Karaitiana and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

Karaitiana and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2023] AATA 4236 (20 December 2023)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number:2023/7549
Re:Anaru Dylan Karaitiana
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member Hon. J Rau SC
Date:20 December 2023
Place:Adelaide

The decision under review is affirmed
..........................[sgnd]........................................
Senior Member Hon. J Rau SC
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – mandatory cancellation of Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa under section 501(3A)- where Applicant does not pass the character test – Applicant has substantial criminal record – whether the discretion to revoke the visa cancelation under section 501CA (4) should be exercised – consideration of Ministerial Direction No. 99 - decision under review is affirmed.
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
CASES
Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 348
YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466
Afu v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1311
Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 50
SECONDARY MATERIAL
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Cth), Direction No 99 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (23 January 2023).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member Hon. J Rau SC
20 December 2023
INTRODUCTION

The Applicant seeks a review of the decision by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs (“the Respondent”) made under section 501CA (4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) on 2 October 2023[1], not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa (“the Visa”). His visa was cancelled on 27 February 2023 under section 501 (3A) on the basis that he did not pass the character test.[2]
[1] Exhibit 8, Tender Bundle, 140.
[2] Ibid 98-9; Exhibit 3, G Documents, Attachment O, 164-169.
Sections 501(6)(a) and 501(7)(c) of the Act provide that a person does not pass the character test if they have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more. The Applicant fails the character test on account of his conviction on 3 August 2022 of various offences, and aggregate sentence of 16 months imprisonment, to be served by way of a Community Corrections Order.[3]
[3] Exhibit 3, G Documents, G4 Index to relevant material, Attachment A – National Criminal History Check, 25-32.
The Applicant accepts that he does not pass the character test. The issue before the Tribunal is whether there is ‘another reason’ to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation pursuant to s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act.
The hearing was held on 15 December 2023. The Applicant was represented by Mr Tanguy Mwilambwe of Taylor Rose and the Respondent was represented by Mr Tigiilagi Eteuati of the Australian Government Solicitor.
The Applicant gave evidence by way of Microsoft Teams form Yongah Hill Detention Centre. His evidence in chief was given by way of a statement. Under cross-examination, he was a very unimpressive witness. He frequently failed to directly answer quite simple questions. He was often evasive and dissembling. When he was asked questions about his unsigned “statutory declaration” dated 12 December 2023,[4] he started by saying that the document was in his “own words”, and that except for the references to alcohol, was accurate. This statement was only 48 hours old when he gave his evidence. There were at least 8 references to him having alcohol issues, in the 4-page statement. This included a claim that if released, he wanted to participate in programs “such as Alcoholics Anonymous”. The statement clearly is not written using his vocabulary. When questioned about specific words in the document, for example,” intrinsic” and “formative”, he conceded that he did not know what they meant. At paragraph 18 of the statement, he listed 4 courses that he intended to undertake if released into the community. However, he was unable to recall or name any of the courses in cross-examination. He obviously had no such plans. He deflected off into irrelevant references to past programmes that he claimed to have done. He denied having failed to engage in programmes in the past, even when required to do so by community corrections. He denied having said that programmes that he had done in the past were “doing more harm than good”.[5] The Applicant later stated that he was “a different person” then. This is totally at odds with the other evidence before the Tribunal.[6] On some occasions, he answered questions with questions like “why would I...”. He denied knowing virtually anything about his family in New Zealand. He claimed to have no idea about any of his father’s relatives there. He sought to convey the impression that he had no family connections there. He said that his mother has no brothers or sisters there. His statement provides: “…none of my family reside in New Zealand…”[7]. This is untrue. His mother alone has, or had, 9 of her 15 siblings and their families living all over New Zealand. His mother gave evidence of being close to several of her surviving sisters and their families in New Zealand. The Applicant himself has visited his relatives in New Zealand with his mother on many occasions since first arriving in Australia. He denied knowing anything about Direction 99, yet his statement includes sub-headings drawn from that document. Accordingly, I give little weight to his statement, which has the quality of a modified pro-forma document. I give little weight to his evidence. In the event of any conflict with other independent sources, I prefer that independent evidence to his.
[4] Exhibit 6, Statutory Declaration of Anaru Dylan Karaitiana (dated 12 December 2023).
[5] Exhibit 8, Tender Bundle, 3.
[6] Ibid 1-41.
[7] Exhibit 6, Statutory Declaration of Anaru Dylan Karaitiana, 36.
The Applicant called his mother VK to give evidence by telephone. Her evidence in chief was also given by way of statements. She most recently provided an unsigned statement on 12 December 2023.[8] She also provided a very brief statement dated 10 November 2023.[9] In her 12 December 2023 statement, VK, like the Applicant, expressed herself in language inconsistent with her demonstrated vocabulary. The statement speaks of her having “reviewed material relevant” to the Applicant’s case.[10] When cross-examined about this, it was clear that she had not actually done so. Notwithstanding the artificial nature of her statement, in some respects, particularly concerning the Applicant’s relations in New Zealand, her evidence was helpful. It is however important to be mindful that she has been a victim of the Applicant’s family violence. She has had an AVO in place to protect her from the Applicant for a period starting in October 2016 and expiring in about June 2023. Given that the Applicant was in detention by June 2023, a continuation of that order would have been practically futile. VK is on the horns of an awful dilemma. She is obviously torn between her natural maternal feelings towards her only son, and a rational consideration of her own personal safety. I therefore place little weight on her assessment of the Applicant’s resolve to place his life in order. Her primary motivation is understandably, to say whatever is most likely to assist her son in remaining in Australia. Although she had no plans to seek an AVO if the Applicant were to be released, she tellingly made no offer to accommodate him in her home.
[8] Exhibit 5 Statutory Declaration of Applicant’s Mother.
[9] Exhibit 4, Letters of Support and Medical Details.
[10] Exhibit 5 Statutory Declaration of Applicant’s Mother, para 5.
The Applicant obtained a late psychologist’s report from Ms. Clare Fercher-Barrett on 13 December 2023.[11] This was admissible only by reason of the Respondent’s assistance, to overcome the constraints imposed by s 500(6J) of the Act. This was received on the basis that the Respondent did not require her to be called as a witness.
[11] Exhibit 7, Psychologist Report of Ms Fercher-Barret.
Background Facts
The Applicant was born on 6 February 1998 in New Zealand. He is now 25 Years old. He first came to Australia on 11 October 2005, when he was 7 years old. He has returned to New Zealand on several occasions since then to visit relatives. He most recently returned to Australia on 30 January 2016.[12]
[12] Exhibit 3, G Documents, G4 Index to relevant material, Attachment N – Movement Records, 162 – 163.
The Applicant was a victim of domestic violence as a young person at the hands of his father. He observed that violence being also directed at his mother. He became involved in drugs and gangs.[13] He became a heavy user of cannabis and methamphetamine. He denies having any problem with alcohol. He continued to use these drugs even when in Immigration Detention at Villawood in NSW. He told the Tribunal that he only stopped using some months ago, when he was moved to Yongah Hill.
[13] Exhibit3, G-Documents, 91.
On 8 March 2015, a NSW Police Fact Sheet records: [14]
In February 2015, the Young Person has smashed a number of doors within the family home and the victim has contacted police. Police attended and arrested the Young Person. Police made application for a non-urgent Apprehended Domestic Violence Order and the Young Person was scheduled to be dealt with under the Young Offenders Act. This action was by way of a youth caution which is yet to be completed.
On Sunday afternoon the 8th of March 2015, the victim returned home and was met by the Young Person who asked her for money. After being told that he couldn't have any money, the Young Person has become angry and taken a piece of timber from the front railing of the veranda. He has then entered the front door and gone into the lounge area. The victim stayed outside and heard smashing sounds coming from the within the house. The victim walked away and stayed at a relative’s house two doors away. At that time, the young person was the only person within the confines of the house.
About 11.00am on Monday the 9th of March 2015, the victim returned home. She noticed that a buffet and hutch in the loungeroom had been smashed and numerous breakable items within it were also smashed and were strewn across the floor. The victim also noticed that her bedroom had been ransacked. The victim informs police that the damage to the buffet and hutch is a direct result of the young person smashing it with the piece of timber from the veranda.
When the victim arrived home the young person was present and again asked the victim for money. The victim informed the young person that she didn't have any to give to him. Again, the young person became enraged and continued to ask for money. He then took another piece of timber from the railing and walked to the rear of the premises. The victim again heard smashing sounds and when she went to the rear of the house, saw the laundry window had been smashed. The young person walked to the front of the house and pulled a sliding screen door of the rails. Again, the victim walked away to the relatives’ house and called police.
Police attended and arrested the young person. He was cautioned and searched and placed into the caged police vehicle. The victim provided a signed statement to police and claims that she is unable to control the young person. She added that she no longer wishes for him to reside at the premises as she fears for her safety and also fears further damage to her house. The victim claims that the young person is using cannabis and may also have access to methyl amphetamines in the form of "Ice".
A support person was not able to be located at the time of arrest and as such, the young person was not interviewed in relation to the malicious damage offences. The adult cousin of the young person, Tremayne Singh has agreed to allow the young person to reside with him. He also agreed to act as a support person during an interview with the young person on Wednesday the 11 March 2015. Singh resides at 6 West Avenue Cessnock.
Over the following weeks, police made numerous appointments for the Young Person to be interviewed. Each time the Young Person has claimed to be unable to attend. Police also visited the residential premises of the young person on a number of times with the intention of conducting the interview with him there. Each time the Young Person has not been at home. After speaking with the victim, police have formed the opinion that the Young Person has no intention of being interviewed and he is living a transient life between friends’ houses.
As such, police have charged the Young Person with the matters before the Court. If interviewed, he would be eligible to be dealt with under the Young Offenders Act.
[14] Exhibit 3, G Documents, G4 Index to relevant material, Attachment K – Further information relevant to decision under s 501CA(3) on whether to revoke the original decision to cancel your visa, 155 – 156.
On 24 June 2015, the Applicant appeared in the Cessnock Children’s Court charged with two counts of “Destroy or damage property (DV)”. He was placed on a bond and month’s supervision by Juvenile Justice.[15] He was aged 17 at the time. I do not take this interaction with the criminal justice system into account as a part of the Applicant’s criminal history, but it does provide important relevant context to his known history of family violence.
[15] Exhibit 3, G Documents, Attachment A – National Criminal History Check, 32.
On 5 October 2016, an ADVO (final order) was made listing the Applicant’s mother, VK as a protected person.[16] He was 18 at the time.
[16] Exhibit 3, G Documents, G4 – Index to relevant material, Attachment E: New South Wales Police fact sheets for a matter in the Local Court of New South Wales at Cessnock, 63.
VK is aged 54 years of age. She suffers from Type 2 diabetes, hypercholesterolaemia, hypothyroidism and ischaemic heart disease. She has had a frozen left shoulder, right shoulder bursitis and has had a thyroidectomy.[17]
[17] Exhibit 4, Letters of Support and Medical Details, Patient Health Summary.
On 7 October 2016, a NSW Police fact sheet records: [18]
[18] Exhibit 3, G Documents, G4, Attachment E: New South Wales Police fact sheets for a matter in the Local Court of New South Wales at Cessnock, 63-64.
The Accused in this matter is Anaru KARAITIANA. The Victim is (VK). The Accused has previously been excluded from the location by way of ADVO from a previous incident.
On the 5 October 2016, an ADVO (final order) was made listing the Accused as a defendant and the Victim as a protected person. The order consisted of standard conditions as well as condition 3, the Accused is not to approach or loiter around [the address], condition 10. Not to approach the protected person while intoxicated and condition 11. Not to destroy/damage property belonging to the Victim.
About 6pm on the 07/10/2016, The Accused has approached the location [the address] and had a short conversation with the Victim out the front of the location next to the front fence. The Accused has requested the Victim drive him to town. The Victim has declined. The Accused has asked to borrow the car belonging to the Victim. The Victim has declined. The Victim has then walked back into the house. A short time later, a grandchild of the Victim has come into the house and informed the Victim that the back window of the Victim’s car ( reg no) had been smashed.
The Victim has gone out to the car and observed the rear window to be partially smashed.
The Accused was standing next to the car. The Victim asked the Accused if he did it. He shrugged his shoulders. The Victim said she would call the police. The Accused said "wait and see what happens now".
The Victim returned inside the house and called police. While inside all persons in the house heard the sound of rushing air. The Victim went back out to the Vehicle and observed the gate had been removed from the fence and the two rear tyres of the victim’s car had been damaged and were flat. The Accused was seen by the Victim walking away down the street.
Police arrived a short time later and took the complaint from the Victim. The Accused was seen walking back up the road by police. He approached police and put his hands together in a motion to be handcuffed. The Accused was arrested and cautioned. Police enquired where the knife was, he used to damage the vehicle. The Accused said "I chuck it in the bush up the road" Police asked if it was visible from the road, the Accused said "no i threw it way in". Police asked the Accused if he was aware of his ADVO conditions. The Accused said "yeah, I’m not allowed here, I've been living on the street."
The Accused was conveyed back to Cessnock police and introduced to the custody manager. The Victim provided police with a video recorded statement. The Accused refused to participate in an electronically recorded interview. The Accused was charged with the matters now before the court.
Police are seeking on behalf of the Victim compensation for two destroyed tyres and a rear windscreen of the Victim's vehicle.
The Applicant denied puncturing any tyres. He conceded that he entered a plea of guilty to the charges.
On 12 October 2016, the Applicant appeared in the Cessnock Court charged with “Destroy or damage property (DV)” and “Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic)”. He was placed on a 12 month’s bond and placed under the supervision of the NSW probation service. It was noted that he had anger management and drug issues.[19]
[19] Exhibit 3, G Documents, G4, Attachment A, 32.
On 12 April 2017, a NSW Police fact sheet records:[20]
[20] Exhibit 3, G Documents, G4, Attachment F: NSW Police fact sheet for a matter in the Local Court of NSW at Cessnock, 65-7.
“The Accused in this matter Anaru KARAITIANA. The Victim is (GK) the Accused father. The Accused Anaru KARAITIANA has previously been excluded from the location by way of ADVO from a previous incident.
On the 5 October 2016, an ADVO (final order) was made listing the Accused Anaru KARAITIANA as a defendant and the Victim (VK) as a protected person. The order consisted of standard conditions as well as condition 3, the Accused is not to approach or loiter around [the address], condition 10. Not to approach the protected person while intoxicated and condition 11. Not to destroy/damage property belonging to the Victim.
The victim (GK) in the matter was in a domestic relationship with VK at the time of the incident.
The victim has recently returned from New Zealand to help with renovations of the premises and had been helping other family members with renovations earlier on this date. The victim is staying with his partner (VK) at [the address].
About 9.00pm on Wednesday 12 April 2017, the victim (GK) was at the location of [the address] The victim (GK) was sitting on the front veranda with family and friends and had been drinking for about two hours. The victim’s wife (VK) and the victim have been involved in an altercation causing a laceration to the victim’s hand.
The victim’s wife (VK) has left the location a short time later.
About 10.00pm on Wednesday 12 April 2017, the victim’s wife (VK) has returned to [the address]. A short time later the Accused Anaru KARAITIANA has attended the location of [the address]. The victim’s son the Accused Anaru KARAITIANA has approached the victim (GK) who was sitting on the veranda and has had a verbal argument. Accused has then started to continually punch the victim causing the victims nose to bleed. The victim (GK) has then fallen with the Accused continuing to punch and kick him, Accused has then left the location with two friends that had accompanied him.
About 10:30pm on Wednesday 12 April 2017, police have attended the location of [the address]. Police spoke with the victim (GK) who told police he had fallen, the victim was then treated in the back of an ambulance. The victim (GK) was reluctant to tell police what had happened as he was fearful of Accused further assaulting him. The victim then told police he had been bashed by the Accused, the victim told police he had been bashed and punched multiple times to the head and body with the Accused sitting on top of him.
Police observed the victim to have swelling to the face and covered in his own blood. The victim was conveyed to Cessnock Hospital and supplied a statement in regard to the assault.
Police spoke with (VK) the victim in the Apprehended Violence Order who said " Yes Anaru was here" Police confirmed he was in attendance at the location of [the address]. The Accused has breached his Apprehended Violence Order via being at the location and assaulting the victim his father.
The Accused is now charged with the matters before the court.
18/05/2017 10:24 49425 BROWN, ROBERT
About 9:45am on Thursday the 18th of May 2017 the accused attended Cessnock Police Station after being informed of the presence of two outstanding warrants.
The accused was arrested and taken to the Custody area where he was introduced to the Custody manager before the outstanding warrants were executed.
The accused is now before the Court.”

