KHLJ and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) - [2021] AATA 3842

KHLJ and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2021] AATA 3842 (27 September 2021)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2021/4675
Re:KHLJ
APPLICANT

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

Decision
Tribunal:A G Melick AO SC, Deputy President
Date: 27 September 2021
Date of written reasons: 20 October 2021
Place:Hobart

The Tribunal affirms the decision not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.

..........................[sgd]..............................................
A G Melick AO SC, Deputy President
Catchwords
MIGRATION – Non-revocation of mandatory cancellation of a Class BB Subclass 155 Five Year Resident Return visa - where Applicant does not pass the character test – whether the discretion to refuse to grant the visa should be exercised – consideration of Ministerial Direction No. 90 – sexually based offences involving a child – decision under review affirmed.
Legislation
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Cases
Afu v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1311
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 500.
Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1166, (2016) 153 ALD 337
Khalil v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 271 FCR 326
Marzano v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 66
Minister for Home Affairs v Buadromo [2018] FCAFC 151
Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594
Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 348
YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466
SECONDARY MATERIAL
Direction No 90 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA
REASONS FOR DECISION
A G Melick AO SC, Deputy President
20 October 2021
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

The Applicant is 50 years old and a citizen of Tonga. He first arrived in Australia on 9 March 1982,[1] aged 11, with his uncle who was his adoptive parent. After completing high school in Australia, he returned to Tonga between 1994 and 1997.[2] In 1997, the Applicant returned to Australia. The Applicant was granted a Class BB Subclass 155 Five Year Resident Return visa which is the subject of this application for review.
[1] G-documents, G2, 238.
[2] Ibid, 237.
On 11 November 2020, a delegate of the Minister (“the Respondent”) mandatorily cancelled the Applicant’s visa under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) on the basis that the Applicant did not pass the character test because of the operation of s 501(6)(e) (sexually based offences involving a child) and because he was serving a full time custodial sentence.[3] On 8 December 2020, the Applicant made written representations to the Respondent requesting revocation of the cancellation of his visa (“revocation request”).[4] On 5 July 2021, the Respondent decided not to revoke the cancellation.[5]
[3] G-documents, G2, 239.
[4] G-documents, G2, 51-71.
[5] G-documents, G2, 9.
The Applicant subsequently lodged an application for review in this Tribunal on 14 July 2021.[6] The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review that decision pursuant to s 500(1)(ba) of the Act.
[6] G-documents, G1, 3.
The matter was heard before the Tribunal via Microsoft Teams on 13, 14 and 21 September 2021. The Applicant was represented by Mr Bellissimo of Timpson Immigration Lawyers. The Respondent was represented by Mr Oliver Morris of Australian Government Solicitor. The following witnesses gave oral evidence before the Tribunal:
(a)The Applicant
(b)A, the Applicant’s former partner
(c)W, the Applicant’s son
(d)L, the Applicant’s daughter
(e)LF, the Applicant’s cousin
(f)P, the Applicant’s cousin
(g)I, the Applicants son
(h)Professor James Freeman, consultant psychologist
(i)Mr Paul Stevenson, consultant psychologist
The Tribunal also received the written evidence that is listed in the attached exhibit list, marked “Annexure A”.
Evidence
The Applicant
The Applicant’s affidavit was tendered in evidence[7] and he gave oral evidence at the hearing. Overall, the Applicant demonstrated a strong sense of love and dedication toward his family. His children and grandchildren appeared to be a primary motivation for his strive for personal improvement.
[7] Exhibit 2.
The Applicant gave evidence that during the periods in which he had committed offences, he had experienced challenges in his personal life including the death of his parents and his uncle who played a quasi-parental role. He explained that had struggled to come to terms with their deteriorating state and felt regret about what he might have been able to do to assist them.[8]
[8] Transcript, 9.
Having only recently (17 September 2021) admitted to having committed four counts of indecent dealing with a child under 16 and under care,[9] the Applicant’s evidence with respect to this offending was complex. Throughout his evidence, the Applicant shifted between denial and acceptance of the details of his offending and, at times, it was difficult to understand his position. The Applicant appeared to harbour significant shame and embarrassment about his offending, and he did not express remorse with clarity.
[9] Transcript, 16.
Both the Applicant’s representative and counsel for the Respondent questioned the Applicant’s motivation for accepting his guilt. During examination in chief, the Applicant reasoned:
Because I was slowly - I was slowly coming to terms with what I had done. I do realise now that it wasn't - it was the wrong thing to do and I do regret it and I want to - I want to better myself as a father. I have let down a lot of my family, my extended family, the community, close friends that I have let down, and I want to better myself. I want to better my life. I want my kids to look up to - to see me as a father figure.[10]
[10] Transcript, 8.
Counsel for the Respondent questioned the Applicant about his denial of his conviction of indecent dealing with a child under 16 and under care and the Applicant indicated that he believed he was innocent at the time, but was not “in the right frame of mind”.[11] When the Respondent asked the Applicant why he still denied his offending in March of this year, the Applicant said:
Certain things affect people in a different way. To me, it takes - it took a long time. I'm still going through it at the moment with everything that's happening.[12]
[11] Transcript, 31.
[12] Transcript, 31.
During cross-examination, the Applicant was questioned about the specific details of his offending. When the details of the offence were put to him, he often reported not being able to remember. While he initially provided an alternative narrative for the events that took place on the following morning including kissing the victim on the neck, he later agreed that “it wasn’t the right thing to do”.[13] He stated on multiple occasions words to the effect of “I didn’t know what I was thinking”.[14] The Applicant explained that at the time he was going through a “rough time”. Despite having recently admitted to having committed indecent dealing with a child under 16 and under care, the Applicant appeared to be largely uncomfortable with each of the charges and his evidence did not indicate a strong sense of accountability.
[13] Transcript, 22.
[14] Transcript, 21.
At one stage during cross-examination, the Applicant became emotional and stated:
Yes, I made a mistake, and I suffer for that. I am fighting for my life, I’m fighting for my family. I realise I’ve done the wrong thing. And for you to sit there saying that I don’t feel remorse, it’s all right for you, you can sit there and then you go home and say hello and talk to your family, your kids, your wife. I’m stuck in here. I can’t do that with my family.[15]
[15] Transcript, 43.
Relationship with alcohol
During cross examination, counsel for the Respondent asked the Applicant about his relationship with alcohol. The Applicant expressed some awareness that his drinking could lead him to do the wrong thing and expressed the view that when this occurred his drinking became problematic.[16] Although the Applicant denied ever being so intoxicated that he could not remember, counsel put several examples of his intoxication contained within police reports to the Applicant and he appeared to have little recollection of the circumstances of each report or offence. The Applicant confirmed that he has never sought professional help for his drinking, and he considered it to be, for the most part, a social activity.[17]
[16] Transcript, 12.
[17] Transcript, 14.
During cross-examination, the Applicant was asked if he would continue his consumption of alcohol. The Applicant stated:
No, it's something that I'm not going to participate in. I feel that the time - the amount of time that I've been off I don't really need it. It caused - in fact drinking alcohol has caused a problem in my life in the past and I want to deal with it and I want to talk to someone about it and then hopefully I'll get the support that I need.[18]
[18] Transcript, 55.
The Applicant was questioned in relation to the incident of common assault domestic violence offence, for which no conviction was recorded. During examination in chief, the Applicant stated in relation to this offence:
I do regret the incident that happened that night. It should not have happened. I was going through some rough periods in my life. In saying that, there's still no - it was no excuse for me to behave in the manner that I did and I deeply regret what I done to [S], all the pain that I gave her.[19]
[19] Transcript, 8.
During cross-examination, the Applicant was unable to remember whether he told the Police that he had no recollection of this offence due to his intoxication.[20]
[20] Transcript, 13.
