Henry Contreras and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
[2013] AATA 914
[2013] AATA 914
Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION File Number
2013/5327
Re
Henry Contreras
APPLICANT
And
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal Egon Fice, Senior Member
Date 19 December 2013 Place Melbourne The Tribunal affirms the decision made by a delegate of the Minister on 4 October 2013.
.......[sgd Egon Fice].................................................................
Egon Fice, Senior Member
IMMIGRATION – visa cancellation under s 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – the applicant does not pass the character test – primary considerations – other considerations – protection of the Australian community – risk to the Australian community should the applicant re-offend – strength, duration and nature of ties to Australia – best interests of the children in Australia – International non-refoulment obligations – substantial criminal record
Legislation
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 499, 501
Cases
Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs v Batey (1993) 112 ALR 198
Vaitaiki v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1998) 150 ALR 608
Wan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2001) 107 FCR 133
Secondary Materials
Direction No 55 - Visa Refusal and cancellation under s 501
Conde B, Philippines mental health country profile, International Review of Psychiatry, (February/May 2004) 16 (1-2), 159-166
REASONS FOR DECISION
Egon Fice, Senior Member
19 December 2013
Mr Contreras is a citizen of the Philippines. He is now 33 years of age. He first arrived in Australia with his parents on 12 July 1995, when he was 15 years of age. Prior to its cancellation, Mr Contreras held a Return (Residence) Class BB Subclass 155 (Five Year Resident Return) visa.
In a letter dated 4 October 2013 a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (the Minister) informed Mr Contreras that the Minister had decided to cancel his Visa pursuant to s 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Migration Act). Essentially, the delegate of the Minister suspected that Mr Contreras did not pass the character test.
Section 501(6) sets out the circumstances under which a person does not pass the character test for the purposes of the Migration Act. Included amongst those circumstances is where the person has a substantial criminal record as that expression is defined in s 501(7). Section 501(7) provides that, amongst other things, a person has a substantial criminal record if that person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
Mr Contreras’ criminal record is extensive, commencing in October 1996 when he was charged with the possession of cannabis, using cannabis, unlawful possession and theft. At that time he had been in Australia for just a little over one year and he was 16 years of age. From that date up until his last conviction in October 2011, Mr Contreras committed in excess of 120 offences. While some of those were relatively minor, there are also a number of significantly serious offences. The more significant offences are as follows:
·20 February 1998 – trafficking heroin (two charges) – no conviction recorded but a youth supervision order made for nine months
·9 October 1998 – possessing cannabis – handles/receive/retain stolen goods – traffic heroin and – use heroin – possess regulated weapon (two charges) – nine months detention in a youth training centre
·22 February 1999 – intentionally cause serious injury – 15 months detention in a youth training centre concurrent with existing sentence
·17 March 1999 – possess drug of dependence – seven days detention in youth training centre
·15 July 1999 – possess cannabis – possess regulated weapon – no penalty imposed
·13 March 2001 – possess regulated weapon – fined $750
·23 April 2001 – altering prescription for drug – wilful damage to property – theft from shop – criminal damage – unlawful assault – sentenced to 4 months imprisonment wholly suspended – fined
·24 August 2001 possession of controlled weapon without excuse – imprisonment 14 days wholly suspended
·18 October 2001 – recklessly cause serious injury – assault with weapon – imprisonment 18 months
·10 September 2003 – driving while suspended – possessing and using cannabis – one month prison sentence wholly suspended and fined
·8 December 2003 – multiple drug offences – forging vehicle identifying number – failing to answer bail – handle/receive stolen goods – community based order for 12 months
·10 June 2004 – several breaches of penalty orders – multiple fines and two sentences of one month imprisonment – several drug trafficking offences – imprisonment for up to 12 months – using heroin – drug trafficking offences – possession of unregistered firearm and ammunition without licence – imprisonment for 12 months – multiple fines for use and possession of drugs
·13 June 2007 – possession of controlled weapon and possession of prohibited weapon – imprisonment two months wholly suspended and fine
·25 June 2008 – possession and use of amphetamine – imprisonment for three months – deal in property suspected proceeds crime – imprisonment for three months wholly suspended for six months – breach of intervention order – imprisonment one month
·13 November 2008 – driving while licence suspended – two months imprisonment – unlawful assault – assault with instrument – possession of controlled weapon without excuse – breach of suspended sentence – two months imprisonment
·24 October 2011 – intentionally cause serious injury – prohibited possession of a firearm – traffic heroin – possess cannabis – imprisonment total term six years and four months
Mr Contreras conceded that he did not meet the character test set out in s 501(6) of the Migration Act. Accordingly, the Minister’s discretion to cancel his visa pursuant to s 501(2) was enlivened. Section 501(2) of the Migration Act provides:
(2) The Minister may cancel a visa that has been granted to a person 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 the person passes the character test.
The only question which I am required to resolve is whether the discretion to cancel Mr Contreras’ visa should be exercised. In doing so, I must comply with written directions made by the Minister (s 499(2A) of the Migration Act). The current directions made by the Minister on 28 July 2012 are known as Direction No 55 (the Ministerial Direction).
THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION
The Ministerial Direction sets out the following objectives which are relevant to this matter:
6.1 Objectives
(1) The objective of the Act is to regulate, in the national interest, the coming into, and the presence in, Australia of non-citizens.
(2) Under section 501 of the Act, a person may be refused a visa if the person does not satisfy the decision-maker that they pass the character test. A person may have their visa cancelled if the decision-maker reasonably suspects that the person does not pass the character test, and the person does not satisfy the decision-maker that they pass the character test. Where the discretion to refuse to grant or to cancel a visa is enlivened, the decision-maker must consider whether to exercise the discretion to refuse or cancel the visa given the specific circumstances of the case.
(3)…
By way of general guidance, the Ministerial Direction provides:
6.2 General Guidance
(1) The Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. The principles below are of critical importance in furthering that objective, and reflect community values and standards with respect to determining whether the risk of future harm from a non-citizen is acceptable.
