Henare and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

[2010] AATA 752

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2010] AATA 752

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2010/3112

General Administrative DIVISION		)
Re		Jason Henare

Applicant

And Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member Jill Toohey

Date1 October 2010

PlaceSydney

Decision The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides to exercise its discretion not to cancel the applicant’s visa.

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

Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

IMMIGRATION – visa cancellation - character test - whether Tribunal should exercise discretion to cancel applicant's visa pursuant to s 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958 - Minister’s Direction No 41 applied - primary considerations - other considerations - evidence of low to moderate risk of re-offending - time elapsed since serious offences – Tribunal satisfied that degree of risk not unacceptable - decision under review set aside

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 499, 500, 501, 503

REASONS FOR DECISION

1 October 2010	Senior Member Toohey
Introduction

1.      Jason Henare is a New Zealand citizen.  He is aged thirty-eight.  He came to Australia in 2000 with his then wife and was granted a Special Category Visa by virtue of which, as a New Zealand citizen, he is allowed to remain in Australia, subject to the provisions of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). 

2.      Since arriving in Australia, Mr Henare has been convicted of a number of offences and has been imprisoned twice.

3.      On 23 March 2010, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (the Minister) notified Mr Henare that he intended to cancel his visa on the ground of his substantial criminal record.  On 14 July 2010, having considered Mr Henare’s submissions, the Minister cancelled his visa. 

4.      Mr Henare seeks review of the Minister’s decision.

Legislation

5. By s 501 (2) of the Act, the Minister may cancel a person’s visa if:

(a)the Minister reasonably suspects that the person does not pass the character test; and

(b)the person does not satisfy the Minister that she or he passes the character test.

6.      A person is taken not to pass the character test if she or he has a substantial criminal record.  A person has a substantial criminal record if she or he has been sentenced to a term of 12 months imprisonment or more, or has been sentenced to two or more terms of imprisonment totalling two years or more: ss 501(6) (a) and (7).

7.      It is common ground that, by reason of being sentenced in December 2005 to more than two years’ imprisonment, Mr Henare does not pass the character test and the discretion to cancel his visa is thereby enlivened.

The issue

8.      I have to determine whether the discretion not to cancel Mr Henare’s visa should be exercised in his favour.

Ministerial Direction 41

9. The discretion in s 501 (2) must be exercised in accordance with Direction No. 41 - Visa refusal and cancellation (Direction 41) made by the Minister on 3 June 2009. The Direction is made pursuant to s 499 of the Act and is binding on the Tribunal: ss 499 (1) and (2a).

10.     Direction 41 requires that due consideration be given to the objective of the Act to regulate, in the national interest, the coming into and presence in Australia of non-citizens and, in this regard, to protect the Australian community from unacceptable risks of harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious misconduct by non-citizens: cls 5.1 (2) and 10.1.

11.     By way of general guidance, Direction 41 requires a decision-maker to consider the nature of any harm the person may cause to the Australian community and the risk of that harm occurring: cl 5.2. 

12.     To the extent that they are relevant to the particular case, a decision-maker must take into account four primary considerations:

(a)the protection of the Australian community from serious criminal or other harmful conduct, particularly crimes involving violence;

(b)whether the person was a minor when they began living in Australia;

(c)the length of time that the person has been ordinarily resident in Australia prior to engaging in criminal activity or other relevant conduct;

(d)any relevant international law obligations, including but not limited to, the best interests of the child, as described in the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

13.     Factors relevant to assessing the level of risk of harm to the Australian community of a person’s continued stay include the seriousness and nature of the relevant conduct and the risk that it may be repeated: cl 10.1 (2). 

14.     In considering the seriousness and nature of conduct, crimes of violence or the threat of violence are of special concern to the welfare and safety of the Australian community: cl 10.1.1 (1).  Examples of offences and conduct considered serious are set out in cl 10.1.1 (2).  They include grievous bodily harm and assault. 

15.     The sentence imposed for an offence is considered indicative of the seriousness of the persons’ conduct against the community.  Due regard must be had to the number and nature of offences; the period between offences; and the time elapsed since the most recent offence.  Other relevant factors include evidence from independent and authoritative sources, such as judicial comments and professional psychological reports, and any mitigating factors advanced by the person: cl 10.1.1 (3) and (4).