Counsel for the Respondent also questioned the Application in regard to his conviction of assault police officer. The Applicant gave evidence that he became involved in a fight to break it up, and accidentally struck a police officer. He explained that it was an accident because it is “not in his character to hit people for nothing”, however he could not remember the exact sequence of events.[21]
[21] Transcript, 15.
Family and relationships
The Applicant gave evidence in examination in chief and re-examination about his relationship with his family and grandchildren. The Applicant has two grandsons who he saw every week prior to being incarcerated. He also provided support to his daughter by babysitting while she attended work. He expressed a strong desire to change for the benefit of his family and said that they would be devastated if he was separated from them.[22]
[22] Transcript, 10.
A, the Applicant’s former partner
A gave evidence before the Tribunal and her affidavit sworn 7 September 2021 was tendered in evidence.[23] A and the Applicant are married but separated. They maintain a close and supportive relationship and have three children together. A indicated that the Applicant’s family would be “devastated” if the Applicant were to be deported. She gave evidence about the importance of the Applicant in supporting their family, particularly their daughter who has recently left a toxic relationship and relies on the Applicant for emotional, practical, and financial support.[24]
[23] Exhibit 5.
[24] Transcript, 59.
When asked about how the Applicant might fare if returned to Tonga, A highlighted the fact that the nature of the Applicant’s conviction is very taboo within Tongan culture and she expressed concern about how he might assimilate into that community:
There's not much support over there for things like this and there are like a lot of Tongan men, their culture, they don't discuss things like this, so there's not much support there for him mentally or to help him to become a better person, to you know, to get back into the community, where here he would have all that and he'd have all of us.[25]
[25] Transcript, 63-4.
During examination in chief, A explained that she perceived the Applicant as a changed man and able to communicate much better than he used to. She stated:
He is very remorseful in what his actions were. He has accepted his punishment, he has done his punishment, he seeks - he is seeking help. He is trying to be a better person. He is talking to people, so yes, I totally understand, he has always communicated that with 5 me, I understand where he was and I understand the path he is going on now and I'm quite proud of him for trying to better himself and that, you know, in taking responsibility for his actions as well. Because family means everything to him and he's doing whatever it takes to be a better person - to be a better - a man in the community, in the family - to be that role model for 10 the kids and his grandkids.[26]
[26] Transcript, 62.
During cross-examination, counsel for the Respondent asked about A’s awareness of the Applicant’s offending. She knew the circumstances of the Applicant’s conviction of indecent dealing with a child under 16 and under care.[27] She was not aware the Applicant had struck his ex-partner, S, but she suggested that he would have been very embarrassed about his offending and this might have informed his non-disclosure. She gave evidence that she had never seen the Applicant become aggressive when he was drunk and had not heard of any other instances than the altercation involving S.[28]
[27] Transcript, 64.
[28] Transcript, 65.
W, the Applicant’s son
W gave oral evidence at the hearing in support of his father’s application. His affidavit sworn 6 September 2021 was also tendered in evidence.[29]
[29] Exhibit 6.
W explained that prior to the Applicant becoming incarcerated, they spent a lot of time together because they lived and worked together. He described the Applicant in the following way:
Well, he was loving, he was - he pretty much - he'd give you the shirt off his back if you asked for it and that just goes to show, like, with how he is with my mum, him and my mum. You know, they obviously were married once, still even married but, you know, they went their separate ways and when mum needed help, she would always get it from my dad. You know, that's not really, I suppose, normal in that kind of situation where an ex-partner would give you that sort of help. And it wasn't just for that, it was everything. You know, if my brother needed help with, you know, football, or his team needed help, his football needed help, dad would help out, same with my football team. You know, he'd be doing work functions, trying to give them help. He pretty much - yes, he - he'd always do a lot for other people before he thinks about himself.[30]
[30] Transcript, 69.
W indicated that he thought it was particularly important for his younger brother to have the Applicant around because of his impressionable age.[31] W also gave evidence that his own mental health had suffered as a result of the Applicant’s incarceration and he tended to shy away from social interactions out of fear that someone might enquire about his father.[32]
[31] Transcript, 71.
[32] Transcript, 72.
During cross-examination, W gave evidence that the Applicant had not confessed his guilt to W and that W believed he was innocent.[33] He was also unaware that the Applicant had been charged with a physical domestic violence offence.[34]
[33] Transcript, 73-74.
[34] Transcript, 74.
L, the Applicant’s daughter
L is the Applicant’s eldest child. She gave oral evidence at the hearing and her affidavit sworn 6 September 2021 was tendered in evidence.[35] L is a single mother to two young sons, she recently separated from her partner. She explained some of the challenges that she faced in her previous relationship and the important role the Applicant played in supporting her to leave by providing her with emotional support and accommodation.
[35] Exhibit 7.
L described the Applicant as “her strength”, noting that if the Applicant were to be deported, it would have a negative effect on her wellbeing and by proxy, on the wellbeing of her two sons.[36]
[36] Transcript, 79.
During cross-examination, L was asked about her understanding of the Applicant’s offending. She understood the nature of each specific charge but when asked whether she believed the Applicant had committed the offence, she said no. She gave evidence that the Applicant had always maintained his innocence to her. She appeared unaware that the Applicant had recently admitted to having committed the offence, and it was not disclosed to her during the course of her evidence.[37] L was asked if whether, in the case that the offending against the child had taken place, it would change her opinion of her father and she indicated she didn’t know.[38]
[37] Transcript, 82.
[38] Transcript, 83.
Counsel for the Respondent also asked L about her knowledge of the incident of domestic violence against the Applicant’s former partner, S. L knew that there was CV footage that allegedly depicted the Applicant striking S with the back of his hand, but when L asked if she thought it was true, she replied:
I don’t believe it, no. He wouldn’t do that in public or to a woman I see.[39]
[39] Transcript, 83.
LF, the Applicant’s cousin
The Applicant’s cousin, LF gave oral evidence at the hearing and her affidavit sworn 7 September 2021 was tendered in evidence.
LF has known the Applicant her entire life, during examination in chief she agreed the offending was very out of character. She corroborated the Applicant’s own explanation of the rough period he was experiencing at the time of the offending. She gave the following insight into the Applicant’s struggles:
[The Applicant’s] a very proud man and he has always tried to deal with issues on his own without turning to anyone. He's held a lot of hurt and a lot of anger and frustration and everything. He holds it all in and tries to deal with it on his own without having to talk to anyone.[40]
[40] Transcript, 89.
LF was asked about the Applicant’s feeling of shame with respect to his offending and stated:
I asked him why he'd never said anything to anyone in the family, and he said it's shameful. He regrets doing it. And because of being pretty much drunk at the time - his offence - mainly with his domestic violence, he's ashamed that he would lift a hand to any female. With the children, he's ashamed that that is something that he's going to have to live with for the rest of his life when he cares so much for kids, and how he is especially with all the children in the family. He's ashamed of how the family will look at him, how others will look at him. And especially within the Tongan community, the Tongan community can be quite brutal. Especially when we're considered to be very Christian, we're highly religious and we have a lot of religious beliefs. So for him to be convicted of charges of indecent dealings with minors - it's something that just goes against our beliefs religiously. So he's ashamed of what people will think of him now, especially those that have known him for a long time. And he's - yes, overall he's just ashamed of everything.[41]
[41] Transcript, 90.
L’s evidence corroborated the evidence provided by other family members with respect to the important role the Applicant played in the family as a supportive and loving parent and grandparent.[42] She also expressed concern over the Applicant’s wellbeing should he return to Tonga. She offered particular insight into the way the Applicant’s convictions might be perceived by the Tongan community and expressed concern that the Applicant may be shunned or isolated by the community.[43]
[42] Transcript 90-1.
[43] Transcript, 93.
I, the Applicant’s son
The Applicant’s son, I gave oral evidence before the Tribunal. An affidavit sworn 6 September 2021 was also tendered in evidence.[44]
[44] Exhibit 9.