(2) In order to effectively protect the Australian community from harm, and to maintain integrity and public confidence in the character assessment process, decisions about whether a person’s Visa should be refused or cancelled under section 501 should be made in a timely manner once the decision-maker is satisfied that a person does not pass the character test. Timely decisions are also beneficial to the client in providing certainty about their future.
(3)…
The Ministerial Direction sets out the principles underlying the rationale for exercising the discretion in s 501 of the Migration Act. Those relevant to this matter are as follows:
6.3 Principles
(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) A non-citizen who has committed a serious crime, including of a violent or sexual nature, and particularly against vulnerable members of the community such as minors, the elderly or disabled, should generally expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.
(3) 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.
(4) 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.
(5) …
(6)The length of time a non-citizen has been making a positive contribution to the Australian community, and the consequences of 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.
Informed by the Principles to which I have referred above, I must take into account, in this case, the considerations in Part A of the Ministerial Direction. I am also required to determine whether the risk of future harm by a non-citizen is unacceptable. As is stated in paragraph 7(1)(b) of the Ministerial Direction: This requires a balancing exercise, involving a consideration of the likelihood of any future harm, the extent of the potential harm should it occur, and the extent to which, if at all, any risk of future harm should be tolerated by the Australian community.
Paragraph 8 of the Ministerial Direction provides that I must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case, noting there are differing considerations for visa holders and visa applicants as articulated in Parts A and B. The considerations which I must take into account are divided into primary considerations and other considerations. Paragraphs 8(4) and (5) provide:
(4) Primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations.
(5) One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.
Paragraph 9 of Part A sets out the primary considerations for visa holders. It provides:
9. Primary considerations – visa holders
(1) In deciding whether to cancel a person's visa, the following are primary considerations:
(a) Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(b) The strength, duration and nature of the person's ties to Australia;
(c) The best interests of minor children in Australia;
(d) Whether Australia has international non-refoulement obligations to the person.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS
Protection of the Australian community
In considering protection of the Australian community under paragraph 9.1(1) of the Ministerial Direction, I should have regard to the principle that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. Remaining in Australia is a privilege conferred on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community. I must also give consideration to paragraph 9.1(2):
(a)The nature and seriousness of the person’s conduct to date; and
(b)The risk to the Australian community should the person commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
The nature of the seriousness of the conduct
In considering the nature and seriousness of the person’s criminal offending, I must have regard to the following relevant factors:
(a)violent crimes are viewed very seriously;
(b)the principle that conduct which forms the basis for a finding that a person does not pass a character test under s 501(6)(d) is considered to be serious (that section refers to the event that if the person were allowed to remain in Australia there is a significant risk that the person would engage in criminal conduct in Australia or represent a danger to the Australian community or to a segment of that community);
(c)the sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes;
(d)the frequency of the person’s offending and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness; and
(e)whether the person 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 person’s migration status.
There is little room for argument that Mr Contreras’ conduct and criminal offending is not only serious, but was accompanied, on occasions, by violence. Furthermore, Mr Contreras appears to have armed himself, as he claimed, for self-protection, in the course of dealing with drugs to support his own drug habit.
Mr Contreras was first convicted of intentionally causing serious injury in 1999. The sentencing remarks made by his Honour Judge Dyett in the County Court, Criminal Jurisdiction, at Melbourne on 22 February 1999 described how a fight broke out between Mr Contreras and another person over drugs. This incident took place in the home of Mr Contreras’ parents. His parents intervened but Mr Contreras then went into the kitchen and armed himself with a large carving knife. Despite the efforts of his mother and father to stop him, Mr Contreras managed to stab the victim in the neck. Before his father managed to take the knife out of his hand, he tried to stab the victim two more times in the chest-stomach area. His brother, who attempted to prevent the attack, was slightly injured. The victim spent seven days in hospital following emergency surgery and blood transfusions. According to a victim impact statement, he had residual scarring and numbness in parts of the chin and jaw and suffered nightmares and reluctance to venture outside since the attack. Judge Dyett mentioned that Mr Contreras was fortunate that the victim did not bleed to death as a result of his wound.
Judge Dyett also referred to Mr Contreras’ age, which was 18 at the time, and 12 prior convictions between October 1996 and February 1998. By that time, Mr Contreras had been convicted on two charges of being armed with an offensive weapon, 17 charges of handling stolen goods and charges of possessing, trafficking and using drugs dependence. Judge Dyett took into account, in mitigation of penalty, the fact that while in detention awaiting trial, he completed courses directed to drug rehabilitation and anger management. He had also completed the 54 hours necessary to obtain a hospitality certificate which his Honour suggested would prove useful upon his release. Apparently, an aunt, who operated a restaurant or fast food business, said she would provide future employment. Judge Dyett also took into account the fact that Mr Contreras had difficulties at school, having been taunted because he was of a different racial origin. He also took into account Mr Contreras’ inability to maintain employment and his resort to drugs after leaving school including an addiction to heroin. Judge Dyett sentenced Mr Contreras to detention in a youth training centre for 15 months commencing on that day with the term running concurrently with the balance of the detention he was already undergoing.
Regardless, by July 1999, Mr Contreras was again convicted for possession of drugs and a regulated weapon. That pattern continued and included recklessly causing serious injury and assault with a weapon in October 2001. In June 2004 he was convicted of possessing an unregistered firearm and ammunition without a licence. His drug taking and trafficking continued unabated. After those convictions, he was again convicted of possessing a controlled weapon on a number of occasions in June 2007 and November 2008. Finally, in October 2011, Mr Contreras was convicted of intentionally causing serious injury and that involved the use of a firearm where he shot the victim in the leg. On that conviction, he was sentenced to imprisonment for five years and four months although he was also convicted of trafficking heroin and possessing an unregistered firearm which resulted in a total sentence of six years and four months.