16.     When assessing the risk that conduct may be repeated, a person’s general conduct and total criminal history are relevant.  Particularly relevant are a recent history of convictions, evidence of rehabilitation and the prospect of further rehabilitation, and evidence of breach of judicial orders: cl 10.1.2. 

17.     Other considerations are set out in cl 11.  They must be taken into account where relevant and, generally, should be given less weight than the primary considerations: cl 11(2). 

18.     Relevant other considerations in this case are:

11 (3(a)            family ties, the nature and extent of any relationships;
11 (3)(d)           any links to the country to which the person would be removed;

11 (3)(e)hardship likely to be experienced by the person or their immediate family members lawfully resident in Australia;

11 (3)(g)whether the person has been formally advised in the past by an officer of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship about conduct that brought the person within the deportation provisions of the Act or the character provision of the Act.

19.     There was some argument before the Tribunal about the significance of changes made by Direction 41 to the previous Direction No 21 made by the Minister on 6 December 2006.  The earlier direction made three matters primary considerations: protection of the Ausralia community; expectations of the Australian community; and, where relevant, best interests of the child or children.  General deterrence was stated to be an important factor going to the protection of the Australian community. 

20.     As Direction 21 was substantially rewritten by Direction 41, there are limits to what can be drawn from particular changes isolated from their context.  However, general deterrence and the expectations of the Australian community are no longer factors stated to be taken into account.  There has been a clear shift in emphasis in Direction 41 away from those considerations and towards protection from serious criminal or other harmful conduct.

Background

21.     Mr Henare has a mother, four brothers and one sister living in New Zealand.  Two siblings have died in motor vehicle accidents.  His father died in 2007.  He has little contact with his family.  He has a son, now aged twenty, who lives in New Zealand.  He separated from his son’s mother in 1992.  He has little contact with his son and no current information about him.

22.     Mr Henare came to Australia in 2000 with his then wife.  They separated in 2003.  He has known his current partner, Tania Larkins, since about 2003.  They started living together in June 2009.  She is a New Zealand citizen and has lived in Australia for twenty five years.  She has a son, aged twenty-two, who lives with her.

23.     When he left school in New Zealand, Mr Henare started an apprenticeship as a butcher but left to make better money on fishing trawlers.  He held a maritime licence, which has now lapsed, to skipper boats up to fifty-six metres long.  He was also licensed to drive heavy vehicles.  By all accounts, he had steady employment.

24.     Mr Henare came to Australia in 2000 intending to travel to Namibia to work on trawlers but ended up staying.  He worked as a forklift driver and then unloading shipping containers.  From late 2000, he ran his own business loading and unloading shipping containers.  When the business folded in late 2003 because of financial problems, he went to work for a transport company where he worked until he was imprisoned in December 2005.  After his release on parole in April 2006, he worked for two transport companies until October 2008, when he was imprisoned for three months. On his release, he went back to work for one of the transport companies until November 2009 when he was imprisoned again.  His sentence expired in July 2010.  He is now in Villawood detention centre pending the outcome of these proceedings.

Mr Henare’s criminal history

25.     New Zealand police records show that Mr Henare was convicted in September 1989 of burglary by night, and in July 1996 of common assault.  The records show what appear to be suspended sentences of one year and six months respectively.  In November 1997, he was disqualified from driving for 6 months and fined $800 for operating a vehicle carelessly and driving with a blood alcohol level above the legal limit.

26. Relying on s 503A of the Act which precludes disclosure of information relevant to the exercise of the power in s 501 in specified circumstances, the Minister has not produced documents disclosing Mr Henare’s complete criminal history in Australia. Mr Henare’s legal representatives have been unable to obtain that information. His history has been pieced together to the best of Mr Henare’s recollection. For the most part, his account has been unchallenged. In the absence of independent information, is difficult to gain a clear picture of his criminal history and parts are confusing. Sentencing remarks throw some light on his history.