I explained that he maintained a close relationship with the Applicant. He has lived with the Applicant for most of his life and despite being incarcerated, the Applicant speaks with I regularly via the phone or facetime.[45] I plays rugby and has recently signed a contract with a team in the National Rugby League. The Applicant plays an important role in supporting I in his sporting achievements. He explained that he is concerned about the effect that the Applicant’s removal from Australia would have on his mental state, explaining that he needs him as he embarks on his career.[46]
[45] Transcript, 98.
[46] Transcript, 99.
I’s evidence corroborated evidence given by the Applicant and other members of his family with respect to the important role the Applicant plays in supporting his children and grandchildren. I explained that the Applicant was “really another father figure” to the Applicant’s two grandsons.[47]
[47] Transcript, 100.
During cross-examination, I was asked about his understanding of the Applicant’s offending. He explained that at the time of the offending, the Applicant had not felt comfortable talking about the charges of indecent dealing with a child under 16 and under care. When I was asked whether he thought his father was guilty, he indicated that he did not. Counsel for the Respondent asked I whether, if his father did admit to the charges, it would change I’s perception of his father. He indicated it would not.[48]
[48] Transcript, 101.
P, the Applicant’s cousin
An affidavit sworn by P on 7 September 2021 was tendered in evidence.[49] P also gave oral evidence at the hearing.
[49] Exhibit 10.
P has known the Applicant her whole life. She gave evidence that she was fully aware of the Applicant’s offending and described it as being out of character. She emphasised the challenges facing the family around the time of the Applicant’s offending, particularly the death of the Applicant’s parents and her father (the Applicant’s uncle).[50]
[50] Transcript, 112.
Counsel for the Applicant asked P why she thought the Applicant had not disclosed his offending until he was incarcerated. P explained:
[The Applicant's] not much of a talker. But also, with some of our cultural norms also, it doesn't allow us to share those sorts of things directly with say, a brother and a sister. I'm sure it's not typical of just the Tongan males to be manly and to just handle everything without showing emotions. I know that in Australia, lots of men don't tend to share their feelings a lot. So I don't think it's uncommon. But I believe that's one of the reasons, is some of our cultural - and he didn't really want to burden everybody. And I think also the fact that the case is - his convictions were something very shameful, and I know that he was extremely ashamed, depressed, and he despised himself because of what has happened and how it has impacted his kids and our family.[51]
[51] Transcript, 113.
When asked about whether the Applicant is likely to seek help in the future, P stated:
I think this unfortunate journey has also highlighted some good points where, you know, it has brought down some of these traditional, you know, cultural barriers to allow us to have this sort of conversation with my brother, but it has also opened up this – a more open communication with [the Applicant], and I believe that in future he will be a lot more open to seeking the support, and we know as a family that we will come around and help him.[52]
[52] Transcript, 117.
P’s evidence in relation to the important role of the Applicant within his family, particularly the support he provides to his daughter L and his grandchildren, was consistent with the evidence given by other witnesses.[53] P explained that in her view, there was no risk of the Applicant reoffending, citing the agony the family has experienced as the primary driver for the Applicant’s reform.[54]
[53] Transcript 114-15.
[54] Transcript 117.
During cross-examination, P was asked about whether she believed the Applicant had committed the offences with which he was charged. With respect to the conviction of indecent treatment of a child under 16 and under care, P believed the Applicant would have had to admit to the offence because of the situation he was in but did not actually commit the offence.[55] She explained that if he had, she would be disappointed, but would support him to get the help he needed.[56] With respect to the offence of common assault domestic violence, P believed the Applicant had committed the offence.[57]
[55] Transcript, 120.
[56] Transcript, 121.
[57] Transcript, 122.
Professor James Freeman, consultant psychologist
Professor Freeman assessed the Applicant via video link and produced a report dated 29 January 2021 that was tendered in evidence.[58]
[58] Exhibit 11.
At the time that Professor Freeman assessed the Applicant, the Applicant maintained his innocence with respect to the charges of indecent treatment of a child under 16 and under care. He gave evidence that it is not uncommon for offenders to resist guilt for their actions. He speculated that both shame and guilt often contributed to the decision for sex offenders to maintain a stance of innocence. He assumed this applied in the case of the Applicant, noting that the Applicant was pro-social, and this offending was uncharacteristic, which might contribute to his guilt and shame.[59] During cross-examination, Professor Freeman agreed with counsel for the Respondent that another reason for delaying his admission could be to avoid criminal sanction or action under the Act.[60]
[59] Transcript, 129.
[60] Transcript, 138.
Professor Freeman was asked about the Applicant’s risk of reoffending and he noted that sexual recidivism is one of the least likely committed crimes. On examination of the risk factors that contribute to sexual recidivism, Professor Freeman opined that the Applicant’s risk of reoffending was low because he did not score on any of the factors. He further noted that the Applicant’s choice to maintain a stance of innocence is not weighted, because it is not found to be a predictor of reoffending.[61] During cross-examination, counsel put to Professor Freeman that the Applicant’s score was at the higher end of the low category. Professor Freeman emphasised that the tool used was not sensitive enough to be able to account for peoples scores within a particular category and this was not the recommended interpretation of the scores.[62]
[61] Transcript, 130-1.
[62] Transcript, 137.
When asked to expand on whether the offending could be considered characteristic, Professor Freeman opined:
I don’t know the origins of the event because he maintained a stance of innocence at the time. However, what I can say is that the events as uncharacteristic and in disparity to his broader psychosocial function in the sense that, you know, he’s worked hard, was able to maintain stable relationships, has generally experienced pretty good mental health, does not have significant addictions apart from some sporadic misuse of alcohol. So it does appear to be in disparity to the rest of his psychosocial functioning.[63]
[63] Transcript, 131.
Professor Freeman was asked about the Applicant’s relationship with his family and possible reintegration into the Australian community. He stated that he didn’t speak in detail with the Applicant about his family, but he got the impression he was a family-oriented individual. This strongly accords with the evidence given by other witnesses. Professor Freeman opined that the Applicant would be able to reintegrate, stating that there “wasn’t any outstanding substance abuse problems and [the Applicant] just wanted to re-establish his life and get some stability”.[64]
[64] Transcript, 131.
During cross-examination, counsel for the Respondent raised the offence of common assault domestic violence. Professor Freeman was unaware of the details of that offending, describing it as “impulsive reactive violence” but appearing to only understand that the Applicant pushed S.[65] Professor Freeman was unsurprised that the Applicant did not give a full account of his offending, explaining that often people engage in impression management. He explained that he assumed the offending to have been more serious than the Applicant suggested based on the corresponding sanction. Despite this, Professor Freeman agreed that striking S and later breaking into her home was much more serious in nature.[66]
[65] Transcript, 139.
[66] Ibid.
Professor Freeman opined in his report that the Applicant showed no level of remorse. When asked about this in the context of the Applicant’s recent admission, Professor Freeman stated:
If the applicant did not express remorse and regret for his behaviour now, then that would be an indicator of some level of elevated risk. If he cannot recognise the impact of his behaviour on others then, yes, at the time I couldn’t ask those questions because he maintained the stance of innocence but that is something that is of importance now.[67]
[67] Transcript, 140.
Mr Paul Stevenson, consultant psychologist