In the course of the sentencing hearing, his Honour Judge Punshon said:
On 15 October the victim was at your place to buy “half a gram” of heroin for $200. After the transaction some of the heroin was used by the victim whilst you prepared other sales. You had taken drugs yourself. You left the room leaving a cup containing heroin rocks. On your return you accused the victim of stealing the drugs from you. He denied this but you produced a sawn-off .22 bolt action rifle. You pulled the bolt back causing the shell to drop which you picked up and re-loaded the gun. You then shot the victim in the right leg telling the victim that you knew what you were doing and could have shot him in the head and that he should be thankful you did not shoot him in the knee.
Your partner came into the room and assisted the victim. Two of your young children, one baby and the other four year old were in the vicinity but it seems the four year old saw little. Your partner drove the victim to the hospital. His right femur was fractured midshaft and his right patella was partially displaced.
His Honour also referred to Mr Contreras’ prior offending in the following way:
You have a very extensive prior criminal history, including priors for drug trafficking, firearms offences and other offences concerning weapons together with violent offending including intentionally causing serious injury: this latter offence being dealt with in 1999. On that occasion you wounded your victim in the neck with a knife because you believe he stole Rohypnol from you.
In considering the length of sentence to be imposed, Judge Punshon said:
Your counsel was keen to encourage me not to see your future as hopeless despite your considerable past record. The support from your partner and parents is positive.… As I see it, the central factor that will determine you (sic) future is whether you can remain drug free. Given your history, including your mental state problems, I need to be particularly guarded about your future prospects but all that can be done should be done to encourage you to remain drug free, find employment undertake psychotherapy and continue to be appropriately medicated. Your circumstances are not hopeless.
Given the above evidence, I have no hesitation in finding that Mr Contreras has a history of violent offending involving the use of weapons and that this offending must be considered as very serious. Furthermore, as Ms Graham, the solicitor who appeared on behalf of the Minister, submitted, the sentence imposed by the courts is a relevant factor to take into consideration. She noted that Mr Contreras has been convicted for in excess of 120 criminal offences for which he has received approximately 60 sentences of imprisonment and 20 sentences of youth detention between seven days and five years and three months in duration.
Furthermore, the Ministerial Direction provides that the frequency of a person’s offending and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness is a factor to be taken into account. Ms Graham submitted that in the 13 years prior to being taken into prison for his most recent and most serious offence, the longest period that Mr Contreras had gone without offending was two years. She also submitted that a number of those offences were committed while serving out sentences for prior offending. I agree with that submission because that is what Mr Contreras’ criminal record discloses. Furthermore, I agree that the seriousness has increased, particularly because Mr Contreras has obtained firearms on more than one occasion since about 2004. That evidence not only discloses that Mr Contreras has the ability to obtain such a weapon, but also that he is prepared to use it. That, of course, is a serious concern should Mr Contreras remain in Australia. I also accept the Minister’s contention that Mr Contreras’ conduct is of a nature and extent which presents an unacceptable risk of harm to the Australian community. It is a very significant factor in the exercise of the Minister’s discretion.
In assessing the nature and seriousness of Mr Contreras’ conduct, I must also take into account whether he has been previously formally warned of the consequences of further offending in terms of his migration status. The evidence discloses that Mr Contreras has received two such formal warnings in the past. The first was in 2001, which appeared to follow his convictions on 24 August 2001. In a letter dated 28 September 2002 Mr Contreras wrote to the then Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs referring to the notice (2001/060585) regarding the proposed cancellation of his visa. In that letter, Mr Contreras said:
I have asked forgiveness to my parents and promised to change for good. I will stay with them after my release to live a happy and peaceful life. I have cleansed myself and free from any drug use. I also promise not to associate with the same people as I did before.
I am carefully planning the steps I will undertake when I get out to correct my past mistakes. I have attended and given 100% cooperation on all the rehabilitation and training programs given me to curb and control violence and knowledge to assist me in looking for a job.
Despite what Mr Contreras said in his letter, his next conviction occurred on 18 October 2001, which involved recklessly causing serious injury and assault with a weapon. Following that conviction, there appears to have been a period of approximately 20 months before the criminal offending once again commenced in earnest.
Mr Contreras received his second warning from the then Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs on 8 September 2005. This followed an extensive list of convictions recorded on 10 June 2004. I had in evidence a document signed by Mr Contreras evidencing receipt of that warning notice. However, in the course of his oral evidence, Mr Contreras said that although he received a copy of the receipt page which is signed, he did not recall receiving the letter. Irrespective of whether that is correct, the paragraph immediately above where his signature appears clearly states: I also acknowledge that I can be again considered for refusal or cancellation of any visa granted to me if further information of relevance comes to the attention of the Department at any time in the future. I find that Mr Contreras was aware of the nature of the document which he signed and the fact that he was again being considered for cancellation of his visa. The receipt bears the date 13 October 2005. Despite being aware of the probable consequences of further criminal offending, Mr Contreras’ criminal offending continued with the next conviction recorded on 28 November 2006.
The risk to the Australian community
Paragraph 9.1.2 of the Ministerial Direction provides:
(1)In considering whether the person represents an unacceptable risk of harm to individuals, groups or institutions in the Australian community, decision-makers should have regard to the principle that the Australian community’s tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable. In making this assessment, decision-makers must have regard to, cumulatively:
(a)The nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the person engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and
(b)The likelihood of the person engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account:
(i) information and evidence on the risk of the person reoffending; and
(ii) evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken).
There cannot be any doubt about the fact that should Mr Contreras engage in similar criminal conduct in the future, the nature of the harm that could be suffered by individuals or the Australian community is extremely serious. Upon release from prison, should Mr Contreras resume his drug habit, which would most likely lead to drug trafficking given that his opportunities for full time employment following release appear to be remote, it is foreseeable that he would once again arm himself for protection as he claimed he did in the past. Having unlawful access to firearms is of grave concern in this case. In fact, the harm which could be caused if his conduct were repeated is so serious that any real risk that it may be repeated would be unacceptable.
