries a maximum of life imprisonment.

    Police officers observed the damage to the gates and saw, apparently, a flashing alarm light at the premises. They attended and detected you having just placed the generators in the rear of the vehicle. They told you to stop repeatedly. You ignored their requests. Despite their obvious presence, you got in the car, and in a very dangerous manner, rapidly accelerated the vehicle in one of the police officer's direction. He fired his weapon and leap out of the vehicle's path. That constitutes the offence of assault or obstructing police. It's, in my view, a serious example of that offence. It carries a maximum penalty of six months imprisonment.

    You then drove the vehicle through a chain link fence and off a small retaining wall towards a public road. The fence became snagged in your vehicle, and you dragged it along. You began to drive the vehicle onto the roadway, but went out of control and rolled it. That constitutes the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and carries maximum penalty of three year or 200 units. There is a minimum disqualification period in respect of holding or obtaining a driver's licence for a period of six months.

    As I say, there was a small amount of cannabis at your home. You were driving without a licence at the time, and I've mentioned a minor stealing offence.”

1. At the hearing, the Applicant admitted to this offending. However, he said that he never “rapidly accelerated the vehicle in one of the police officer's direction”. Rather, the Applicant claimed that the police officers were standing to the side of the path of the stolen vehicle he was driving.

2. On 3 August 2015, the Applicant’s visa was cancelled under section 501(3A) of the Act on the basis that the Applicant did not pass the character test as set out in section 501(6)(a) of the Act (when read with section 501(7)(c)) as he had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than 12 months and was serving a full-time term of imprisonment.

3. On 4 August 2015, the Applicant sought that the cancellation decision be revoked.

4. On 23 August 2016, the Department wrote to the Applicant indicating that, after considering the Applicant’s representations, that the Minister’s delegate had decided to revoke the cancellation of the Applicants visa. A further warning was given to the Applicant as follows:

   “Please note: the decision to revoke the original decision does not mean that you cannot be reconsidered for cancellation on character grounds in the future in the event of further criminal offending by you.”

5. The Applicant was convicted of further offences without a term of imprisonment being imposed in January, June and December 2018.

6. On 21 March 2019, the Applicant was convicted of a number of offences and sentenced to an effective term of imprisonment of 18 months. The sentencing judge described the most serious offending as follows:

   “BENCH: Yes, this is the sentence against you, Clinton Hale, for a total of 12 matters, the most serious of which are, of course, the enter dwelling with intent that occurred on the 12th of June in the — 1 am when occupants were disturbed starting with the dog barking and then discovering that someone was trying to steal things from the garage. You entered that garage by breaking in but there was also some fracas at the front door trying to break into the front door. The police were called and you were ultimately charged with that serious enter dwelling with intent. The next most serious offence is the entering premises and committing an offence when you entered a motor vehicle that was parked and you were detected as you fairly quickly realised yourself by blood being left behind after you broke through the car window. And then the police came and questioned you and found further matters requiring attendance at your residence fairly soon after.

   On the 29th of July — what were the 29th of July charges again?

   MS DREW: A stealing, the common assault and the unlawful use, your Honour.

   BENCH: That was stealing from the Landcruiser?

   MS DREW: Yes, your Honour. The radio.

   BENCH: Just wait one minute. I left that one off. Yes, so breaking into the Landcruiser on the 29th of July and stealing a UHF radio, that's the same incident where you - just excuse me. Where you coupled that offending with the threat to the witness that, "I'll stab you", which enabled you then to drive off with the motor vehicle. I'm surprised you weren't charged with stealing the motor vehicle as well but anyway these are the charges that are being dealt with before the Court and what I take into account in the sentence is, first of all, your criminal history which is against you despite you've entered pleas of guilty to these 10 charges which is a credit in terms of the Penalties and Sentences Act and the saving to the community.

   Your criminal history is quite clearly against you. Your very first entry, as I've already indicated, back in 1996, break and enter and steal and you were placed on probation. And then follows some six pages of history all fuelled, I would surmise, by an illicit drug problem or — and/or an alcohol problem. You have been a thorough nuisance in the community for a very long time. So much so that by 2015 - Rockhampton District Court — again for entering premises with intent to commit offending — attracted a sentence of three years imprisonment and like today there were other associated charges during that same period of offending from May of 2014 through to about — I can't see the end date but it would have been May — maybe they were all in May of 2014— a spate of offending the same as this spate in June/July of 2018. With the head sentence then at — being three years but other sentences: wilful damage, 12 months; unlawful use of a motor vehicle, six months; assaulting a police officer, six months — or a — assault or obstruct a police officer, six months. And with a parole release date set later on.

