Huynh and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs - [2001] AATA 866

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2001] AATA 866

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No N2001/47

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION       )
           Re      HUONG HUYNH
  Applicant
           And    MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
  Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal The Hon R N J Purvis Q.C., Deputy President

Date 17 October 2001
PlaceSydney

Decision The decision under review is set aside. The application is referred back to the Respondent for further consideration with the direction that it is not to be refused on character grounds.

[sgd}The Hon R N J Purvis Q.C.
Deputy President
CATCHWORDS
IMMIGRATION – refusal of grant of subclass 103 visa - whether of good character – exercise of discretion – papers allegedly fraudulently altered – whether false and misleading statements made in connection with migration application - adopted daughter Australian citizen
Migration Act 1958
Irving v Minister of State for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Hon R N J Purvis Q.C., Deputy President

the application

This is an application by Ms Huong Huynh ("the Applicant") lodged on 12 January 2001, seeking the review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs ("the Respondent") made on 6 November 2000. By such decision the Respondent refused the grant of a visa to enter Australia to Mrs Chunly Keo, the adoptive mother of the Applicant ("the Mother").
The Respondent's decision record in maintaining that the Mother was not of good character within the meaning of section 501 of the Migration Act 1958 ("the Act") inter alia stated:
"1. I have taken into account the following considerations in assessing Ms Keo's present general conduct:
· As part of her current application Ms Keo presented a family book that has been fraudulently altered. This has been confirmed by the issuing authority. This book was altered in regards to the nature of her family composition which would appear to have been done in order to gain Ms Keo an advantage in regards to her obtaining entry to Australia.
…
2. I find that Ms Keo was not truthful in her dealings with the Department with respect to her subclass 103 application. I find that in doing so the applicant sought to gain entitlement under Australia's immigration laws for residency status for herself and claimed dependents that they would not otherwise have been entitled to.
3. As a result of these factors, I find that Ms Keo's general conduct demonstrates a conscious disregard for Australian Immigration laws.
…
Having regard to the applicant's past and present general conduct and based on the evidence before me I find that Ms KEO, Chunly is not of good character in relation to her past and present general conduct and as such fails to satisfy me that she passes the character test.
…" (T2, pp8-9)
With reference to the exercise of the available discretion it was found that:
"Ms Keo's conduct in making false and misleading statements and providing bogus documentation to the Department in an effort to obtain entry to Australia is an offence under the Migration Act 1958. If convicted, the penalty is two years imprisonment.
…
Mrs Keo's present conduct was for the purpose of seeking entry to Australia as a permanent resident. It is noted that other family members have also sought entry to Australia by means of making false statements. I am of the opinion that Ms Keo would, in all likelihood, continue to make attempts to gain entry into Australia.
…
Ms Keo's application is only one of many who have wilfully abused the Migration system. The refusal of her current application will act as a general deterrent to those in the community who seek to obtain benefits by illegal means that they would otherwise not be entitled to.
…
In deliberately providing false and misleading information to the Department in an effort to obtain entry to Australia Ms Keo has shown a disregard for Australia's laws and as such has breached the trust of the Australian community.
…
it is alleged that Ms Keo has one adult child residing in Australia and I accept that refusal to grant a visa will be distressing for all parties. However, I do note that the document that has been fraudulently altered included altering the name of the children in that document so that it is highly likely that the sponsor is not the child of Ms Keo. I also note that there is no impediment that prevents Ms Keo's relatives living in Australia from visiting her in Cambodia."
(T2, p10)

the hearing

At the hearing of this application before the Tribunal the Applicant appeared in person with the aid of a Khymer interpreter. The Respondent was represented by Mr Nathan Cureton, solicitor of Messrs Blake, Dawson, Waldron, solicitors.
The documents lodged by the Respondent pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 were admitted into evidence and marked T1-T23. Written material was tendered by the parties and market as exhibits, namely:
Exhibit  Description           Date
A        Statement of Ms Chunly Keo        22 May 2001
B        Copy of new family book

