Kelly and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 327

Kelly and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2025] ARTA 327 (25 February 2025)
Applicant:KELLY, Bronson
Respondent: Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number: 2023/5399

Tribunal:Senior Member Hon J Rau SC
Place:Adelaide
Date:25 February 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

......................[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 – Serious drug crimes and family violence against 3 victims – whether the original visa cancelation under section 501CA(4) should be revoked – consideration of Ministerial Direction No. 110 – 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] FCAFC 185
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 500
SECONDARY MATERIAL
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, and Multicultural Affairs (Cth), Direction No 110 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (21 June 2024).
REASONS FOR DECISION
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 20 July 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 3 March 2023 under section 501(3A) on the basis that he did not pass the character test.
[1] Exhibit 2: Remittal Bundle (G3), 14.
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 being sentenced to 5 years imprisonment for serious drug offences on 22 November 2022.[2]
[2] Ibid (G6), 36.
The Applicant concedes 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 10 February 2025. The Applicant was self-represented, and the Respondent was represented by Ms Sarah Black of Minter Ellison.
The Applicant gave evidence by video link from New Zealand.
At the outset, the Applicant was advised of his rights to refuse to answer questions, if he believed that the answer may tend to incriminate him in a criminal offence.
Although such a situation may conceivably arise in the abstract, I note that the Applicant is presently not within the jurisdiction of any Australian prosecutorial service. To that extent, absent extradition, the Applicant may only be at risk of prosecution, (if at all), if he were to return to Australia. Also, any potentially relevant conduct occurred some years ago. The prosecution of any summary offence is probably therefore, out of time. No obviously indictable offence was suggested.
The Applicant was a poor historian. He frequently claimed to have little or no recollection of past events. I formed the view that it would be unsafe to rely on the Applicant’s uncorroborated evidence. There were several instances where this became apparent. Some are discussed below.
One especially notable example of the Applicant’s unreliability, related to various certificates provided by the Applicant to the Respondent, ostensibly to prove that he had completed relevant on-line rehabilitation courses when in detention. These certificates were also relied upon by the Applicant in previous Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘AAT’) proceedings,[3] and represented by him, to be authentic.[4]
[3] On 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’).
[4] Ibid (R28), 1055-56.
On 4 February 2025, the Respondent filed an affidavit attaching copies of identical certificates but issued to another named person.[5]
[5] Exhibit 3: Statutory Declaration re Certification of Documents.
When confronted with this affidavit material at the hearing, the Applicant conceded that the certificates bearing his name, were forgeries. He also accepted that he did not actually complete all the courses, contrary to his previous statements. He was unable to explain why he did not simply register for the courses in his own name and complete them. He maintained however, that he did sit with another detainee whilst that man did most of the courses. He admitted paying that same fellow detainee with “canteen” for doing him the service, of preparing the certificates.
He said that it was only when he saw the Respondent’s recent affidavit,[6] that he realised that the certificates were fake. This is inconsistent with his evidence of having paid another detainee to prepare the certificates. He did concede that one of the certificates was necessarily always a fake, because it referred to him undertaking a course in January 2023, before he was even in immigration detention.[7]
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
I do not accept that the Applicant told the truth to the Respondent about his alleged completion of various courses. In fact, I am satisfied that he knowingly procured fake certificates to manufacture false evidence in his case. He likewise gave false sworn evidence about this to the AAT in a previous hearing.[8]
[8] Exhibit 2: Remittal Bundle (R28), 1055-56.
In the ART hearing, even after he had been exposed by the Respondent’s detective work, the Applicant still sought to make excuses and to explain away his attempt at fraud and deception. He maintained that he only realised that the certificates were fake when he read Exhibit 3, a few days ago.
I am satisfied that the Applicant is an unreliable witness. Where there is an alternative contemporaneous record available, or other evidence, I generally prefer that to the Applicant’s account.
My view of the Applicant’s lack of credibility has significant consequences. Importantly, to the extent that the Applicant makes any unsupported claims, especially about his future plans and his commitment to having changed his lifestyle, these claims carry little weight.
The Applicant called no witnesses. The Tribunal, however, has transcript of the evidence given by various witnesses in the previous AAT proceedings.[9]
[9] Ibid (R29), 1074-1113.
There are two significant evidentiary gaps in this matter.
The first is the total absence of any expert evidence regarding the Applicant’s current risk of reoffending. The Tribunal is left only with the Applicant’s personal assurance, and the supportive, but unqualified and in the context of this hearing, untested views, expressed by lay people including his mother and partner.
The second is the Applicant’s failure to call his partner, RL, as a witness. She did give evidence to the AAT in September 2023,[10] but a lot has happened since then. Importantly, since 24 February 2024, the Applicant has been living in New Zealand.
[10] Ibid 1086-1101.
If RL had been called as a witness in this matter, she could have assisted the Tribunal with many important issues. These include, but are not limited to, the current status of her relationship with the Applicant, the Applicant’s current relationship with Child A and RL’s plans, if the Applicant remains in New Zealand, or if he returns to Australia.
These evidentiary issues could have been addressed by the Applicant. I am satisfied that the Applicant had ample time and opportunity to make such arrangements had he chosen to do so. In fact, this matter has been put off in the past to give him more time to produce evidence. The Applicant was asked if he had a reason for not producing any further evidence or calling witnesses. He said that he had been too busy to get around to it.
I do not need to go so far as to infer that RL’s evidence in particular, would not have assisted the Applicant, to be satisfied there is still an inadequately explained, significant evidentiary gap.
Background Facts
The Applicant was born in New Zealand on 6 May 1995.[11]
[11] Ibid (G11), 59-61.
The Applicant reported to IHMS staff after his first Drug and Alcohol session.[12] The report states that “as a child growing up in New Zealand around the gangs he became normalised to drugs and the role they played in his life as a child and a young man here”.[13]
[12] Ibid (R19), 232.
[13] Ibid.
Between August 1996 and December 2016, the Applicant travelled into and out of Australia on many occasions. From about 4 November 2005, he has tended to be in Australia most of the time.[14] His claim that he came to Australia in 2003, is true, but misleading.[15]
[14] Ibid (R27), 1002-3.
[15] Ibid (R1), 65.
From about 2008, when he was 13 years old, the Applicant says that “substance use/lifestyle” was a big part of his identity.[16]
[16] Ibid (R19), 221.
Between 5 August 2012 and 23 February 2013, the Applicant committed various stealing and other related offences. Convictions were recorded for these offences.[17]
[17] Ibid 47, 478-484, 490-493, 498-499, 603-627, 844-847, 853.
On 6 May 2013, the Applicant turned 18.
Between 8 October 2013 and 13 September 2014, the Applicant committed various other burglary and dishonesty offences. Convictions were recorded for these offences .[18]
[18] Ibid 47, 485-489, 628-654, 839-842,848-852, 856-859.
On 2 December 2014, the Applicant was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment in the Townsville Magistrate’s Court for the offences committed between 2012 and 2014. He was released on parole that day.[19] In sentencing remarks, Magistrate Mosch said:
[19] Ibid (R1), 38-39.
“BENCH: Alright. In this matter of Kelly, the defendant has entered pleas of guilty to 19 charges. These charges relate to two offences of stealing committed at the Base Backpackers on Magnetic Island on the 5^th August 2012; offences of stealing, wilful damage, and stealing again committed at the Base Backpackers on the 12^th January 2013; offences of entering premises and committing an indictable offence by break and wilful damage committed at the Arcadia Hotel on Magnetic Island on the 20^th of January 2013; charges of stealing and three counts of wilful damage committed at the Base Backpackers on the 23^rd February 2013; two charges of stealing and a charge of burglary and committing an indictable offence committed at the Base Backpackers on the 8^th October 2013; a charge of stealing a mobile telephone in 2014 and an associated charge of fraud related to pawning of that mobile telephone on the 13^th September 2014.
It can be seen that these offences have been committed between 5 August 2012 and 13 September 2014. In total, these offences involve a loss of property amounting in value to the sum of $48,528.28. It should be noted that the last of these offence, being one of fraud relating to a mobile telephone, was committed whilst the defendant was on bail for previous offending. The offending at the Base Backpackers largely involved the defendant entering an open area utilised as a bar in which were located a number of pool tables and gaming machines. On each of the occasions the defendant attended there, coin boxes had been removed or vending machines have sought to be accessed in order to recover moneys contained therein.
Similarly, entry was gained to the Arcadia Hotel with a view to accessing moneys in gaming machines. Often, significant property damage was occasioned in so accessing these moneys. On one occasion at the Base Backpackers, a room containing three occupants was entered by the defendant and money was stolen from those occupants. The most significant offence is one which occurred here in Townsville on the 7^th of November 2013, being a charge of burglary and committing an indictable offence where some 44 items of property were stolen, resulting in loss to the occupants of the particular dwelling which amounted to almost $27,000.
Of concern is the repeated and somewhat targeted nature of the offending, particularly on Magnetic Island. Whilst the offences were committed over an extended period of time, the defendant to some extent developed a modus operandi. Noting that the Base Backpackers was targeted on four separate occasions and the Arcadia Hotel on two separate occasions, which no doubt must have generated a significant degree of angst and aggravation for the operators of those premises. Likewise, the occupants of the dwelling here in Townsville who suffered a loss of property of some $27,000 must have been significantly affected by this offending. It seems the defendant was employed during this period of offending, or at least pat of it. But through a reduction in his working hours, he was suffering financial difficulties.
The defendant also had a disabled friend who was apparently suffering his own financial difficulties and the motivation for this offending is said to be a means of gaining moneys to regress the financial difficulties of the defendant and his disabled friend. As I’ve noted, in total there has been a loss of some $48,528.28, which by any measure is a huge amount of money. The defendant himself was aged 17 at the commencement of this offending and 19 at the last of his offending. And he’s 19 now today. He was born in New Zealand and his father died when the defendant was aged one. The defendant subsequently moved to Australia with his mother when the defendant was aged 11. He was then educated to year 11.
He, of course, now is still a young man and, significantly, appears before the court with no criminal history. It’s an unfortunate situation for a young man with no criminal history to be appearing on such significant charges today. I’m told that the defendant does not suffer from any alcohol or substance abuse and he has good family support demonstrated through the presence of his mother and his girlfriend today. It’s also significant to note that the defendant’s employment history seems to be quite strong. He had been employed with an employer since 2011 and had a change of employment earlier this year and continues to be employed by his employer notwithstanding these charges.
He's currently earning some $800 per week. I think that is a positive factor. It’s also significant to note that the defendant fully cooperated with police, including partaking in a record of interview and making full admission regarding his offending. Of particular note is that there were a number of offences for which the defendant made admissions which I’m told would otherwise have resulted in him being charge but for his admissions. And that is a factor that warrants mitigation against any penalty imposed upon him. I also take into account that the defendant has entered early pleas of guilty and I’m therefore going to reduce the penalty that I would have otherwise imposed upon him.
It's also significant, for reasons that I will come to in a moment, to note that the defendant has spent no time in custody in relation to this offending. During the course of submissions on sentencing, I was referred to two decisions of the Court of Appeal. The first is a decision in the Queen against Ross [2000] QCA 49. That decision involved a large number of property offences, being one count of aggravated burglary, 13 counts of entering premises and stealing, one count of stealing, one count of breaking and entering and stealing, two counts of entering premises with intent, and three counts of unlawful use of a motor vehicle. There are also a number of summary offences.
The defendant pleaded guilty to all of those charges. The defendant committed offending before and after his 18^th birthday. Some of his offending was committed whilst he was on bail. He also fully cooperated with authorities and fully admitted his offending. The amount of loss involved there was said to be $8400 and the defendant had spent 93 days in pre-sentence custody. The defendant had criminal history, including some offences of dishonesty and had previously failed to comply with community-based orders. He was said to be drug-addicted. I’ve been particularly referred to comments made by his Honour Justice Wilson on page 5 where his Honour noted:
Courts hesitate before sending youthful offenders to prison where they are at risk of mixing with hardened criminals. In many cases their rehabilitation, which is in the interests of the community as well as such offenders, is more likely to be achieved by supervision in the community. On the other hand, a short of imprisonment may be necessary as a deterrent to the particular offenders and other like-minded people.
Ultimately there, the defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a declaration that time already served be time served under that sentence. He was otherwise placed on probation for a period of three years. I was also referred to a decision of the Court of Appeal in the Queen against Dance [2009] QCA 371. There were 16 indictments presented – rather, there were three indictments presented against the defendant in Dance: one indictment with 16 counts, one indictment with a single count, and three indictments for – rather, a final indictment with three counts of driving offences.
The defendant there had two counts of breaking and entering premises and stealing, three counts of unlawfully using a motor vehicle, two counts of wilful damage, three counts of burglary and stealing, one count of unlawfully using a motor vehicle with a circumstance of aggravation, one count of fraud, one count of attempted fraud, two counts of entering premises with intent to commit an indictable offence, one count of receiving, one count of unlawfully using a motor vehicle, one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, and a further count of stealing.
It seems at the time of his offending, the defendant was on probation for three counts of unlawful use of a motor vehicle. In the decision of Justice Atkinson at paragraph 24, her Honour referred to a decision in the Queen against Kinersem, K-i-n-e-r-s-e-n, hyphen Smith and Connor: ex parte the Attorney-General for Queensland [2009] QCA 153 and comments made by her Honour Justice of Appeal Holmes at paragraph 26 in which her Honour quoted from the Queen against Mules [2007] QCA 47 at paragraph 21 “youthful offenders with limited criminal histories and promising prospects of rehabilitation who have pleaded guilty and cooperated with the administration of justice even where they have committed serious offences… should receive more leniency from Courts than it would otherwise be appropriate”.
In the Queen against Dance, the defendant was a young man aged 17 and 18 at the time of his offending. He had previous offending involving three unlawful uses of a motor vehicle and breached a community based order by failing to report. He was said to have reasonable prospects of rehabilitation. At paragraph 27, some of his personal difficulties were set out including some substance abuse issues. At paragraph 35, Justice Atkinson noted mitigating factors which were said to be the age of the defendant, his pleas of guilty at an early date, his cooperation with the administration of justice and admission made to investigating police officers. Her Honour also had regard to section 92A of the Penalties and Sentences Act noting that a sentence of imprisonment should be imposed only as a last resort. And a sentence that allowed the defendant to stay in the community was preferable. At paragraph 57, her Honour noted that the repeated nature of the offending occurring was the [indistinct] was subject to a probation order meant that a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment was within range. However, at paragraph 58 her Honour noted that the defendant’s youth, his effort at rehabilitation which had resulted in not offending for some period of time, having a stable living and working environment, his manifest cooperation with the authorities including his plea of guilty and admission of offences warranted a term of imprisonment of 18 months with immediate release on parole.
There are some differences between the defendants in the Queen and Ross and the Queen and Dance and the defendant here. The defendant here has no criminal history and his offending is on par if not perhaps slightly less serious in terms of the number and nature of charges to the defendants in the Queen and Ross and the Queen and Dance. Of course, his offending has generated a loss to some six times that identified in the Queen and Ross, with there being no real indication in the Queen and Dance as to the extent of loss suffered. It’s been submitted on the behalf of the defendant that a head sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment should be warranted for what I consider to be the most serious charge being the burglary and committing an indictable offence here in Townsville. On the 7^th of November 2013, it was submitted on behalf of the defendant though, that unlike what occurred in the Queen and Dance, I might consider wholly suspending that term of imprisonment and indeed any terms of imprisonment rather than placing the defendant on parole. There are, however, a number of issues that I cannot ignore.
Firstly, the targeted and repeated nature of the defendant’s earlier offending on Magnetic Island. In my view, that offending cannot be described as opportunistic. Secondly, the huge volume of property loss which has been sustained by multiple parties amounting, as I’ve noted, to $48,528.28. Thirdly, unlike the defendants in the Queen and Ross and the Queen and Dance, the defendant has spent no time in custody. In this context, it’s perhaps also relevant to note that since the decision in the Queen and Dance, parliament has seen fit to amend section 9 of the Penalties and Sentences Act such that a sentence of imprisonment is no longer a sentence of last resort. I simply note that last issue in passing. But for the reasons that I’ve identified in my view here, it is appropriate to sentence the defendant to terms of imprisonment and release him on parole rather than wholly suspending those terms of imprisonment.
In those circumstances, for the offences committed on the 5^th of August 2012, 12^th of January 2013, the 20^th of January 2013 and 23^rd of February 2013, the defendant will be convicted with convictions being recorded and sentences to six months’ imprisonment. For the offence committed on the 7^th of November 2013, the defendant will be convicted with convictions being recorded and sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment. For the offences committed in 2014, the defendant will be convicted with convictions being recorded and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment.”[20]
[20] Ibid (R1), 46-52.