27.     In 2001, Mr Henare was convicted of entering enclosed land without lawful excuse and destroying or damaging property.  He gave evidence before this tribunal that he was not aware that he had been charged with this offence.  He recalls being involved in an altercation with a man over the sale of some goods, but not being charged, and he assumes a summons must have issued and been dealt with in his absence.  Mr Henare’s evidence has not been challenged and there is no other evidence about this incident other than a reference in sentencing remarks in 2009 to this offence occurring in 2004 but this appears to be a mistake.

28.     On October 2004, Mr Henare was convicted of common assault and fined.  He gave evidence that this conviction occurred as a result of an argument with his then partner.  Nothing is known about the facts as found by the Court or how much Mr Henare was fined.

29.     In December 2004, Mr Henare was charged with wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm after an incident in which he stabbed a man five times.  In December 2005, he was sentenced to 2 years and 9 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 16 months.  He was released in April 2006.  The sentencing remarks of Judge Nicholson SC set out the circumstances of this incident and what he found to be aggravating features.  These are considered below.

30.     Mr Henare has disclosed that, in October 2006, he was charged with “armed with intent to commit offence/intimidate with intent to cause fear”.  He says he was at a friend’s home; he become very upset and his behaviour led him to being charged.  This account was not challenged.  For the Minister it is said that Mr Henare was convicted in April 2008 of three counts of “stalking/intimidating with intent to cause fear physical/mental harm” and one of “armed with intent to commit indictable offence”.   The 2008 date appears more likely to be correct.  In any event, Mr Henare was ordered to complete 300 hours community service work for these offences.  He completed only nine hours.  He says he was in a bad emotional and financial state at the time; he had no accommodation and no money; he was sleeping in cabins of trucks at his workplace and could not face completing the community service order (CSO).

31.     In 2007, Mr Henare was charged with breaching an Apprehended Violence Order (AVO).  He says this occurred when he went to the home of a woman where her children were present.  Apparently the AVO meant he was not to be present at the same time as her children.  He was fined for the breach.

32.     In October 2008, Mr Henare was found to be driving without ever having held a driver’s licence.  He was imprisoned for three months.  Sentencing remarks indicate that no other option was open to the magistrate.

33.     In November 2009, Mr Henare was charged with driving while disqualified and making a false entry in a log book.  In the course of these charges he was found to be in breach of the CSO.  He was imprisoned for 12 months for the driving offences.  He was sentenced to 9 months, which was reduced on appeal to 6 months, for breaching the CSO.  Sentencing remarks by the appeal judge are considered below.

Notices of intention to cancel visa

34.     Mr Henare has entered Australia several times from New Zealand.  On the first occasion in 2000, and subsequently in 2001 and 2004, he did not disclose his convictions on his incoming passenger card.  He claims he thought “criminal convictions” referred only to custodial sentences until he was correctly advised by an immigration official.  He disclosed his criminal history when he next entered Australia, in July 2007.  This last occasion was before there was any suggestion that his immigration status was at risk.  I found Mr Henare to be a credible witness overall and I accept his explanation.   

35.     On 2 December 2008, a delegate of the Minister notified Mr Henare in writing that his visa was liable to cancellation.  A copy of the notice is not in evidence.  On 13 January 2009, a delegate of the Minister wrote to Mr Henare advising that he had decided not to cancel his visa on this occasion and reminding him that failure to declare criminal convictions and outstanding charges on Government forms would be a breach the law and could have serious consequences.

36.     Documents produced for the Minister show that, on 12 January 2009, a delegate of the Minister noted that the wounding offence in 2004 was “particularly serious” and, together with Mr Henare’s “propensity for violence on earlier occasions”, would normally weigh in favour of visa cancellation; however, it weighed in his favour that, since his release in April 2006, apart from traffic convictions, he had not seriously re-offended.

37.     On 23 March 2010, the Minister issued the notice which led to these proceedings.  It cited Mr Henare’s “substantial criminal history”.

Primary considerations

38.     It is common ground that Mr Henare was an adult when he entered Australia and that there are no children whose best interests might be affected by his removal.  That makes the protection of the Australian community and the length of time he was resident in Australia prior to engaging in criminal conduct the primary considerations relevant to his case.

The protection of the Australian community from serious criminal or other harmful conduct, particularly crimes involving violence

Seriousness and nature of the conduct

39.     There is no question that Mr Henare has convictions for serious criminal offences. 

40.     There is very little information before the Tribunal about Mr Henare’s conviction for common assault in 2004.  The only criminal conviction about which any detail has been provided for the Minister is the stabbing in 2004. 

