Hopkins and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an application by Mr. Hopkins for the revocation of a decision to cancel his Class BF Transitional (Permanent) visa. The visa had been mandatorily cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) following Mr. Hopkins' conviction for offences that carried a sentence of more than 12 months imprisonment, resulting in him failing the character test. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether there was "another reason" why the original cancellation decision should be revoked, pursuant to s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act.

The Tribunal was tasked with considering the primary and other considerations outlined in Ministerial Direction No. 79. The primary considerations included the protection of the Australian community, the best interests of minor children, and international non-refoulement obligations. The "other considerations" encompassed factors such as the strength, nature, and duration of ties to Australia, the impact on Australian business interests, the impact on victims, and the extent of impediments if removed. The Direction stipulated that primary considerations should generally be given more weight than other considerations.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal acknowledged Mr. Hopkins' extensive criminal history spanning approximately thirty years, including multiple convictions for supplying prohibited drugs. While noting that many of his offences were at the lower end of the scale and that he was not a violent offender, the Tribunal found a "relatively consistent, and melancholy, progression" in his offending. Crucially, the Tribunal rejected the submission that convictions for supplying drugs should not be regarded as crimes against vulnerable persons, observing that such conduct involves exploitation, particularly when driven by financial gain. The Tribunal found that the offending had been frequent and showed a trend of increased seriousness, with drug supply being a crime that affects society at large. Despite considering Mr. Hopkins' ties to Australia and the potential impact on his family, the Tribunal concluded that these factors did not constitute "another reason" to revoke the cancellation decision.

The Tribunal affirmed the original decision to cancel Mr. Hopkins' visa.