To avoid any unnecessary legal complications, I give no weight to the Applicant’s juvenile convictions.[21]
[21] For offences committed prior to 6 May 2013.
In about February 2015, the Applicant commenced an intimate relationship with TS.[22]
[22] Exhibit 2: Remittal Bundle 216, 1027.
From 2016 onwards, the Applicant says that he was a daily user of cannabis.[23]
[23] Ibid 222, 1087.
On 22 February 2016, the Applicant made a false declaration on an incoming passenger card.[24] He says that this was just a misunderstanding on his part.[25]
[24] Ibid (R1), 99.
[25] Ibid (R1), 78.
On 6 March 2016, police records report a domestic violence incident. The victim was the Applicant’s then domestic/intimate partner, TS. The records state:
That on the 6^th day of March 2016 at Townsville in the State of Queensland one Bronson Isaac KELLY wilfully and unlawfully destroyed property namely a mobile phone and the offence is also a domestic violence offence.
Facts of the Charge
Charge 1 of 2 Assault Occasioning Bodily Harm
The victim in this matter is [redacted text].
The defendant in this matter is Bronson Isaac KELLY: DOB 06/05/1995
A witness in this matter [redacted text].
A child witness in this matter is [redacted text].
The victim and defendant have been in an on and off intimate relationship for the last year. Subsequently making these matters Domestic Violence Offences.
At approximately 1900hrs on the 6^th day of March the victim has invited the defendant to her home address to talk about their relationship. Whilst at the residence a verbal argument has occurred. The victim has asked the defendant to leave the address. The defendant has left the address, turning off the power to the house at the power box before leaving. The victim did not know how to turn the power back on and has followed the defendant as he has left the residence, attempting to convince the defendant to turn the power back on for the victim. The defendant has refused. The defendant has then without warning spat in the victim’s face. There was enough saliva to spray the whole of the victim’s face.
The defendant stated, “I hope you’re happy, you’re never going to see me again. You and your family better watch yourselves as I know your family’s routine and I’ll roll youse.”
The defendant has continued to walk away from the victim and the victim has followed. The defendant has pushed the victim a number of times while walking down the street,
The victim has pleaded with the defendant to return to the residence to turn the power back on and has grabbed the back of the victim’s shirt, causing the shirt to rip so that the victim’s breasts were fully exposed.
The defendant has grabbed the victim by the hair and pulled the victim onto the road. The victim has landed on the gravel, causing scratches to the legs and a cut to the victim’s foot. The victim has felt immediate pain and discomfort. The victim gave the defendant no permission or authority to assault her.
Charge 2 of 2 – WILFUL DAMAGE
The victim has told the defendant that she would be calling the police. The defendant has taken the victim’s phone a Black LG Brand phone and refused to give it back. The defendant has thrown the mobile phone onto the road, causing the phone to separate into pieces. As the victim has attempted to pick up the phone the defendant has stood on the phone, using his foot to drag the phone along the gravel. As a result the mobile phone is scratched and the screen is cracked. The victim gave the defendant no permission or authority to destroy the phone.
The defendant has pushed the victim into the middle of the road near the roundabout on Bamford Lane, Kirwan. A vehicle was driving along the road at the time. The vehicle has taken evasive action to avoid hitting the victim.
The defendant has left in a vehicle in an unknown direction and the victim has called Police.
Upon police arrival shortly after the incident occurred, the victim provided a version of events as described. Police also took up with [redacted text] who witnessed part of this incident. The witness corroborated the victims version of events, stating she witnessed the defendant grab the victim by the hair and throw her on the ground in front of a vehicle.
Police observed the victim to have a number of injuries, including swelling and bruising to her cheek and cuts and scratches on her legs. Police also observed the victims phone to be completely destroyed.
On the 7^th day of March 2016 Police have attended [redacted text] to speak with the defendant. The defendant has refused to participate in an electronic record of interview in relation to this matter. At about 12:30PM on the 7^th day of March 2016 the defendant was arrested for this matter and transported to the Townsville watch house.
The defendant was released on bail conditions and to appear in the Townsville Magistrates Court on the 10^th day of March 2016 at 9:00AM for Assault Occasioning Bodily Harm and Wilful Damage.[26]
“On Sunday the 6^th of March 2016 at 0330, Police were at flinders street east conducting foot patrols. Police had finished dealing with an incident and a bystander to the separate incident informed police that a verbal argument had happened between a male and a female. Police located the male Bronson Isaac KELLY (06/05/1995) who is the RESP and the female [redacted text] who is the AGG. The RESP and the AGG are ex-partners and were in a relationship for a year. They separated two months ago and now reside at separate addresses. There are no children between the RESP and AGG. The RESP and AGG were leaving flinders street east at the time of the incident. A friend of the RESP has come to pick up the RESP and take him home. The AGG has sat in the car then been told to leave the vehicle. The AGG has left the vehicle and walked up to the RESP. the AGG has tapped the RESP on the shoulder multiple times attempting to get his attention. The RESP has turned around and knocked the AGG phone and wallet out of her hand on the floor. The RESP has then started to jump and stomp on the AGG mobile phone. A verbal argument has taken pace. Independent parties have intervened and the RESP and AGG have separated. Police have taken up with the AGG and RESP and obtained details.
The AGG is not fearful that domestic violence will occur with the RESP in the future. The AGG and RESP currently live in separate dwellings. Support link was offered to both people but both people declined. Referral was offered due to the damage to property. There is no domestic violence history between the RESP and AGG. No RESP and AGG have no children together.
The Aggrieved in this matter is: [redacted text]. The Respondent in this matter is: Bronson Issac KELLY DOB 06/05/1995. The aggrieved has been in an intimate relationship with the respondent for approximately 1 year and has previously lived with the respondent. They had a short break in December 2015 from their relationship and recommenced their relationship in January 2016. The aggrieved and respondent have no children together. There is only one reported call for service being a DV referral on the 6^th March 2016 in the morning on flinders Street Townsville City. On the 6^th March 2016 Police were to outside [redacted text]. In relation to a female being assaulted by her partner and the male leaving in a red vehicle. Upon Police arrival, they have been approached by two females. One identified herself as the aggrieved in this matter. The aggrieved stated to Police on the 5^th day of March 2016 she has been in the nightclub district where she has met up with the respondent. The aggrieved and respondent has begun to argue about money and the respondent has grabbed the aggrieved on the hip and twisted the skin. The aggrieved responded by punching the respondent in the face before she left the nightclub. Later that night the aggrieved approached the respondent trying to talk to him about their relationship but the respondent ignored the aggrieved so the aggrieved tapped him on the shoulder. The respondent stood up and was standing over the aggrieved and in her face. The respondent has then grabbed the aggrieved’s shoes and wallet, and threw them to the ground. The respondent then jump on her phone and smashed it. During this altercation other people attempted to intervene which resulted in the respondent’s friend coming over and starting a fight. Police from the Safe Night Precinct were called. Police completed a DV referral and recommended to the aggrieved that she attend the Domestic Violence Centre and apply for an order. The aggrieved stated that she was scared that the respondent would get someone to bash her if she made a complaint. On the 6^th day of March 2016 the aggrieved called the respondent and invited him over to talk about their relationship. The respondent has attended the aggrieved’s address and after a short time they began to argue about money. The respondent has left and then returned later in the night where he and the aggrieved spent time together. Towards the end of the night, the aggrieved stated the respondent was in a bad mood and called a mate to pick him up. The respondent has left the house and turned the aggrieved’s power off at the power box. The respondent has walked away from the house, the aggrieved has followed requesting the respondent turn the power back on because she didn’t know how to. The respondent has told the aggrieved to “Fuck off, get someone else to do it, leave me alone.” The aggrieved has continued to request the respondent turn the power back on the respondent told her to “go away” “it’s your house not mine” and “sort it out yourself”. The respondent has then spat in the aggrieved face. The aggrieved has pushed the respondent away from her. The respondent said “I hope you’re happy, you’re never going to see me again. You and you’re family better watch yourselves as I know your family’s routine and I’ll roll youse.” The aggrieved has continued to request the respondent return to the address to turn the power back on and grabbed the respondent by the sleeve of his shirt to stop him from walking away. The respondent has turned around, grabbed the aggrieved’s shirt and ripped it whilst saying “How do you like it if I rip your shirt?” The respondent has continued to push the aggrieved and she pushed back in an attempt to get away and cover herself because her breasts were exposed