   So you did, it looks like, about six months imprisonment before release on parole at that stage. And yet you’re back before the Pine Rivers Magistrates Court last year for stealing and Caboolture Magistrates Court last June for stealing that attracted hefty fines. And so it’s hardly surprising to you that the only appropriate penalty today is a term of imprisonment. Certainly I’ll give you some credit for the attendance at the course work while you were in custody. That’s certainly a good start you’ve got a long way to go.”

7. At the hearing the Applicant admitted to this offending. The Applicant indicated that he returned to consuming drugs on 12 June 2018 after an argument with his girlfriend and began reoffending to fund his drug habit. The Applicant denied that he had ever threatened to stab the female owner of the stolen vehicle from which he was attempting to remove the radio. The Tribunal must accept that the Applicant is guilty of the crimes for which he has been convicted and the material facts which support those convictions: HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 202.

   Tchae Yule

8. Mr Yule provided a written statement to the Department and gave evidence at the hearing in support of the Applicant. Mr Yule is the Applicant’s best friend. They met each other about three years ago when the Applicant moved to Brisbane to live with his then girlfriend. The friends were introduced by a mutual friend from Rockhampton, where the Applicant was raised and had spent most of his life.

9. Mr Yule indicated that the Applicant had told him about his criminal history. He indicated that the Applicant had also told him about the abuse that he suffered when he was 16. Mr Yule indicated that the Applicant had told him that the previous cancellation of his visa had been revoked after the Applicant told the Department about the abuse he had suffered. Mr Yule indicated that the Applicant told him that he believed he could rely on the abuse that he suffered when he was younger to remain permanently in Australia. Mr Yule indicated that the Applicant had told him “you pull that card and they go, all right we’re sorry that happened to you and let him stay”.

10. Mr Yule indicated that he became aware that the Applicant was using drugs in late 2016 or early 2017, some 6 to 9 months after they had met. Mr Yule indicated that he told the Applicant that he needed to sort himself out, maintain employment and stop using drugs. He said that he organised for the Applicant to stay with his parents for about six months. Mr Yule accepted that, notwithstanding his assistance and advice, the Applicant had returned to drug use and criminal offending.

11. Mr Yule indicated that he believed that the Applicant was of good character, that he was not violent by nature, that he had supported Mr Yule and that the Applicant’s offending was purely the result of his drug use.

12. Mr Yule indicated that if the Applicant were allowed to remain in Australia that he would support him in any way possible.

    Ayden Goodluck

13. Mr Goodluck provided a written statement to the Department and gave evidence at the hearing in support of the Applicant.

14. Mr Goodluck indicated that he met the Applicant through a friend in 2016. He said that he owned a removalist business and that the Applicant had previously worked for him “on and off” for about four or five months.

15. Mr Goodluck indicated that he was happy to offer the Applicant employment if he were allowed to remain in Australia. He said that the regularity of the employment would depend on how busy his business was at any given time.

    Shamus Parker

16. Mr Parker provided a written statement to the Department and gave evidence at the hearing in support of the Applicant.

17. Mr Parker indicated that the Applicant had been a good friend and had supported him through difficult times. He indicated that if the Applicant were allowed to remain in Australia he would support him in any way possible. He indicated that the Applicant could reside with him if necessary.

18. Unlike the other two witnesses, Mr Parker indicated that he was not aware of the Applicant’s criminal history.

    PRIMARY CONSIDERATION A: PROTECTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL OR OTHER SERIOUS CONDUCT

19. The Tribunal must have regard to the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct. Paragraph 13.1(2) of the Direction provides that decision-makers should give consideration to:

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

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

    The Nature and Seriousness of the Applicant’s Conduct to Date

20. When assessing the nature and seriousness of a non-citizen’s criminal offending or other conduct to date, paragraph 13.1.1(1) of the Direction specifies that decision-makers must have regard to a number of factors including:

    a)   The principle that, without limiting the range of offences that may be considered serious, violent and/or sexual crimes are viewed very seriously;

    b)   The principle that crimes of a violent nature against women or children are viewed very seriously, regardless of the sentence imposed;

    c)   The principle that crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community (such as the elderly and the disabled), or government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties, are serious;

    d)   Subject to subparagraph (b) above, the sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes;

    e)   The frequency of the non-citizen’s offending and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;

    f)    The cumulative effect of repeated offending;

    g)   Whether the non-citizen has provided false or misleading information to the department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending;

    h)   Whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware, in writing, about the consequences of further offending in terms of the non-citizen’s migration status (noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen’s favour);

    i)    Where the non-citizen is in Australia, that a crime committed while the non-citizen was in immigration detention; during an escape from immigration detention; or after the non-citizen escaped from immigration detention, but before the non-citizen was taken into immigration detention again is serious, as is an offence against section 197A of the Act;