The Applicant and the Mother with the aid of an interpreter both gave evidence on which they were cross-examined.
the issues
The issues for determination in this application are:
· whether the Mother satisfies the Tribunal that she passes the character test as defined by section 501(6)(c)(ii) of the Act; and
· if the Mother does not satisfy the Tribunal that she passes the character test, whether or not the available discretion should be exercised by the Tribunal to refuse to grant her a visa.
The Respondent contends that the Mother does not pass the character test based on general conduct namely:
·     lodging a fraudulently altered family book in connection with the making of a subclass 103 parent visa application;
·     making false and misleading statements that her husband was deceased in connection with the making of the application together with the production of a false death certificate;
·     making false and misleading statements in connection with the making of the application in not disclosing that the Applicant was not her natural child; and
·     arranging for the inclusion of the Applicant under a different name in an application for migration to Australia by a family friend.

the relevant legislative provisions and direction

The Act provides with respect to refusal of a visa on the character ground, that the Minister may refuse to grant a visa to a person if such person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test:
"Section 501 (1)…
(6) For the purposes of this section, a person does not pass the character test if:
…
(c) having regard to either or both of the following:
          (i) the person's past and present criminal conduct;
          (ii) the person's past and present general conduct;
          the person is not of good character; or
…"
The words "good character" used in section 501 of the Act have been held to refer to the "enduring moral qualities of a person". A finding as to the enduring moral qualities of a person necessitates an objective assessment and has to be established as a matter of fact (Irving v Minister of State for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422 at 431-432).
The relevant Direction made under section 499 of the Act is Direction 21, signed by the Minister on 23 August 2001. Such Direction as here relevant provides:
"Part 1 - APPLICATION OF THE CHARACTER TEST
The Minister may refuse or cancel a visa if the non-citizen does not satisfy the Character Test
1.1 Non-citizens who are being considered under section 501 must satisfy the decision-maker that they pass the Character Test…
1.2 If a non-citizen is unable to satisfy the decision-maker that they pass the Character Test, subsection 501(1) provides the authority to refuse to grant a visa…
1.3 There are four grounds against which a non-citizen may be considered to not pass the Character Test under subsection 501(6).
…
Paragraph 501(6)(c) - not of good character on account of past and present criminal or general conduct
1.7 Under paragraph 501(6)(c), decision-makers are required to make a finding that a non-citizen is "not of good character" on account of the non-citizen's past and present, criminal or general conduct and thereby does not pass the Character Test. In reaching the conclusion that a non-citizen is not of good character, decision-makers must take into account all the relevant circumstances of a particular case, including evidence of rehabilitation and recent good conduct.
…
Subparagraph 501(6)(c)(ii) – past and present general conduct
1.9 In considering whether a non-citizen is not of good character against subparagraph 501(6)(c)(ii), decision-makers should consider the following matters (where they are relevant to the facts of the particular case), and where they are relevant, would, in the absence of any countervailing factors, constitute a failure to pass the Character Test."

The following matters listed in paragraph 1.9 are relevant to the present application:

· paragraph 1.9(a) of the Act states, "whether the non-citizen has been involved in activities indicating a contempt or disregard for the law…This could include but need not be limited to …breaches of the migration law…";
· paragraph 1.9(b) states, "whether the non-citizen has, in connection with any application for the grant of a visa…provided a bogus document or made a false or misleading statement"; and
· paragraph 1.9(c) states, "whether the non-citizen has ever made a false or misleading declaration on an approved form…about the non-citizen's character or conduct or both".

The Respondent maintains that the Mother has engaged in conduct, which would fall within paragraphs 1.9(a), (b), and (c) and as a result she does not pass the character test. It is said that there is no evidence of counter-veiling factors such as recent good conduct. Taking the Mother's conduct as a whole, the Respondent maintains that she does not pass the character test.