from the ripped shirt. The respondent has then grabbed the aggrieved by the hair and pulled her to the road where the aggrieved has landed on the gravel and cut her foot and received scratched to her legs. The aggrieved said “What the fuck. I’m going to call the Police.” The respondent has grabbed the aggrieved’s phone and refused to give it back, then thrown it on the road where is has broken into pieces. As the aggrieved was picking up the pieces of the phone, the respondent has dragged part of the phone on the road resulting in the screen becoming cracked. The respondent has then pushed the aggrieved into the middle of the road in front of a car resulting in the car having to swerve. The car did not stop but there were people at one of the houses who witnesses this part of the altercation. Police took up with the witness who was juvenile with her mother acting as a support person. The witness stated she observed the respondent drag the aggrieved by the hair and throw her to the ground in front of a car on the road. Police transported the aggrieved to her house where Police noted the power was back on and the front door was wide open. The aggrieved believed the respondent has attended her address whilst she was waiting for Police and turned the power back on. Police observed scratches to the aggrieved’s legs, as well as a small fresh cut to her right foot. The aggrieved also stated she could feel bruising from where the respondent has become physical with her during the two altercations. The respondent was not at the [redacted text] address and Police are attempting to locate the respondent to obtain his version of events.
Police believe it is necessary and desirable to protect the aggrieved from the respondent due to the nature of the assault on the aggrieved in front of witnesses. The aggrieved and respondent are still working through their relationship and it is likely the relationship will continue. The aggrieved expressed a high level of fear after the assault and took shelter in the residence of the witnesses who are unknown to both the aggrieved and respondent. The respondent has made threats to the aggrieved to return to her house and bash her and roll the house if the aggrieved went to Police.”[27]
“07/03/2016 01:18
The victim’s injuries are: cut to foot, scratches to legs and arms, swelling to face and hip. The following emergency services attended the scene: None. Medical treatment: Advised to seek. Medical Treatment Further Details: will attend Dr. Between the offence times the victim has invited the suspect over to her address on [redacted text] so they could sort out their relationship as there was an incident the night before on Flinders Street Townsville city. When the suspect was over he was heating food and had his hand the area that the victim had stored a large amount of money. The victim has walked out and observed the suspect flinch from the money. The victim asked the suspect what he was doing and the suspect has become angry that the victim was accusing him of trying to steal her money. The suspect has demanded the victim call his mother to pick him up. The suspect has left only to return soon after where there has been an argument about their relationship. The victim has asked the suspect to leave. On leaving he has turned her power off to her house leaving her in the dark. The victim not knowing how to turn the power on has then followed the suspect down the road demanding the suspect return and turn the power back on. During this time walking down Bamford Lane, the suspect has told the victim to fuck off and spat in the victims face. The victim has then pushed the suspect where he has then ripped her shirt open leaving her breasts exposed, the suspect has then grabbed the victim by the hair and thrown her to the ground in front of an oncoming vehicle, smashed victims mobile phone and kicked her in the back. The suspect has then left in a vehicle with his friends who had arrived to transport him. Witnesses to the Assault have then taken victim in and called Police.”[28]
[26] Ibid (R27), 657.
[27] Ibid (R27), 787-790.
[28] Ibid (R27), 828-832.
On 10 March 2016, a DV protection order was issued against the Applicant for the protection of TS.[29] Their relationship ended at this time.[30]
[29] Ibid 601,1017-18, 1023.
[30] Ibid 1024.
This conduct was put to the Applicant in some detail during the AAT hearing on 27 September 2023. He denied that he assaulted TS. He was only prepared to concede that they had argued. His evidence on this topic was evasive, argumentative, and unconvincing.[31]
[31] Ibid 1023-1027, 1034.
In evidence before this Tribunal, the Applicant agreed that TS was at least his intimate partner if not also his domestic partner at the relevant time. He said that he did not think that he was at risk of prosecution for any of his conduct concerning TS, but that he either could not remember, or did not want to comment on the specific allegations. He could not explain why independent witnesses would have made the reports to police, that they did.
In about May of 2016, the Applicant started an intimate relationship with RL.[32] The relationship was such that they would stay together at each other’s homes.[33]
[32] Ibid (R28), 1032.
[33] Ibid (R29), 1088.
On 6 August 2016, the Applicant was detected driving with cannabis and methamphetamine present in his saliva.[34]
[34] Ibid 664, 799.
On 29 August 2016, the Applicant stole petrol from a roadhouse.[35]
[35] Ibid (R27), 668.
On 12 October 2016, the Applicant was convicted of stealing and fined $150.[36]
[36] Ibid (R1), 38.
From about 2017 until about 2020, the Applicant was using anabolic steroids and using 1000 mgs of testosterone per week.[37]
[37] Ibid (R19), 222.
On 14 May 2017, police were investigating a domestic violence complaint involving the Applicant’s then partner, RL.[38] They found drug paraphernalia.[39] The police report states:
“THE RESPONDENT IN THE MATTER IS BRONSON ISAAC (06/05/95). THE AGGRIEVED IN THE MATTER IS [REDACTED TEXT]. THE WITNESS IN THE MATTER IS [REDACTED TEXT]. THE [REDACTED TEXT] ADDRESS IS [REDACTED TEXT]. THE AGGRIEVED AND RESPONDENT HAVE BEEN IN AN INTIMATE PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP FOR APPROXIMATELY ONE YEAR, THEY CURRENTLY LIVE TOGETHER AT THE [REDACTED TEXT] ADDRESS, THEY HAVE NO CHILDREN. AT APPROXIMATELY 1PM ON SUNDAY THE 14^TH DAY OF MAY 2017, THE AGGRIEVED AND RESPONDENT HAVE WOKEN UP AFTER SLEEPING INSIDE THEIR BEDROOM AT THE OCCURRENCE ADDRESS. THE RESPONDENT HAS THEN STARTED A VERBAL ARGUMENT WITH THE AGGRIEVED. THE RESPONDENT ACCUSED THE AGGRIEVED OF BEEN UNFAITHFUL IN THE RELATIONSHIP. THE VERBAL ARGUMENT HAS THEN ESCALATED AND BECOME PHYSICAL. THE RESPONDENT HAS STRUCK THE AGGRIEVED WITH AN OPEN HAND TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF HER FACE IN A SLAPPING MOTION. AFTER THIS, THE AGGRIEVED HAS ATTEMPTED TO LEAVE THE [REDACTED TEXT] ADDRESS ON FOOT WHEN THE AGGRIEVED HAS WALKED OUTSIDE THE RESPONDENT HAS TACKLED THE AGGRIEVED TO THE GROUND. THE AGGRIEVED HAS FOTTEN UP FROM THE GROUND AND WHILST DOING SO THE RESPONDENT HAS KICKED HER THREE TIMES TO HER UPPER LEFT LEG. THE SHIRT OF THE AGGRIEVED HAS RIPPED AS A RESULT OF THIS ALTERCATION. THE AGGRIEVED HAS THEN RUN AWAY FROM THE [REDACTED TEXT] ADDRESS. THE AGGRIEVED HAS CONTINUED TO WALK FOR A NUMBER OF KILOMETRES DOWN CHISHOLM TRAIL. WHILST WALKING, THE WITNESS HAS NOTICED THE AGGRIEVED WALKING TO THE SIDE OF THE ROADWAY. AT THIS TIME THE AGGRIEVED WAS LOOKING DISTRESSEED AND UPSET. THE WITNESS ASKED THE AGGRIEVED IF SHE COULD ASSIST AND OFFERED TO TAKE THE AGGRIEVED TO THE NEAREST POLICE STATION. THE AGGRIEVED HAS DECLINED THIS OFFER, HOWEVER SHE ACCEPTED THE OFFER OF TRANSPORT. THE WITNESS HAS THEN TRANSPORTED THE AGGRIEVED TO ER PARENT’S RESIDENCE OF [REDACTED TEXT]. THE WITNESS HAS BEEN CONCERNED FOR THE SAFETY OF THE AGGRIEVED AND HAS CONTACTED POLICE TO PERFORM A WELFARE CHECK ON THE AGGRIEVED AT THAT ADDRESS. AT 3:31PM, POLICE ATTENDED [REDACTED TEXT] AND SPOKE TO THE AGGRIEVED. SHE PROVIDED THE VERSION AS PREVIOUSLY STATED. SHE FURTHER STATED SHE IS FEARFUL OF THE AGGRIEVED AND WAS IN LOTS OF FEAR WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED. THE AGGRIEVED STATED THAT IN THE PAST THEY BOTH HAD VERBAL ARGUMENTS AND THERE WAS OFTEN PUSHING AND SHOVING. SHE FURTHER STATED THAT THE LEVEL OF VIOLENCE HAS BEEN ESCALATING AND COLLIMATED INTO THE INCIDENT EARLIER IN THE DAY. THE AGGRIEVED STATED TO POLICE THAT THE RESPONDENT IS EXTREMELY CONTROLLING OF HER. SHE STATED SHE IS NOT ALLOWED TO GO OUT WITH ANY OF HER FRIENDS AND THAT SHE MUST ALWAYS REMAIN WITH THE RESPONDENT EVERYWHERE HE GOES. THE AGGRIEVED STATED TO POLICE THAT THE RESPONDENT IS CONSTANTLY CHECKING HER FACEBOOK ACCOUNT AND THEN ACCUSING HER OF BEEN UNFAITHFUL ON MANY OCCASIONS. SHE STATED THAT SHE WANTS OUT OF THE RELATIONSHIP. DURING THE CONVERSATION WITH THE AGGRIEVED POLICE OBSERVED HER TO BE UPSET AND CRYING WHEN PROVIDING HER VERSION TO POLICE. POLICE OBSERVED THE AGGRIEVED TO HAVE FRESH GRAZE MARKS ON HER RIGHT FOREARM AND RIGHT KNEE. WHEN QUESTIONED BY POLICE THE AGGRIEVED STATED THOSE INJURIES WERE AS A RESULT OF THE RESPONDENT TACKLING HER TO THE GROUND. POLICE ALSO OBSERVED A BLACK T SHIRT THAT WAS RIPPED DOWN THE FRONT. THE AGGRIEVED STATED TO POLICE SHE WAS WEARING THAT ITEM OF CLOTHING DURING THE INCIENT AND IT HAS BEEN RIPPED AS A RESULT OF THE RESPONDENTS ACTIONS, POLICE ALSO SPOKE TO THE RIEVED PARENTS WHO STATED THEY ARE WORRIED FOR THE SAFETY OF THEIR DAUGHTER AS THE RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXTREMELY CONTROLLING BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS THE AGGRIEVED AND HAS NOW USED PHYSICAL VIOLENCE TOWARDS HER. POLICE ATTENDED THE [REDACTED TEXT] ADDRESS IN AN ATTEMPT TO LOCATE THE RESPONDENT. HOWEVER, THER WAS NOT PRESENT UPON POLICE ARRIVAL. POLICE BELIEVE IT IS NECESSARY TO PROTECVT THE AGGRIEVED DUE TO THE EXTREMELY CONTROLLING BEHAVIOUR THE RESPONDENT EXHIBITS TOWARDS THE AGGRIEVED, THE PAST INSTANCES THE AGGRIEVED HAS BEEN ASSAULTED BY THE RESPONDENT AND THE ESCALATING VIOLENT NATURE OF THE ATTACKS TOWARDS THE AGGRIEVED. THE RESPONDENT IS ESCALATING THE LEVEL OF VIOLENCE TOWARDS THE AGGRIEVED AND THE VIOLENCE IS BECOMING MORE FREQUENT IN THE RELATIONSHIP.”[40]
[38] Ibid 1018, 1032
[39] Ibid 684, 792-3, 801-2.
[40] Ibid (R27), 792-3.