The Applicant was in breach of an AVO at the time of this brutal assault on his father. He claimed to the Tribunal that this was done to protect his mother from GK. There is nothing to support this assertion in the police fact sheet.
On 21 July 2017, the Applicant appeared in the Cessnock Court charged with multiple offences including contraventions of an AVO, common assault, property damage and breach of bail conditions. He was placed under the supervision of the NSW probation service for counselling, educational development or drug/alcohol rehabilitation for 3 years. He was also fined $300.[21]
[21] Exhibit 3, G Documents, G4, Attachment A, 31-2.
On 8 May 2020, the Applicant committed an assault against a randomly selected victim.[22]
[22] Ibid, Attachment B: Sentencing Remarks of the Local Court of NSW at Downing Centre, 37-8.
On 10 December 2020, the Applicant appeared in the Downing Centre Local Court charged with possession of a prohibited drug, property damage (DV) and affray. He was placed on a Community Corrections Order for 18 months commencing on 10 December 2020. He was to be supervised by the Community Corrections Service and to perform 70 hours of community service work. He was also ordered to undertake anger management rehabilitation and to receive a psychological assessment. He was fined $550.[23]
[23] Ibid, Attachment E, 60-61.
On 26 January 2022, the Applicant contravened an AVO issued to protect his mother.[24]
[24] Ibid, Attachment B, 38-9.
On 28 January 2022, the Applicant again contravened an AVO issued to protect his mother. On this occasion he assaulted her.[25]
[25] Ibid 39-40.
The Applicant told the Tribunal that he was sorry for this and would not do it again.
A sentencing Assessment Report dated 30 June 2022 states, inter alia: [26]
[26] Exhibit 8, Tender Bundle, 1-5.
“Family and social circumstances
•Mr Karaitiana claims to have recently moved in with his grandfather into accommodation in Balmain. This remains unverified.
•Prior to this he lived in rental accommodation with a friend in St Mary’s, having relocated from Cessnock.
•He is estranged from his father and stated he has not been in contact with him for several years.
•Mr Karaitiana’s mother is a protected person under an Apprehended Violence Order (ADVO), and the victim in the current matters.
….
Attitudes:
•    Mr Karaitiana acknowledged that at the time of the offence/s he disregarded the illegality of his actions and attributed this attitude to his chronic drug abuse and unresolved family trauma.
•    Since committing the offence, he has reflected on this behaviour and stated his drug use had impacted his judgement.
•    However, it would seem he lacks insight into his own actions and has expressed limited remorse for the victim/s.
Social influences
•    Mr Karaitiana reported that his association with his peers in the Cessnock area led him to engage in antisocial behaviour, whose focus was on maintaining their illicit drug habits.
•    He stated he has recently relocated from St Mary’s to Balmain to avoid exposure to drugs and antisocial behaviour.
Substances use
•    Mr Karaitiana has a long history of poly-substance abuse, commencing at age
•    14. Around the time of the offence/s, he admitted to smoking methylamphetamine and cannabis daily.
•    He stated that his drug use impacted his judgement and contributed to his offending.
•    In respect to his DV offending, Mr Karaitiana blamed this on his use of methylamphetamines.
•    He claims to have been abstinent from methylamphetamine since his arrest in January 2022. This was verified during random drug swipes conducted by Community Corrections while Mr Karaitiana was under supervision.
•    Mr Karaitiana continues to smoke cannabis regularly and stated that he uses cannabis to manage his anxiety.
•    Mr Karaitiana engaged with the St Vincent de Paul Society Continuing Coordinated Care Program on 11/04/2022. This program was aimed at addressing his drug use and supporting him with housing and mental health support. He attended weekly appointments until he disengaged on 15/06/2022, claiming that the interventions were emotionally triggering for him.
Violence and aggression
•    Mr Karaitiana has a history of violent offending.
•    Mr Karaitiana has previously contravened ADVO’s.
•    Mr Karaitiana stated his aggression is exacerbated by his use of methylamphetamine but failed to demonstrate a willingness to address the underlying anger and aggression while under supervision by Community Corrections.
Insight into impact of offending
•    Mr Karaitiana has demonstrated limited insight into the impact of the offence/s on the victim/s.
•    In relation to the DV offending, he blamed the victim and attributed his offending to his “violent” upbringing in the family home. At the time of writing this report, these issues remain unresolved despite repeated attempts by Community Corrections to encourage Mr Karaitiana to engage with interventions.
Willingness and ability to undertake intervention
•    As of 15/06/2022 Mr Karaitiana reported he is no longer willing to engage with interventions to address his anger, aggression, and chronic drug abuse.
•    Mr Karaitiana claimed that engaging with service providers triggered his anxiety and was “doing more harm than good”.
Willingness and ability to undertake community service work
•Mr Karaitiana reported he is willing to undertake community service work if he is sentenced to a community-based order.
Response to supervision
•Mr Karaitiana was being supervised by Community Corrections at the time of the offences.
•His response to supervision at that time was considered unsatisfactory and a breach report was submitted on 10/12/2021.
•Since that report, Mr Karaitiana reoffended and spent time in custody.
•A further sentencing assessment report was submitted on 06/04/2022.
•Since that report was submitted, Mr Karaitiana’s response to supervision improved, but remained superficial. Mr Karaitiana also ceased engagement with the St Vincent de Paul Society Continuing Coordinated Care Program Assessment.
Risk assessment
•    Mr Karaitiana has been assessed at a T2/Medium-High risk of reoffending according to the Level of Service Inventory – Revised (LSI-R).”
On 3 August 2022, the Applicant appeared in the Downing Centre Local Court charged with multiple offences including 2 counts of affray, common assault, contraventions of an AVO and stalking. He was sentenced to an intensive corrections order for an aggregate period of 16 months commencing on 3 August 2022 and concluding on 2 December 2023. He was also directed to engage in various treatment programmes for drug and alcohol abuse, anger management, DV offending and assessment of his mental health status.[27]
[27] Exhibit 3, G Documents, G4, Attachment A, 27-31; Attachment B1: Decision of the Local Court of NSW at Downing Centre, 44-47.
The remarks of sentencing Magistrate Moody are highly relevant:[28]
[28] Exhibit 3, G Documents, G4, Attachment B: Sentencing remarks of the Local Court of NSW at Downing Centre, 35-41.
“HER HONOUR: I can indicate to you, Mr Hanson, that I consider your client has most definitely crossed the threshold. Where is he? He's in big trouble. He's a violent person. He comes from a background of violence and he perpetrates violence himself, even against his own mother. He is a very, very big concern. Affray carries ten years' imprisonment on indictment. He's already on a community corrections order for affray. That order has expired, however, I will be revoking it, but he is a danger to the community. He's extremely violent and I have very, very grave concerns.
Also, I note you handed me up material in relation to the Salvation Army Positive Lifestyle Program. He's signed one page to say that he's doing it, but I note that in the presentence report, which is not very long ago, he indicates that he is no longer willing to engage with interventions to address his anger, aggression and chronic drug abuse, and that engaging in service providers triggered his anxiety and was doing more harm than good.
He should go to gaol. I consider that he has crossed the threshold and this warrants a sentence of custody. It's how it's dealt with that there's the issue - I'm saying this for his benefit, Mr Hanson, as you can imagine - that he should go to gaol. It's time for him to go to gaol because he is just - he's committed another affray and he's so violent. Punching these people he doesn't even know. Someone pushes by him. He's a seriously violent offender, and he doesn't have a record that is that - I've read your submissions and thank you for those - he doesn't have a hugely long record but it's a violent one.
I've read the matters in relation to the first affray for which he was on a bond for, although I note that that predated the first, the matters ending 036, the second affray that he's committed. Take a seat, Mr Karaitiana, but I hope you're listening very carefully to what I say. You maybe losing your liberty today. I can tell you that right now.
ACCUSED: Yes.
HER HONOUR: Yes. That one predates the 036 matter. What I'm saying is that he is not in breach of the CCO in relation to the matter on the eighth of the fifth but he is in relation to the other two. Imagine being so violent with his own mother. It's the same victim, isn't it, in both those matters 8182 and 302?
HANSON: Your Honour, if I can just confirm that. 182 yes, as well as in 302, yes, your Honour. Your Honour, just to assist the Court, he states that his view has changed since the final, the last—
HER HONOUR: I bet it has, 'cause he must realise he's going to gaol. You must've told him that he is looking at a full-time custody.
HANSON: Yes, your Honour.
HER HONOUR: What about this as well - I need to ask you this. You say that he lives with his grandfather but in this report, it said he said he'd recently moved in with his grandfather to accommodation in Balmain but that remains unverified.
HANSON: Your Honour, we do have his grandfather.
HER HONOUR: His grandfather's here.
HANSON: Yes.
HER HONOUR: Does he live with you, does he? Yes. Blaming the victim, violent upbringing at home. I accept that he's had a violent upbringing but look at him. He's just as bad as the experience he had as a child. He turns around and just perpetrates the same violence against perfect strangers in the street, against his own mother. It doesn’t sound like she was mother of the year from what he says in the letter but at the same time, it's just the Balmain matters really bother me. Now he's living at grandfather's place in Balmain. My number 1 priority is the protection of the community and the way these affrays take place, it's not like there's bad blood between the parties; it's just violence. Absolutely unwarranted violence
HANSON: Yes, your Honour. That's the part--
HER HONOUR: Sorry. I'm getting really heated about this man because I think, I absolutely consider, that he's crossed the threshold. There is no question about that.
HANSON: Yes, your Honour. There's a lot of unwarranted gratuitous violence.
HER HONOUR: Gratuitous. Thank you. That was the word I'd forgotten.
HANSON: Thank you, your Honour. Your Honour, that all said, he has had a - he has been on a marathon of drug addiction for ten years, your Honour, since the age of 14.
HER HONOUR: Yes, but he seems - look, what's he done about it? You've given me the Positive Lifestyle thing from the Salvation Army. What? He signed one page saying that he's prepared to do it.
HANSON: Yes, your Honour. We came into this matter very late, which can be verified in the online Court portal. Your Honour, even just to assist Mr Karaitiana, we've actually waived our fees so we're actually appearing pro bono today.
HER HONOUR: That's good of you.