41.     Sentencing Mr Henare in December 2004 for the offence of wounding with intent to do serious harm, Judge Nicholson SC described how he stabbed his victim, who had formed a relationship with Mr Henare’s former partner, five times causing serious injuries “in circumstances suggesting jealousy and possessiveness”.  He said Mr Henare was motivated by his own sense of grievance.  He found his use of a lethal weapon and the repeated stabbing were serious aggravating features, and it was an aggravating feature that the attack occurred in the victim’s home where he was entitled to feel safe.  He did not think the attack was planned or premeditated but it was done without warning.  He considered that Mr Henare had difficulty accepting the full impact of his criminality and lacked insight into the “appalling violence” inflicted on a so-called friend. 

42.     Judge Nicholson SC also commented on some matters favourable to Mr Henare:  he had a good work record; at the age of thirty-three his criminal record appeared minimal and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, he inferred there was no such record; and he appeared to have used his time in custody reasonably well, completing an anger management course and obtaining a job in the gaol reception.

43.     There is no evidence that Mr Henare has committed any other offence involving actual serious violence, or any other offence of such seriousness, since 2004. 

44.     As noted above, details of the convictions for going armed with intent/stalk/intimidate are limited but there can be no doubt that those are serious offences.   However, it is submitted for Mr Henare, and I accept, that it is relevant that he was originally given a CSO rather than a custodial sentence for these offences.

45.     Mr Henare’s driving offences are undoubtedly serious.  Sentencing him in November 2009, the magistrate commented that “the prospect of having a disqualified person who has never held a licence in New South Wales pushing a B-double up and down the road is to my mind frightening in the extreme to other road users.” 

46.     It is apparent from the magistrate’s sentencing remarks that he had no option but to impose a prison sentence because Mr Henare was no longer eligible for a CSO or periodic detention.  I accept the submission for Mr Henare that his imprisonment on this occasion has to be seen in this light but the transcript shows that the magistrate still regarded his offences as very serious.

47.     It is submitted that the magistrate’s comments should be viewed in light of comments by the appeal judge who reduced his overall sentence and said to him:

You’ve obviously got to control your temper somewhat and you have to realise you can’t drive, not until you get your licence back anyway, or if you’ve got a licence …. Sometimes in life you just have to come to grips with things; in your case, you can’t drive or you’ll go to gaol.  Anyway, I’m giving you chance so good luck to you.

48.     I accept that the appeal judge apparently thought well enough of Mr Henare to give him a chance – although what that meant is not clear from the transcript – and to wish him well.

49.     It is further submitted that, although serious, Mr Henare’s driving offences did not of themselves place anyone in danger and that he had previously held a licence in New Zealand including for heavy vehicles.  I accept that submission.  Despite the magistrate’s comments, there is no evidence that Mr Henare drove in a way that actually posed any danger to anyone.

Risk that the conduct may be repeated

50.     Rima Nasr, a forensic psychologist with five years experience in the criminal justice system, interviewed Mr Henare on one occasion for two and a half hours and spent 40 minutes interviewing Ms Larkin.  She provided a lengthy written report and gave oral evidence.

51.     Ms Nasr gave evidence that factors most strongly correlated with risk of recidivism include criminal history; education and employment; family and marital; leisure and recreation; companions; alcohol and drug problems; pro-criminal attitudes and orientation; and antisocial patterns.  Important additional risk factors include mental illness and personality disorder, and problems associated with impulsivity.

52.     Ms Nasr noted that Mr Henare’s early years were spent in relative stability in a financially secure household.  His parents divorced when he was 13; his relationship with his mother was “great”, whereas his relationship with his father was quite difficult.  He reported few behavioural or academic problems growing up and had a good network of friends.  He had a history of steady employment; his most recent employer continues to support him and has offered him employment on his release.  He drinks occasionally and does not use illicit drugs.  He did not have a history of “early onset offending” which is an important risk factor.  However, he had a pattern of offending, most of which was within a four-year period and related to the breakdown of his relationship with his wife.  His criminal history did not appear to be associated with antisocial peers.  He has stable accommodation and is in a committed relationship.