21. The offences committed by the Applicant cannot be described as sexual crimes.

22. While the Applicant has committed crimes of violence, for the most part his offending has involved non-violent offences. The Applicant’s offending does not indicate that the Applicant has any significant propensity for violence. However, some of his offending has been accompanied by what I will call incidental violence. For example, in 2014 the Applicant stole a motor vehicle and used that motor vehicle to break through the gates of properties and to steal a safe and a generator. While he was stealing the generator, the Applicant was confronted by police officers who repeatedly ordered the Applicant to stop. The Applicant disregarded these orders, got into the stolen car “and in a very dangerous manner, rapidly accelerated the vehicle in one of the police officers direction. [the police officer] fired his weapon and leapt out of the vehicles path.” Another example of incidental violence by the Applicant was when, in 2018, he threatened to stab the female owner of a vehicle before driving away in her vehicle. The Applicant also contravened a Domestic Violence Order in 2014.

23. By breaking into people’s houses and their vehicles on numerous occasions, the Applicant has put himself in positions where there is was a real risk that the Applicant would have physical confrontations with the property owners.

24. It is unclear whether any of the victims of the Applicant’s crimes of dishonesty were women or children and the Tribunal is willing to proceed on the basis that they were not (apart from the female car owner who he threatened to stab). The Applicant was convicted of assault for threatening to stab a woman in 2018. He also contravened a domestic violence order in 2014. The Tribunal considers that to the extent that the owners of the homes which the Applicant broke into were at home, the Tribunal would be willing to accept that those victims, who are entitled to feel safe within their homes, were vulnerable. However, the Tribunal places no significant weight on this as increasing the level of seriousness of the Applicant’s offences. The Tribunal has however placed weight on the offences that the Applicant committed involving police officers, especially the offences arising from the incident where the Applicant drove a stolen vehicle towards a police officer who discharged his firearm. The Tribunal considers that this offending was very serious and could easily have resulted in serious injury or the loss of life.

25. It does not appear that the Applicant has provided false or misleading information to the Department such as to justify any significant increase in an assessment of the seriousness of the offending or its nature.

26. The nature of the Applicant’s offending has been described above. The Tribunal considers that the Applicant’s offending conduct primarily consists of drug possession related offences, and crimes of dishonesty such as stealing, fraud, shoplifting and break and enter offences, committed to fund the Applicant’s drug addiction. The Applicant has also breached terms of a domestic violence order, directions or requirements, bail requirements and prohibition orders. The Applicant has also committed some violent offences which appear for the most part to have been related to his crimes of dishonesty. This incidental violence has been discussed above. In addition, the Applicant has committed almost 40 traffic offences which show a disregard for the law and present a risk to the safety of other road users in the community.

27. The Applicant has been found guilty or convicted of some 80 crimes from 1995 to 2019. He has been sentenced to imprisonment on five occasions. On three of those occasions he has been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of 12 months or more. In 2015 the Applicant was sentenced to an effective sentence of 3 years imprisonment and in 2019 the Applicant was sentenced to an effective sentence of 18 months imprisonment.

28. As a general proposition, the Tribunal considers that the Applicant’s offending has become more serious over the years. While many of the offences committed by the Applicant are at the lower end of the spectrum of seriousness, when considering the sheer number and regularity of the offending, the Tribunal considers that the cumulative effect of the Applicant’s offending represents a significant negative effect on the community. The Tribunal also considers that, when viewed cumulatively, the Applicant’s offending has been serious.

29. The Applicant has been formally warned twice that any further offending could result in the cancellation of his visa. The Applicant went on to reoffend after receiving each warning.

30. For the reasons mentioned above the Tribunal considers that the Applicant’s frequent offending is serious.

    The risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct

31. Subparagraph 13.1.2 of the Direction provides that in considering the risk to the Australian community presented by an Applicant, the Tribunal must have regard to the two sub-considerations listed in paragraph 13.1.2(1) of the Direction cumulatively. They are:

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

    b)The likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account available information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen reoffending (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken).

    The nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct

32. The Tribunal finds that if the Applicant were to re-engage in criminal conduct similar to his previous offences, it is likely that the nature of the harm to victims would be that they would have their property stolen or damaged by the Applicant, have their homes broken into by the Applicant and possibly be harmed as a result of incidental violence or dangerous use of a motor vehicle.