Whether Mr Contreras is likely to engage in criminal conduct of the kind for which he has been convicted in the past is, in my opinion, of critical importance in this case. There are two points which need to be made about this. The first is that in using the expression real risk, I am using that expression in a qualitative sense. The second point is that I also need to look at the expression real risk as used in a quantitative sense, that is, the degree of probability that such a risk would arise. This distinction was explained by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia in Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairsv Batey (1993) 112 ALR 198 where the Court (Spender, Foster and Cooper JJ) said, at 205 - 206:
The word “real” may be used to describe the qualitative nature of a risk or chance. In this sense it is used to describe something which is not far-fetched or fanciful. Use of the word in its qualitative sense is most clearly seen in the treatment of risk of injury in the law of negligence.
…
As appears from the observations of Mason J in Wyong Shire Council v Shirt, there is no inconsistency in finding that risk is real, in the sense that it is not far-fetched or fanciful, yet the degree of probability of its occurrence is quantitatively low. Such a course is rationally open provided that the word “real” is used in a qualitative and not a quantitative sense to describe the risk.
Mr Contreras contended that his criminal conduct was primarily due to his drug addiction. In fact, as I have set out above, Judge Punshon said in his sentencing remarks that the central factor which will determine Mr Contreras’s future is whether he can remain drug-free. While this is clearly a predictive exercise fraught with possibility for error, the best I can do is to examine past conduct and in particular, his more recent past conduct, for evidence of change in behaviour and future intention. Little if any weight can be given to what Mr Contreras says he will do in the future. Such statements are, even with the most sincere intention, by their very nature, self-serving.
In a written statement provided by Mr Contreras dated 29 November 2013, which was admitted into evidence, he set out the programs and courses he completed during his last term of imprisonment. They were:
·Staying Safe in the Community – 11 February 2010
·Prescription Medication & Me – 12 March 2010
·Communication Skills – 31 March 2010
·Breaking the Cycle Drug & Alcohol – 3 May 2010
·Conflict Management – 23 June 2010
·Mood Management – 29 July 2011
·Stimulants and Me – 6 October 2010
·Introduction to Anger Management – 9 March 2011
·Introduction to Problem Solving – 29 April 2011
In addition to the above, Mr Contreras said he engaged in three more intense and complex programs while at Fulham Correctional Centre. They were:
·Exploring Change (6 sessions) – 10 October 2012
·Semi-Intensive Drug Treatment (40 x 2 hour sessions) – 13 September 2012
·High Intensity Violence Intervention Program – 17 May 2013
The problem with Mr Contreras’ evidence is that the cycle of criminal behaviour simply appears to have been repeated. In a letter written by Mr Contreras’ mother dated 31 August 2002, when seeking to not have the Minister cancel his visa, she mentioned a number of courses which Mr Contreras completed in respect of Occupational Health & Safety, materials handling, forklift operation, hospitality, bodybuilding and horticulture. Apparently he was also attending year 10 subjects to make up for lost years in school. She said he had been trying hard to correct past mistakes. Further, in a letter signed by all of the family members which is dated 31 August 2002, it is mentioned that he had been very serious and cooperative in the programs given to him for self-improvement. It was also stated that Mr Contreras had matured and wanted to be a law-abiding and productive member of the community. There is also a reference to a number of special program certificates which he received in respect of the courses completed. Despite this, the cycle of criminal offending continued. I have referred to what Judge Dyett said in the course of his sentencing remarks about Mr Contreras having completed courses directed to drug rehabilitation and anger management. Those courses appear to have been ineffective.
The cycle started again in 2005 when Mr Contreras was again threatened with visa cancellation following his imprisonment for a 12 month period. I had in evidence a certificate indicating he completed a Relapse Prevention course on 24 February 2005 and an Alcohol & Other Drugs course completed on 22 October 2004. Mr Contreras apparently also completed an Introduction to Anger management course on 11 September 2008 and a further Alcohol & Other Drugs program on 26 September 2008.
I also had in evidence a Victorian Intervention Screening Assessment Tool (VISAT) which was completed on 28 June 2008. That document recorded that Mr Contreras was a heavy drug user and on methadone. It also recorded that there were disputes between him and his partner and that he was going back and forth between the house he shared with his partner and his parents’ house due to disputes with his partner. In the summary of assessment, Mr Contreras’ general risk of reoffending was described as: High.
I had in evidence a second VISAT report which was completed on 4 November 2011. That report stated there were eight recorded incidents in custody between December 2001 and March 2010. Three of those incidents were described as other drug; one was an assault of a prisoner; one related to medical; two in respect of good order and one of unauthorised smoking. The case notes relating to Module 5 of that report states: Of concern was that Mr Contreras admitted his partner was also a drug user and he was selling drugs to support both of their addictions. The case notes on Module 7 record Mr Contreras as acknowledging having numerous associates who are involved in drug use. The case notes under Module 9 are of concern. There it is stated:
Mr Contreras appeared to condone his actions by openly stating that trafficking heroin was designed to support his habit, his partner’s habit and the children – he appeared to deem this rationalisation acceptable. Throughout the assessment, he did not acknowledge the severity and violent nature of his offences including failing to see an issue with stabbing/shooting the victims.
Mr Contreras failed in general to display any empathy, or understanding of the negative impact of his offending upon victims, particularly those of violent offending. He seemed to have fabricated reasons or excuses, which for him justified his actions e.g. the victims stole from him.
The summary of assessment made on 4 November 2011 recorded Mr Contreras’ general risk of reoffending as: High.
On 17 August 2012 Mr Contreras was the subject of a targeted urine analysis test for drugs. He tested positive to cannabis. When asked in cross-examination why he used cannabis on that occasion, Mr Contreras simply said he was under pressure. Other than that occasion, Mr Contreras appears to have been drug-free while in prison.