Mr Stevenson undertook a telephone assessment of the Applicant and produced a report dated 27 August 2021. This report was tendered in evidence[68] and Mr Stevenson gave oral evidence at the hearing.
[68] Exhibit 4.
Mr Stevenson was asked about any barriers the Applicant might have faced in being forthcoming with his admission. Mr Stevenson did not directly answer the question but noted that the Applicant’s tests indicated that he was often absorbed in his own thoughts, and this may affect his reliability as a witness.[69] He was aware of the Applicant’s family support and opined that the Applicant appeared to have matured and to have “probably learned the value of support”.[70]
[69] Transcript, 143.
[70] Ibid.
Mr Stevenson opined that the Applicant had shown remorse for his actions. He explained that he considered remorse to have a bearing on the Applicant’s propensity to reoffend, but he did not consider it to be an absolute definitive.[71] When prompted by counsel for the Respondent to clarify what the Applicant was remorseful for, Mr Stevenson stated “I think its remorse for the event, a set of circumstances that he was alleged to have been engaged in”, rather than showing remorse of the conduct itself.[72]
[71] Transcript, 145.
[72] Transcript, 146.
Counsel for the Respondent questioned Mr Stevenson on his understanding of the Applicant’s offending. He did not give an account of the Applicant’s indecent dealing offence in detail, and while he was aware the Applicant had been convicted of a domestic violence offence, he did not question the Applicant with respect to that offending.
Mr Stevenson was asked about the perceived differences in his assessment of the Applicant and that of Professor Freeman, including his observation of possible ADHD. He stated that he did not disagree with anything that came out of Professor Freeman’s report and thought it would offer the Tribunal a lot of assistance.[73]
Procedural History
The Tribunal published its decision in this application pursuant to s 43(1) of the Administrative Appeals Act 1975 (Cth) on the 84^th day relevant to this matter, 27 September 2021. In doing so, the Tribunal met the requirements of s 500(6)(c) of the Act. Attached to these Reasons and marked “Annexure B” is a true and correct copy of this Decision.
In accordance with the principles outlined by the Full Federal Court in Khalil v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 271 FCR 326 (Khalil), the Tribunal now publishes the written Reasons to the parties. In Khalil, the Full Federal Court said:
“41. The AAT Act thus draws a clear distinction between the decision of the Tribunal under s 43 which is, relevantly, what causes the 84 day period to stop running, and the reasons for decision. In BTR plc v Westinghouse Brake and Signal Company (Australia) Ltd (1992) 34 FCR 246 the Tribunal had handed down a decision on a review of a decision of the Australian Securities Commission that was before it, confirming an exemption that the Commission had granted on certain conditions, but substituting different conditions. At the time of announcing the decision the Tribunal did not give any reasons. It delivered written reasons some 14 days later. Beaumont J held (at 271‑273, Lockhart and Hill JJ agreeing at 253) that the Tribunal's omission to provide reasons at the time of announcing its decision was not an error, as on the proper construction of s 43(2) of the AAT Act, the Tribunal was only required it to give its reasons, oral or in writing, within a reasonable time of the decision.
…
48. What the Tribunal had to do here within the 84 days was to deliver a decision, not necessarily express reasons…”
[My underlining]
[73] Transcript, 155.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Revocation of the mandatory cancellation of visas is governed by s 501CA(4) of the Act. Relevantly, this provides that:
4The Minister may revoke the original decision if:
(a)the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation; and
(b)the Minister is satisfied:
(i) that the person passes the character test (as defined by section 501); or
(ii) that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.
I am satisfied that the Applicant made the representations required by s 501CA(4)(a) of the Act. Thus, the issue is whether the discretion to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa may be exercised. As a starting point, it is necessary to refer to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia’s observations in Minister for Home Affairs v Buadromo:[74]
“…there has been some discussion in the authorities as to whether s 501CA(4) contains a residual discretion in the decision-maker by reason of the use of the word ‘may’ in the chapeau of the subsection, or whether the balancing of the factors favouring a refusal to revoke the cancellation is part of the one exercise of determining whether there is another reason the original decision should be revoked. The weight of authority in this Court favours the latter view…”[75]
[74] [2018] FCAFC 151.
[75] Ibid, [21], citing, inter alia, Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1166, (2016) 153 ALD 337, [38] (North ACJ); Marzano v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 66, (2017) 250 FCR 548, [31] (Collier J, with whom Logan and Murphy JJ agreed).
There are therefore two issues presently before the Tribunal:
·whether the Applicant passes the character test; and
·whether there is another reason why the decision to cancel the Applicant’s visa should be revoked.
Does the Applicant Pass the Character Test?
The character test is defined in s 501(6) of the Act. Under s 501(6)(e), a person will not pass the character test if they have been convicted of one or more sexually based offences involving a child or found a charge against a person proved for such an offence, even if the person was discharged without a conviction.
On 30 September 2020, the Applicant was convicted of Indecent treatment of children under 16 lineal descendent/guardian/carer (two counts), for which he served a term of nine months imprisonment.
The Tribunal therefore finds that the Applicant has been convicted of a sexually based offence involving a child and, therefore, he does not pass the character test. The Applicant cannot rely on s 501CA(4)(b)(i) of the Act for the mandatory cancellation of his visa to be revoked.
Is There Another Reason Why the Cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa Should be Revoked?
In considering whether to exercise the discretion in s 501CA(4) of the Act, the Tribunal is bound by s 499(2A) to comply with any directions made under the Act. In this case, Direction No 90 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (“the Direction”) has application.[76]
[76] On 1 April 2021, the former applicable direction, Direction No. 79 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s501CA, was revoked and was replaced by Direction 90.
For the purposes of deciding whether to refuse or cancel a non-citizens visa or whether or not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen’s visa, paragraph 5.2 of the Direction contains several principles that must inform a decision maker’s application of the considerations identified in Part 2 where relevant to the decision.
The principles that are found in paragraph 5.2 of the Direction may be briefly stated as follows:
(1)Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia’s law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
(2)Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.
(3)The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
(4)Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non- citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time. However, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non- citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.
(5)Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen’s conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation. In particular, the inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence and the other types of conduct or suspected conduct mentioned in paragraph 8.4(2) (Expectations of the Australian Community) is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient in some circumstances, even if the non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
Paragraph 6 of the Direction provides that:
Informed by the principles in paragraph 5.2, a decision maker must take into account the considerations identified in sections 8 and 9, where relevant to the decision.
Paragraph 8 of the Direction sets out four 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 best interests of minor children in Australia; and
(4)expectations of the Australian community.
Paragraph 9 of the Direction sets out five Other Considerations which must be taken into account. These considerations are:
a)international non-refoulement obligations;
b)extent of impediments if removed;
c)impact on victims; and
d)links to the Australian community, including:
i)strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia; and
ii)impact on Australian business interests