RL was asked about this even during cross-examination before the AAT. She initially said that her complaints may have been “exaggerated”, but when pressed, she conceded that she had told the truth to police.[41]
[41] Ibid (R29), 1090.
She also admitted that the Applicant had been violent towards her on 2 or 3 occasions “in the early stages”.[42]
[42] Ibid (R29), 1091.
This material was put to the Applicant at the ART hearing. He said that he either could not recall the details or that he did not want to comment. He did concede that he was abusive towards RL.
On 24 May 2017, the Applicant was found in possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia.[43]
[43] Ibid (R27), 672-680.
On 15 June 2017, a DV Protection order was made for the benefit of RL. The terms of this order were:
“15/06/2017
The respondent is prohibited from remaining at; entering or attempting to enter; the premises where the aggrieved lives and works.
15/06/2017
The respondent must be of good behaviour towards the aggrieved and not commit domestic violence against the aggrieved.
15/06/2017
The respondent must – on or before 08/07/2017 allow the aggrieved to enter the premises situated at [redacted text] in the company of a police officer to recover personal belongings.
15/06/2017
The respondent is prohibited from following or approaching the aggrieved when the aggrieved is at any place.
15/06/2017
The respondent is prohibited from contacting or attempting to contact or asking someone else to contact the aggrieved.
10/03/2016
The respondent be of good behaviour towards the aggrieved and not commit domestic violence against the aggrieved.”[44]
[44] Ibid (R27), 600.
The Applicant was asked about this in the AAT, and he said that he did not assault RL. He was again only prepared to concede that they had argued. His evidence on this topic was again evasive, argumentative, and unconvincing.[45]
[45] Ibid (R28), 1029-1033.
The Applicant told this Tribunal that RL was his intimate partner. Initially he said that he otherwise had no comment. He then conceded that he had been abusive towards RL.
RL told the AAT that she had gone to the Townsville Magistrate’s Court later to get the protection order removed, but she could not recall any details. Her evidence on this point was somewhat confusing.[46] This does, however, accord with the Applicant’s version of events given to the AAT. I am not sufficiently confident in the voracity of either of RL’s or the Applicant’s evidence to be satisfied about what happened. The records before the Tribunal are inconclusive.
[46] Ibid (R29), 1091-1094.
On 6 November 2017, the Applicant was found in possession of cannabis.[47]
[47] Ibid (R27), 699.
Between 14 November 2017 and 10 December 2017, intercepted text records reveal the Applicant arranging drug purchases/sales.[48]
[48] Ibid (R27), 704-740.
On 20 November 2017, the Applicant was convicted of possession of drugs. He was fined $500.[49]
[49] Ibid 38, 512.
On 18 December 2017, the Applicant was found in possession of drugs.[50]
[50] Ibid (R27), 703.
On 18 January 2018, the Applicant contravened a requirement given by a police officer.[51]
[51] Ibid 396, 512.
Also, early in 2018, the Applicant and RL started to live together.[52]
[52] Ibid (R29), 1088.
On 3 March 2018, the Applicant was granted police bail.[53]
[53] Ibid (R27), 398-400.
From about 2018 for 8 months, the Applicant was a daily smoker of methamphetamine.[54]
[54] Ibid (R19), 222.
On 6 May 2018, the Applicant’s daughter (Child A) was born.[55]
[55] Ibid (R1), 67.
On 27 May 2018, the Applicant was found in possession of Cannabis.[56]
[56] Ibid (R27), 749.
On 29 July 2018, the Applicant was detected driving without a driving licence.[57]
[57] Ibid 391, 426, 438.
Since about August of 2018, the Applicant has not lived full-time with Child A.[58]
[58] Ibid (R28), 1061.
On 10 November 2018, the Applicant was detected driving with cannabis and methamphetamine in his saliva.[59]
[59] Ibid (R27), 753.
In late 2018, the Applicant and RL were evicted from their rental property. RL said that “it just wasn’t working out”. She moved back to her parent’s house with Child A.[60] She has remained living there since then.[61]
[60] Ibid (R28), 1088.
[61] Ibid (R28), 1089.
On 24 January 2019, the Applicant was detected driving without a driving licence.[62]
[62] Ibid (R27), 389.
Between 11 October 2019 and 19 June 2020, the Applicant committed numerous drug trafficking offences.[63]
[63] Ibid (R27), 762-771.
On 17 October 2019, the Applicant was involved in an incident of family violence involving his mother. The circumstances set out in the police record are:
“The aggrieved (AGG) in this matter is [redacted text]. The respondent (RESP) in this matter is Bronson Isaac KELLY. The [redacted text] address is [redacted text]. RESP is the AGG’s son. At approximately 7:00pm on Tuesday the 15^th of October 2019, the AGG attended Kirwan Police Station. The applicant officer took up with the AGG who stated that she has been at her home, at [redacted text], sitting out on the back patio. She stated her son, the RESP, had woken up and come out onto the patio to ask her if he could use her phone. She stated that he always asked her to use her phone but that this time she had to say no because she did not have enough credit for her to use it. She stated that when she said no, he started going off. The AGG stated at one point he went back inside, and was still yelling abuse to her, calling her things ‘that no son should call his mother’. She did not want e neighbours to hear him, so while he was inside she closed the rear timber door and went and hid around the corner of the house as she was afraid he was getting too angry. The AGG told police that the RESP ripped the internal screen door open and badly damaged it. She stated when she realised this, she told the RESP she was going to call the police. The RESP replied words to the effect of ‘I don’t give a fuck.’ The AGG got into her car and told police she heard more smashing sounds coming from the house. The AGG further told police that the RESP had smashed her television on Saturday (the 12^th of October, 2019), and that both tonight and on a previous night, the RESP had raised his fist at her. She told police she was scared he was going to hit her. The AGG told police that the RESP had recently lost his son, and that he had turned to substance abuse. She stated he had been on a ‘cocktail of stuff’ and she was concerned for his welfare. She told police that he on multiple occasions threatened to commit suicide, which was the reason she had not gone to police before. Police observed the AGG to be very upset. She was refusing to return to her house as she was scared the situation would escalate again. The AGG was in tears and kept saying she wanted the RESP out of her house. She stated to police that he was her only son, but she did not know what else to do because his anger and aggression was escalating. Police attended [redacted text] with the AGG. The AGG gave police access to the house. Police located the RESP hiding in the AGG’s bedroom, under the bed with a pile of linen on top of him. He did not make himself known to police after multiple attempts to call him out. Police took up with the RESP who stated that there had been a verbal argument only with the AGG, however the RESP admitted to damaging the door ‘because he was angry’. Police took photographs of the damaged door and all conversations with the AGG and RESP were recorded on body worn camera. Due to the increasing aggression and extensive property damage, as well as physical threats of violence and suicide, police believe the AGG is in immediate need of protection. The AGG stated on multiple occasions that she could not have the RESP at her house anymore, and police believe that, should the RESP return to the address, the incidents of domestic violence would continue to occur.”[64]
[64] Ibid (R27), 797.
On 21 October 2019, a DV order was issued for the protection of his mother, PC.
“21/10/2019
Nationally Recognised DVO
21/10/2019
The respondent be of good behaviour towards the aggrieved and not commit domestic violence against the aggrieved.
21/10/2019
The respondent is prohibited from remaining at; entering or attempting to enter; the premises where the aggrieved lives and works.”[65]
[65] Ibid (R27), 598
The Applicant was asked about this in the AAT, and he said that he did not assault PC. He denied inflicting property damage. He was again only prepared to concede that they had argued. His evidence on this topic was again evasive, argumentative, and unconvincing.[66]
[66] Ibid 1021, 1027-1029.
The Applicant’s account stands in stark contrast to PC’s. In sworn evidence before the AAT on 28 September 2023, PC confirmed that the police record was accurate.[67] I accept her account, rather than the Applicant’s.
[67] Ibid 1080.
The Applicant told this Tribunal that he could not recall any property damage or raising his fist in a threatening manner. He could not explain why his mother would have said such things if they were not true.
On 5 November 2019, the Applicant was convicted of various offences related to the supply of illegal drugs. He was given a 100-hour community service order and disqualified from driving for 6 months.[68]
[68] Ibid 37, 390.
On 21 May 2020, the Applicant was detected driving when disqualified.[69]
[69] Ibid (R27), 757.
On 19 June 2020, police conducted a search of the Applicant’s residence and found various quantities of illicit drugs.[70]
[70] Ibid (R1), 42.
On 11 June 2020, the Applicant was detected driving without a licence, and he failed to comply with a direction by a police officer.[71]
[71] Ibid (R27), 757.
On 20 June 2020, the Applicant was remanded in custody.[72]
[72] Ibid (R1), 42.
On 15 September 2020, the Applicant was released on bail. He was not to drive.[73]
[73] Ibid.
On 17 September 2020, the protection order was varied to allow the Applicant to have contact with RL.[74]
[74] Ibid (R27), 599.
On 26 September 2020, a vehicle licenced to the Applicant was involved in an accident. A male and a female were seen leaving the scene. A witness identified the Applicant as the male.[75]
[75] Ibid (R27), 782.
On 15 October 2020, a DV Protection order was made for the benefit of RL. The terms of this order were:
“15/10/2020
The respondent is prohibited from remaining at, entering or attempting to enter the premises where the aggrieved lives.
15/10/2020
The respondent is prohibited from following or approaching the aggrieved when the aggrieved is at any place. Except with the written consent of the aggrieved including by text or email.
15/10/2020
Nationally recognised DVO.
15/10/2020
The respondent must be of good behaviour towards the aggrieved and not commit domestic violence against the aggrieved.”[76]
[76] Ibid (R27), 598.
On 5 June 2021, the Applicant was found driving a vehicle with stolen number plates. He was not licensed to drive.[77]
[77] Ibid (R27), 781-782.
On 8 June 2021, police executed a search warrant on the Applicant’s residence and found various drugs and associated paraphernalia. The Applicant accepts that he possessed methamphetamine for commercial purposes. He was again remanded in custody.[78] He remained in custody or detention until 24 February 2024.
[78] Ibid 43, 780-1, 1012.
On 6 October 2021, a DV Protection order was made for the benefit of PC. The terms of this order were:
“6/10/2021
The respondent must be of good behaviour towards the aggrieved and not commit domestic violence against the aggrieved.
6/10/2021
The respondent is prohibited from remaining at – entering or attempting to enter – or approaching the premises where the aggrieved lives. The respondent must be of good behaviour towards the aggrieved and not commit domestic violence against the aggrieved.
6/10/2021
The respondent must be of good behaviour towards the aggrieved and not commit domestic violence against the aggrieved.”[79]
[79] Ibid (R27), 597.
On 22 November 2022, the Applicant was sentenced in the Supreme Court of Queensland to 5 years imprisonment, for serious drug offences. He was disqualified from holding a driver’s licence for 2 years.[80] In his sentencing remarks Bowskill CJ said:
[80] Ibid 36-37, 590.