On 10 September 2012 Mr Contreras underwent a specialist assessment and management plan for the purposes of having him complete a Violence Treatment Program. The assessment report is a summary of a clinical assessment conducted by the staff of Fulham Correctional Centre. The report indicates that Mr Contreras initially presented as very enthusiastic about completing the clinical assessment because he wanted to participate in the Violence Intervention Program (VIP) to better his life. He was forthcoming with information regarding his substance dependence and offending behaviour. However, after a short break, Mr Contreras returned with a different demeanour and appeared reluctant to disclose information and was observed to be fidgety, vague and noncommittal in his response. The assessors concluded that Mr Contreras had been cautioned about disclosures during such interviews and was therefore reluctant to discuss his substance abuse and offending behaviour. He reluctantly continued and completed the interview.
The report also noted that on giving an account of the incident where the victim was shot, Mr Contreras said he got the gun and there was a scuffle, then the victim was accidentally shot in the leg when the gun went off. This of course is contrary to the Judge’s sentencing remarks made on 24 October 2011. Apparently, Mr Contreras maintained the shooting was accidental.
Mr Contreras also completed a Violence Risk Scale (VRS) which, according to the report, is an instrument which measures both static (historical) and dynamic (changeable) risk factors that underpinned violent offending. The report indicates that the VRS is designed to estimate the probability of violent recidivism among adult offenders. Mr Contreras’ scores on this instrument fell into the High Risk Category. According to the report, that means Mr Contreras has a higher probability than others who do not fall into this category of committing further violent offences. The authors of the report were of the opinion that based on review of the available dispositional and file information and Mr Contreras’ responses in the clinical interview, this score was consistent.
I also had in evidence a treatment completion report and management plan in respect of a High Intensity Violence Intervention Program (VIP) conducted at Fulham Correctional Centre. The program lasted for nine months. The report states its purpose to be to help participants reduce their risk of violent re-offending. While the report indicates that Mr Contreras appeared motivated to address his violent offending behaviour and identified boredom and financial difficulties as significant risk factor, upon completion of the programme his VRS score indicated he remained in the moderate risk category. The report also noted that Mr Contreras needed to continue with the methadone program in order to reduce the risk of him relapsing into drug misuse in the future. In cross-examination, Mr Contreras said he had reduced the quantity of methadone he required from 80 mg to about 65 mg.
There cannot be any question about the fact that despite the rehabilitation programs in which Mr Contreras has participated, there remains a real risk of recidivism. The risk is not merely speculative or fanciful. Furthermore, although quantitatively that risk has reduced from high to moderate, it nevertheless remains significant. In fact, it appears entirely dependent on whether Mr Contreras is able to overcome his drug addiction. At the present time, he has not done so. He remains on a methadone program. The evidence before me also indicates that when under pressure, Mr Contreras resorted to using cannabis in prison despite being fully aware of the regular random drug testing conducted in that environment. Also, the VIP program identified boredom and financial difficulties as significant risk factors. Although Mr Contreras has been offered a job on his release from prison, that work is for one day per week only. He admitted in cross-examination that his earnings from that work would not be sufficient to sustain him, his partner and four children. Furthermore, he would have much spare time on his hands. In these circumstances, I find it is accurate to conclude that Mr Contreras, when released back into the community, nevertheless presents as a very real risk of reoffending.
The Minister also contended that due to the extent and seriousness of the crimes committed by Mr Contreras and in particular the numerous violent offences involving use of a weapon including firearms, the consequences of him reoffending are extremely grave. In my opinion, the evidence supports that contention and I find that any risk of him re-offending is wholly unacceptable to the Australian community.
The strength, duration and nature of Mr Contreras’ ties to Australia
The second primary consideration which must be taken into account is the strength, duration and nature of the person’s ties to Australia. Paragraph 9.2 provides:
(1)Reflecting the principles at 6.3, decision-makers must have regard to:
(a)How long the person has resided in Australia, including whether the person arrived as a young child, noting that:
(i) Less weight should be given where the person began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and
(ii) More weight should be given to time the person has spent contributing positively to the Australian community.
(b)The strength, duration and nature of any family, social and/or employment links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.
Mr Contreras has resided in Australia exclusively since he was 15 years of age. He has now been resident in Australia for the past 18 years. Therefore, although Mr Contreras was child when he arrived in Australia, he could not properly be described as a young child. He was approaching adulthood.
Mr Contreras was convicted of his first offences on 2 October 1996, some 15 months after arriving in Australia. Thereafter, his offending and convictions escalated and became a regular pattern, broken only by periods of detention in either a youth training centre or prison. His first weapons related offence occurred in 1999 as did his conviction for intentionally causing serious injury. This occurred some 3 ½ years after first arriving in Australia. As the Minister contended, since arriving in Australia, Mr Contreras has only spent about two years in the Australian community without committing an offence. In fact, it is fair to say that since he first came to Australia, much of his time has been spent in detention. There was no evidence of any positive contribution to the Australian community.
Mr Contreras’ parents, brother and sister, partner and children all reside in Australia. He has fathered three children whose ages are 9 years, 7 years and 4 years. He also has a step child born to his partner out of another relationship. That child is 12 years of age. All of these persons are Australian citizens.
Mr Contreras’ parents, brother, sister, and partner provided written statements which were taken into evidence and, except for his brother, who was unavailable at the time of the hearing, gave oral evidence. All indicated that they were willing to assist and support Mr Contreras should he remain Australia following his release from prison. His partner, understandably, is very concerned for her children and the effect on them should Mr Contreras not be permitted to remain in Australia. She has a number of medical conditions and at present is on 10 mL of methadone reducing by 1 mL every two weeks. She also said that she and Mr Contreras planned to marry upon his release. She acknowledged the difficult history but nevertheless maintained her relationship with Mr Contreras remained strong. Financially, she is dependent upon social security payments.