I note the importance of the Other Considerations being “other” considerations, as opposed to “secondary” considerations. As noted by Colvin J in Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection:[77]
“…Direction 65 [now Direction 90] 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”.[78]
[77] [2018] FCA 594.
[78] Ibid, [23].
BACKGROUND and offending
The Applicant’s history of offending is as follows:

Date Court Offence Result

30/09/2020 Brisbane District Court Indecent treatment of children under 16 lineal descendent/ guardian/carer
Conviction recorded

Sentenced imprisonment: 9MO

To be suspended for: 3Y after serving 4MO.

Indecent treatment of children under 16 lineal descendent/ guardian/carer

Conviction recorded

Sentenced imprisonment 6MO to be suspended for 3Y after serving 4MO

Indecent treatment of children under 16 lineal descendent/ guardian/carer

Conviction recorded

Sentenced imprisonment: 3MO

All terms of imprisonment to be served concurrently

13/03/2018 Brisbane Magistrates Court Breach of Bail condition; Common assault domestic violence offence On all charges
No conviction recorded
Probation period: 9MO

01/11/2011 Brisbane Magistrates Court
Assault Police Officer

Obstruct Police Officer
One penalty imposed: Convicted and fined $200

30/11/1998 Brisbane Magistrates Court Breach bail Act (contempt) Convicted and fined $200