53.     Ms Nasr considers Mr Henare’s risk of re-offending to be low to moderate on the basis that only two of the major risk factors were revealed in her assessment.  They were his “history of violent and aggressive behaviour” and his breach of previous judicial orders.  She considers his aggressiveness is currently moderated by his stable and supportive relationship with Ms Larkins and that he has apparently matured while in custody.  She thinks his increased maturity also moderates his impulsivity such that it is no longer a significant risk

54.     Ms Nasr reports that Mr Henare impressed her as having “reasonable social, intellectual and occupational potential”.  He seemed to have resolved some of his intense anger toward his former wife but, if he was to remain in his current committed relationship, such issues could arise again and, hence, treatment may be important. 

55.     Mr Henare told Ms Nasr that he has difficulty backing down from confrontation and has poor control of his anger.  He started an anger management program in gaol in 2005 and did a further program in 2006.  He intended to undertake further treatment on his release in December 2009 but he felt he had things under control and did not take this further.  He told her he recognises the importance of continuing treatment to reduce his risk of relapse.  Mr Henare does not appear to have any clear plans for treatment at this stage.  Ms Nasr thought he was waiting on the outcome of these proceedings before going further.

56.     Ms Nasr was asked in cross-examination whether the fact that Mr Henare has not undergone treatment altered her assessment of his risk of re-offending.  She thought that, without treatment, the risk could increase if his relationship broke down but, given he is now in a stable relationship, that was less likely.  Further, that his lack of any mental health or addiction problems, his stable employment and accommodation, and his positive peer relationships would be protective factors.

57.     I accept Ms Nasr’s assessment of Mr Henare’s low to moderate risk of re-offending.  Although she spent a relatively short time with him, her report is thorough and careful and she identifies a range of factors which mitigate his risk.   The fact that he has not undergone treatment makes him vulnerable to relapse but I am satisfied that his relationship with Ms Larkins will motivate him to undergo treatment and, even if not, that it will be an influence for good.

58.     By his own admission, Mr Henare has breached an AVO on one occasion.  He has driven while disqualified.  The fact that he drove without a licence, although not a breach of an order, goes against him because it indicates a disregard for the law. 

59.     Nothing is known about the circumstances that led to the AVO being made against Mr Henare and all that is known about his breach of the order in 2007 is his evidence that the presence of the complainant’s children put him in breach.  I have no reason to doubt his evidence and the fact that he received a fine rather than any other penalty tends to suggest that the breach was not particularly serious.

60.     Mr Henare’s breach of the CSO weighs against his favour.  He barely complied with the order at all and it only came to light when he was charged with driving offences.  There is nothing to suggest he had any intention of ever completing the order.  On the other hand, I accept that he was in difficult circumstances at the time and his record of disregarding judicial orders is not overall particularly serious.

61.     Taking into account all of the evidence going to the protection of the Australian community from serious criminal or other harmful conduct, in particular, that it is 6 years since Mr Henare’s last serious violent offence, and that his risk of re-offending is low to moderate, I find this factor weighs more in his favour than against.

The length of time that the person has been ordinarily resident in Australia prior to engaging in criminal activity or other relevant conduct

62.     Clause 10.3 of Direction 41 provides that more favourable consideration is to be given the longer a person has ordinarily been resident in Australia before engaging in criminal activity or activity that bears negatively on their character.

63.     Mr Henare was in Australia for approximately one year before he was convicted of his first offence.  His next offences occurred in 2004 approximately four years after he arrived, one of which was the stabbing offence.

64.     Although little is known about the first two convictions, nothing about this factor can be said to weigh in Mr Henare’s favour.

Other considerations

Family ties, the nature and extent of any relationships

65.      Mr Henare’s relationship with Ms Larkins appears genuinely stable and committed.  He gave evidence that it has provided him with stability and love that he has not had before. 

66.     Ms Larkins gave evidence before the Tribunal.  She impressed me as a sensible, stable and intelligent woman.  She is a New Zealand citizen and has lived in Australia for 25 years. She has worked for the same employer for 20 years.  She met Mr Henare socially seven years ago.  Their friendship developed after her former partner died suddenly.  She believes their relationship has brought Mr Henare stability and maturity and nurtured in him a desire for a more secure, settled lifestyle.  She describes him as a “kind and giving man” who is genuinely remorseful and talks of a new direction in his life.