Mr Contreras’ parents said they were willing to assist by providing guidance and support to get back to normal life in the community. They suggested that they may be able to offer some financial support.
Mr Contreras’ brother and sister also pledged to support him on his release. His sister also said she could offer financial assistance should it be needed.
I also had in evidence a statement prepared by a former employer of Mr Contreras who said that he had worked for him at the market between 1996 and 2005, on most weekends. He said he found him to be a good and reliable worker over that period of time. On his release, he has offered to him employment in a similar role, for one day per week.
The visitor records from Fulham Correctional Centre disclose Mr Contreras’ parents to be regular visitors and his partner an occasional visitor. His brother and sister do not appear to have visited him since the commencement of those records, being 1 October 2009. The telephone call activity records from the Melbourne Assessment Prison and from Fulham disclose that his partner has been in regular contact with Mr Contreras since 2009.
While I do not for one moment intend to suggest that the offers of support are not genuine, similar statements of support were made by Mr Contreras’ family and partner in 2002 and again in 2005. Whether or not that support was in fact given to Mr Contreras, sadly, it has not had any noticeable effect on him. Furthermore, and for the purposes of paragraph 9.2 of the Ministerial Direction, while Mr Contreras appears to maintain the support of his partner and family, the evidence does not disclose any other significant connections to Australia. Also, less weight should be given to the connections he has with his partner and family given that he commenced offending soon after arriving in Australia.
Best interests of children in Australia
The third primary consideration requires me to make a determination about whether the cancellation is or is not in the best interests of minor children which may be affected by the decision. Furthermore, where 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. In Mr Contreras’ case, this consideration must be applied to all four of the children I have referred to above, as they are less than 18 years of age.
Paragraph 9.3(4) of the Ministerial Direction provides:
(4) In considering the best interests of the child, the following factors must be considered where relevant:
(a)The nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the person. 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 person 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 person’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 person would have on the child, taking into account the child’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)…
(h)….
Mr Mukherji of counsel, who appeared on behalf of Mr Contreras, in his closing submissions referred to the Full Court of the Federal Court decisions in Vaitaiki v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1998) 150 ALR 608 and Wan v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2001) 107 FCR 133. The essence of those cases, which were decided well before the current Ministerial Direction came into effect, is that considerations regarding the best interests of children must be regarded as a primary consideration. The current Ministerial Direction makes that much clear. Also, the decisions made at first instance in both cases appeared to treat the consideration of the interests of the children as though it was given that in Vaitaiki, the father would be deported; and in Wan, the father would be refused a visa. I should avoid doing so. In other words, I am required to give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the children’s best interest.
Mr Contreras’ partner gave evidence at his sentence hearing on 24 October 2011 regarding the difficulties she was having coping with care of her four children. As I understood it, this evidence was given in respect of a plea for a non-custodial sentence. His Honour Judge Punshon said, at [34]:
She [the partner] has her own problems. She suffers anxiety and depression and has been recently diagnosed with a bipolar disorder. She has been on methadone since 2004 and relapsed into heroin use last year when her brother died, which set back her methadone dosage. Her doctor noted that she is trying to cope alone but your absence is having an adverse impact. The three older children also have problems. The oldest is displaying emotional problems, bed wetting and aggression. The middle child is withdrawn and is aggressive to her siblings. Third child has regressed and is sucking a dummy. He also has sensory problems and fears abandonment. There are financial problems. The baby also has sensory problems and is sleeping poorly.… Your parents work and can only provide limited help.… Your partner said the older three children, especially your seven-year-old daughter, are close to you.
Mr Mukherji submitted that the older children are close to Mr Contreras and his removal from Australia in these circumstances could only have a negative impact on their development.
In her written statement, Mr Contreras’ partner said that the children cry out for their father always wanting him and they thought he would be home for Christmas. She did not have the heart to tell them what is happening. She said they would suffer emotionally as they have made plans about what they will do when he comes home.
I also had in evidence a written statement from Dr B Radcliffe, a medical practitioner with a diploma in family therapy. Mr Contreras’ partner was a patient of Dr Radcliffe. In her statement Dr Radcliffe said that the partner was not capable of maintaining 24 hour seven days per week care for the children independently and was unable to afford childcare. She also described the partner’s problems in managing the children’s behaviour when anxious, fatigued and stressed with the result that she becomes emotionally withdrawn when overloaded. She said this is liable to cause significant psychological detriment to the children.
In his written statement which was taken into evidence, Mr Contreras said that early in the course of his sentence, his partner brought all four children to see him but it was difficult because he was limited to what are described as box visits, where the parties do not have contact. After a period of some three months, his partner and the children were allowed contact visits. However, the situation changed when his partner’s brother accidentally died. His partner did not visit him for almost one year. However, Mr Contreras’ father and mother continued to bring the children with them when they visited. Mr Contreras also said in a statement that the decision made by the Minister has also increased emotional pressure on his partner because she is now threatened with having to raise children on her own without support from him. He said that losing his support for a number of years while he has been in jail has been damaging but that permanent separation is something which his partner cannot discuss rationally.
The possible deleterious effect on the children of separation from Mr Contreras was canvassed at some length in the sentence hearing on 24 October 2011. Judge Punshon pointed out that Mr Contreras’ partner had an intervention order against him in the past. She required him to leave the house after the shooting and pointed out that the shooting occurred not long after his release from prison in early 2009. His Honour then said:
You were spending time both at and away from home in the weeks leading up to the shooting. Your partner will not have you in the house when you are using “ice”. When you were in prison she complained about your failure to properly support her and the children. You responded by saying it was difficult because you had to sell drugs to support two habits. After the shooting you were away from the house for about six weeks and then returned about two weeks before your arrest in December 2009. This was at your partner’s request so that you could assist the family. She said you behaved well during this period.