01/09/1988 Brisbane Magistrates Court Stealing Probation 12MO

On 30 September 2020, the Applicant was found guilty of four counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 and under care. Judge Porter QC made the following sentencing remarks:
Stand up please, [Applicant]. [Applicant], you’ve been found guilty of four counts of indecent dealing with a child under 16 and under care. The maximum penalty is 20 years. The circumstances of the offending are these. The friends of your [redacted] was a regular visitor to [redacted] and regularly slept over. In December 2017, you had been in a relationship with [redacted] mother for a couple of years. You met her in your apartment building where you both lived, and at about this time you were living with her in their unit at [redacted].
You worked shift work at the time, leaving the unit at about 1pm and returning most nights between 10 and 11:30, depending on whether you went to the gym or not after work. On Tuesday the 12^th December 2017 [redacted] apartment, she stayed the night. They went to bed in [redacted] Queen size bed at about 10 pm with [redacted] next to the wall and [redacted] on the outside. AT around 10pm you arrived home, you went up the steps and went into [redacted] room. You switched off her fan, you noticed [redacted] was awake and asked her if she wanted to come downstairs and watch TV. She said “no”. She went back to sleep. Somewhere between 1 and 2 am in the morning you went back into [redacted] room, you went over to the bed, [redacted] was awake or waken by you coming in.
Either way you then reached down and squeezed her left breast – count 1. You then tried to put your fingers under the waistband of the long cotton tights she was wearing as pyjamas – count 2. She rolled over on her stomach, closer to [redacted], and you squeezed her bottom. That’s count 3. You then desisted and left the room.
The next morning, after [redacted] mother had gone to work, [redacted] what had happened during the night. AT about 9am the next morning you asked [redacted] to come upstairs and talk to you. She did. You asked her if she had told [redacted] anything. You then asked her for a hug. She gave you a very restrained hug. You asked for a bigger hug. When she did you tried to kiss her on the neck with your lips coming into contact with her neck – count 4. I make the following comments.
First, this was opportunistic offending against a young girl who was under your care during the night. She was entitled to look to you for protection as one of the adults responsible for her care, but you took the opportunity to touch her sexually. Second, [redacted] was in the vulnerable position of staying away from home. She was also a girl known to you who would have expected to be safe with you. Third, there’s considerable community concern about sexual offending against children, and the sentence to be imposed on you must reflect community denunciation of this kind of offending, and provide general and personal deterrence. Four – there’s a large age difference between you and the complainant.
And finally, it is somewhat troubling that by your plea of not guilty you indicate a lack of remorse or acceptance of the offending. On the other hand, the following matters must be recognised. First – although all such offences are to be denounced it must be recognised that this offending was at the much less serious end of the range of conduct covered by the offence. These was no touching on the complainant’s skin, no pressing her to permit such touching. Second – it should be recognised you desisted from your conduct of your own volition and left [redacted] alone after she ignored your bottom grabbing during the night. You did not press her further after she walked downstairs after the hug the next morning.
Third – you are a large and powerfully built man. The complainant’s account refers to no aggressive or intimidating behaviour. It would have taken very little to cause that. Further, [redacted] behaviour then and in the days afterwards, suggests that she wasn’t afraid of you as a result of your conduct. I find you didn’t attempt to threaten or intimidate her, nor I find did she perceive you as a threat at the time. This is not to say that, on reflection and as she became older, she didn’t feel significant anxiety or consequences from the breach of trust to which she had been exposed, as is stated in the victim impact statement.
…
As is made clear in Norris [2018] QCA 27, this court should not change the sentence it would otherwise impose just to avoid the effect of section 501(3A) of the Migration Act, and frankly, given the offences in this case, nothing I could do now would avoid that effect. There is then the factor to be taken into account in determining a sentence that a person faces deportation, and that deportation might be an addition form of punishment. I’m satisfied on the evidence that deportation will be a form of punishment because you’ll be separated from your family here in Australia. Bearing in mind those matters I intend to impose a head sentence at the lower end of the range. I impose a sentence of nine months for counts 1 and 3, six months for count 2, three months for count 4, all to be served concurrently.
Given the very great likelihood of deportation I suspend the sentence after serving four months for an operational period of three years.[79]
[79] G-documents, G2, 35-6.
In addition to the offences outlined in the table above, the Respondent contends the Applicant has also provided misleading information to the Department due to his failure to declare his history of criminal convictions on incoming passenger cards in 2017 and 2019.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 1 – PROTECTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY
In considering this Primary Consideration 1, paragraph 8.1 of the Direction requires decision-makers to keep in mind the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. Decision-makers should have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that this country confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, that they will respect important institutions and that they will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
In determining the weight applicable to Primary Consideration 1, paragraph 8.1(2) of the Direction requires decision-makers to give consideration to:
a)The nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date; and
b)The risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
The Nature and Seriousness of the Applicant’s Conduct to Date
When assessing the nature and seriousness of a non-citizen’s criminal offending or other conduct to date, paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction specifies that decision-makers must have regard to a number of factors. I will now turn to addressing these considerations.
Sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction provides that without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, violent and/or sexual crimes; crimes of a violent nature against women or children (regardless of the sentence imposed); or acts of family violence (regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed) are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community.
The Direction indicates that sexual crimes and violent crimes against women/children and family violence offences are viewed very seriously by the Australian government of the Australian community.
The Applicant was convicted on 30 September 2020 of two counts indecent treatment of children under 16 /carer and sentenced to nine months imprisonment, to be suspended for three years after serving four months.
At the same time the Applicant was convicted of:
(a) indecent treatment of children under 16/carer and sentenced to six months imprisonment to be suspended for three years after serving four months; and