“THE CHIEF JUSTICE: Bronson Isaac Kelly, you are being sentenced for a considerable number of offences today, including one count of trafficking in a range of drugs, MDMA, cocaine, methylamphetamine and cannabis; as well as five counts of possessing various dangerous drugs, including those that you were trafficking but also methandienone and testosterone; possessing things used in connection with trafficking; and possessing property obtained from trafficking, which is a sum of money.
On another indictment you are being sentenced for one count of attempting to pervert justice; one count of possessing methylamphetamine in a quantity exceeding 2 grams; further counts of possessing various drugs, cannabis, testosterone, and nandrolone; one count of receiving property obtained from supplying a dangerous drug; and one count of contravening an order to provide the PIN to your mobile phone.
You are also being sentenced for a range of summary offences transferred to this Court from the Magistrates Court, including possessing drug utensils or pipes; two charges of failing to comply with a requirement by police to stop your vehicle; three charges of driving without a licence while you were disqualified by a Court order; and one charge of possessing property suspected of having been used in relation to a drug offence.
You have pleaded guilty to all of those offences before me today and I take your pleas of guilty into account in reducing the sentence that otherwise would have been imposed on you, but I do that in the context of the overall factors that are relevant in your case.
You are a man of 27 years of age now. The offending spans a fairly wide time range and at the beginning you were 23 and at the end you were 26. You do have a criminal history prior to standing in this Court, which starts with a conviction in December 2014 for a broad range of property and dishonesty offences, including more than one count of burglary, and you were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment on that day but given parole release straight away. There follow various other convictions, again for stealing offences and what must be much less serious drug offences, possession and the like.
And then, in November 2019, you were sentenced in the Townsville Magistrates Court for a number of counts of supplying dangerous drugs as well as possession, and you were on that day, so that is November 2019, ordered to serve 100 hours of community service. You did a hopeless job at that and completed none of the hours of community service that you were ordered to serve, so that was a benefit that the Magistrate tried to give you that you completely wasted. So that is November 2019.
Now, the offending here that I am dealing with you for starts with the trafficking, which you were well into before you appeared before that Magistrate. The trafficking spans a period from the 2nd of February 2019 to the 19th of June 2020, so it is about 17 months. As I have said, you were 23 at the beginning, 25 at the end and, in the middle, subject to a community service order which you breached entirely. You are said to have carried on the business of trafficking in a mix of street level and commercial quantities but really, in relation to the Schedule 1 drugs, which is MDMA, cocaine and methylamphetamine, it is not contended they were commercial quantities you were supplying. The cannabis, it seems, occasionally was a bit of a higher quantity. You mostly supplied cannabis but your supplies of MDMA and cocaine were not insignificant.
You were using Snapchat, which makes it difficult for the Prosecution to say exactly what you were doing because of the short life of messages on that app. But it is said that you interacted with at least 49 persons to whom you either supplied drugs, offered to supply drugs or they contacted you to get drugs. You made some money from this business which is demonstrated because you were able to buy a $3000 gold chain. You also had access to weapons which was evidenced in videos and photographs you took and kept, but it is not alleged that you used violence in the course of this trafficking.
So, it is a serious example of trafficking because it went for 17 months and involved multiple drugs, including three in Schedule 1, but also cannabis. It might be balanced against the fact that mostly it was supplying cannabis.
I pause to note that the maximum penalty for that offence is 25 years' imprisonment. It reflects how seriously our community regards drug offending. When you enable the supply of drugs like MDMA, cocaine, methamphetamine, and cannabis for that matter, to other people you are causing harm to many, many other people, not only to those people who are then using the drugs, but you cause harm indirectly to their family members and to other people in the community, and that is why harsh penalties are called for to try to deter this.
In terms of the end of this period, which is the 19th of June, your home was searched on that day and in the course of the search police found quantities of MDMA, cocaine and cannabis, a fairly substantial quantity of cannabis, 267 grams, but smaller quantities of the others, as well as separate drugs, methandienone and testosterone, and those are all the subject of counts 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, and those things were also found in conjunction with other paraphernalia related to drug packaging and various other things, as well as the money.
After you were arrested for those offences, you were remanded in custody, so that is from the 20th of June 2020 to the 15th of September 2020. You were then released on bail.
And then we come to the next offence, which is the attempting to pervert justice on the 26th of September 2020, so about 11 days after you were given bail. On this occasion, your bail conditions prohibited you from driving a car, but you did drive a car and, in fact, you crashed it in the early hours of the morning on 26 September 2020. Somebody who heard the accident called out and recognised you and you seem to have panicked and run from the scene. And then, a bit later that morning, you contacted the police and reported your car stolen. You lied about where it had been parked and then about it having been stolen. The maximum penalty for that offence is seven years' imprisonment. Offences like that are also treated seriously, for differing reasons, in that case because you interfere with the proper administration of justice.
Along the way, in May and June 2020, so that is before the first time you went into custody, you committed various offences relating to motor vehicles, including failing to stop when police asked you to on two occasions, and driving without a driver's licence on three occasions.
Then we fast forward to the 8^th of June 2021. You came to the attention of police again because they had executed a search warrant in relation to another person, but a search of his phone revealed that you were sourcing methylamphetamine from him, so they started conducting surveillance of you. And then, on the 8^th of June 2021, they executed a search warrant at your home and found a range of things, including on this occasion across three clip seal bags a total of 3.422 grams of pure methylamphetamine in just over 4.87 grams of substance, that is count 2 on the other indictment, also 25 grams of cannabis, scales and other things, including a tick sheet and a phone, some other drugs, testosterone and nandrolone, and a range of other paraphernalia, which are the subject of summary offences.
You are being sentenced for the possession of the methylamphetamine on the basis that you possessed it for a commercial purpose and that is not contested by you, appropriately.
After that incident, you were again remanded in custody, so that is on the 8th of June 2021, and you have remained in custody since then, which is a further 532 days. So, all up, you have served 611 days in custody, which is about 20 months.
I am told some limited things about you. They include that you are not an Australian citizen but are a New Zealand citizen although you have lived in Australia for some time and most of your family lives here, including your four year old daughter. I proceed on the basis that the effect of the sentence that I impose on you today will result in your visa being cancelled and that you will be deported to New Zealand. I am told that your grandmother lives in New Zealand but the rest of your family are here so, to that extent, deportation will be a hardship for you. I am told that you worked in the construction industry until about 2020 so you have, in the past, demonstrated a good work history, but you have fallen off the rails in a big way with this serious drug offending, including returning to it in June 2021.
In terms of the appropriate penalty to impose, the submissions that have been made by the Prosecution were very fair in terms of submitting that the trafficking ought to carry a penalty of four years' imprisonment and that to that should be added two years' imprisonment for the subsequent offending in June 2021. But equally, I accept the submissions made on your behalf by your barrister that the reality of your deportation means that, given the time you have already served and the difficulty of you obtaining parole and the fact that you will not be in the country to be the beneficiary of the supervision were you to get parole, there is merit in, if it is possible, structuring the sentence so that it can be suspended. In my view, that is possible because I can not declare the time you have served and then sentence you overall to five years' imprisonment. The reality of that is actually a sentence of just over six and a-half years, which is not unjust in my view because it is serious offending. But the structure means that I can suspend it, which I will do at the point at which you have served two years, which is one-third, recognising your plea, so I think that is about another four months. I note the assistance provided by the Court of Appeal decision in Abdi [2016] QCA 298 in terms of the appropriateness, even where a person is being sentenced for drug offending and it otherwise would be logical for them to have supervision such as under parole, to consider a different structure such as suspension, given the reality of deportation.
So, formalising the sentence then. In respect of indictment 174 of 2021, on count 1, which is the trafficking, you are sentenced to five years' imprisonment; on each of counts 3 and 4 which are the possession of the other unrelated drugs, you are sentenced to one month imprisonment; and on the remainder, counts 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8, you are convicted, the convictions are recorded but you are not further punished.
On the indictment I 04 of 2022, on count 1, the attempting to pervert justice, you are sentenced to nine months' imprisonment; on count 2 which is the possession of methylamphetamine, you are sentenced to two years' imprisonment; on each of counts 3, 4, and 5 which are possession of various drugs, you are sentenced to one month imprisonment; and, on count 8 which is contravening the order about providing the PIN, you are sentenced to six months' imprisonment; on counts 6 and 7, you are convicted, the convictions are recorded but you are not further punished.
And then, in relation to the summary offences in relation to each of charges 3, 5, and 8, as they are referred to on the Supreme Court file, those are the driving without a licence, you are sentenced to three months' imprisonment, and in addition, because it is required under the legislation, you are disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for the period of two years on each of those -that is the minimum that I am required to impose, but it does not seem rational in the circumstances to impose a higher period, a longer period; and on the remainder of the charges, 1, 2, 4, 6, and 7, you are convicted, the convictions are recorded but you are not further punished.
I expressly, under section 159A(3A) am not declaring the time you served in custody from 29 June 2020 to 15 September 2020, which is 79 days, and from 8 June 2021 to 21 November 2022, which is 532 days. All up, 611 days is not declared as time served under any of the sentences imposed on you today.
All the terms of imprisonment that I have imposed are concurrent, ……...”[81]
[81] Ibid (R1), 40-45.