Judge Punshon then said that he was reluctant to conclude, in the absence of professional evidence, that Mr Contreras’ absence from home produced behavioural problems in the children which would be ameliorated by his return. He then said:
Additionally, I said I was unlikely to conclude that your return to the family would be beneficial to the welfare of your partner and children. Clearly, if you were using drugs this would not be so. The risk of you reverting to drug use in the community is real, despite your progress in prison.
His Honour adjourned the hearing to enable a psychological report to be tendered. Having obtained that report, Judge Punshon said it emphasised the benefits that his return to the family might potentially bring while at the same time recognising that his presence would be deleterious if he reverted to drug abuse.
There are, however, a number of very significant problems with Mr Contreras’ claim of a close relationship with his children, in particular the older two. In June 2004 Mr Contreras was sentenced to a total effective term of imprisonment of one year and nine months. That would mean that Mr Contreras was released in about March 2006. Therefore, at the time of his release, the oldest child was about four years and the next child about two years of age. It appears he was then imprisoned again for what appears to be period of two months at the end of 2008, which would mean that his release was in early 2009. By that time, the third child had been born and was about two years of age while the first two children were approximately six years and four years of age. While the final conviction was handed down in October 2011, Mr Contreras was taken into the Melbourne Assessment Prison (on remand) in about December 2009. In fact Judge Punshon noted that he had been in custody since his arrest and had served 672 days by way of pre-sentence detention. At that time, his youngest child was about five months of age. It should be readily apparent that Mr Contreras has had little contact with his children between 2004 and 2013. Much of the contact which he had would have been while he was in some form of detention. It would be difficult in those circumstances and given the long period of absence, to say that Mr Contreras has played a positive parental role in respect of any of his children.
Mr Contreras continued to father children at a time when both he and his partner were using drugs and he was trafficking drugs. In fact, Mr Contreras was in and out of prison during this period of time but continuing to use and traffic drugs when not in detention. I cannot accept that during this period of time Mr Contreras adopted any responsible parental role towards his children. While I have no evidence before me as to what effect his past conduct might have on the children, I cannot accept that it will be positive.
As to the future, while that is almost impossible to predict with any degree of accuracy in the circumstances of this case, one thing remains clear. Should Mr Contreras revert to his past criminal activities, there can be no doubt that as the children get older and more fully understand the nature of those activities, it is highly likely that the effect on them will be negative. That, coupled with the most recent report indicating Mr Contreras remains at least at a medium risk of reverting to his criminal activities once released from prison, does not permit a finding that Mr Contreras is likely to play a positive parental role in the future. In fact, given the two prior warnings about the cancellation of his visa should his criminal offending continue, and the long periods of incarceration which are, in part, designed to deter such conduct, I have no confidence that the children’s best interests are served by Mr Contreras remaining in close contact with them.
I am concerned however whether there is another responsible person or persons who are able to fulfil a parental role in respect of the children. His parents are elderly and do not appear to be in the best of health. Nevertheless, they have assisted in the past and I have no doubt that they will do so in the future should that become necessary. As for Mr Contreras’ partner, I can only hope that she will remain drug-free and, with the assistance of other members of Mr Contreras’ family, be able to give the children a reasonable opportunity for a meaningful life.
International non-refoulement obligations
I had no evidence that any non-refoulement obligations arise in this case. Therefore, this fourth primary consideration is not relevant.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Paragraph 10 of the Ministerial Direction sets out the other considerations which must be taken into account where relevant. Relevantly, it provides:
(1)In deciding whether to cancel a visa, other considerations must be taken into account where relevant. These considerations include (but are not limited to):
(a)Effect of cancellation of the person’s visa on the person’s immediate family in Australia, if those family members are Australian citizens, permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely;
(b)…
(c)Impact of a decision not to cancel a visa on members of the Australian community, including victims of the person’s criminal behaviour, and the family members of the victim or victims where that information is available and the person being considered for visa cancellation has been afforded procedural fairness;
(d)The extent of any impediments that the person 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:
(i) The person’s age and health;
(ii) Whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and
(iii) Any social, medical and/or economic support available to them in that country.
Effect on immediate family
The evidence was that Mr Contreras’ immediate family, including his partner, all reside in Australia. They are Australian citizens. The removal of Mr Contreras from Australia would appear to likely have the most significant effect on his partner and their four children. The partner’s General Practitioner explained a number of psychological problems experienced by the partner and expressed the opinion that the decision to cancel Mr Contreras’s visa, forcing him to leave Australia, was having a devastating impact on the partner’s mental health and would impact the children extremely detrimentally both through the loss of their father and the impact of this decision on the partner. Although accepting this evidence, the Minister contended that the likelihood of Mr Contreras reverting to his drug habit and criminal behaviour would also have a significant adverse effect of the family.
Mr Contreras’ mother referred to her failing health and concern for her own mental state should her son be forced to leave Australia.
While I accept the evidence regarding the effect of the visa cancellation on Mr Contreras’ partner and their children, given the substantial risk which remains that Mr Contreras will revert to his former criminal behaviour, and the fact that realistically, Mr Contreras has had limited contact and involvement with his immediate family, including his children, it is likely that little will change should Mr Contreras’ visa be cancelled.
Impediments Mr Contreras may face if removed from Australia
Mr Mukherji submitted that Mr Contreras would face significant impediments if removed from Australia to the Philippines. The evidence was that he had spent all of his adult life in Australia and had no contact with anyone in the Philippines since he was 15 years of age. The Minister contended that Mr Contreras spent his formative years in the Philippines and that there would be limited cultural or linguistic impediments to him returning to the Philippines.
Mr Contreras’ oral evidence was that his command of the language in the Philippines was basic and that it could cause him some problems. He also gave evidence of having some more distant relatives (uncles and cousins) in the Philippines but that he had never had contact with them since leaving that country. I accept that he may have some difficulty in integrating into Filipino society, particularly given the cultural differences between Australia and the Philippines. Although Mr Contreras said in evidence that his chances of obtaining employment in the Philippines were remote, I had no objective evidence of that. He also expressed concern that he would not be able to earn sufficient money in order to pay for his partner and the four children to visit him in the Philippines. While I accept that may well be the case, there was no evidence before me regarding the employment situation in that country and therefore for me to express an opinion about that would be simply speculation.