HANSON: Yes, your Honour, because he needs - your Honour, he's a young man that needs help, clearly.
HER HONOUR: He's what?
HANSON: He needs a lot of help and assistance and he also--
HER HONOUR: He might get help in gaol. You know, he might get help in fulltime custody. He won't be able to take methamphetamine and go out and bash perfect strangers on the street. Excuse me.
HANSON: Yes, your Honour.
HER HONOUR: Excuse me. I'll have none of that sarcasm in this courtroom. Unfortunately for you, your client is behaving in a way that makes me think that full-time custody is the go. He has got - I can see he thinks this is some sort of joke, waving his hands around when I'm speaking.
HANSON: Yes. Apologies, your Honour. That's why--
HER HONOUR: Perhaps you should take him outside and have a little chat with him, all right? Take him outside.
HER HONOUR: Mr Hanson, I'll get back to your matter now. Has your client learned to behave himself in a Court of law and not be gesticulating towards me?
HANSON: Yes, your Honour. He's taken what you said to heart and he understands that he may not be leaving out the same door that he came through today, your Honour.
HER HONOUR: Yes. I've indicated to you that I consider he's crossed the threshold. I've said what I - he's heard everything that I've had to say. Is there anything else you wish to raise?
….
HER HONOUR: Anaru Karaitiana is before the Court charged with three sets of matters. The first involves an affray committed on 8 May 2020 at 19.45.
Everything was captured on CCTV footage. He was in Balmain in Mort Street waking down the street with seven to eight males. The victims were walking up Mort Street in the direction of Darling Street and noticed the offender accompanied with all those males. The victims saw the males carrying bottles of alcohol and were walking down onto Mort Street and scattered on the street and footpath. The victims came across these males on the cross street of Mort and Curtis Road, where they seem to have separated.
The victim...(not transcribable)..Benjamin(?) was walking to the left side of the footpath on Mort Street where one of the males wearing a hooded jumper and a bump bag walked directly into the victim and shoulder bumped him. One of the other males also threw liquid on the victim from their slurpy cup. The victim was seen on CCTV footage to run up Mort Street in the direction of Mort Street and cross onto the other side of the road. The male in the hoodie followed the victim and threw three punches, which connected with his head.
The victim began to run down Mort Street as he was in fear for his safety as he believed he was going to get seriously hurt from these males. Five of them followed the victim up Mort Street, where the victim ran into the driveway of an address. As a result, the victim became cornered by the offender and four other males. The victim described the offender to be wearing a black Adidas T-shirt with a white emblem on the front.
The offender came up close to the victim and blocked him from leaving. He punched the victim where he had fallen to the ground. The victim had to cover his head to prevent further injuries. They kept kicking and punching him when he was on the ground. The victim remembered being on the ground for approximately 30 seconds, where the males all continued to punch him. Punches became less over 30 seconds when the victim realised that the offender and the males had run off down Mort Street.
The offender was seen on CCTV footage from 79 Curtis Road, which intersects Mort Street, Balmain. The victim saw his friend, the other victim, a Tex Donovan, walking down Mort Street. As he was walking down Mort Street, two other males approached him, started attacking him. This occurred in the middle of the street and was captured on CCTV footage. The victim sustained a cut to his right pinkie finger during the altercation, which caused bleeding. It was clear from the CCTV footage that the offender and all those males were targeting the victim and his friend. The offender's DNA was linked to the scene and ultimately he finds himself charged with the matter before the Court.
He is further charged with the matters ending 182 of a contravene an AVO and stalk and intimidate. It appears in these matters the victim in the matter is his mother, and there was a current domestic violence order and condition 1 only, and on 26 January she was about to leave her house to have dinner with her grand-nephews and the offender became angry and approached her and said, "You're not taking me out for dinner. Give me fucking money or else I swear I'm going to smash the TV." She was afraid and intimidated and embarrassed from what he said and left the location immediately.
He is then charged with a further common assault and a contravene matter in relation to his mother. On that occasion, it is more serious. Once again the order is in place and on 28 January the victim returned home. He began to yell, "Where the fuck have you been?" The victim said she had been shopping, to which the offender began demanding the victim for money and for cigarettes. The victim tried to explain that she did not have anything, to which the offender began to shove her with his elbow and shoulder.
She put her arms up to stop him from making contact with her shoulders. They were sore. The offender continued and the victim began to try to walk away. The offender yelled, "Where are you going," and he grabbed a hold of the right side of her neck, pulling her towards him. The victim immediately felt pain and the offender let her go. The victim then proceeded to run from the residence.
She feared that the offender would continue to physically assault her. The offender followed her, saying, "Get back here." The victim continued to run and the offender stopped after passing a few residences. The offender started walking back to the residence while yelling, "Fucking cunt" and "Fucking bitch." The victim made it to a nearby friend's residence. Police ultimately attended.
I note in relation to the last two sets of matters he was on an 18-month community corrections order, once again for the offence of affray. That has now expired. I note that that was also in Balmain and involved extremely violent and similar behaviour to the affray that I mentioned at first instance.
The offender comes before the Court with a record dating back to 2015, destroy damage property, contravene AVOs. He has received numerous bonds for these things that have been called up. He has a history of violence, it would be fair to say, and as I say, at the time of the commission of the last two offences he was on that 18-month bond for affray.
Mr Hanson represents him today and has - actually, just before I go to
Mr Hanson, I note I have been provided with a sentencing assessment report which was very troubling. There was a lot of victim-blaming and he said he got involved with drugs and antisocial behaviour because of peers that are in the Cessnock area led him to engage in such behaviour. He has got a long history of polysubstance abuse and he said his aggression is exacerbated by the use of methamphetamine but failed to demonstrate a willingness to address it.
He blamed the victim, attributing his offending to his violent upbringing in the family home - that is his mother - and then I note that he said he is no longer willing to engage in interventions to address his anger, aggression and chronic drug abuse; claimed that engaging with service providers triggered his anxiety and was doing more harm than good. Well, he had better get used to it. He spent some time in custody and then a further sentencing assessment report was provided.
He is assessed as medium to high risk of reoffending and suitable for community service. I note there is a supervision plan involving drugs and alcohol, engaging with a counsellor, involving in the EQUIPS aggression program, the EQUIPS Foundation Program, to address his aggression and undertaking cognitive behavioural exercises.
Mr Karaitiana has crossed the threshold. I consider nothing other than a penalty of imprisonment is appropriate in the circumstances. I have been provided with a letter by him where he talks about having a violent childhood and that his father was abusive and his mother had escaped with him from New Zealand but the dad followed, and other matters. He said he met friends who introduced him to drugs at the time of the offence. Now he loves his mum and regrets what he has done and is being supervised by his grandfather, with whom he is now living. I note that his grandfather is present in Court.
His grandfather takes him to church every Sunday and he gets involved in youth activities and he said he will not do what he did to his mother ever again, so it was his father that was the abuser, not his mother, because I said something earlier that I thought that it was both of them, but in any event. As I say, his behaviour in Court has been quite concerning.
He is a relatively young man, being 24 years old. As I said, I consider he has crossed the threshold. One of the most important considerations when considering whether I would deal with the matter by way of an ICO - as
Mr Hanson has asked me for - is the protection of the community. I am very concerned in relation to this individual as to the safety of the community. On two occasions now he was around the streets of Balmain setting upon strangers with his mates. He is still living in Balmain.
However, given his young age and the fact that he has not spent time in full-time custody before, I am prepared to deal with the matters by way of an intensive corrections order but I hope, Mr Hanson, you have explained to him that all these bonds that have been called up in the past for him, it is a different matter when he breaches this ICO. If he breaches this ICO, he goes before the Parole Board - it has nothing to do with me - and chances are if he keeps up this level of violence, he will find himself serving out the sentence that I am to impose by way of full-time custody. I hope he understands that.
HANSON: Yes, your Honour.
HER HONOUR: I am sure his grandfather is listening and is well aware that it might be in his interests to make sure that he engages with the programs. He is going to be very busy. I understand he has a part-time job in a timber mill.
What I intend to do is I am going to impose an ICO for a period of 16 months. In relation to that ICO, I intend to order that he comply with the supervision plan set out by community corrections in the report. I am also going to impose 150 hours of community service work.
….
Stand up, Mr Karaitiana. You have been very lucky today. I am not putting you into full-time custody. It is a nice letter you wrote. You are lucky you have got a living grandfather who is taking care of you, but please, you are 24 years old, let this be the end of the road because honestly, if you do this again the next magistrate is going to look at this and they are going to see that you have been on an ICO for affray and you have had another affray, CCOs, you will go to gaol for sure, all right, so you be very careful.
Is there anything else I need to do? As I said, you report by telephone to Leichhardt Community Corrections within 24 hours. It is a condition that you do this supervision plan that they set out, deal with your aggression; drugs and alcohol are the most important thing. Let me tell you, ice is the worst drug of all. It turns people into monsters, and that is what you have become, is a monster lately, and it is good to see you are going off to church with your grandfather and you are on the straight and narrow. Keep it up, because if you do not, you will be going on the straight and narrow in custody, and custody never did anyone any good. Thank you very much. You are free to leave.”