On 23 December 2022, the Applicant was assessed as being a “high security” prisoner by QLD Corrections.[82]
[82] Ibid (R27), 972.
On 22 February 2023, the Applicant’s sentence was suspended.[83]
[83] Ibid (R1), 44.
On 3 March 2023, the visa was mandatorily cancelled under s501(3A) of the Act.[84]
[84] Ibid (R1), 106-113.
The Applicant conceded to the AAT that he knew that it was a possibility that if he committed crimes in Australia, his visa would be cancelled.[85]
[85] Ibid (R28), 1010.
On 21 March 2023, the Applicant’s custodial sentence ended,[86] and he was taken into immigration detention.
[86] Ibid (R27), 938.
The Applicant has reported that he stopped using substances when he left prison and entered detention. His motivation to do so was “9/10 due to his current circumstances (upcoming appeal)”.[87]
[87] Ibid (R19), 233.
On 8 March 2023, the Applicant completed a request for revocation of the visa cancellation.[88] In that he stated:
“I would like to stay in Australia because if I have to go back to New Zealand it will be very bad upon myself and my family. It will cause me financial hardship and my daughter will be without a father, plus my whole life is here in Australia as I work full time and I have been here since I was a kid. I call Australia home my whole family is here and we look forward to staying here. Could you please consider to revoke the mandatory cancellation of my visa? I wish to be a good role model for my daughter and to be a better person in her life and the only way that can happen is if I get to stay in Australia. I’ve made one bad mistake in my life and now I face getting deported. I only have good intentions in the future and I have goals to achieve, so please could you consider me to be able to stay and provide for my family. Thank you.”[89]
[88] Ibid (R1), 59-60.
[89] Ibid (R1), 61.
He also provided a letter and statements explaining his reasons for seeking a revocation of the visa cancellation.[90]
[90] Ibid 77-79, 155-176, 351-364.
On 16 March 2023, the Applicant’s partner (RL) provided a letter of support.[91] RL’s mother was born in New Zealand.[92]
[91] Ibid (R1), 85.
[92] Ibid (R1), 90.
On 23 March 2023, the Applicant reported self-administering suboxone in prison on the previous day.[93]
[93] Ibid (R19), 284.
On 14 April 2023, the Applicant was assessed by a psychiatrist. Mention is made of “opioid dependence disorder”.[94]
[94] Ibid (R19), 269-271.
On 20 July 2023, the Respondent determined not to revoke the visa cancellation.[95]
[95] Ibid (R1), 14.
On 16 September 2023, RL made a statutory declaration in support of the Applicant.[96]
[96] Ibid (R14), 199-203.
On 27 and 28 September, the AAT heard evidence in the Applicant’s matter.[97]
[97] Ibid (R28), 1004-1113.
On 12 October 2023, the AAT affirmed the Respondent’s decision (the AAT decision)[98].
[98] Ibid (R30), 1114-1171.
The Applicant returned to New Zealand voluntarily on 24 February 2024.
He told the Tribunal that since then he has settled in Auckland. He has employment as a brick-layer and he rents a room in a family home. He is not in regular contact with his relatives in New Zealand. He did an opium treatment programme for the first 3-4 months after arriving there, but then withdrew. He is managing now by involvement in social sports, and he has a new circle of friends. He keeps in contact with family and friends in Australia electronically.
The Applicant has been visited twice by his mother and once, for a weekend, by RL. The Applicant says that he still has an ongoing relationship with RL. He has discussed what may happen if he has to remain in New Zealand with RL but he was unable or unwilling to say what the outcome of that discussion was. In other words, it is unclear whether RL and Child A would remain in Australia, or would move to New Zealand to join him.
On 27 February 2024, the AAT decision was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal.[99]
[99] Ibid (R31), 1169-1171.
The Applicant has worked in various, mainly labouring jobs, since 2011.[100]
[100] Ibid (R1), 91-96.
The Applicant says that he has completed various courses since his imprisonment.[101] This is discussed above.
[101] Ibid (R23), 342-350.
The Applicant has produced various letters of support.[102]
[102] Ibid 80-85, 184-210, 322-341.
The Applicant has used opioids in prison.[103]
[103] Ibid (R27), 222.
In the community, the Applicant has abused Xanax and Oxazepam. He says this was to manage his mental health issues.[104]
[104] Ibid.
The Applicant says that he has suffered from anxiety since he was 15. He has reported periods on medication for this and he has had counselling. He reports panic attacks.[105]
[105] Ibid.
The Applicant reported that his father committed suicide when he was 3 years old. His stepfather was a bikie, as are “all his family… lots have been murdered or in jail.”[106]
[106] Ibid (R27), 223.
The Applicant’s mother lives alone in Townsville.[107]
[107] Ibid.
RL and Child A live in Townsville.
The Applicant has a long history of poly-drug abuse dating back to his teenage years.
The Applicant told the Tribunal that if he was able to return to Australia, he would like to move to Brisbane. He has relatives there and his mother is considering a move there. It is unknown what RL and Child A would do in that circumstance. I do note that they currently reside with RL’s parents in Townsville.
The Applicant has no concrete plans for employment in Australia, although he said that he would have no trouble finding work.
The Applicant has no concrete plans regarding accommodation or ongoing treatment/community-based support in Australia.
The Applicant has an extensive, adult criminal history, commencing 02 December 2014.[108] A copy of his record of convictions is annexed hereto and marked “B”.
[108] Ibid (R1), 35-39.
The Applicant has been in almost continuous trouble with the criminal justice system since his late teenage years. His offending has varied from crimes of dishonesty, breaking offences, theft, motor vehicle offences to serious drug offences. In addition, he has engaged in conduct that has resulted in the issue of DV protection orders in favour of 2 of his partners and his mother. The Applicant himself pithily observed in passing during his evidence before the AAT that, “I’ve had a criminal lawyer my whole life”.[109]
[109] Ibid (R28), 1021.
The Applicant used suboxone and heroin when he was in prison. He conceded that he had a “habit”. He was involved in an Opioid Substitution Programme.[110]
[110] Ibid (R28), 1041-3.
The Applicant told the AAT that he was “blacklisted” because of not having paid bills in the past when in rental accommodation. He conceded that he had not tried to rent since 2018.[111]
[111] Ibid (R28), 1061.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Does the Applicant Pass the Character Test?
The Applicant was sentenced by the Supreme Court of QLD to a term of 5 years imprisonment.[112]
[112] Ibid (R1) 36-37.
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 the original decision should be revoked, the Tribunal is bound by s 499(2A) to comply with any directions made under the Act. In this case, Direction No 110 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (“the Direction”) has application.[113]
[113] On 21 June 2024, the former applicable direction, Direction No. 99 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s501CA, was revoked and was replaced by Direction 110.
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)The safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.
(3)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.
(4)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.
(5)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.
(6)With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, 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.
(7)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.
(8)The inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation, even if the information available at the time of consideration suggests that 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 7(2) of the Direction requires that protection of the Australian community (Primary Consideration 8.1), is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations.
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 three 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 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:[114]
“…Direction 65 [now Direction 110] 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.”[115]
[114] [2018] FCA 594.
[115] Ibid [23].
OFFENDING HISTORY
The Applicant’s criminal record as produced by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission is outlined at Annexure B.
The Applicant’s offending commenced in 2012.[116]
[116] Ibid (R1), 35-39.
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 safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. To that end, 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 and/or sexual 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.
I am satisfied that the Applicant has committed acts of family violence is defined in the Direction.
The Applicant’s history of family violence is set out above. He has had 3 victims.
His offending has included physical violence, abuse, and property damage.
I note his attempts to minimise the seriousness of his conduct. I accept the contemporaneous records made by police in preference to his evidence. These are confirmed by RL and PC, to the extent that they were involved as victims, in sworn evidence before the AAT.
RL was initially reluctant to say anything to the AAT that might reflect poorly on the Applicant. Her evidence to the AAT was tailored accordingly, but even so, she eventually verified the contemporaneous police records.
The Applicant’s mother, PC, also verified police records relating to her experiences of family violence.
In addition to this the Applicant has been convicted of very serious drug offences.
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.
Aside from his family violence and drug offending, the Applicant has also been convicted of numerous other crimes as set out above. This has included crimes of dishonesty, stealing breaking, breaching conditional liberty conditions, perverting the course of justice and many driving offences. The driving offences have included driving without a license and driving with illicit drugs in his system.
As previously mentioned, I give no weight to his juvenile convictions.
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.
The Applicant has been sentenced to custodial terms. The most recent, was for 5 years. This demonstrates the objective seriousness of his offending.
Sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to have regard to the impact of the offending on any victims offending or other conduct and their family, where information in this regard is available and the non-citizen whose visa is being considered for refusal or cancellation, or who has sought revocation of the mandatory cancellation of their visa, has been afforded procedural fairness.
The Applicant’s first victim, TS has not provided any evidence. RL and PC have given evidence in support of the Applicant.
The evidence suggests that the Applicant’s victims all held fears for their safety at various times.
Unfortunately, RL and PC were not called as witnesses in this matter.
Sub-paragraph (e) 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 abused illicit drugs and been a serial offender since his late teenage years. There has been a trend of increasing seriousness, with his last drug convictions being the most serious.
Sub-paragraph (f) 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 Applicant has been a consistent burden on the Australian community. He has wasted resources in the criminal justice system, and he has contributed to the community misery created by illicit drugs.
Sub-paragraph (g) 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.
The Applicant has made a false declaration on an entry card as discussed above. I do not accept the Applicant’s explanation for this, but it is, in the scheme of things, a minor matter.
He has attempted to pervert the course of justice.[117]
[117] Ibid 36.
A far more serious matter is the Applicant’s procurement of forged certificates relating to various online courses. This is discussed at length above.
Sub-paragraph (h) 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 this.
Sub-paragraph (i) 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 this.
I do not consider factors (h) and (i) 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 very 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;
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 (Paragraph 8.1.2(1)).
The harm that may result to the Australian community if the Applicant were to reoffend is very serious.
Firstly, the Applicant has been a serial offender who has committed a variety of quite different offences. His demonstrated capacity to offend is extremely broad.
His family violence record is not confined to one victim. This raises the possibility that any intimate partner he may have in the future, may also be at risk of harm.