    The likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct

33. In this matter there is no expert assessment of the likelihood that the Applicant will reoffend.

34. The Applicant has said that he will never reoffend. He said that he was now 40 years old and that he was too old to continue to take drugs and to get in trouble with the law. The Tribunal considers that this argument is unconvincing given that he was offending when he was 39 years old last year.

35. The Applicant argued that he had strong support from his three friends, an offer of employment and a place to stay and that this would all assist him in abstaining from drugs and committing crime.

36. The Applicant argued that since he was last imprisoned he had completed a 12 session drug offender intervention and treatment program by Lives Lived Well and a two-day substance abuse program. He had also contacted a psychologist to organise for psychological treatment if he were allowed to remain in Australia. The Applicant admitted that he had a problem whereby if he was feeling upset he would resort to drugs to help him feel better and then he would commit crimes of dishonesty to fund his drug addiction. The Applicant indicated that this cycle began when he was abused for a period of months when he was 16 years old.

37. For the purposes of this decision, the Tribunal is willing to accept that the Applicant suffered abuse in the way that he has described. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant’s drug use and ultimately his offending was caused in part by the abuse that he suffered as a 16-year-old. However, the fact that the Applicant indicates that this remains a factor in his more recent offending and will only cease once he receives psychological help from the psychologist is of great concern. While the abuse may provide part of an explanation for the Applicant’s drug use and offending, it also appears to be detrimental to the Applicant’s case in that the Applicant claims that the psychological issues which have arisen from the abuse remain a cause of his more recent drug use and offending. That is, the Applicant claims to have unresolved psychological issues which cause him to revert to drug abuse and offending.

38. The Tribunal has taken into account, in the Applicant’s favour, that for a period of over 10 years between 2000 and 2011, the Applicant managed to refrain from taking drugs and was crime free (apart from traffic offences), for the entirety of that period.

39. However, the Tribunal remains concerned that the Applicant returned to offending on each occasion after being formally warned twice that any further offending could result in the cancellation of his visa. On the last occasion the Applicant’s visa was cancelled. On that occasion, the Applicant wrote to the Department indicating that he would never reoffend. On that occasion the Applicant indicated that he had undergone rehabilitation programs to deal with substance abuse. On that occasion, the Applicant indicated that he had not received the warning letter from May 2014, and that if he had, he would have never reoffended. The Applicant had indicated that his greatest plan was to gradually build a strong relationship with his daughter and to live in the community with his family members in Australia. The Applicant had indicated that he feared that if he were removed from Australia he would not be able to visit family members if they were badly injured or attend funerals for family members.

1. In response to the previous cancellation, the Applicant’s parents indicated that the Applicant was finally aware of the gravity of the situation and that that was the last chance for him to live a normal life with his family in Australia.

2. Notwithstanding the Applicant’s previous assurances, and the belief which his parents had in him, the Applicant went back to drug use and reoffending within 18 months of being released into the community.

3. The Tribunal has taken into account the statements which have been provided in support of the Applicant and the evidence given by his three friends during the hearing. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant’s three friends will try to provide the Applicant with support, accommodation and employment. However, the Applicant reoffended previously despite the support that he had from these friends.

4. In his response to the Respondent’s written contentions the Applicant indicated that he had strong fears that if he had to return to New Zealand, he would “end up in jail quite quickly”. This gives the Tribunal little confidence that he will not be in the same position if he remains in Australia.

5. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant will be less likely to offend if he has ongoing treatment with the psychologist after his release. However overall, the Tribunal considers that it is very likely that the Applicant will return to illicit drug use in the future and is very likely to commit multiple further crimes of dishonesty in order to fund his drug addiction. The Tribunal considers that this conclusion is supported by the Applicant’s long history of drug use and offending; that he has undertaken rehabilitation courses in the past and reoffended; that he has been warned twice that any further offending may result in the cancellation of his visa only to reoffend; and that that on the last occasion that his visa was cancelled he indicated that he understood the consequences of reoffending including separation from family in Australia and reoffended.

   Conclusion: Primary Consideration A

6. The Tribunal has found that, overall, the Applicant’s offending conduct is serious. The nature of the Applicant’s offending involves a history of drug related crime and includes some incidental violence. The Applicant also has an extensive history of committing traffic offences.

7. The Tribunal finds that if the Applicant were to re-engage in criminal conduct similar to his previous offences, it is likely that the nature of the harm to victims would be that they would have their property stolen or damaged by the Applicant, have their homes broken into by the Applicant and possibly be harmed as a result of incidental violence or dangerous use of a motor vehicle.