(b) indecent treatment of children under 16/carer and sentenced to three months imprisonment to be suspended for three years after serving four months.
The victim was a 12-year-old friend of the Applicant’s stepdaughter who was spending the night at the Applicant’s partner’s home.
The facts are set out in the sentencing judge's comments on passing sentence at [71] and as noted by His Honour, it was opportunist offending against a young girl, who was entitled to extra protection, and was under the Applicant’s care during the night.
I am troubled, as was His Honour, by the Applicant's plea of not guilty that indicated a lack of remorse. I am also troubled by the Applicant's failure, right up until a few days before the hearing of this application, to admit to committing the offences.
I'm even more troubled by the fact that:
(a) The Applicant has continued to deny committing the offences to his children, his family, and his friends, most of whom refused to believe he committed such offences.
(b) The only remorse the Applicant seemed to express is as to the consequence of his actions rather than concern for the effect his actions had upon his victim.
I note that alcohol seems to play no part in these offences.
In the Magistrates Court of Queensland on 13 March 2018, the Applicant was charged with breach of bail condition and common assault domestic violence offence. Although no conviction was recorded, it was made subject to nine-month probation period.
That appearance related to an incident that occurred on 11 March 2018 when the Applicant and his then-partner were at a tavern drinking alcohol and watching sport. The applicant became upset with his partner a struck the left side of his partner's face with the back of his right hand.
His then-partner then left and went home and later the Applicant, who appears to have been significantly affected by alcohol, went to her home and tried to gain access by kicking the front door and trying to force the back door. He then went to sleep on the lawn.
He denied any offending when interviewed by the police but eventually accepted the facts before the Magistrate although since, the version he has given to his family and friends amounts to behaviour far less serious.
I find the nature of the Applicant’s offending to be very serious and thus place very significant weight upon this consideration.
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.
I consider a 12-year-old girl to be a vulnerable member of the community and hence find that offending to be very serious.
Sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction directs a decision-maker (subject to sub-paragraphs (a)(ii), (a)(iii) or (b)(i) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction) 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.
Noting that the imposition of a custodial sentence is regarded as a last resort in the sentencing process, the imposition of custodial sentences was clearly a reflection of the objective seriousness of the Applicant's offending.
I also note that His Honour imposed a lesser sentence than he normally would have based upon the significant likelihood of the Applicant been placed in immigration detention after conclusion of his sentence.
Once again, the imposition of custodial sentences supports my finding as to the serious nature of the Applicant’s offending.
Sub-paragraph (f) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction points to an inquiry as to whether a non-citizen has provided false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending.
I'm satisfied that the Applicant provided false or misleading information to the Department, being not disclosing prior criminal offending on incoming passenger cards dated 26 September 2019 and 24 February 2017.
The Applicant could not remember completing the cards and indicated that at the times he was going through a lot and was very low due to the death of his father and his mother's ill-health.
Because of the relatively minor past offences and their historical nature, I do not place much weight on this particular conduct bearing in mind that no conviction was recorded in relation to the serious domestic violence matter.
I do not consider factors d, e, or g 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 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
In accordance with the requirements of paragraph 8.1.2(2) I have had regard, cumulatively, to the factors outlined below when assessing the risk that may be posed by the Applicant to the Australian community should he be allowed to remain:
(a)the nature of harm to the individuals or the Australian community should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and
(b)the likelihood of further criminal rather serious conduct, taking into account the risk of the Applicant reoffending.
Nature of harm
Taking into account the nature of the Applicant's prior offending as outlined above, I consider that any future offending of a similar nature would have the potential cause physical and psychological injury and/or financial harm to members of the Australian community.
I find that if the Applicant committed any further offences of a sexual nature against children or any other member of the community and such offending consequently injured a member or members of the community, by physical or psychological means, those individuals could be subjected to significant harm and the community may be required to be any related costs of the justice system or law enforcement or health services.
I also find similar consequences could follow any reoffending of a similar nature to the domestic violence offence against his former partner.
It then becomes appropriate to assess the likelihood of the Applicant's reoffending in the future and accordingly, I have taken into account the following factors that may assist to explain the Applicant's past conduct, remorse and rehabilitation:
Likelihood of engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct
Reports were tendered from two consultant psychologists, Professor James Freeman and Mr Paul Stevenson.
As set out at [45]–[56] above, Mr Stevenson reported that the Applicant showed remorse but, neither psychologist reported the Applicant describing any feelings of remorse towards either of his victims, namely the young girl or his former partner. Both considered the Applicant's risk of reoffending was low.
Professor Freeman conducted several tests including, Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R) and Sexual Offender Risk Appraisal Guide (SORAG) which indicated that the risk of the Applicant reoffending in relation to sexual offences against children was low but, upon being informed that the Applicant had now admitted to the offences against the young girl, his previous opinion would have to be moderated if the Applicant could not recognise the impact of his behaviour on others.
Professor Freeman opined that the Applicant’s behaviour in relation the young girl was uncharacteristic and in disparity to his broader psychological functioning and the Applicant was adamant that he did not have sexually related feelings towards young children. This is in itself concerning, as there seems to be no identification of a factor to be addressed or considered in relation to the potential for reoffending.
Alcohol was an obvious factor in relation to the assault upon his former partner but was not a factor in relation to the sexual assault, the Applicant just having returned home from work.
Mr Stevenson also opined that the Applicant's risk of reoffending was low but his interaction was limited to an approximately 20 minute phone call with a very brief follow-up, and I consider his opinions had to be substantially moderated in view of the Applicant's late admission to committing the acts in relation to the young girl.