On 13 September 2022, the Applicant stole food items from Woolworths, Town Hall and was found to be in possession of a knife. He was at the time banned from Woolworths. He was carrying the knife in his bag. He told the Tribunal that he had just bought the knife at a market. He said somewhat bizarrely that this was because he was a knife collector. It is unclear whether he shared this explanation with the court when he was subsequently prosecuted, though he said something along these lines to police and NSW Corrections.[29]
[29] Exhibit 3, G Documents, G4, Attachment C: Sentencing remarks of the Local Court of New South Wales at Downing Centre, 52.
A police fact sheet states:[30]
[30] Exhibit 8, Tender Bundle, 44-5.
“…. At 2:15pm on Monday, September 13th 2022 the accused was seen by the witness who was operating in his capacity as a loss prevention officer attached to Woolworths Town Hall to secrete property belonging to Woolworths inside a black duffle bag on his person. The accused attempted to leave without paying for the items.
The stolen items are as follows:
- 2x Whittakers Bar Coconut Slab 50g $4.00 - Blueberries 125g $4.90 - Cook Tuna Avocado Roll $10.00 Total: $18.90
The accused was stopped by the witness and escorted upstairs into the security office. Police arrived a short time later where they spoke with the witness.
Body Worn Video was activated and police introduced themselves to the accused and attempted to caution him in relation to the stealing. The accused refused to answer any police questions. Police conducted a background check of the accused and advised him of their intention to subject him to a search of his person as they believed he had in his possession stolen items.
Initially the accused was not compliant, but eventually stood up to allow for the search.
The search was recorded on body worn video. During the search, the accused was verbally non-compliant with police, swearing at them often.
During the search of the accused's black duffle bag the stolen property was located, as well as a large, roughly foot long end to end survival knife.
Although the accused had not acknowledged that he understood the police caution which had been repeated to him on three occasions, he remarked that the knife was a 'prop' to be hung up on his wall. The accused did not answer police questions on where the knife was obtained, and when.
Police did not believe this to be a reasonable excuse to be carrying a knife in a public place. He was subsequently informed that the knife would be seized.
During their search, the loss prevention officer advised police that the accused was already banned from all Woolworths branches. A valid banning notice, signed by the accused was produced. Given this, the accused was also advised that he was trespassing to which he made no comment.”
An Intensive Correction Order Breach Report dated 27 September 2022 states: [31]
[31] Ibid 19.
“Response to intensive correction order
Mr Karaitiana’s initial engagement with Community Corrections is considered satisfactory by his compliance with reporting and participation in the assessment and planning stage. Mr Karaitiana’s supervision centred on addressing his chronic cannabis use, mental health concerns and addressing his domestic violence offending behaviour.
Mr Karaitiana current response to supervision is considered borderline. Mr Karaitiana was to be referred to the CSNSW EQUIPS programs to address his offending behaviour, however due to full time work commitments it was decided that he could engage in community-based intervention.
Mr Karaitiana has been sporadic with his reporting. Mr Karaitiana has also failed to follow through with a direction to gain a Mental health Care Plan (MHCP) to subsequently engage with a psychologist to address his anger and aggression, domestic violence offending, chronic drug use and identify any underlying mental health concerns.
Mr Karaitiana was directed to obtain a MHCP on 26 August 2022 and subsequently on 31 August 2022. On 1 September 2022 Mr Karaitiana called Community Corrections to advise that he was going to his general practitioner to obtain a MHCP, however at his next reporting on 19 September 2022, he had not yet done so claiming that too much is expected of him.
Relationship between alleged breach and risk factors
Although Mr Karaitiana’s new convictions are not directly related to his index offences, they are of concern to Community Corrections as his offending behaviour reflects his antisocial attitudes towards behaviour change.
Community Corrections is concerned with Mr Karaitiana’s lack of engagement in intervention to address his ongoing cannabis use and aggressive behaviours. Mr Karaitiana previously disclosed throughout the sentencing assessment report period that he was not willing to engage with interventions to address his risk factors, claiming his engagement in intervention triggers his anxiety.”
On 10 October 2022, the Applicant breached the AVO by being within 100 meters of his mother’s house.[32] The relevant police fact sheet states: [33]
[32] Exhibit 3, G Documents, G4, Attachment C, 52.
[33] Exhibit 8, Tender Bundle, 24-5.
“The accused is unemployed.
He has been cooperative toward police at all times during investigation.
Financial antecedents to be supplied at Court.
….
About 12:00pm on Monday 10 October 2022, Cessnock Police attended 44 Alexander Street, Ellalong, in order to conduct a ADVO Check with the victim, having received information indicating the accused may be present.
Police attended the front door of the dwelling and observed a number of males of Pacific Islander appearance were present. Police made enquiries that established the victim was not currently present within the residence.
Police were permitted entry and searched the residence for the accused. He was soon
located having poorly concealed himself behind a bathroom door at the rear of the residence. Police immediately identified the accused having had numerous prior interactions.
….
He indicated that he was of the belief that he was allowed at the location while the victim was absent.”
An Intensive Correction Order Breach Report dated 17 October 2022 states: [34]
[34] Exhibit 8, Tender Bundle, 27-8.
“(2) You must report to a community corrections officer at the times and places directed by the officer.
Mr Karaitiana has not reported as directed on five occasions with three occasions resulting in fail to report with no contact. Extensive efforts were made to try engage with Mr Karaitiana, but no contact was established.
On 14 September 2022, Mr Karaitiana missed his scheduled appointment, Community Corrections attempted to call him but no contact was made. Later that Day Mr Karaitiana contacted Community Corrections to advise he had been arrested that morning. Mr Karaitiana was directed to report on 15 September 2022.
On 15 September 2022, Mr Karaitiana failed to report. He made no contact with Community Corrections. Community Corrections attempted to contact Mr Karaitiana via phone and text, however, no contact was established. A further attempt to contact Mr Karaitiana on 16 September 2022 was also unsuccessful. Mr Karaitiana’s grandfather was contacted on 16 September 2022, and a message was left requesting Mr Karaitiana to report to Community Corrections on 19 September 2022.
On 19 September 2022 Mr Karaitiana reported unannounced, a number of hours past his scheduled appointment after multiple failed attempts to contact him prior in the day. He was interviewed and then given another reporting date for 26 September 2022.
On 26 September 2022, Mr Karaitiana failed to report. He made no contact with Community Corrections. Community Corrections attempted to contact Mr Karaitiana via phone and text directing him to make contact and directing him to report on 5 October 2022, however, no contact was established. Contact was made with Mr Karaitiana’s family member who advised Community Corrections he was not in the local area, and he would pass on a message to contact community Corrections.
On 4 October 2022, a hand delivered letter with a direction to report and formal warning to adhere to the conditions of his ADVO was delivered to Mr Karaitiana’s residence. However, Community Corrections were advised by his uncle that Mr Karaitiana was not in the local area, and they were unsure of his return.
Also on 4 October 2022, a phone call was made to Mr Karaitiana’s mother who advised that Mr Karaitiana was returning to Sydney to report to community corrections for 5 October.
On 5 October 2022, Mr Karaitiana failed to report as directed and no contact was made. Community Corrections attempted to contact Mr Karaitiana, but no contact established, a message was left directing him to make contact.
On 10 October 2022, Community Corrections attempted to contact Mr Karaitiana, and directed him to make contact. No contact was made.
On 12 October Mr Karaitiana reported following his appearance at Court. Mr Karaitiana stated it was a condition of Court to report to Community Corrections. Mr Karaitiana claims he has no phone credit to contact Community Corrections, however when challenged as to why he did not take the incoming calls he said too much is expected of him whist on supervision. He was formally reminded of his order conditions and directed to report as directed. A next to report was given for 19 October 2022.
Response to intensive correction order
Since the submission of the previous breach dated 27 September 2022, Mr Karaitiana’s response to supervision is borderline. He has failed to report on numerous occasions and has subsequently allegedly re-offended.
On 12 October 2022 Mr Karaitiana was given a final warning and direction to get a MHCP and provide to Community Corrections by 13 October 2022. Mr Karaitiana followed through as directed.
Mr Karaitiana was again directed to abide by the conditions of his ADVO. However, He justified the breach by stating that his current address was unsuitable due to unsubstantiated claims of physical assault by his grandfather. He was therefore referred to WEAVE youth support service for assistance with housing and prosocial support.
Relationship between alleged breach and risk factors
Mr Karaitiana’s alleged reoffence relates directly to his index offence and risk factors which have been identified as anger, aggression, and drug use in the context of domestic violence. They are a concern to Community Corrections as his offending behaviour reflects his anti-social attitude toward behaviour change.
Community Corrections is concerned with Mr Karaitiana’s lack of intervention to address his risk factors. Further to this, he has stated during interviews that he is not willing to address these risk factors as it triggers anxiety. This is a concern to Community Corrections as his reluctant engagement puts him at increased risk of re-offence, and he has indicated that he had returned to his mother’s residence at the time of breach as well as resuming contact with people that he has self-identified as anti-social influences.”
On 28 October 2022, the Applicant breached the AVO by being within 100 meters of his mother’s house.[35] He was arrested and placed in custody. Bail was refused. A police fact sheet states: [36]
“The accused is unemployed.
He has been cooperative toward police at all times during investigation.
Financial antecedents to be supplied at Court.
…
Approximately 3:10pm on Friday 28th October 2022 police attended [the address] to conduct an AVO compliance check. Police were invited into the house by a resident and located the accused inside sleeping in one of the front bedrooms.
Police woke the accused where he was arrested in relation to being at the address and breaching the AVO. The accused was conveyed to Cessnock Police Station where he was introduced to the Custody Manager and explained his rights in accordance with Part 9 of LEPRA.”
[35] Exhibit 8, Tender Bundle. 34.
[36] Ibid.
An Intensive Correction Order Breach Report dated 7 November 2022 states: [37]
[37] Ibid 38-40.
“On 28 October 2022, Mr Karaitiana was arrested and charged with Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic). He is currently in custody, bail refused. This matter is listed for Bail Review on 3 November 2022 at Downing Centre Local Court.
Response to intensive correction order
Since the submission of the previous breach report dated 17 October 2022, Mr Karaitiana’s response to supervision is unsatisfactory. He has failed to report as directed and subsequently allegedly re-offended. The response to his previous breach was noted, however Mr Karaitiana never engaged with Community Corrections to discuss the outcome of the breach.
Mr Karaitiana has not made contact with Community Corrections since 13 October 2022 despite extensive efforts made by Community Corrections to engage with him.
On 12 October 2022 Mr Karaitiana was formally warned and direct to obtain a Mental Health Care Plan (MHCP) by 13 October 2022. He was also directed to report on 19 October 2022.
On 13 October 2022 Community Corrections attempted to all Mr Karaitiana to follow up on his progress but no contact was established. Mr Karaitiana contacted his previous Community Corrections Officer at Penrith Community Corrections and provided his MHCP.
On 19 October 2022 Mr Karaitiana failed to report as directed, no contact was made with Community Corrections.
On 20 October 2022, Community Corrections attempted to contact Mr Karaitiana to follow up on his failure to report, however, no contact was established. A phone call was made to Mr Karaitiana’s grandfather on this same date. Community Corrections were advised that Mr Karaitiana had not been residing there and that he was residing at his mother’s address in breach of his ADVO conditions.
On 20 October 2022 Community Corrections attempted to call Mr Karaitiana’s mother, however no contact was established. A voice message was left requesting that she call Community Corrections back.
On 21 October 2022, Community Correction’s attempted to contact Mr Karaitiana, however, no contact was established. Community Corrections attempted to contact Mr Karaitiana’s mother again on 21 October 2022, however no contact was made and a text message requesting a call back was sent to her phone.
On 25 October 2022, Community Corrections attempted to call Mr Karaitiana, however, no contact was established.
On 28 October 2022, Community Corrections attempted to call Mr Karaitiana, however, no contact was established.
Last contact with Mr Karaitiana was on 13 October 2022 when he contacted Penrith Community Corrections to provide his MHCP.
Relationship between alleged breach and risk factors
Mr Karaitiana’s alleged reoffence relates directly to his index offence and risk factors which have been identified as anger, aggression, and drug use in the context of domestic violence. The alleged re-offence also is a repeat of the previous re-offence which was reported in the breach report dated 17 October 2022. It appears to be an ongoing pattern of behaviour demonstrated by Mr Karaitiana.
This is a concern to Community Corrections as Mr Karaitiana’s attitudes reflects continuous disregard to his intensive corrections order and ADVO. His reluctant engagement and lack of intervention towards behaviour change is also concerning to Community Corrections as his risk factors have not been addressed.
Recommendation
Community Corrections recommends that the intensive correction order is revoked.
Reasons for recommendation
Community Corrections has made this recommendation because Mr Karaitiana has not engaged with Community Corrections. Further, he has allegedly re-offended multiple times in a short space of time and has not yet engaged in meaningful intervention. He displays an unwillingness to comply with his Intensive Corrections Order and his ADVO, resulting in his current bail refused remand status. Community Corrections are concerned for community safety as Mr Karaitiana is not prepared to make any efforts towards behaviour change and is at a heighted risk of re-offence.”
On 23 November 2022, the Applicant appeared in the Downing Centre Local Court charged with various offences including contraventions of an AVO, shoplifting, possession of a knife in a public place and entering premises without lawful excuse. He was sentenced to an aggregate of 8 months’ imprisonment commencing on 29 October 2022 and concluding on 28 June 2023. He had a 4-month non-parole period concluding on 28 February 2023. It was noted that he had ongoing drug and alcohol addiction issues.[38]
[38] Exhibit 3, G Documents, G4, Attachment A, 25-27; Attachment C1: Decision of the Local Court of NSW at Downing Centre, 57-58.
The sentencing remarks of Deputy-Chief Magistrate Tsavaridis stated:[39]
[39] Exhibit 3, G Documents, G4, Attachment C: Sentencing remarks of the Local Court of NSW at Downing Centre, 51-54.
HIS HONOUR: For the first set of matters (Charge No: H…136), the events the subject of these proceedings are said to have taken place on or about 13 September 2022. I will return to the remaining two matters shortly. I summarise the facts for this matter thus.
The defendant was in the vicinity of Woolworths, Town Hall. He was alleged to have stolen three food-related items, totalling $18.90. Otherwise, when he was apprehended by police, he was searched and a knife was found on his person. Further, because he was banned from the Woolworths at that location, and elsewhere, he was not permitted to enter those premises lands.
Sequence 3, enter enclosed lands, is a matter which falls at the lower end of the scale of objective seriousness … the shoplifting, similarly. The custody of a knife in a public place is somewhat concerning. I accept that it is a first offence. Be that as it may, it seems to me that there was no genuine reason whatsoever for the defendant carrying a knife in his bag.
For the second set of matters (Charge H…874) and for the third set of matters (Charge No: H…948), the events the subject of those proceedings are said to have taken place on or about 10 October 2022 and 28 October 2022, respectively. Each matter relates to one count of contravene apprehended domestic violence order. On both occasions he was found at his mother’s home in breach of condition 9, that is, that he not go within 100 metres of where she resides.
As Ms Lopez correctly pointed out, those matters do not involve any circumstances of aggravation, other than to say, perhaps, that the offending in the third set of matters ending H…948 was committed at a time when he was on bail for the second set of matters ending H…874. Of course, a breach of conditional liberty is a circumstance of major aggravation.
That conclusion is arrived at for another reason, namely, that the defendant is the subject of six forms of conditional liberty - six Intensive Correction Orders imposed on 3 August 2022, not all that long before the offences the subject of these proceedings, in part for domestic violence-related offending and in part for an affray.
Those ICOs appear to have been revoked. No doubt the State Parole Authority will give some consideration to revisiting those matters in the near future, but at this stage it appears that the defendant is likely to remain in custody until on or about 2 December 2023.
He has entered pleas of guilty in relation to all matters at the earliest opportunity. He is entitled to a 25% discount for the utilitarian value of those pleas. I am satisfied that when one looks to the Sentencing Assessment Report there are a number of background issues, including some cognitive constraints and substance misuse issues, matters in respect of which he will need greater oversight by Community Corrections, while being supervised in the community.
In some respects, it is a report which does not assist him, to the extent that he was reluctant to engage in intervention, although later it appears he expressed a willingness to seek psychological intervention, notwithstanding the fact that his previous supervision had been reported as being unsatisfactory. He is assessed as being medium to high risk and any interactions with Community Corrections will focus on alcohol and other drugs, housing, residential rehabilitation, EQUIPS, domestic violence and family violence programs and a referral to a psychologist or counselling to address some of the criminogenic needs to which I have referred. He is unsuitable for community service work, although in my view that is not where the matters fall on the scale of objective gravity.
For the contravene charges, particularly because he is the subject of conditional liberty by virtue of the ICOs which involve domestic violence offending, I am satisfied that no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate and that the threshold in s 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) is crossed. I am also satisfied that no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate for sequences 1 and 2 of the charges ending H…136.
That does not necessarily mean though that the pendulum ought to swing so far the other way that the defendant will be dealt with by way of a crushing sentence. What the Court must do is instinctively synthesise the objective and subjective factors pertinent to sentence to arrive at a sentence which adequately reflects the criminality to which I have referred and ensures that specific and general deterrence feature prominently in any sentence imposed, particularly for the domestic violence-related offences.
I am also satisfied that to deal with these matters by way of further conditional liberty, would not adequately denote the seriousness of the offending conduct to which I referred.
….
Mr Karaitiana, what all that means for you is that you have been sentenced to term of imprisonment with a head term of eight months and a non-parole period of four months. That means that your earliest date of release from gaol is 28 February. Do you understand?