Direction 21 further provides:
"PART 2 – EXERCISING THE DISCRETION
2.1 If a non-citizen does not pass the Character Test, decision-makers must have regard to the following considerations when exercising the discretion to decide whether or not the non-citizen should be permitted to enter or remain in Australia.
Weight of considerations
2.2 The Government is mindful of the need to balance a number of important factors in reaching a decision whether or not to refuse or cancel a visa. In making such a decision, a decision-maker should have regard to three primary considerations and a number of other considerations…Decisions-makers must have due regard to the importance placed by the Government on the three primary considerations, but should also adopt a balancing process which takes into account all relevant considerations.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATIONS
2.3 In making a decision whether to refuse or cancel a visa, there are three primary considerations:
(a) the protection of the Australian community, and members of the community;
(b) the expectations of the Australian community; and
(c) in all cases involving a parental or other close relationship between a child or children and the person under consideration, the best interests of the child or children.
Protection of the Australian Community
…
2.5 The factors relevant to an assessment of the level of risk to the community of the entry or continued stay of a non-citizen include:
(a) the seriousness and nature of the conduct;
(b) the likelihood that the conduct may be repeated (including any risk of recidivism); and
(c) whether visa refusal or cancellation may prevent or discourage similar conduct (general deterrence).
a. The seriousness and nature of the conduct
2.6 It is the Government's view that the following are examples of offences which are considered by the Government to be very serious:
…
(c)…providing certain false or misleading information about a marital, de facto or interdependency relationship…or presenting false or forged documents or making a false or misleading statement in connection with entry or stay in Australia;…
…
c. general deterrence – the likelihood that visa refusal or visa cancellation would prevent (or inhibit the commission of) like offences by other persons
2.11 General deterrence aims to deter other people from committing the same or a similar offence. While not a conclusive factor in itself, general deterrence is an important factor in determining whether to refuse or cancel a visa. The general deterrence factor may be relevant in a number of ways:
(a) the nature of the offence may be such that visa refusal or cancellation may deter others from committing similar offences; and
…
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
2.17 When considering the issue of visa refusal or cancellation, other matters, although not primary considerations, may be relevant. It is the Government's view that where relevant, it is appropriate that these matters be taken into account but that generally they be given less individual weight than that given to the primary considerations. These other considerations may include:
…
(c) the degree of hardship which would be caused to immediate family members lawfully resident in Australia (including Australian citizens)…
…"

the relevant facts

The evidence of the Applicant and the Mother was to the following effect. Except as otherwise indicated, the factual situation was not put in issue by the Respondent, that is, it was not put to the Applicant or the Mother on behalf of the Respondent that their evidence was false.
The Mother was born in Cambodia on 1 January 1942; the Applicant was also born in Cambodia, on 6 October 1966. The Mother was married to Mr Sukhat Huynh, but of that marriage there were not any children. The Mother had a sister (the Applicant's birth mother) who at the time of the birth of the Applicant already had two sons and a daughter of her own marriage. The Applicant is the fourth child of the sister. Prior to the birth of the Applicant the sisters agreed that whatever the sex of the child might be on birth the child would become the adopted child of the Mother and her then husband. This occurred and from the time of birth the Applicant was regarded as the child of the Mother, was brought up by the Mother and lived with the Mother and the adoptive father in their home, to the exclusion of the sister and her family. The latter were looked upon by the Applicant as aunt, uncle and cousins. It was not until she married and migrated to Australia that the Applicant became aware of the true nature of the relationships.
The Mother, adoptive father and the Applicant were living in Cambodia during the time of the Pol Pot dictatorship. The Applicant's name (Huong Huynh) is Vietnamese. There was enmity on the part of the then government towards Vietnam. To protect the Applicant, the Mother caused the family book in which the Applicant was shown as her daughter to be altered to show the Applicant's name as Sinourn Ty, a Khmer name. As she stated:
"…In 1975 the fighting had started and under Pol Pot regime I was separated from my husband. Under the Pol Pot regime many Vietnamese were killed. So in order to survive I changed my daughter's name to Sinoun Tee. And in 1979 under the Hun Sen government, Khmer people did not have right to do many things. At that time I heard that my husband had escaped to the United States. But I did not dare telling the truth at that time because of fear of being persecuted by the government. The government considered people whose husbands, wives or children had escaped to another country. So I had to lie that my husband died to avoid persecution." (Exhibit A)
The adoptive father in about 1975 (T6, p40) left Cambodia, leaving behind the Mother (his wife) and the Applicant, and travelled to the United States of America where seemingly he has remained living. The Mother and the Applicant have not seen or heard from the father since the time of his leaving Cambodia. For political reasons in Cambodia they adopted the attitude of regarding the husband as deceased rather than revealing that he was in the United States of America.
In 1979 a new government with the assistance of the Vietnamese assumed control in Cambodia. But the Mother still being in fear of harm coming to the Applicant continued to use the false name Sinoun Tee. In 1983 the Cambodian government "called for all people to register their names to make family books". The Mother, believing that the new government would not adopt policies similar to its predecessor and would not be racist against an ethnic group, notified an authority of the false name and sought help to rectify the situation. According to the Applicant:
"…But the man said "it's too late because they had already registered all the names in the original list and the family book had also been made unless you pay money". Since my mother was so poor she was not able to pay any money for family book fee and that was why my name did not get changed properly since that time. But the man who brought the family book told my mother "…never mind if you do not have the money to pay for the fee, you do not have to change the name in the original list just rub off the name Sinourn Ty and replace it with the name Huong Huynh in your family book, and that will do. Then you wait for ten more years the Government will come down to make the family book again, they will change the name in both the family book and the original list for you without you paying any money."
Because my mother cannot read and write (she did not have any schooling) and did not realize that rubbing/scratching off and changing the name was a big mistake and wrong, she totally agreed to and did what the man (staff from the family book issuing authority) told her. So therefore she still continues using the altered family book until now even if she has a new one with her, unless it is very necessarily important because she is afraid she would lose[stet] it." (T1, pp5-6)
According to the Mother:
"Between 1985 to 1988 the government adopted a policy, known as "*1" that parents must send their sons for military conscription and daughters must be registered to clear forest, as part of serving their country. I was really worried about my daughter. At that time a friend of mine was really sympathetic to me and my daughter and offered me that if I cared about the future of my daughter and wanted her to live and study in Australia, my daughter had to register herself as his family, then he would sponsor my daughter to Australia. As a mother, and having nothing else to give her, and for her to escape from this war stricken and corrupted country and for the future of my daughter I decided to let my daughter change identity to a different name so that she could go to a country of freedom. And also because my husband has never thought about me and my daughter. That was why I let my daughter go and live with my friend. Unfortunately the Embassy rejected the application. I was in real despair." (Exhibit A)
Translator's note: *1 denotes: 2 illegible words
In the course of her evidence before the Tribunal the Applicant said, that when she found out about the Mother's intent of including her in the application of another she disagreed quite strongly, she did not want to leave the Mother. She so informed her mother prior to the application being rejected. She said that she was very upset at what the Mother had had in mind.
The Applicant married her present husband on 26 August 1996 but remained living with her mother in Cambodia until she came to live with her husband in Australia on 27 January 1997. She has since that time remained in Australia, being granted Australian citizenship on 24 June 1998 and giving birth to four children of her marriage. It is partly in order to assist her with the care of the children that the Applicant seeks to have the Mother come to live with her in Australia.