The Applicant has been a poly-drug abuser, and he has committed very serious drug offences. His conduct has placed the broader community at risk of serious harm.
The harm that would be caused, should the Applicant re-offend, is potentially so serious that any risk that it may be repeated, may be unacceptable.
Likelihood of engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct
The Applicant has spent most of his life since his teenage years as a poly-drug abuser and serial, broad ranging, criminal offender.
He has committed acts of family violence against 3 known victims.
The Applicant has sought to minimise the gravity of his offending.
I am not satisfied that the Applicant has undertaken and/or completed adequate rehabilitation and treatment programmes to address his mental health, poly-drug abuse and family violence history.
I am not satisfied that any of his proposed arrangements for living in the community provide adequate, planned, ongoing treatment for his complex problems.
I am not satisfied that his proposed living and working arrangements will amount to adequate protective measures. He has offended in the past when with his mother, his partner (RL) and Child A.
There is no expert opinion before the Tribunal to suggest that the Applicant is a low risk of reoffending. The Tribunal is essentially left with his untested claim that he has seen the error of his ways. I place little weight on lay opinions, expressing confidence in his change of attitude. As previously observed, the Applicant’s uncorroborated evidence is of limited value.
I assess the Applicant as being at least a moderate, if not a higher risk of re-offending.
This is, given the gravity and breadth of his past offending, an unacceptable risk.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 1
Primary consideration number one weighs very 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.
The Applicant’s history of family violence is detailed above.
I am satisfied that the Applicant has been given an adequate opportunity to comment on the evidence of family violence. He had ample opportunity to arrange for PC and RL to give evidence.
I do not regard the Applicant as a reliable witness. He is directly contradicted for example, by his mother and RL whom he called as witnesses before the AAT.
There are three known victims of the Applicant’s family violence. Two have been his intimate partners, and the other is his mother.
I am not satisfied that he has undertaken adequate, appropriate rehabilitation.
The Applicant’s attempts to trivialise or deny his conduct, (set out above), suggest that he has neither accepted responsibility for his actions, nor that he comprehends the impact of his actions on his victims.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 2
This consideration weighs very 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) Where consideration is being given to whether to cancel a non-citizen’s visa or whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of their visa, the decision-maker 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) how long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child, noting that:
i.less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and
ii.more weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community
b) the strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.
The Applicant came to Australia as a child when he was about 9 years old. He was already in trouble with the law, by his late teen years. He has continued to offend, with the gravity of his offending becoming progressively more serious.
The Applicant has worked in Australia and paid some taxes, but overall, he has been a burden on our community as a serial offender and consumer of resources in the criminal justice system. He has added to misery in our community by dealing in illicit drugs.
The Applicant’s mother lives in Townsville.
She has provided statements in support of the Applicant, and she gave evidence on his behalf at the AAT on 28 September 2023.[118] I accept that she has an ongoing connection to the Applicant. I accept that there would be an adverse impact on her if the Applicant were to be prevented from returning to Australia. That said, she has demonstrated a capacity to visit him in New Zealand and she can keep in contact with him electronically. She is originally from New Zealand, and she has family there.
[118] Ibid (R29), 1076-1083.
I accept that the Applicant also has many other family/friend connections in Australia as set out in his filed materials. They may be adversely impacted to a limited degree if he is unable to return to Australia.
RL, the Applicant’s partner, lives in Townsville with her parents and Child A. She gave evidence to the AAT in September 2023.
It is unfortunate that she was not called to give evidence in this matter. There have been significant changes since September 2023. The Applicant has been in New Zealand since February 2024. As previously discussed, the Tribunal has no current evidence from RL regarding the status of her relationship with the Applicant. Likewise, the Tribunal has no current evidence from her regarding Child A.
This raises obvious many questions. For example, is RL still in a relationship with the Applicant? Does she propose to move to New Zealand with Child A, if the Applicant’s visa cancellation is not revoked? Would she move away from her parents in Townsville, to live with the Applicant if he returned to Australia, but lived in Brisbane?
In the absence of evidence on these and other related questions, I am not satisfied that I can rely on the Applicant’s untested assertions alone, concerning his current and ongoing connection RL and Child A.
I am not able to fill important evidentiary gaps, with assumptions favourable to the Applicant.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 3
Given the absence of important reliable evidence regarding the Applicant’s closest ties in Australia, this consideration weighs only 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.
Child A is the Applicant’s daughter with RL. She is presently living with RL and her grandparents in Townsville.
The Applicant has continued to offend since Child A was born.
The Applicant has not lived in the same place as Child A since she was 3 months old.[119]
[119] Ibid (R28), 1061.
When Child A was about 2, the Applicant was sent to prison. He was let out on bail but continued to offend. He returned to prison. He has been incarcerated since Child A was about 3 years old.[120]
[120] Ibid (R28), 1063.
Since that time, they have primarily maintained contact electronically.[121]
[121] Ibid (R29), 1095-1096.
The Applicant continued to deal in drugs when Child A, as an infant, had sleepovers with him.[122]
[122] Ibid (R29), 1095.
The Applicant has maintained contact electronically with Child A since he moved to New Zealand in February 2024.
As previously discussed, it is unclear whether the Applicant’s relationship with RL would continue if he were to return to Australia. It is unclear whether he would live with RL and Child A. It is unclear whether they would even live in the same city. It is unclear whether Child A and RL may even move to New Zealand.
The Applicant says that it is very important for him to maintain his relationship with Child A. I note however that for most of her short life, she has not lived with him. Viewed from her perspective, electronic communication with the Applicant is normal.
I accept that if the Applicant were to return to our community and not to return to his old ways, he may be of some benefit to Child A. This may only be financial, and if so, he could still support her from New Zealand. In the absence of independent, tested evidence, I am not prepared to make unsupported assumptions in the Applicant’s favour regarding this relationship.
The Applicant can maintain electronic contact with Child A, as he has done for most of her life, from New Zealand. If the Applicant were to reoffend, Child A may be safer if her only contact with the Applicant remained remote.
In answer to a question from the Tribunal, the Applicant said that he had two juvenile cousins living in Brisbane. This was the first time that their existence was explicitly revealed. One is about 3 years old (Child B) and the other is about 7 or 8 years old. He could not recall her name (Child C).
The Applicant has at most only had intermittent contact with Child C. This occurred prior to his imprisonment. He has been in prison or detention, or in New Zealand for the whole of Child B’s life.
I give no weight to the Applicant’s relationship with Child B and Child C.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 4
Having regard to all of the above, primary consideration 4 weighs at best, slightly in favour revocation of the Applicant’s visa cancellation.
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.[123]
[123] 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 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; and
b.the other matters set out above; and
c.the Applicant’s record of family violence and serious drug offences.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 5
Primary consideration 5 weighs very 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 Other Consideration does not arise in this case.
This Other Consideration (a) 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 young man of 29 years of age.
The Applicant voluntarily returned to New Zealand in February 2024.
He has some reported mental health issues such as anxiety and depression. He has been on medication for these issues from time to time. The Applicant explains his drug use as being in part, self-medication to deal with mental health issues.
The Applicant has a long history of poly-drug abuse. He may need ongoing treatment for this and/or his other mental health issues. He told the Tribunal that he has accessed drug treatment services in New Zealand.
The Applicant has faced no significant language or cultural issues in returning to New Zealand.
The Applicant has access to the same social, medical and/or economic support as any other citizen of New Zealand. These services are broadly comparable to those available in this country.
The Applicant is still in contact with his grandmother in New Zealand. He has other extended family there, although he is not in close contact with them.[124]
[124] Ibid (R28), 1063.
He has since obtained employment and lodgings. He has become involved with social sport and has made friends. He says that he remains drug free and that he is progressing well.
This consideration (b) is neutral.
(c) Impact on Australian business interests
Paragraph 9.3 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.
The Applicant claims that this Other Consideration is engaged in this case.
In particular he says he could get bricklaying or other labouring work in Australia. I accept that this is probably so.
I am not however satisfied that there is any material impact on Australian business interests in the sense contemplated in the Direction.
This Other Consideration (d) is neutral.
CONCLUSION
It is necessary to weigh up all of the primary and other considerations.
Primary consideration 1 weighs very heavily against revocation.
Primary consideration 2 weighs very heavily against revocation.
Primary consideration 3 weighs slightly in favour of revocation.
Primary consideration 4 weighs slightly in favour of revocation.
Primary consideration 5 weighs very heavily against revocation.
Other consideration (a) is neutral.
Other consideration (b) is neutral.
Other consideration (c) is neutral.[125]
[125] Find in the above paragraphs.
I note that paragraph 7(2) of the Direction requires that protection of the Australian community is generally to be given greater weight than other Primary Considerations, and that Primary Considerations should generally be given greater weight than the Other Considerations.
It is necessary to weigh up all of the primary and other considerations.
The Applicant has been a serial criminal offender, committing a range of crimes. His family violence conduct and most recent drug offences in particular, are very serious.
Primary Considerations 1, 2 and 5 weigh very heavily against him.
Primary Considerations 3 and 4 weigh only slightly in favour of revocation.
The Other Considerations are neutral.
Even if the most favourable consideration is given to the factors supporting revocation, these are dwarfed by the weight of Primary Consideration 1, 2 and 5.
I am particularly mindful that the Direction requires “decision-makers to keep in mind the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government”.
In this case, I am satisfied that the safety of the Australian community would be placed at an unacceptable risk if the Applicant’s visa cancellation were to be revoked.
In my view, the proper application of the Direction favours the Tribunal to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa. I find that there is not “another reason” pursuant to s501CA (4)(b)(ii) to revoke the original decision.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