67.     Ms Nasr states in her report that Mr Henare revealed to her that he feels deeply for Ms Larkins and this is only the second intimate relationship he has committed to.   Ms Larkins had told her that, in the time she has known Mr Henare, she has noticed him change, being more in control of his anger, more able to make more appropriate decisions and not acting on impulse.  Ms Nasr thought Ms Larkins was genuinely committed to supporting and encouraging Mr Henare to deal with his aggressive tendencies and to undergo treatment. 

68.     I am satisfied that Mr Henare’s positive and supportive relationship with Ms Larkins reduces the risk of him re-offending and weighs strongly in his favour.

Any links to the country to which the person would be removed

69.     Mr Henare gave evidence that he has little contact with his family in New Zealand.  It was put to him that a record of a telephone conversation with an officer of the Department of Immigration in June 2010 gave a different impression; that he had said on that occasion that he was “very close to his mother, his sister and son” and that his family would support him if he returned to New Zealand; he would always be housed and fed, and his mother and sister were wonderful women”.

70.     Mr Henare did not dispute that this conversation occurred but says he felt embarrassed to admit before a female immigration officer that he had no family ties and no support in New Zealand.  Mr Henare impressed me as an honest person and I accept his explanation.

71.     Ms Larkins is very clear that she would not return to New Zealand if Mr Henare was deported.  They would find a way to continue their relationship but her life is here.

72.     Mr Henare says he has spent only a few weeks in New Zealand since leaving in 2000.  He has few contacts and it would be very hard to get accommodation or a job. 

73.     Ms Nasr reports that Mr Henare’s mental health may deteriorate if he is deported and he may become susceptible to depression because of his limited family ties in New Zealand, and his lack of accommodation and family support.

74.      I accept it would be difficult for Mr Henare to resume life in New Zealand.  On the other hand, he lived there until he was 28, he had stable employment and could likely find stable employment and accommodation again in time.  I find this factor weighs only marginally in his favour.

Whether the person has been formally advised in the past about the possibility of a s 501 decision

75.     Mr Henare was formally warned by the Minister for the first time in December 2008 of the possibility of his visa being cancelled.  Since then, in November 2009, he incurred convictions for driving while disqualified and making a false entry in a log book, and he was found to be in breach of his CSO. 

76.     The fact that Mr Henare committed further offences after the first warning is moderated by the fact that he has not committed an offence of serious violence since 2006. 

77.     It is submitted for Mr Henare that, although he has been convicted of serious traffic offences since the first warning, they are not the sort of offences contemplated by Direction 41 as putting the Australian community at risk.  Further, that it is not in dispute that he was licensed to drive heavy vehicles in New Zealand and there is nothing to suggest that he is not a capable driver or was not driving safely at the time he was picked up without a licence.

78.     I accept that the traffic offences are not serious criminal or violent offences that submission can only go so far.  Merely because they are not specifically included in cl 10.1.1 does not mean they are not relevant.  A person’s general conduct is highly relevant to assessing their risk of re-offending: cl 10.1.2.  

79.     On balance, I find this factor weighs slightly against Mr Henare’s favour.

Conclusion

80.     Taking into account all of the considerations in Direction 41, I find they weigh more in Mr Henare’s favour than against.  I am satisfied, on the evidence before me, that he does not present an unacceptable risk of harm to the Australian community.

81.     The decision to cancel Mr Henare’s visa is set aside and in substitution the Tribunal decides to exercise it discretion not to cancel his visa.

I certify that the 81 preceding paragraphs are a
true copy of the reasons for the decision
herein of Senior Member Toohey

Signed:         .................[sgd]...........................................................
           Diana Weston  Associate

Date of Hearing  27 September 2010

Date of Decision  1 October 2010

Solicitor for the Applicant  Mr Peter Bollard, Peter Bollard and Associates

Counsel for the Applicant  Mr Nicholas Poynder

Solicitor for the Respondent:  Ms Laura Weston, DLA Phillips Fox