The Applicant says, that since 1996 the Mother:
"…has been suffering from forgetfulness and lost of memories a great deal because she thinks of me every day. This makes her feel lost and forget where she kept the new family book and so that is why my mother provided the embassy the family book with the altered marks in her most sincere purpose…" (T1, p6)
On 8 April 1997 the Mother applied for a subclass 103 parent visa, sponsored by the Applicant. In the sponsorship application the Applicant described the Mother as "parent". In her own application the Mother showed the husband Sokhat Huynh as "deceased", and stated that she was applying as a "parent". The forms were prepared and written out by the Applicant's husband. Contrary to what was said by the Applicant in additional information that she provided in support of her own application to migrate, the Mother in her 1997 application had it noted (T8, p67) in relation to her husband that he died "during Pol Pot regime in 1978" and:
"all my husband brothe [sic] and sister I did not know where they are now. Because we were separated during Pol Pot regim [sic] untill nowday, I still donot here [sic] any news."
On 1 December 1999 the Mother again applied or renewed her application for a subclass 103 visa sponsored by the Applicant. In support of this application and in a statutory declaration of 9 November 1999 the Applicant stated:
"I wish to inform your department I am sponsoring my mother, Keo Chunly of…because she is living alone in Cambodia. My father has died long time ago.
I wish to declare that I have no blood brothers/sisters, step brothers/step sisters, half brothers/half sisters, adopted brothers/adopted sisters living in Cambodia. My mother gave birth only once in her life and it was me…" (T16, p110)
When challenged during her cross-examination as to the correctness of the above, the Applicant admitted not knowing whether her father was alive or dead but said that she looked upon him as being dead, he having left the Mother and herself a quarter of a century before. She also said that she did not regard and never had regarded her blood sister and brothers as such but as cousins. She had likewise always thought of Keo Chunly as her mother.
Case notes of an officer of the Respondent dated 17 December 1999 state inter alia:
"…Sponsors previous application to A/a under 100 is uncovered. Although PA's name is declared I am still concerned over the family book which was lodged to this office by Pa…(to be retained until case is disposed). A close look on it revealed that name of Sp, date of birth and relationship to Pa was terribly obliterated from the original version. The relationship of PA to Sp is questionable in this case.
Claim by Sp and Pa on this application is also deferred from the previous application by Sp that her father was remarried and lived in USA. On this current application she claimed that her father was dead in 1998 in Phnom Penh. Appeared to have name changed according to a statement by Sp her previous application form…" (T15, p104)
On 14 June 2000 the Applicant wrote to the Australian Embassy in Phnom Penh stating inter alia:
"…My name is Huynh Huong. I lodged an application to sponsor my mother, Keo Chunly, on 10 June 1997 and I have not heard from the department since the last letter dated 25 October 1999.
I want to inform you of a more urgent request for my mother to come and live with us in Australia. My husband has employment and we have two children aged 3 and a baby aged 9 months. We intended this to be the limit of our family but now find I am pregnant with twins. Due to concern for my future physical and emotional health I so much desire to have my mother here to help me. My mother-in-law does not have good health and my husband's family is not in a position to give us much assistance…"(T18, p118)
A case note of 18 July 2000 repeats much of the material contained in the case note of 17 December 1999.
A field check was conducted by officers of the Respondent but it was not very helpful. The conclusion of such field check was to the effect:
"According to the police PA has made alteration in the family book (name and date of birth of her daughter). It was cleared that Pa has a daughter living Australia but we do not know as how many children she may have in Cambodia." (T21, p122)
The application was refused on 6 November 2000, the decision-maker being satisfied that the Mother was not of good character within the meaning of section 501 of the Act. As earlier indicated in these reasons the decision-maker inter alia stated that:

the Mother's previous application contained evidence of false and misleading statements and involved the submission of fraudulently altered documentation in pursuance of migration ends;
evidence includes the Mother's responses to specific questions regarding previous applications for entry to Australia and report of community information obtained by DIMA officers conducting a field check;
the Mother presented a family book that had been fraudulently altered, this has been confirmed by the issuing authority. This book was altered in regards to the nature of her family composition, which would appear to have been done in order to gain the Mother advantage in regards to her obtaining entry to Australia;
the Mother was not truthful in her dealings with the Department with respect to her application. She sought to get entitlement under Australia's immigration laws for residency status for herself and claimed dependence that she would otherwise not have been entitled to;
the Mother's general conduct demonstrates a conscious disregard for Australia's immigration laws.

character of the mother

The Respondent maintains that the Mother fails the character test in that she presented forged or fraudulent documents to the Respondent. Reference is made to the family book, her husband being allegedly deceased, failure to disclose that the Applicant is not her natural child and the inclusion of the Applicant in the application of a family friend, these all leading to an adverse finding.
The Tribunal is not of a like mind to that of the Respondent's decision-maker, this for the following reasons:
(a)Whilst the name entered in the family book was not that of the Applicant, the alteration was not made fraudulently and was not made in aid of pursuing "migration ends".
(b)The "community information" did no more than confirm the fact that the alteration to the family book was not done by the police authorities.
(c)The alteration to the family book was not done in order to gain the Mother advantage in regards to her obtaining entry to Australia. It was done in order to protect the life and safety of the Applicant.
(d)It is true that the Mother in her application for migration and the Applicant in her written material stated the relationship between them as being that of mother and daughter, whereas it was not such a relationship of blood but of adoption. But the Applicant said in her evidence:
"In my mind she is my mother. I send her money each month to look after her. I did not intend to tell lies. I did not mean to lie, it is the way I feel."
(e)The Tribunal does not find anything untoward about the Mother and the Applicant considering themselves as "mother and daughter". In fact they had been so since the Applicant's births. The Applicant was not told of her adoption until after her marriage and when she came to Australia.
(f)The Tribunal does not accept that the Mother sought to gain entitlement under the migration laws for residency status for herself by improper means and does not accept that she sought to claim "dependence" that she would not otherwise have been entitled to.
(g)Statements made by the Mother and the Applicant as to the whereabouts of Mr Sokhat Huynh are understandable in the context of the circumstances existing in Cambodia. The husband had left his wife and the Applicant in 1975, at a time when the country was being ravaged by the associates of a dictator who was conducting a murderous campaign against residents of Cambodia. The husband is said to have gone to the United States of America, which country was not favourably regarded by Pol Pot and his regime. Mention of this fact might well have been detrimental to the welfare of the Mother and the Applicant. To the Cambodian authorities it was stated that he was dead. To the Australian authorities that he went to the United States of America, but his whereabouts were and are unknown. He may well be dead.
(h)It is true that the Mother obtained and made available a "death certificate" supporting her claim to be a widow. But in fact she was in a position comparable to widowhood having been deserted by her husband about 25 years before and having had no word from him since that time. If she said she was a widow she had to have a death certificate, which may be false in Australia but according to the Applicant is a reality in Cambodia. The Mother said that she obtained the death certificate wanting to help the Applicant for if the Cambodian authorities believed that she had family overseas "they might not let her out". It was not obtained in an endeavour to mislead the Australian authorities.
On the basis of the above findings the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Mother is not of good character. She passes the character test.
other considerations
Even be it that the Tribunal has not determined the character test as being adverse to the Mother and hence is not required to consider the discretionary aspect, the following findings may be noted.
The Respondent contended that the Mother is not of good character and that the discretion available to the Tribunal should not be exercised in her favour. Matters detailed by the Respondent's legal representative, referable to an exercise of the discreation related to the need to protect the Australian community, the alleged seriousness of the conduct of the Mother, the risk of the Mother not respecting the law if she is not allowed to enter Australia, the general deterrent effect of an adverse finding and the expectations of the Australian community. It was acknowledged that an adverse finding would cause hardship to the Applicant and the Mother but "this would only be emotional". The Tribunal does not accept that "emotional hardship" is not hardship within the meaning of the Act. It has further said that the Mother found herself in a position of her own creation and the Applicant herself had been a party to the making of a misleading statement.
It is a fact that the Mother and the Applicant presented to the Respondent a document that been altered, but altered back to its original state. It is a fact that the relationship was stated as being that of mother and daughter, whereas it was that of adoptive mother and adopted daughter. It is a fact that the Mother's husband was stated as being deceased but he had deserted his wife 25 years before by migrating to another country.
In the circumstances of this matter the Tribunal does not find that there exists either a "serious crime" against the Act, nor indeed a crime at all. There was no intent to deceive or to commit an offence. The documentation was not bogus in the sense of having been created for the purpose of carrying out an illegal scheme at least in the Australian environment. There is not any evidence of "other family members" having "also sought entry to Australia by means of making false statements".
There is not any evidence of a wilful abuse of the migration system by the Mother or the Applicant. Nor is there evidence that the Mother or the Applicant deliberately provided false or misleading information in an effort to obtain entry to Australia. The family book was not fraudulently altered, the name was changed for reasons far removed from migration.
Even if, which is not the case, a finding of not being of good character had been made, the discretionary considerations would weigh strongly in favour of an exercise of it by way of allowing the visa application to be granted.
The Tribunal does not see the Mother's conduct as being "serious" within the meaning of the legislation and the Direction and there is no question of her "re-offending". The documentation as presented by her was not falsified in connection with an intended entry into Australia and there was no intent to circumvent Australia's immigration laws. The Mother did not show a disregard for Australian laws in order to obtain advantages for herself. Whilst there may have been others who engaged in conduct similar to that of the Mother in aid of protecting members of their family if not themselves, such conduct was not referrable to any migration intent. There is not a deterrent aspect in this matter. The Australian community would not have a relevant adverse expectation in relation to the facts of this matter.
decision
For the reasons hereinbefore set forth the decision under review is set aside. The application is referred back to the Respondent for further consideration with the direction that it is not to be refused on the character ground.
I certify that the 41 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of The Hon R N J Purvis Q.C., Deputy President
Signed: Rachael Quinn           .....................................................................................
  Associate
Date/s of Hearing  2 October 2001
Date of Decision  17 October 2001
Counsel for the Applicant        self-represented
Solicitor for the Respondent    Mr Nathan Cureton