8. The Tribunal has found there is a high likelihood that the Applicant will reoffend and that this represents a real risk to the Australian community if he is allowed to remain in Australia.

9. After giving thoughtful and thorough consideration to this primary consideration, the Tribunal concludes that the primary consideration of protection of the Australian community weighs against the revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa. The Tribunal considers that the protection of the Australian community and its members are best served by the Applicant no longer being present in Australia.

10. The Tribunal attributes significant weight against revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa to the primary consideration of the protection of the Australian community.

    PRIMARY CONSIDERATION B: THE BEST INTERESTS OF MINOR CHILDREN IN AUSTRALIA

11. Paragraph 13.2(1) of the Direction compels a decision-maker to make a determination about whether revocation is, or is not, in the best interests of a child who may be affected by cancellation of the Applicant’s visa. Paragraphs 13.2(2) and 13.2(3) respectively contain further stipulations. The former provides that, for their interests to be considered, the relevant child (or children) must be under 18 years of age at the time when a decision about whether or not to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision is being made. The latter provides that if there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests may differ.

12. Paragraph 13.2(4) of the Direction provides a list of factors which must be considered under this consideration where relevant. These are:

    (a) 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);

    (b) 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;

    (c) 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;

    (d) 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;

    (e) Whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child;

    (f) Any known views of the child (with those views being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child);

    (g) Evidence that the non-citizen has abused or neglected the child in any way, including physical, sexual and/or mental abuse or neglect; and

    (h) Evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen’s conduct.

13. The Applicant has a 17-year-old daughter in Australia. The Applicant has not had any contact with his daughter since 2012 or 2013 as her mother did not want the child having contact with the Applicant as he was using drugs.

14. The Applicant indicated that he hopes to re-establish contact with his daughter once she turns 18 next year. The Applicant is unlikely to play a parental role in his daughter’s life until she turns 18 years old, when she is no longer a child.

15. The Applicant’s prior conduct in taking drugs and committing crime have resulted in the child’s mother refusing the Applicant any access to the child. As the Tribunal has found that the Applicant is likely to continue to take drugs and reoffend, the Tribunal considers that the Applicant will have no contact with his daughter until she is 18 years old.

16. The Tribunal does not have any evidence from the Applicant’s daughter as to whether it is in her interests that the Applicant be able to remain in Australia. There is no evidence that the Applicant has ever abused his child in any way. There is no evidence of the Applicant’s daughter has suffered any trauma arising from the Applicant’s conduct.

17. For the purposes of this matter, the Tribunal is willing to accept that it is in the best interests of the Applicant’s daughter for the Tribunal to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa so that there will remain a possibility that she can reconnect with the Applicant in Australia. However, given that the Applicant has had no contact with his daughter since 2012 or 2013, this remains very unlikely and the Tribunal places only low weight in the Applicant’s favour on the this consideration as it relates to the Applicant’s daughter.

18. The Applicant indicated that he still has contact with the 10-year-old son of his former partner. That child would have met the Applicant at sometime in late 2016 and would have lived with the Applicant for about two years prior to his most recent detention. The Applicant has indicated that he maintains contact with that child by telephone. As the Applicant has separated from his former partner, the Applicant is unlikely to play a parental role in the 10-year-old’s life.

19. The Tribunal does not have any evidence from the 10-year-old or his mother as to whether it is in his interests that the Applicant be able to remain in Australia. There is no evidence that the Applicant has ever abused this child in any way. There is no evidence of the 10-year-old has suffered any trauma arising from the Applicant’s conduct.

20. For the purposes of this matter, the Tribunal is willing to accept that it is in the best interests of the 10-year-old son of the Applicant’s former partner for the Tribunal to revoke the cancellation of the Applicants Visa so that they will remain a possibility that he can have contact in person with the Applicant in Australia. However, given that the Applicant is not the father of the child and that he separated from the child’s mother, the Tribunal considers that any future contact between the Applicant and this child will be limited. The Tribunal also notes that it will be possible for the child to maintain telephone contact with the Applicant if he is in New Zealand. The Tribunal places very low weight in the Applicant’s favour on this consideration as it relates to this child.

21. The Applicant has a nephew and a niece in their teens and a nephew and two nieces who are five, four, and three years of age respectively. The Applicant has also said that he has had contact with his best friend’s child who is one year old. The Applicant admitted that he has had very little contact with youngest nephew and two younger nieces as he has been either in detention or on drugs while they have been alive. The Applicant explained that he was not welcome around the children when he was on drugs. It appears that the Applicant has spent some time with the one-year-old child of his friend but the Tribunal considers that, given the child’s age, the Applicant’s removal from Australia will have very little effect on the child.