On 10 February 2023, an Intensive Corrections Reinstatement report was issued. It states:[40]
[40] Exhibit 8, Tender Bundle 88-90.
“Circumstances if intensive correction order is reinstated
Mr Karaitiana is released he intends on residing with his grandfather in the Balmain, NSW area. It is noted attempts have been made to verify this with Mr Karaitiana’s grandfather however, contact is yet to be established.
Contact with Australian Border Force advised that his VISA is currently in review for cancellation. Should his VISA be cancelled, he will be taken into their custody upon his release and possibly deported back to New Zealand.
Attitude to revocation and reinstatement
Contact with Mr Karaitiana identified his reason for breaching his order was in relation to two separate instances in which he reoffended. Mr Karaitiana advised the first instance was in relation to breaching an active type two no contact Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO) at his mother’s property which had conditions stipulating he could not attend the address. He stated around the time he was seeing a girl local to the area and was staying at his mother’s address despite acknowledging the order was in place. When asked around why he stayed there knowing he was not allowed he stated he missed his mother and being home gave him a sense of security he needed due to his declining mental health at the time.
Mr Karaitiana advised the second instance was in relation to stealing and having a knife in public. He stated around the time he was working full time however was still having issues with money and had no money for food. He entered Woolworths and was caught attempting to steal chocolate. After this Police attended Woolworths and conducted a search of his belongings and they located a knife in his bag. He stated that he was carrying a knife, because he collects them as a hobby and was taking it home.
Mr Karaitiana stated in hindsight his actions were “stupid” and he maintains ongoing feelings of “regret”. He verbalised he felt his life was starting to go well, noting he had employment and stable accommodation and he should have kept doing the right thing. However, he noted around the time he did not feel supported at his grandfathers and was struggling with his mental health due to missing his mother and his home. Mr Karaitiana further stated he was smoking cannabis daily to self-medicate his declining mental health but could see it was having an effect on his decision making.
When asked what will change if his order is reinstated to avoid further breaches of the conditions, he insisted gaol had been a wakeup call. He verbalised having feelings of being unsafe and does not like being there. He stated he will maintain work and reporting to Community Corrections to stay out of trouble and make sure he does not come back to gaol.”
By notice dated 27 February 2023, the Applicant was advised that his visa had been cancelled under s501(3A) of the Act. This was based on his conviction on 3 August 2022.
In his Request for revocation form completed on 27 February 2023, the Applicant states:[41]
“The reason for my revocation is that all my family are here my mum is here and all I know. I apologise for all the stress I’ve caused to the judge to the court and to the law of immigration. I’m my mother’s only boy/child and I’m worried that this effect her life here and her mental health badly. I’m one of her main supports here. I’m willing to do all of my parole without fail and willing participate in any programs they/youse allocate me to do so I can continue to be on the right path. The only home I know is Australia. I don’t know anyone there and I don’t be safe going there. I ask please give to give me another chance to prove myself worthy and prove to youse I can do better and be better.”
[41] Exhibit 3, G Documents, G4, Attachment H: Revocation request, 73.
He also states that he has worked as a labourer.[42]
[42] Exhibit 3, G Documents, G4, Attachment I: Personal Circumstances Form, 89.
He says that if he returned to New Zealand, he would “face gang issues and I got no support anywhere there... no form of housing”.[43]
[43] Ibid 91.
By letter dated 5 October 2023, the Applicant was advised that the Minister’s delegate had determined not to revoke the original decision.
On 2 November 2023, the Applicant’s uncle, GP, gave a short statement in support of the Applicant.[44]
[44] Exhibit 4, Letters of Support and Medical Details, The Applicant’s uncle statement.
On the same date, a member of the Applicant’s extended family, Mrs. TF also provided a letter of support. Both she and the Applicant make mention of him being involved with “gangsters”. The Applicant denied that these were known, named gangs as such.
On 13 December 2023, Ms Clare Fercher-Barrett, psychologist prepared a report at the request of the Applicant’s lawyers. This relevantly states: [45]
[45] Exhibit 7, Psychologist Report of Ms Fercher-Barret.
“… Mr Karaitiana attended the Ellalong Public School, Mount View High School, and Cessnock High School. He reportedly completed grade 11. He and his mother reported that he had poor academic achievement in the context of behavioural difficulties and attentional deficits. He was suspended and expelled. Nevertheless he denied any marked literacy or numeracy difficulties and he noted that his strengths lie in hands-on tasks rather than academic learning.
Mr Karaitiana reported that he has worked as a labourer and in construction jobs "on and off" since the age of 18. He said his last employment was in 2022.
Mr Karaitiana denied use of alcohol stating that his parents' drinking habits turned him off drinking himself. He disclosed a longstanding history of cannabis and methyl amphetamine use. He first started using drugs from the age of 15 and went on to use cannabis and methylamphetamine daily.
Mr Karaitiana advised that in around 2021 he stopped using drugs "because the people around me at the time were good, I had a good lifestyle". However in 2022 he relapsed "because I was around the wrong people again, I don't know why, it was just stupid".
He said there is a lot of substance use within the detention centre however he has maintained his abstinence and intends to uphold this post-release.
Mr Karaitiana denied a history of physical health problems. He denied that he has ever been diagnosed with a mental health condition. He reported that he engaged with a psychologist for several sessions in 2022 as per his parole conditions but had difficulty elaborating about their engagement. He stated, ‘she was just checking up on me and stuff, making sure I didn't repeat everything’.
The writer has had regard to Mr Karaitiana’s offending history which largely reflects domestic violence and violence. There has been a poor response to community supervision. There is evidence of chronic substance use.
Mr Karaitiana attributes his history of violence to substance use which he said relates to his association with antisocial peers. His use of cannabis and methylamphetamine are both highly problematic and have contributed to his poor judgement and disinhibited behaviours.
Mr Karaitiana acknowledged that his engagement in rehabilitative interventions is limited. He attributed his past reluctance to engage in treatment to finding it too distressing to discuss his trauma history.
Mr Karaitiana accepts that he has significant problems for which re requires professional support to address. He indicated a willingness to commit to rehabilitative treatment post-release.
When considered together, Mr Karaitiana's scores on the VRAG, HCR-20^v3 and PCLR suggest that overall he presents a moderate to high recidivism risk. Should he choose to commit meaningfully to engaging in rehabilitative treatment, ongoing abstinence from illicit drugs, and adherence to relapse prevention strategies the writer opines he can significantly reduce this risk level.
Mr Karaitiana meets formal diagnostic criteria for a cannabis use disorder and a methylamphetamine use disorder at the severe level. He exhibits traits consistent with the so-called Cluster B personality types. The Cluster B personality disorders are characterised by impulsive, and erratic traits, significant difficulties with interpersonal relatedness, and problems with self-regulation.
The cancellation of Mr Karaitiana's visa will result in emotional distress and psychosocial hardship for him. He has lived for most of his life in Australia having moved here at the age of 7 with his family. He appears to have limited supports in New Zealand who can assist him to remain on a positive trajectory.
Ms [VK] continues to support her son despite being the primary victim of his offending conduct. She expressed a hope that he can remain in Australia and improve his life circumstances by remaining abstinent from drugs. She will experience sorrow should he be unable to remain in Australia.
If deported Mr Karaitiana will be separated from his primary supports, namely his mother and maternal grandfather. It will be difficult for them to maintain a meaningful relationship by virtue of geographical distance and will impair their ability to move towards healing from the harm Mr Karaitiana has caused them. Mr Karaitiana indicated that "I'm realising eve1ything I've lost. I really fucked up badly and all I want to do is fix it, and I can fix it".
ANY FURTHER MATTERS DEEMED APPROPRIATE
It is well recognised in the forensic psychological literature that cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and relapse prevention plans, especially those based on the Good Lives Model of Offender Rehabilitation, can be reasonably successful in supporting offenders to evaluate their core values and beliefs and make more pro-social choices. CBT has been found to be one of the most effective treatments in reducing recidivism among offenders of all types. This modality is effective as it is strengths based and explicitly targets 'criminal thinking' as a factor contributing to maladaptive behaviour among offenders. The writer opines it would be a good fit for Mr Karaitiana due to its focus on skills and strengths rather than focusing on traumatic events, which he finds too painful to discuss.
It is also important that Mr Karaitiana undertakes treatment of his substance use issues and specific relapse prevention planning pertaining to same. Addressing his addictions will be important in reducing his recidivism risk.”
The Applicant has had an intermittent employment history as a labourer.
If the Applicant were to be released into the community, he says that he will not reoffend. Beyond that, he has no concrete plans. He would prioritise getting a job and “bettering himself”. He has no plans or arrangements to undertake cognitive behavioural therapy as recommended by Ms. Fercher-Barrett. His plans concerning his living arrangements are also unclear. It is notable that his mother does not say that he is welcome to live with her, if he is released.[46] It is not clear that his grandfather would be an option either. He has previously lived with his grandfather but left there because he started “missing my mum” and he received “hidings” and “tough love” from him.
[46] Exhibit 5, Statutory Declaration of Applicant’s Mother.
The Applicant has an extensive criminal history, commencing as an adult in 2016. A copy of his record of convictions is annexed hereto and marked “B”.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Does the Applicant Pass the Character Test?
As previously discussed, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant has a “substantial criminal record” and, therefore, he does not pass the character test. This is not disputed by the Applicant. The Tribunal must consider whether “there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked”.
Is there another reason why the original decision should be revoked under section 501CA(4)?
In considering whether to exercise this discretion, the Tribunal is bound by s 499(2A) to comply with any directions made under the Act. In this case, Direction No 99 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (“the Direction”) has application.[47]
[47] On 15 April 2021, the former applicable direction, Direction No. 79 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s501CA, was revoked and was replaced by Direction 90, this in turn was replaced by Direction 99 on 3 March 2023.
For the purposes of deciding whether to refuse or cancel a non-citizen’s visa or whether or not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen’s visa, paragraph 5.2 of the Direction contains several principles that must inform a decision maker’s application of the considerations identified in Part 2 where relevant to the decision.
The principles that are found in paragraph 5.2 of the Direction may be briefly stated as follows:
(1)Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia’s law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
(2)Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.
(3)The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
(4)Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non- citizens 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 by non- citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.
(5)With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia will generally afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age. The level of tolerance will rise with the length of time a non-citizen has spent in the Australian community, particularly in their formative years.
Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the noncitizen’s conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation. In particular, the inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence and the other types of conduct or suspected conduct mentioned in paragraph 8.55(2) (Expectations of the Australian Community) is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient in some circumstances, even if the non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
Paragraph 6 of the Direction provides that:
Informed by the principles in paragraph 5.2, a decision maker must take into account the considerations identified in sections 8 and 9, where relevant to the decision.
Paragraph 8 of the Direction sets out five Primary Considerations that the Tribunal must take into account and they are:
(1)protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(2)whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;
(3)the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia:
(4)the best interests of minor children in Australia; and
(5)expectations of the Australian community.
Paragraph 9 of the Direction sets out five Other Considerations which must be taken into account. These considerations are:
a)Legal consequence of the decision;
b)extent of impediments if removed;
c)impact on victims; and
d)links to the Australian community, including:
i)strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia; and
ii)impact on Australian business interests.
I note the importance of the Other Considerations being “other” considerations, as opposed to “secondary” considerations. As noted by Colvin J in Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection:[48]
“…Direction 65 [now Direction 99] makes clear that an evaluation is required in each case as to the weight to be given to the 'other considerations' (including non‑refoulement obligations). It requires both primary and other considerations to be given 'appropriate weight'. Direction 65 does provide that, generally, primary considerations should be given greater weight. They are primary in the sense that absent some factor that takes the case out of that which pertains 'generally' they are to be given greater weight. However, Direction 65 does not require that the other considerations be treated as secondary in all cases. Nor does it provide that primary considerations are 'normally' given greater weight. Rather, Direction 65 concerns the appropriate weight to be given to both 'primary' and 'other considerations'. In effect, it requires an inquiry as to whether one or more of the other considerations should be treated as being a primary consideration or the consideration to be afforded greatest weight in the particular circumstances of the case because it is outside the circumstances that generally apply.”[49]
[48] Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594.
[49] Ibid, [23].
OFFENDING HISTORY
The Applicant’s criminal record as produced by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission is outlined at Annexure B.[50]
[50] Exhibit 3, G Documents, G4, Attachment K: Further Information relevant to decision under s 501CA on whether to revoke the original decision to cancel your visa, 155-6.
The Applicant’s adult offending commenced in 2016, however his first recorded family violence occurred when he was still a minor in 2015. This is relevant “regardless of whether there is a conviction or a sentence imposed”.[51]
[51] see Direction 99 para 8.1.1(1)(a)(iii).
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 1 – PROTECTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY
In considering this Primary Consideration 1, paragraph 8.1 of the Direction requires decision-makers to keep in mind the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. Decision-makers should have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that this country confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, that they will respect important institutions and that they will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
In determining the weight applicable to Primary Consideration 1, paragraph 8.1(2) of the Direction requires decision-makers to give consideration to:
a)The nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date; and
b)The risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
The Nature and Seriousness of the Applicant’s Conduct to Date
When assessing the nature and seriousness of a non-citizen’s criminal offending or other conduct to date, paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction specifies that decision-makers must have regard to a number of factors. I will now turn to addressing these considerations.

Sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction provides that without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, violent and/or sexual crimes; crimes of a violent nature against women or children (regardless of the sentence imposed); or acts of family violence (regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed) are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community.
The Applicant has a history of both family violence and random violence against a stranger. The Applicant’s mother has been abused, mistreated and assaulted by him. He has damaged and destroyed her property. He has repeatedly breached AVOs protecting her. She is a 54-year-old woman in poor health. His father has also been the victim of a brutal assault by him. He has had multiple opportunities, provided by the justice system to mend his ways, but he has proceeded to ignore these. He has acted in contravention of an AVO. He has assaulted a stranger. The Applicant’s conduct is appalling.
Sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction provides that without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are considered by the Australian Government and the Australian community to be serious:
(i)causing a person to enter into or being party to a forced marriage (other than being a victim), regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed;
(ii)crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community (such as the elderly and the disabled), or government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties;
(iii)any conduct that forms the basis for a finding that a non-citizen does not pass an aspect of the character test that is dependent upon the decision-maker’s opinion (for example, section 501(6)(c));
(iv)where the non-citizen is in Australia, a crime committed while the non-citizen was in immigration detention, during an escape from immigration detention, or after the non-citizen escaped from immigration detention, but before the non-citizen was taken into immigration detention again, or an offence against section 197A of the Act, which prohibits escape from immigration detention.
The Applicant does not pass the character test.
Sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker (with the exception of the crimes or conduct mentioned in sub-paragraphs (a)(ii), (a)(iii) or (b)(i) of paragraph 8.1.1(1)) to have regard to the sentence(s) imposed by the Courts for a crime or crimes of a non-citizen/applicant. The imposition of a custodial term is regarded as the last resort in any reasonably and correctly applied sentencing process. Custodial terms are viewed as a reflection of the objective seriousness of an applicant’s offending.
After having been the beneficiary of lenient sentences by the courts, the Applicant has been ultimately sentenced to imprisonment, as set out above. This is an indication of the seriousness of his conduct. The Applicant has repeatedly breached court-imposed conditions.
Sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to have regard to the frequency of a non-citizen’s offending and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness.
The Applicant has continued to commit serious offences, even when subject to court orders and supervision by corrections. His criminal conduct has been increasing in severity.
Sub-paragraph (e) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to have regard to the cumulative effect of an Applicant’s repeated offending.
The cumulative effect on the Applicant’s victims has been very serious. The effect on the Applicant’s mother must have been particularly devastating. The impact on a woman who has lived through the pain of a violent marriage, then being subjected to more family violence at the hands of her own son, is difficult to imagine. His attack on his father was brutal. He has brutally attacked a random stranger in the company of a gang.
Sub-paragraph (f) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to have regard to whether a non-citizen has provided false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending.
There is no evidence of this.
Sub-paragraph (g) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to have regard to whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned about the consequences of further offending in terms of the non-citizen’s migration status (noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen’s favour).
There is no evidence of any warnings.
Sub-paragraph (h) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to have regard, where the offence or conduct was committed in another country, to whether that offence or conduct is classified as an offence in Australia.
There is no evidence of such offending.
I do not consider factors (f), (g) and (h) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction apply to the Applicant’s offending or circumstances. The rest of the relevant sub-paragraphs of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction, in their totality, weigh extremely heavily against revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
The Risk to the Australian Community Should the Applicant Commit Further Offences or Engage in Other Serious Conduct
Paragraph 8.1.2(1) provides that in considering the need to protect Australian community (including individuals, groups or institutions) from harm, decision-makers should have regard to the Government’s view 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.
Paragraph 8.1.2(2) provides that in assessing the risk that may be posted by the non-citizen to the Australian community, decision-makers must have regard to, cumulatively:
(a)the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and
(b)the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account:
i)information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen re-offending; 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; and
(c)where consideration is being given to whether to refuse to grant a visa to the non-citizen - whether the risk of harm may be affected by the duration and purpose of the non-citizen’s intended stay, the type of visa being applied for, and whether there are strong or compassionate reasons for granting a short stay visa.
Nature of harm should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct
Assessing the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community that may occur if the Applicant were to engage in further criminal or other serious conduct, is informed by the nature of his offending to date, including any escalation in his offending. This assessment also notes that the Direction provides that the Australian community’s tolerance for harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.[52]
[52] Direction 99 para 8.1.2(1).
The nature of the harm that may result if the Applicant were to reoffend is extremely serious. He has been involved in gang activity, long term drug abuse and random acts of violence. He has perpetrated acts of family violence against his own mother, even when there has been an AVO in place to protect her from him. He is potentially a risk not only to her, but even to random citizens who may be unfortunate enough to be in his vicinity. A man who is prepared to commit acts of family violence, even against his own mother, would have little compunction in possibly harming a future partner or children. He has brutally assaulted his father. The Applicant has had many opportunities to mend his ways, but he has ignored them. He has shown contempt for the laws of this country and even lacks the basic respect that a son should have for his mother. He has shown himself to be a threat even to random strangers. The Applicant’s offending is so serious that even the smallest risk of it being repeated is acceptable.
Likelihood of engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct
There have been several assessments of the Applicant’s insight and willingness to engage with appropriate treatment. These are set out at length above. They offer little cause for optimism. He has been assessed by the NSW Justice Department as being a medium to high risk of reoffending. His own expert witness report is equally concerning.[53] There are few if any stabilising supports in place. Reliance on his family for support is problematic, given his history of victimising, or being himself a victim, of them. They have always been there, but he has still offended, even against them. He has a diagnosed severe methamphetamine use disorder, which is untreated. There is no reason to have any confidence that the Applicant would not continue to offend and abuse drugs if returned to the community. His court ordered treatments have achieved nothing. He has demonstrated little insight and little contrition, other than to be discomforted by his incarceration. He is at least a medium, if not high risk of reoffending if released. Given the gravity of his offending, this is unacceptable.
[53] Exhibit 7, Psychologist Report of Ms Fercher-Barret.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 1
Primary consideration number one weighs extremely heavily against revocation of the Applicant’s visa cancellation.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 2: FAMILY VIOLENCE
Paragraph 8.2 of the Direction provides:
(1)The Government has serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of entering or remaining in Australia. The Government’s concerns in this regard are proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen (see paragraph (3) below).
(2)This consideration is relevant in circumstances where:
a)a non-citizen has been convicted of an offence, found guilty of an offence, or had charges proven howsoever described, that involve family violence; and/or
b)there is information or evidence from independent and authoritative sources indicating that the non-citizen is, or has been, involved in the perpetration of family violence, and the non-citizen being considered under section 501 or section 501CA has been afforded procedural fairness.
(3)In considering the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non- citizen, the following factors must be considered where relevant:
a)the frequency of the non-citizen’s conduct and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;
b)the cumulative effect of repeated acts of family violence;
c)rehabilitation achieved at time of decision since the person’s last known act of family violence, including:
i.the extent to which the person accepts responsibility for their family violence related conduct;
ii.the extent to which the non-citizen understands the impact of their behaviour on the abused and witness of that abuse (particularly children);
iii.efforts to address factors which contributed to their conduct; and
d)Whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware by a Court, law enforcement or other authority, about the consequences of further acts of family violence, noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen’s favour. This includes warnings about the non- citizen’s migration status, should the non-citizen engage in further acts of family violence.
For all of the reasons discussed above, this Primary Consideration weighs extremely heavily against revocation.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 2
This consideration weighs extremely heavily against revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
Primary Consideration 3 – Ties to Australia
Paragraph 8.3 of the Direction provides:
(1) Decision-makers must consider any impact of the decision on the non-citizen’s immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
(2) In considering a non-citizen’s ties to Australia, decision-makers should give more weight to a non-citizen’s ties to his or her child and/or children who are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
(3) The strength, duration and nature of any family or social links generally with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
(4) Decision-makers must also consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the non-citizen has to the Australian community. In doing so, decision-makers must have regard to:
a) the length of time the non-citizen has resided in the Australian community, noting that:
i)considerable weight should be given to the fact that a noncitizen has been ordinarily resident in Australia during and since their formative years, regardless of when their offending commenced and the level of that offending; and
ii)more weight should be given to the time the non-citizen has resided in Australia where the non-citizen has contributed positively to the Australian community during that time; and
iii)less weight should be given to the length of time spent in the Australian community where the non-citizen was not ordinarily resident in Australia during their formative years and the noncitizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia.
The Applicant regards Australia as his home. He has lived here since he was 7 years old. He has no children. He attended school here to year 11. He has worked in labouring jobs intermittently. He has family and friends here. He has been a drug abuser since he was 15 years of age.
His closest family connection is to his mother, who has also been his primary victim. She has very recently provided a statement in support of the Applicant and gave evidence in his cause. She would undoubtedly be distressed by his removal. She has however required an AVO to protect her from his abuse from October 2016 until it expired, in June this year. Tellingly, she has not offered to let him live with her, if he is released into the Australian community. If he were removed to New Zealand, she could still keep in touch with him electronically. She also told the Tribunal that she usually visits New Zealand once or twice each year to catch up with family, to attend funerals and such like. She could still see the Applicant in person during these regular visits.
If he were returned to the community, she would be at significant risk of being harmed by him again, given his claimed attachment to her. If he resumed his drug use, that harm would be all but inevitable.
He has a connection to his maternal grandfather, with whom he has lived at times. This relationship is also complex. He recently moved away from living with his grandfather to avoid his “tough love”. He claims that this is also a violent relationship. His grandfather would also no doubt miss him. They could however remain in contact electronically.
The Applicant professes to have no relationship with his father. He is not even sure whether he still lives in Australia. He has no interest in having such a relationship. He has a violent history with his father, both as a victim and a perpetrator.
The Applicant has a history of being involved in gangs. These are negative, not positive community links. If he reconnected with these elements, the result for the community, including his family, would be very negative. He has been a repeat offender for most of his adult life.
The potential adverse impact on the Applicant’s Australian ties if he is removed must be seen in the context of all the factors set out above. On balance, and assuming in the Applicant’s favour that he does not return to drug use and offending, a prospect that is less probable than not, this Primary Consideration weighs slightly in favour of revocation.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 3
This consideration weighs slightly in favour of revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 4: THE BEST INTERESTS OF MINOR CHILDREN IN AUSTRALIA
Paragraph 8.4(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to make a determination about whether cancellation or refusal under section 501, or non-revocation under section 501CA is in the best interests of a child affected by the decision. Paragraphs 8.4(2) and 8.4(3) respectively contain further considerations. The former provides that for their interests to be considered, the relevant child (or children) must be under 18 years of age at the time when a decision about whether or not to refuse or cancel the visa or not to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision is being made. The latter provides that if there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests may differ
Paragraph 8.4(4) of the Direction sets out a number of factors to take into consideration with respect to the best interests of minor children in Australia. Those include, relevantly:
a)    the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the non-citizen. Less weight should generally be given where the relationship is non-parental, and/or there is no existing relationship and/or there have been long periods of absence, or limited meaningful contact (including whether an existing Court order restricts contact);
b)    the extent to which the non-citizen is likely to play a positive parental role in the future, taking into account the length of time until the child turns 18, and including any Court orders relating to parental access and care arrangements;
c)    the impact of the non-citizen’s prior conduct, and any likely future conduct, and whether that conduct has, or will have a negative impact on the child;
d)    the likely effect that any separation from the non-citizen would have on the child, taking into account the child’s or non-citizen’s ability to maintain contact in other ways;
e)    whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child;
f)     any known views of the child (with those views being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child);
g)    evidence that the child has been, or is at risk of being, subject to, or exposed to, family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen, or has otherwise been abused or neglected by the non-citizen in any way, whether physically, sexually or mentally;
h)    evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen’s conduct.
The Applicant has not disclosed any relevant minor children in Australia.
The Applicant and the Respondent were agreed that this is not a factor in this case.
Having regard to all of the above, Primary Consideration 4 is neutral.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 5 – THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY
The relevant paragraphs in the Direction
In making the assessment for weight to be allocated to Primary Consideration 5, paragraph 8.5(1) of the Direction provides that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. I should consider whether the Applicant has breached, or whether there is an unacceptable risk that he would breach, this expectation by engaging in serious conduct.