Mr Contreras also claimed he suffered from a number of serious illnesses, including hepatitis C, stomach ulcers and depression. His evidence was that he was on a methadone program in an attempt to rid him of his heroin addiction. Although Mr Mukherji submitted that Mr Contreras was unlikely to be able to obtain adequate medical treatment for his medical issues, including a methadone treatment program, and he referred to an article published in International Review of Psychiatry (February/May 2004), quite plainly that article is outdated. Nevertheless, it indicated that only 2 – 3% of the national budget was allocated to health care which was below the World Health Organisation’s recommendations for developing countries. However, without more up-to-date evidentiary material, I cannot make any findings regarding whether Mr Contreras may have difficulty in obtaining adequate medical treatment for his conditions in the Philippines.
Mr Mukherji also submitted that Mr Contreras’ current status as a former drug user was fragile. It was only with the support of his family and the health services available in Australia that he has been able to maintain his drug free status. With respect, that is not entirely accurate. Given that his prison record shows a positive drug test on 17 August 2012, and the fact that he remains on a methadone program, it is inaccurate to describe him as maintaining a drug free status. In fact, his history of criminal offending, which is likely to be the best indicator of his future conduct, discloses that as soon as he is released from detention, he has slipped back into drug using and dealing, and also violent conduct. That has occurred despite Mr Contreras completing a number of courses and making promises that he would not reoffend. Clearly, his risk of reoffending remains real and the probability of that occurring is moderately high. In fact the evidence discloses that the risk of reoffending remains whether Mr Contreras remains in Australia or whether he is returned to the Philippines.
In my opinion, the Minister’s contention that the Philippines has a functioning medical treatment system available to its citizens which would enable Mr Contreras to maintain basic living standards in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of the Philippines should be accepted.
WEIGHING UP THE CONSIDERATIONS
The first primary consideration, the protection of the Australian community, weighs heavily in favour of cancelling Mr Contreras’ visa. His criminal offending, which commenced a little over one year after he arrived in Australia, has been ongoing, extensive and extremely serious. In fact, the seriousness has increased since the offending commenced such that Mr Contreras’ violent conduct has led to an attack with a kitchen knife which left the victim seriously injured and the shooting of one person, who it appears was lucky to have survived that incident. Mr Contreras has been convicted of numerous weapons offences since 2003.
All of his offending occurred despite a number of sentences involving detention and two formal threats by the Minister to cancel his visa. Despite promises that he would reform and cease using drugs when threatened with cancellation of his visa, no sooner had the threat passed when Mr Contreras resumed his offending without concern for any other persons, including his children and partner, who he must have been aware would be affected by that conduct.
I find that Mr Contreras presents an unacceptable risk to the Australian community should he remain in this country. Should he resume his violent reoffending, any risk of that occurring is unacceptable. According to the most recent assessment report which I had in evidence, made on 28 May 2013, Mr Contreras remains in the moderate risk category regarding violent recidivism. This risk will remain until such time as Mr Contreras has overcome his drug addiction. Although he is currently on a methadone program, he was detected as having used cannabis while in Fulham Correction Centre some 12 months ago.
The second primary consideration, an assessment of the strength, duration and nature of his ties to Australia, must weigh in favour of not cancelling Mr Contreras’ visa. This consideration may have carried more weight except for the fact that he commenced offending soon after arriving in Australia and that, despite claimed strong ties to his family, partner and children, and former notifications from the Minister threatening to cancel his visa if his conduct continued, his offending continued unabated, and in fact escalated. Other than his immediate family, Mr Contreras does not appear to have any other significant connections to Australia.
The third primary consideration, the best interests of children in Australia, which would weigh substantially in favour of not cancelling Mr Contreras’ visa, must be given less weight because it is conditional on Mr Contreras remaining drug-free. Should that not occur, the effect on his partner and children would undoubtedly be deleterious rather than of some benefit. The current evidence regarding Mr Contreras’ drug addiction is that the risk that he will resume a drug habit remains high. Furthermore, given Mr Contreras’ past behaviour and significantly long terms of incarceration, his interaction with the children has been minimal, most of it being in the course of visits while he was in prison. There was no evidence of Mr Contreras playing a positive parental role while outside of prison.
As for the other considerations, which are generally given less weight than the primary considerations, the effect on Mr Contreras’ immediate family is most significant. The cancellation of his visa and his return to the Philippines will impact on his partner and their children. That would also cause significant pressure to be placed on Mr Contreras’ mother and father and other immediate family members to assist in supporting the children. I have also referred to some concerns about Mr Contreras’ health and job prospects on return to the Philippines. That evidence does not permit me to find that these considerations should be given significant weight.
I find that the protection of the Australian community outweighs all of the other considerations which support Mr Contreras remaining in Australia. That is because of the nature and the seriousness of his offending and the consequences on the Australian community should he re-offend. His remaining in Australia poses an unacceptable risk. Despite having been warned on two prior occasions, in 2001 and 2005, that his continued offending would result in cancellation of his visa, it appears Mr Contreras has not stopped for one moment to consider what the effect might be on other persons, particularly his children.
CONCLUSION
I find that the decision made by a delegate of the Minister on 4 October 2013 to cancel Mr Contreras’ visa was the preferable decision. I affirm that decision.
I certify that the preceding 87 (eighty -seven) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Egon Fice ...[sgd].....................................................................
Associate
Dated 19 December 2013
Date of hearing 5 December 2013 Counsel for the Applicant Mr G Mukherji Solicitors for the Applicant Carina Ford Immigration Lawyers Advocate for the Respondent Ms A Graham Solicitors for the Respondent Clayton Utz
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration & Refugee Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Protection of the Australian Community
-
Character Test
-
Risk to the Australian Community
0
3
0