22. The Applicant’s older niece and nephew who are now in their teens previously had a much closer relationship with the Applicant when they were young prior to the Applicant’s return to drug use in 2012. It appears that they have had very little contact with the Applicant since then given that he has been either in detention or on drugs for most of that time.

23. The Tribunal does not have any evidence from his nieces and nephews or their parents, his siblings, as to whether it is in the interests of the children that the Applicant be able to remain in Australia. There is no evidence that the Applicant has ever abused his nieces or nephews in any way. There is no evidence of the nieces and nephews suffering any trauma arising from the Applicant’s conduct.

24. The Applicant’s friend did not assert that it was in his child’s best interests that the Applicant be able to remain in Australia.

25. The Tribunal considers that it is significant that neither the Applicant’s brother or his sisters, the parents of his nieces and nephews, provided statements in support of the Applicant indicating that it was in the best interests of any of their children that the Applicant remain in Australia. Presumably if the Applicant’s brother or sisters thought that the best interests of any of their children would be significantly adversely affected by the Applicant’s absence from their lives, they would have provided a statement to the Department or the Tribunal to that effect.

26. For the purposes of this matter, the Tribunal is willing to accept that it is in the best interests of the Applicant’s nieces and nephews and his friend’s one-year-old son for the Tribunal to revoke the cancellation of the Applicants Visa. However, the Tribunal places only very low weight in the Applicant’s favour on this consideration as it relates to these children.

    Conclusion: Primary Consideration B

27. Overall, the Tribunal accepts that it is in the best interests of each of the children mentioned above for the Tribunal to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa. However for the reasons given above, the Tribunal places only low weight on this consideration in the Applicant’s favour.

    PRIMARY CONSIDERATION C: THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY

28. Paragraph 13.3(1) of the Direction states:

    “The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has breached, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they will breach this trust or where the non-citizen has been convicted of offences in Australia or elsewhere, it may be appropriate to not revoke the mandatory visa cancellation of such a person. Non-revocation 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 hold a visa. Decision-makers should have due regard to the Government’s views in this respect.”

    How are those expectations determined?

29. Paragraph 13.3(1) of the Direction states:

    “The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has breached, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they will breach this trust or where the non-citizen has been convicted of offences in Australia or elsewhere, it may be appropriate to not revoke the mandatory visa cancellation of such a person. Non-revocation 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 hold a visa. Decision-makers should have due regard to the Government’s views in this respect.”

    How are those expectations determined?

30. The decisions of Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[2016] FCA 348; Afu v Minister for Home Affairs[2018] FCA 1311; YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[2017] FCA 1466 and FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs[2019] FCA 500 establish that:

    ·the concept of community expectations is not a matter to be measured as though it is a provable fact. It is not a consideration dealing with any objective, or ascertainable expectations of the Australian community. It is an assessment of community values made on behalf of that community;

    ·it is not for the Tribunal to determine for itself the expectations of the Australian community by reference to an Applicant’s circumstances or evidence about those expectations; and

    ·the Government’s views in relation to community expectations are to be found in the Direction itself. It is open to the Minister to make a statement of the Government’s views as to the expectation of the Australian community, as it has in the Direction, and for the Tribunal to Act on that statement.

31. These principles were confirmed very recently by the Full Court of the Federal Court in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185 (“FYBR”). In FYBR the Full Court also established that the principles in paragraph 6.3 of the Direction, including the principles in paragraph 6.3(5) and paragraph 6.3(7) of the Direction can inform the weight to be attributed to the expectations of the Australian community. The attribution of weight to this consideration is a matter for the relevant decision-maker.

32. In the present case, the Applicant failed to meet the expectation of the Australian community to abide by the law. This expectation was breached by the Applicant’s repeated and frequent breaches of the law. The Tribunal considers that the Australian community expects the Australian Government to cancel the visas of non-citizens if they commit serious crimes in Australia or elsewhere. In the present matter, the Government has acted in accordance with that expectation as was required by section 501(3A) of the Act.

33. The Tribunal considers that the Applicant’s offences were serious and the Direction provides that the Australian community considers that non-citizens who commit serious crimes should generally expect to forfeit the privilege of staying in Australia.

34. Against the expectations of the Australian community in relation to its protection, the Tribunal considers that some weight should be placed, in the Applicant’s favour, on the negative consequences of non-revocation on the Applicant’s family members in Australia.