Paragraph 8.5(2) of the Direction directs that a visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences are such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa. In particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, of the following kind:
(a)acts of family violence; or
(b)causing a person to enter into, or being party to (other than being a victim of), a forced marriage;
(c)commission of serious crimes against women, children or other vulnerable members of the community such as the elderly or disabled; in this context, ‘serious crimes’ include crimes of a violent or sexual nature, as well as other serious crimes against the elderly or other vulnerable persons in the form of fraud, extortion, financial abuse/material exploitation or neglect;
(d)commission of crimes against government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties; or
(e)involvement or reasonably suspected involvement in human trafficking or people smuggling, or in crimes that are of serious international concern including, but not limited to, war crimes, crimes against humanity and slavery; or
(f)worker exploitation.
Paragraph 8.5(3) of the Direction provides that the above expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
Paragraph 8.5 (4) of the Direction provides guidance on how the expectations of the Australian community are to be determined. This paragraph states:
This consideration is about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole, and in this respect, decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government’s views as articulated above, without independently assessing the community’s expectations in the particular case.
Paragraph 8.5(4) is consistent with the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185 which affirmed the approach established in previous authorities that it is not for the Tribunal to determine for itself the expectations of the Australian community by reference to an Applicant’s circumstances or evidence about those expectations. The Tribunal is to be guided by the Government’s views as to the expectations of the Australian community, which are to be found in the Direction.[54]
[54] See Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 348; Afu v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1311; YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466 and FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 500.
Paragraph 8.5 contains a statement of the Government’s views as to the expectations of the Australian community, which operates to ascribe to the whole of the Australian community an expectation aligning with that of the executive government which the decision maker must have regard to.
Analysis – Allocation of Weight to this Primary Consideration 5
Accordingly, in assessing the weight attributable to Primary Consideration 5, it is necessary to have regard to the following matters:
(a)the Applicant’s criminal record as set out in Annexure B.
(b)The other matters set out above, particularly the Applicant’s record of family violence and affray.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 5
Primary consideration 5 weighs extremely heavily against revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
It is necessary to look at the Other Considerations listed at paragraph 9 of the Direction.
(a) Legal consequence of the decision
This consideration is neutral.
(b) Extent of Impediments if Removed
Paragraph 9.2 of the Direction directs a decision-maker to take into account the extent of any impediments that the non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account:
(a)the non-citizen’s age and health;
(b)whether there are any substantial language or cultural barriers; and
(c)any social, medical and/or economic support available to that non-citizen in that country.
The Applicant is a physically healthy young man. He may have some mental health issues, though he says that he does not. These can be treated just as well in New Zealand as they can in Australia.
There are no language or cultural barriers.
The Applicant’s concern about gang activity in New Zealand is ironic given his conduct in Australia. He can make good or bad choices if he returns there. That is up to him. He told the Tribunal that his concern was of a general nature because New Zealand has gangs. It is not based on any concern particular to him.
The Applicant would have access to all of the social, medical and community supports available to any citizen of New Zealand. These are, in general terms, comparable to those available in Australia.
The Applicant would no doubt experience some difficulties in making the transition back to his country. This may result in challenges, at least initially in finding accommodation and work. His mental health may suffer. He may resume drug use.
The Applicant was deliberately dissembling in his evidence to the Tribunal about his family connections in New Zealand. I do not accept his evidence. His mother’s evidence suggests an extensive intergenerational network of family members all over New Zealand. His mother continues to have close ties with several of her sisters and their families in New Zealand. His father also has family there. I accept that the Applicant may not presently be close to many of his relatives in New Zealand, but I am confident that his mother would do her best to establish connections for him there, should he return.
This consideration is weighs slightly in favour of revocation.
(c) Impact on victims
Paragraph 9.3 of the Direction directs a decision-maker to take into account the impact of the section 501 or 501CA decision on members of the Australian community, including victims of the non-citizen’s criminal behaviour, and the family members of the victim or victims, where information in this regard is available and the non-citizen being considered for visa refusal or cancellation, or who has sought revocation of the mandatory cancellation of their visa, has been afforded procedural fairness.
There is direct evidence from the Applicant’s mother that she has forgiven him and wants him to remain in Australia. As previously observed, her reasons for expressing these opinions are complex.
To the extent that she has expressed an opinion, it weighs slightly in the Applicant’s favour.
(d) Impact on Australian business interests
Paragraph 9.4 of the Direction directs a decision-maker to take into account the following:
Decision-makers must consider any impact on Australian business interests if the non-citizen is not allowed to enter or remain in Australia, noting that an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision under section 501 or 501CA would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.
There is no direct evidence on this Other Consideration, so it is neutral.
Findings: Other Considerations
The application of the Other Considerations in the present matter can be summarised as follows:
(a)the legal consequence of decision under s 501 or s 501CA is neutral.
(b)the extent of impediments if removed weighs slightly in favour of revocation.
(c)the impact on victims weighs slightly in favour of revocation.
(d)the impact on Australian business interests is neutral.
CONCLUSION
It is necessary to weigh up all of the primary and other considerations.
Primary consideration 1 weighs extremely strongly against revocation.
Primary consideration 2 weighs extremely strongly against revocation.
Primary consideration 3 slightly in favour of revocation.
Primary consideration 4 is neutral.
Primary consideration 5 weighs extremely strongly against revocation
Other considerations, (a) and (d) are neutral.
Other considerations (b) and (c) weigh slightly in favour of revocation.
The Applicant has demonstrated contempt for the law and other citizens. He has ignored Court Orders. He has been involved in gangs. He has abused drugs since his mid-teenage years. He has largely untreated and unresolved problems with methamphetamine addiction, anger management and family violence. He has demonstrated a reluctance to engage with treatment programmes as noted in the assessment reports quoted above. He has victimised his own mother and his father. He has been involved in a random, unprovoked act of violence.
It may well be that he had a tough upbringing, but that does not give him a license to victimise others. Direction 99 is very clear that “non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to...forfeit the privilege” of staying in Australia.[55]
[55] Direction 99 para 5.2(2).
The factors weighing in favour of revocation, even when aggregated, scarcely move the scales at all in the Applicant’s favour.
In this case, the factors against revoking the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa are overwhelming.
In my view, the proper application of the Direction favours the Tribunal not exercising the discretion to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa. I find that there is not “another reason” pursuant to s 501CA (4)(b)(ii) to revoke the original decision.
DECISION
The decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding one hundred and thirty-nine (139) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Hon. J Rau SC.