I certify that the preceding 271 (two hundred and seventy one) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Hon J Rau SC.

...........................[SGND].................................
Associate

Dated: 25 February 2025

Date of hearing: 10 February 2025

Advocate for the Applicant:

Self-Represented

Advocate for the Respondent:
Sarah Black (Minter Ellison)

ANNEXURE A – LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit no.

Lodged by

Document

1

Respondent

Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (04.09.2024)

2

Respondent

Remittal Bundle

3

Respondent

Statutory Declaration re Certification of Documents (04.02.2025)

ANNEXURE B – APPLICANT’S OFFENDING HISTORY

Court

Court Date

Offence

Court Result

TOWNSVILLE MAGISTRATES COURT (QLD)

13/12/2022

BREACH OF COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDER

FOR BREACH OF AN ORDER AND RESENTENCING: ON ALL CHARGES

TOWNSVILLE SUPREME COURT (QLD)

22/11/2022

TRAFFICKING IN DANGEROUS DRUGS

SENTENCED IMPRISONMENT 5Y

TOWNSVILLE SUPREME COURT (QLD)

22/11/2022

POSSESS DANGEROUS DRUGS

IMPRISONMENT 1MO

TOWNSVILLE SUPREME COURT (QLD)

22/11/2022

POSSESSING PROPERTY OBTAINED FROM TRAFFICKING OR SUPPLYING

CONVICTION RECORDED

NO FURTHER PUNISHED

TOWNSVILLE SUPREME COURT (QLD)

22/11/2022

POSSESSING DANGEROUS DRUGS

IMPRISONMENT 2Y

TOWNSVILLE SUPREME COURT (QLD)

22/11/2022

ATTEMPTING TO PERVERT JUSTICE

IMPRISONMENT 9MO

TOWNSVILLE SUPREME COURT (QLD)

22/11/2022

CONTRAVENING ORDER ABOUT INFORMATION NECESSARY TO ACCESS INFORMATION STORED ELECTRONICALLY

IMPRISONMENT 6MO

TOWNSVILLE SUPREME COURT (QLD)

22/11/2022

POSSESS DANGEROUS DRUGS

IMPRISONMENT 1MO

TOWNSVILLE SUPREME COURT (QLD)

22/11/2022

POSSESSING ANYTHING FOR USE IN THE COMMISSION OF CRIME

CONVICTION RECORDED

NO FURTHER PUNISHED

TOWNSVILLE SUPREME COURT (QLD)

22/11/2022

POSSESS UTENSILS OR PIPES

FAIL TO COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENT TO STOP PRIVATE VEHICLE

SUSPECTED OF HAVING BEEN USED IN CONNECTION WITH THE COMMISSION OF A DRUG OFFENCE

ON ALL CHARGES:

CONVICTION RECORDED

NO FURTHER PUNISHED

TOWNSVILLE MAGISTRATES COURT (QLD)

05/11/2019

SUPPLYING DANGEROUS DRUGS (ON 14/11/2017)

SUPPLYING DANGEROUS DRUGS (ON 21/11/2017)

SUPPLYING DANGEROUS DRUGS (ON 19/11/2017)

SUPPLYING DANGEROUS DRUGS (ON 03/12/2017)

SUPPLYING DANGEROUS DRUGS (ON 07/12/2017)

SUPPLYING DANGEROUS DRUGS (ON 10/12/2017)

POSSESSING ANYTHING USED IN THE COMMISSION OF CRIME (ON 03/03/2018)

POSSESSING DANGEROUS DRUGS (ON 2705/2018)

POSSESS PROPERTY SUSPECTED OF HAVING BEEN USED IN CONNCECTION WITH THE COMMISSION OF A DRUG OFFENCE (ON 27/05/2018)

ON ALL CHARGES WITH TRAFFIC MATTERS

CONVICTION RECORDED

COMMUNITY SERVICE

TIME: 100H

TOWNSVILLE MAGISTRATES COURT (QLD)

19/03/2018

CONTRAVENE DIRECTION OR REQUIREMENT

FINED: $100.00

TOWNSVILLE MAGISTRATES COURT (QLD)

08/02/2018

CONTRAVENE DIRECTION OR REQUIREMENT

FINED: $200.00

TOWNSVILLE MAGISTRATES COURT (QLD)

20/11/2017

POSSESSING DANGEROUS DRUGS

FINED: $500.00

TOWNSVILLE MAGISTRATES COURT (QLD)

13/10/2017

CONTRAVENE DIRECTION OR REQUIREMENT

FINED: $100.00

TOWNSVILLE MAGISTRATES COURT (QLD)

13/10/2017

POSSESS UTENSILS OR PIPES

FINED: $200.00

TOWNSVILLE MAGISTRATES COURT (QLD)

13/10/2017

POSSESSING DANGEROUS DRUGS (ON 24/05/2017)

POSSESS UTENSILS OR PIPES (ON 24/05/2017)

POSSESSING ANYTHING USED IN THE COMMISSION OF CRIME (ON 24/05/2017)

ON ALL CHARGES

FINED: $200.00

TOWNSVILLE MAGISTRATES COURT (QLD)

12/10/2016

STEALING

FINED: $150.00

TOWNSVILLE MAGISTRATES COURT (QLD)

21/09/2016

CONTRAVENE DIRECTION OR REQUIREMENT

FINED: $50.00

TOWNSVILLE MAGISTRATES COURT (QLD)

02/12/2014

STEALING (08/20/2013)

STEALING (BETWEEN 01/05/2014 AND 14/09/2014)

STEALING (ON 08/10/2013)

BURGLARY AND COMMIT INDICTABLE OFFENCE (ON 08/10/2013)

ENTER PREMISES AND COMMIT INDICTABLE OFFENCE BY BREAK (ON 08/10/2013)

WILFUL DAMAGE (ON 08/10/2013)

FRAUD – DISHONESTLY GAIN BENEFIT/ADVANTAGE (ON 13/09/2014)

ON ALL CHARGES:

IMPRISONMENT: 6MO

TOWNSVILLE MAGISTRATES COURT (QLD)

02/12/2014

STEALING (ON 12/01/2013)

WILFUL DAMAGE (ON 12/01/2013)

STEALING (ON 12/01/2013)

STEALING (ON 23/02/2013)

WILFUL DAMAGE (ON 23/02/2013)

WILFUL DAMAGE (ON 23/02/2013)

WILFUL DAMAGE (ON 23/02/2013)

STEALING (ON 05/08/2012)

STEALING (ON 05/08/2012)

ENTER PREMISES AND COMMIT INDICTABLE OFFENCE BY BREAK (ON 20/01/2013)

WILFUL DAMAGE (ON 20/01/2013)

ON ALL CHARGES:

IMPRISONMENT: 1MO

Date of hearing:	10 February 2025
Advocate for the Applicant:	Self-Represented
Advocate for the Respondent:	Sarah Black (Minter Ellison)

Exhibit no.	Lodged by	Document
1	Respondent	Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (04.09.2024)
2	Respondent	Remittal Bundle
3	Respondent	Statutory Declaration re Certification of Documents (04.02.2025)

Court	Court Date	Offence	Court Result
TOWNSVILLE MAGISTRATES COURT (QLD)	13/12/2022	BREACH OF COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDER	FOR BREACH OF AN ORDER AND RESENTENCING: ON ALL CHARGES
TOWNSVILLE SUPREME COURT (QLD)	22/11/2022	TRAFFICKING IN DANGEROUS DRUGS	SENTENCED IMPRISONMENT 5Y
TOWNSVILLE SUPREME COURT (QLD)	22/11/2022	POSSESS DANGEROUS DRUGS	IMPRISONMENT 1MO
TOWNSVILLE SUPREME COURT (QLD)	22/11/2022	POSSESSING PROPERTY OBTAINED FROM TRAFFICKING OR SUPPLYING	CONVICTION RECORDED NO FURTHER PUNISHED
TOWNSVILLE SUPREME COURT (QLD)	22/11/2022	POSSESSING DANGEROUS DRUGS	IMPRISONMENT 2Y
TOWNSVILLE SUPREME COURT (QLD)	22/11/2022	ATTEMPTING TO PERVERT JUSTICE	IMPRISONMENT 9MO
TOWNSVILLE SUPREME COURT (QLD)	22/11/2022	CONTRAVENING ORDER ABOUT INFORMATION NECESSARY TO ACCESS INFORMATION STORED ELECTRONICALLY	IMPRISONMENT 6MO
TOWNSVILLE SUPREME COURT (QLD)	22/11/2022	POSSESS DANGEROUS DRUGS	IMPRISONMENT 1MO
TOWNSVILLE SUPREME COURT (QLD)	22/11/2022	POSSESSING ANYTHING FOR USE IN THE COMMISSION OF CRIME	CONVICTION RECORDED NO FURTHER PUNISHED
TOWNSVILLE SUPREME COURT (QLD)	22/11/2022	POSSESS UTENSILS OR PIPES FAIL TO COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENT TO STOP PRIVATE VEHICLE SUSPECTED OF HAVING BEEN USED IN CONNECTION WITH THE COMMISSION OF A DRUG OFFENCE	ON ALL CHARGES: CONVICTION RECORDED NO FURTHER PUNISHED
TOWNSVILLE MAGISTRATES COURT (QLD)	05/11/2019	SUPPLYING DANGEROUS DRUGS (ON 14/11/2017) SUPPLYING DANGEROUS DRUGS (ON 21/11/2017) SUPPLYING DANGEROUS DRUGS (ON 19/11/2017) SUPPLYING DANGEROUS DRUGS (ON 03/12/2017) SUPPLYING DANGEROUS DRUGS (ON 07/12/2017) SUPPLYING DANGEROUS DRUGS (ON 10/12/2017) POSSESSING ANYTHING USED IN THE COMMISSION OF CRIME (ON 03/03/2018) POSSESSING DANGEROUS DRUGS (ON 2705/2018) POSSESS PROPERTY SUSPECTED OF HAVING BEEN USED IN CONNCECTION WITH THE COMMISSION OF A DRUG OFFENCE (ON 27/05/2018)	ON ALL CHARGES WITH TRAFFIC MATTERS CONVICTION RECORDED COMMUNITY SERVICE TIME: 100H
TOWNSVILLE MAGISTRATES COURT (QLD)	19/03/2018	CONTRAVENE DIRECTION OR REQUIREMENT	FINED: $100.00
TOWNSVILLE MAGISTRATES COURT (QLD)	08/02/2018	CONTRAVENE DIRECTION OR REQUIREMENT	FINED: $200.00
TOWNSVILLE MAGISTRATES COURT (QLD)	20/11/2017	POSSESSING DANGEROUS DRUGS	FINED: $500.00
TOWNSVILLE MAGISTRATES COURT (QLD)	13/10/2017	CONTRAVENE DIRECTION OR REQUIREMENT	FINED: $100.00
TOWNSVILLE MAGISTRATES COURT (QLD)	13/10/2017	POSSESS UTENSILS OR PIPES	FINED: $200.00
TOWNSVILLE MAGISTRATES COURT (QLD)	13/10/2017	POSSESSING DANGEROUS DRUGS (ON 24/05/2017) POSSESS UTENSILS OR PIPES (ON 24/05/2017) POSSESSING ANYTHING USED IN THE COMMISSION OF CRIME (ON 24/05/2017)	ON ALL CHARGES FINED: $200.00
TOWNSVILLE MAGISTRATES COURT (QLD)	12/10/2016	STEALING	FINED: $150.00
TOWNSVILLE MAGISTRATES COURT (QLD)	21/09/2016	CONTRAVENE DIRECTION OR REQUIREMENT	FINED: $50.00
TOWNSVILLE MAGISTRATES COURT (QLD)	02/12/2014	STEALING (08/20/2013) STEALING (BETWEEN 01/05/2014 AND 14/09/2014) STEALING (ON 08/10/2013) BURGLARY AND COMMIT INDICTABLE OFFENCE (ON 08/10/2013) ENTER PREMISES AND COMMIT INDICTABLE OFFENCE BY BREAK (ON 08/10/2013) WILFUL DAMAGE (ON 08/10/2013) FRAUD – DISHONESTLY GAIN BENEFIT/ADVANTAGE (ON 13/09/2014)	ON ALL CHARGES: IMPRISONMENT: 6MO
TOWNSVILLE MAGISTRATES COURT (QLD)	02/12/2014	STEALING (ON 12/01/2013) WILFUL DAMAGE (ON 12/01/2013) STEALING (ON 12/01/2013) STEALING (ON 23/02/2013) WILFUL DAMAGE (ON 23/02/2013) WILFUL DAMAGE (ON 23/02/2013) WILFUL DAMAGE (ON 23/02/2013) STEALING (ON 05/08/2012) STEALING (ON 05/08/2012) ENTER PREMISES AND COMMIT INDICTABLE OFFENCE BY BREAK (ON 20/01/2013) WILFUL DAMAGE (ON 20/01/2013)	ON ALL CHARGES: IMPRISONMENT: 1MO