35. Paragraph 6(5) of the Direction provides that Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal conduct in relation to a non-citizen who has lived in the Australian community for most of their life or from a very young age. The Tribunal has placed significant weight on this principle as the Applicant has lived in Australia for most of his life since he was three years old.

    Conclusion: Primary Consideration C

36. Given the serious nature of the Applicant’s offending and notwithstanding the negative effects on the Applicant’s family members in Australia if the cancellation of his visa is not revoked, and that the Applicant has lived in Australia for most of his life since he was three years old, the Tribunal finds that the consideration of expectations of the Australian community weighs against the revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.

37. However, given that the Tribunal has placed significant weight on the fact that the Applicant has lived in Australia for most of his life since he was three is old, the Tribunal places only moderate weight on this consideration in favour of non-revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.

    OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

38. While the list of “other” considerations in the Direction is not exhaustive, there are five “other considerations” named in the Direction under paragraph 14(1):

    a)     International non-refoulement obligations;

    b)     Strength, nature and duration of ties;

    c)   Impact on Australian business interests;

    d)     Impact on victims;

    e)     Extent of impediments if removed.

    (a)    International non-refoulement obligations

39. Neither party has raised any issue about non-refoulement obligations regarding the Applicant, and no issue arises on the material before the Tribunal. In these circumstances, this consideration is not relevant in this matter.

    (b)    Strength, nature and duration of ties

40. Paragraph 14.2 of the Direction provides:

    … Reflecting the principles at 6.3, decision-makers must have regard to:

    (a)How long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child, noting that:

    i.less weight should be given where the non­citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and

    ii.more weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community.

    (b)The strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia, including the effect of cancellation on the non-citizen's immediate family in Australia (where those family members are Australian citizens, permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely).

41. The Applicant first arrived in Australia in 1982 as a 3 year old. The Applicant lived in New Zealand for 3 years between 1990 and 1993. For much of his adult life, the Applicant has been contributing to the Australian community primarily through paid employment. The Applicant’s first criminal offence occurred in 1995, some 13 years after he first arrived in Australia and 2 years after he returned from New Zealand.

42. The Tribunal has taken into account the Applicant’s statement and the statements provided by his friends in support of him as being relevant to his ties to Australia. The Tribunal has also taken into account the statement provided by his parents in 2015 when his visa was first cancelled.

43. The Tribunal has taken into account that the Applicant has many family members in Australia including his parents, brother and two sisters. The Applicant also has a number of extended family members in Australia. The Tribunal notes that none of his family members provided statements to the Department or the Tribunal in support of the Applicant. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s statement contained in his written contentions that his family members “get so upset and hurt with me doing and making the choices that lead me to jail and in this case immigration again”. The Tribunal is willing to accept that each of these family members will be negatively affected if the Applicant has to relocate to New Zealand.

1. The Tribunal has taken into account that the Applicant has a number of friends in Australia and the Tribunal accepts that those friends may feel deeply saddened at the Applicant’s departure from Australia.

2. The Tribunal has also taken into account under this consideration the hardship to the Applicant which will result if he must leave Australia. If it had not, the Tribunal would have considered this matter as a separate “other” consideration. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant will be severely adversely affected if he has to relocate to New Zealand. While the Applicant lived in New Zealand for three years before arriving in Australia and lived in New Zealand for three years as a teenager, the Applicant has spent the rest of his life in Australia. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant does not have any relations with whom he is close in New Zealand.

3. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant will not initially have any significant support in New Zealand. However, the Tribunal notes that the Applicant was able to establish himself in Brisbane in 2016 and was able to find employment and establish friendships quite soon after his arrival here.

4. Overall, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant has strong and enduring ties to Australia forged over a lifetime. The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs in favour of the revocation of the decision to cancel Applicant’s visa. The Tribunal places significant weight on this consideration in the Applicant’s favour.

   (c)     Impact on Australian business interests

5. Neither party has raised any issue regarding this consideration, and no issue arises on the material before the Tribunal. In these circumstances, this consideration is not relevant in this matter.

   (d)     Impact on victims

   Paragraph 14.4(1) of the Direction provides:

   “Impact of a decision not to revoke on members of the Australian community, including victims of the non-citizen’s criminal behaviour, and the family members of the victim or victims where that information is available and the non-citizen being considered for revocation has been afforded procedural fairness.”

6. There is no direct evidence of the impact of a decision not to revoke on members of the Australian community including victims. The Tribunal considers that the prudent course in the absence of direct evidence of the impact of a non-revocation decision is to place no weight on this consideration. In these circumstances the Tribunal places no weight on this consideration.