......................[sgnd]..........................
Associate
Dated: 20 December 2023

Date of hearing: 15 December 2023

Advocate for the Applicant:

Tanguy Mwilambwe

Taylor Rose

Advocate for the Respondent: Tigiilagi Eteuati
Australian Government Solicitor

Annexure A – List of Exhibits

Exhibit no.

Lodged by

Document

1

Respondent

Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions

2

Applicant

Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions

3

Respondent

G-Documents

4

Applicant

Letters of Support and Medical Details

5

Applicant

Statutory Declaration of Applicant’s Mother

6

Applicant

Statutory Declaration of Anaru Dylan Karaitiana

7

Applicant

Psychologist Report of Ms Fercher-Barret

8

Respondent

Tender Bundle

Annexure B – Applicant’s Offending History

Court

Court Date

Offence

Court Result

Downing Centre Local Court

23.11.2022

Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic)

IMPRISONMENT (AGGREGATE) : 8 MONTHS

Downing Centre Local Court

23.11.2022

Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic)

Downing Centre Local Court

23.11.2022

Shoplifting-T2

Downing Centre Local Court

23.11.2022

Custody of knife in public place – first offence

Downing Centre Local Court

23.11.2022

Enter inclosed land not presc premises w/o lawful excuse

S10A CONVICTION WITH NO OTHER PENALTY

Downing Centre Local Court

03.08.2022

Affray-T1

INTENSIVE CORRECTION ORDER (AGGREGATE) : 16 MONTHS

Downing Centre Local Court

03.08.2022

Affray-T1

Downing Centre Local Court

03.08.2022

Common Assault (DV)-T2

Downing Centre Local Court

03.08.2022

Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic)

Downing Centre Local Court

03.08.2022

Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic)

Downing Centre Local Court

03.08.2022

Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (domestic)-T2

Downing Centre Local Court

10.12.2020

Destroy or damage property <=$2000 (DV)-T2

FINE: $550

Downing Centre Local Court

10.12.2020

Affray-T1

COMMUNITY CORRECTION ORDER – 18 MONTHS

Downing Centre Local Court

10.12.2020

Possess prohibited drug

S10A CONVICTION WITH NO OTHER PENALTY

Cessnock Local Court

21.07.2017

Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic)

SERVICE INCLUDING EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OR DRUG AND ALCOHOL REHABILITATION

Cessnock Local Court

21.07.2017

Destroy or damage property (DV)

Cessnock Local Court

21.07.2017

Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic)

FINE: $300

Cessnock Local Court

21.07.2017

Fail to appear in accordance with bail acknowledgement (BENCH-N ON CONVICTION – 63514922)

S10A CONVICTION WITH NO OTHER PENALTY

Cessnock Local Court

21.07.2017

Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic)

3 YEARS SUPV NSW PROB SERVICE FOR COUNSELLING, EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OR DRUG AND ALCOHOL REHABILITATION

Cessnock Local Court

21.07.2017

Common Assault (DV)-T2

Cessnock Local Court

12.10.2016

Destroy or damage property (DV)

12 MONTHS SUPV NSW PROB SERVICE PARTICULARLY ANGER MANAGEMENT AND DRUG AND ALCOHOLISSUES

Cessnock Local Court

12.10.2016

Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic)

Cessnock Children’s Court

24.06.2015

Destroy or damage property (DV)

6 MONTHS SUPV JUVENILE JUSTICE

Cessnock Children’s Court

24.06.2015

Destroy or damage property (DV)

[2023] AATA 4236

20 December 2023

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Remedies

Exhibit no.	Lodged by	Document
1	Respondent	Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions
2	Applicant	Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions
3	Respondent	G-Documents
4	Applicant	Letters of Support and Medical Details
5	Applicant	Statutory Declaration of Applicant’s Mother
6	Applicant	Statutory Declaration of Anaru Dylan Karaitiana
7	Applicant	Psychologist Report of Ms Fercher-Barret
8	Respondent	Tender Bundle

Court	Court Date	Offence	Court Result
Downing Centre Local Court	23.11.2022	Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic)	IMPRISONMENT (AGGREGATE) : 8 MONTHS
Downing Centre Local Court	23.11.2022	Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic)
Downing Centre Local Court	23.11.2022	Shoplifting-T2
Downing Centre Local Court	23.11.2022	Custody of knife in public place – first offence
Downing Centre Local Court	23.11.2022	Enter inclosed land not presc premises w/o lawful excuse	S10A CONVICTION WITH NO OTHER PENALTY
Downing Centre Local Court	03.08.2022	Affray-T1	INTENSIVE CORRECTION ORDER (AGGREGATE) : 16 MONTHS
Downing Centre Local Court	03.08.2022	Affray-T1
Downing Centre Local Court	03.08.2022	Common Assault (DV)-T2
Downing Centre Local Court	03.08.2022	Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic)
Downing Centre Local Court	03.08.2022	Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic)
Downing Centre Local Court	03.08.2022	Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (domestic)-T2
Downing Centre Local Court	10.12.2020	Destroy or damage property <=$2000 (DV)-T2	FINE: $550
Downing Centre Local Court	10.12.2020	Affray-T1	COMMUNITY CORRECTION ORDER – 18 MONTHS
Downing Centre Local Court	10.12.2020	Possess prohibited drug	S10A CONVICTION WITH NO OTHER PENALTY
Cessnock Local Court	21.07.2017	Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic)	SERVICE INCLUDING EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OR DRUG AND ALCOHOL REHABILITATION
Cessnock Local Court	21.07.2017	Destroy or damage property (DV)
Cessnock Local Court	21.07.2017	Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic)	FINE: $300
Cessnock Local Court	21.07.2017	Fail to appear in accordance with bail acknowledgement (BENCH-N ON CONVICTION – 63514922)	S10A CONVICTION WITH NO OTHER PENALTY
Cessnock Local Court	21.07.2017	Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic)	3 YEARS SUPV NSW PROB SERVICE FOR COUNSELLING, EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT OR DRUG AND ALCOHOL REHABILITATION
Cessnock Local Court	21.07.2017	Common Assault (DV)-T2
Cessnock Local Court	12.10.2016	Destroy or damage property (DV)	12 MONTHS SUPV NSW PROB SERVICE PARTICULARLY ANGER MANAGEMENT AND DRUG AND ALCOHOLISSUES
Cessnock Local Court	12.10.2016	Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic)
Cessnock Children’s Court	24.06.2015	Destroy or damage property (DV)	6 MONTHS SUPV JUVENILE JUSTICE
Cessnock Children’s Court	24.06.2015	Destroy or damage property (DV)	6 MONTHS SUPV JUVENILE JUSTICE