   (e)    Extent of impediments if removed

7. Paragraph 14.5 of the Direction provides:

   (1)   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 substantial language or cultural barriers; and

   c)Any social, medical and/or economic support available to them in that country.

8. The Applicant is now 40 years of age. While it is not clear whether the conditions have been diagnosed, the Applicant’s claimed that he has depression and may suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. For the purposes of this decision, the Tribunal is willing to accept that the applicant suffers from depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

9. It does not appear that there are any language or cultural barriers which would act as impediments to the Applicant establishing himself in New Zealand. As a citizen of New Zealand, the Applicant will be entitled to any social, medical and economic support available to New Zealand citizens in New Zealand.

10. The Applicant has, for the most part, been gainfully employed in Australia and has an offer of employment here despite his lengthy criminal record. The Tribunal considers that this augurs well for his employment prospects in New Zealand.

11. The Tribunal finds that the Applicant will face difficulty in re-establishing himself in New Zealand and accepts that the Applicant may initially face difficulties in securing employment in New Zealand. He has lived almost his entire life in Australia and has deep and lasting connections to this country and its people. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant would be very upset if he were permanently removed from Australia. However the Tribunal notes that the Applicant was able to establish himself in Brisbane in 2016, away from his family and friends in Rockhampton, and was able to find employment and establish friendships quite soon after his arrival here.

12. The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs in favour of revocation of the visa cancellation decision. The Tribunal attributes moderate weight to this consideration in the Applicant’s favour.

    Conclusion: Is there Another Reason to Revoke the Cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa?

13. The Tribunal has found that the primary consideration of the protection of the Australian community weighs significantly against revocation of visa cancellation. Similarly, the Tribunal has found that the primary consideration of the expectations of the Australian community weighs moderately against revocation of visa cancellation. The Tribunal has found that the Applicant’s offending history is serious, that there could be harm to Australian citizens and residents if they were repeated and that there is a high likelihood and real risk that the Applicant will re-offend.

14. On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the best interests of a number of children in Australia favour revoking the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa and given low weight to this consideration in the Applicant’s favour.

15. The Tribunal has found that the consideration of the strength, nature and duration of ties of the Applicant to Australia weighs in favour of revocation of the cancellation decision and attributed significant weight to this consideration. The Tribunal has found that the Applicant, his family members and his friends in Australia will be adversely affected if the cancellation decision is not revoked.

16. Finally, the Tribunal has found that the consideration of the extent of impediments if removed weighs in favour of revocation of the cancellation decision and attributed moderate weight to this consideration.

17. The Tribunal considers that it is almost inevitable that the Applicant will re-offend and that revoking the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa will, in all likelihood, only delay the Applicant’s removal from Australia. In those circumstances, even though the Applicant has a strong connection to Australia forged over a lifetime, the community should not have to tolerate the high chance that the Applicant will continue to offend.

18. After considering all of the relevant considerations in this matter and the weight that I have attributed to them, informed by the principles in paragraph 6.3 of the Direction, I have decided that the primary considerations of the protection of the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community outweigh all other considerations in the Applicant’s favour both individually and cumulatively. In all the circumstances in this case, the Tribunal finds that the risk of future harm from the Applicant is unacceptable.

19. The Tribunal has found that the Applicant does not pass the character test and that there is not another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked.

20. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the Minister’s delegate’s decision, to refuse to revoke the decision to cancel the Applicant’s visa, is the correct decision.

    DECISION

21. The decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 172 (one hundred and seventy-two) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member Tigiilagi Eteuati

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

Associate

Dated: 17 December 2019

Date of hearing:

2 December 2019

Applicant:

Self-represented

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Mr Ben Dube

Sparke Helmore Lawyers

EXHIBIT REGISTER

File No      2019/6121................................................................................................................
Between     Hale........................................................................................................ (Applicant)
And            Minister for Home Affairs............................................................... (Respondent)
Heard on    Monday, 2 December 2019.....................................................................................
At               Brisbane..................................................................................................................
Before       Member T Eteuati....................................................................................................

EXHIBIT

DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE

G1

Section 501G ‘G’ Documents provided 11 October 2019
(Paged 1 – 205)

R1

Material returned on summons from the Department of Transport and Main Roads dated 15 October 2019 (Paged 1 – 14)

R2

Material returned on summons from the Queensland Police Service dated 25 October 2019 (Paged 1 – 250)

A1

Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions received 24 October 2019 (Paged 1 – 5)

A2

Applicant’s Submissions in Response received 25 November 2019
(paged 1 -5)

A3

 Letter of Support from Damien Stewart dated 18 October 2019

(Paged 1 – 2)