I remain concerned that if the Applicant has yet to fully accept the nature of the assault upon his former partner and is not prepared to take responsibility for his past acts or even admit them to his family that there may be a heightened risk of reoffending.
I am also concerned about the potential risks of the Applicant reoffending when under the influence of alcohol.
Neither Professor Freeman nor Mr Stevenson fully explored the Applicant’s alcohol consumption because there were no admissions as to guilt at the time of their examinations.
Mr Stevenson noted that he scored reasonably highly on the alcohol risk criteria but noted that he did not typically place too much weight on such scores.[80] However, he didn't fully explore the Applicant’s alcohol consumption or risk factors because he was unaware that the Applicant was intoxicated when he committed the assault upon his former partner.
[80] Transcript, 156.
Professor Freeman noted:
“Well there are just some – and you can see in section 7.1 of the report there’s a few isolated incidents of the misuse of alcohol where he then goes on to engage in some non-consequential thinking. But it’s pretty rare. That’s in his past offending history, yes.”[81]
[81] Transcript, 130.
He says that he didn’t look at alcohol use in depth because the Applicant was maintaining his innocence at the time. He was not sure if alcohol was a factor in the Applicant’s offending with the child.
Mr Stevenson noted the Applicant scored 10 on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) which places him in the criteria of risky and/or hazardous alcohol use. Although he stated that he generally doesn’t place a lot of weight on the test the following extract from his evidence is relevant:
If I were to tell you that the applicant was intoxicated when he engaged in that domestic violence, is that something that you might consider relevant to your observation at paragraph 3.9?---Well, that fits into the category of 10 alcohol problems which occur under the influence. So that in itself would bring up a score beyond eight.[82]
[82] Transcript, 157.
An Offender Case File compiled by Queensland Corrective Services in June 2018 noted in relation to the assault on his partner:
Whilst [the Applicant] expressed remorse over his offending, he continues to deny the alleged facts of the index offending indicated that he pled guilty simply to have the matter dealt with. He did however express an intention to work through his issues with alcohol to prevent him from becoming violent.[83]
[83] Exhibit 2, 30.
The file also noted:
[The Applicant) attributed his recent escalation offending to alcohol abuse and an inability to control his anger. His previous offending is also likely attributed to alcohol abuse and poor consequential decision-making. There are notable periods of desistance between 2004-2008, 2008-2013 and 2013 to 2018. (The applicant could not provide a reason for this; however it appears it could be linked with a stable home life with his now ex-wife and employment.[84]
[…]
(The applicant) could not provide a reason for his problematic drinking, other than not knowing his limits.[85]
[84] Exhibit 2, 26.
[85] Exhibit 2, 27.
I am satisfied that the Applicant is more likely to reoffend when consuming alcohol and that in the past, he has not been able to consistently control his intake of alcohol.
Professor Freeman noted that the Applicant had developed a robust New Futures Plan - a regulatory approach to risk assessment and to assist with the planning and coordination of preventative measures. Unfortunately, the plan has not been undertaken, possibly because of his custodial circumstances, but in evidence the Professor noted:
… [W]hile he is – can be considered a low risk, if he did not implement a new futures plan where he would avoid future high risk situations, well then, yes, his risk could be considered elevated.[86]
[86] Transcript, 133.
The Applicant has very strong support from his family and his former partner gave very strong supportive evidence. Professor Freeman noted that he had pro-social goals and, upon his release, had intended to reside with his sons and return to work in the painting industry. I accept that the strong desire not to be separated from his family again will provide a very strong motivation for the Applicant not to reoffend.
I also note that the Applicant has been promised assistance by two religious ministers and that he intends to return to more regular contact with his faith if allowed to remain.
Taking all of the above matters into account I consider that the Applicant's risk of reoffending, although not high, is within the low to moderate range. However, for the purpose of applying weight to this consideration, I will treat the risk as low.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 1
I find the nature of the Applicant's conduct is very serious. I note that offending of a sexual nature, especially against children, has potential to cause physical and psychological injury to members of the Australian community. Even though I consider there is a low risk of the Applicant reoffending, I have found that should he again engage in similar conduct, it may result in psychological or physical harm to members of the community. I give this consideration very significant weight against the revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's visa.
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 Direction also requires me to consider, as a primary consideration, any family violence committed by non-citizens seeking revocation of the cancellation of the visa. In this regard, the Direction states that the government has serious concerns about conferring on noncitizens who engage in family violence the privilege of entering or remaining in Australia. Therefore, I have considered whether the Applicant has engaged in any conduct constituting family violence as defined in the direction.
Whether family violence occurred
For the purpose of the Direction, family violence means violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family, or causes the family member to be fearful.
Relevantly in this case, the Direction indicates assault as an example of behaviour that may constitute family violence, where it has the effect described above upon a family member.
The circumstances of the assault are set out above at [85]-[88] but in summary, the Applicant and his then partner were drinking alcohol at a local tavern whilst watching sport. The Applicant became unhappy about the victim speaking to another woman and struck her on the left side of her face with the back of his right hand. The victim was fearful and immediately went home whilst the Applicant remained drinking at the tavern.
He later, whilst intoxicated, went to the victim's home, and tried to gain entry by kicking the front door and attempting to force the back door. He then laid down in the yard and went to sleep.
I note the Applicant has an imposing build and appears to be a strong man.
The Applicant received no conviction in relation to the charge of Common Assault Domestic Violence Offence and Breach of Bail Condition when he appeared in court on 13 March 2018. He was placed on probation for nine months.
The Applicant continually denied the main elements of the offence in effect stating that he pushed his partner rather than slapping her across the face but, even if the Applicant had not admitted to such conduct shortly before the hearing, I would have found the facts as set out above.
I find the Applicant's conduct involved family violence as defined in the Direction because his behaviour was violent and threatening, and because it caused his then partner to be fearful.
Seriousness of family violence that occurred
Having determined the Applicant's conduct constituted family violence, I have considered the seriousness of that conduct, noting that, as explained in the Direction, the Government's concerns relation to family violence are proportionate to the seriousness of the relevant conduct.
In assessing the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the Applicant, I considered the following relevant factors:
(a)Frequency the Applicant's conduct in any trend of increasing seriousness
The Applicant has only been before the court in relation to one family violence incident for which he received a nine-month period of probation with no conviction recorded.
(b)Cumulative effect of any repeated acts of family violence
The Applicant has only one recorded family violence incident.
(c)Rehabilitation achieved since the last known act of family violence
There was no evidence of any rehabilitation achieved bearing in mind the Applicant’s continual denial of the main element of the offence, his incarceration and restrictions imposed because of the covid-19 virus.
(d)Any reoffending without formal warning
There is no evidence of any warning being given by any institution or person in authority about any consequences of further effects of family violence so regard this as a neutral consideration.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 2
Having considered the factors set out above, I remain concerned that although the Applicant has only one recorded family violence incident, there is little evidence of the Applicant’s rehabilitation.
I am particularly concerned about how the Applicant’s consumption of alcohol may have contributed to his offending and his continued denial of seriousness of his offending to his family.
I attribute to this consideration significant weight against the revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's visa.
Primary Consideration 3: The best interests of minor children in Australia
Paragraph 8.3(1) of the Direction compels 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 8.3(2) and 8.3(3) respectively contain further stipulations. 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
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:
·     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);
·     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;
·     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;
·     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;
·     whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child;
·     any known views of the child (with those views being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child);
·     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;
·     evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen’s conduct.
The direction requires me to determine whether non-revocation under s 501CA in this case is in the best interests of a child in Australia who will be affected by the decision.
The Applicant's youngest son is now 18 years old but his daughter who is separated has two young children aged two and four with whom he is very close. Before his incarceration he provided emotional, physical and financial help to his daughter who is finding it difficult not having him around to assist. The Applicant also has eighteen nephews and nieces who reside in Australia. The Applicant submits that his removal would have a detrimental impact on their lives.
He has always been employed and provided financial support to members of his family and it is clear that he is well loved by all of his extended family and that he is close to them.
I have no doubt, considering the evidence given by many members of his family and friends as set out above, that his close and extended family will very much miss him should not be allowed to remain in Australia.
I find that, if he is allowed to remain, he is genuinely committed to closely assist with the upbringing of his daughter’s two children who will be significantly disadvantaged if he is not allowed to remain.
Accordingly, despite the serious nature of the Applicant's offending, given the lack of any other offending of a similar nature and the matters set out above, I find it is the best interest of the Applicant's grandchildren and his nieces and nephews referred to above that the original decision to cancel the Applicant's visa be revoked, to enable them to maintain a relationship with their grandfather and uncle.
Because of the closeness of the family relationships, I find that it is in the best interest of the Applicant's grandchildren, nieces and nephews that I revoke the visa cancellation despite the fact that the Applicant does not have daily care of any of the children.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 3
I allocate significant weight to this consideration when considering whether to revoke the visa cancellation.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 4 – THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY
The relevant paragraphs in the Direction
In making the assessment for weight to be allocated to Primary Consideration 4, paragraph 8.4(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 8.4(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 8.4(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 8.4(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 8.4(4) is consistent with the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185 (“FYBR”) 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.[87]
[87] 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 8.4 contains a statement of the Government’s views as to the expectations of the Australian community, which operates to ascribe to the whole of the Australian community an expectation aligning with that of the executive government which the decision maker must have regard to.
Analysis – Allocation of Weight to this Primary Consideration 4

Accordingly, in assessing the weight attributable to Primary Consideration 4, it is necessary to have regard to the following matters:
(a)The direction indicates that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation , or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the government to not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia.
(b)In addition, the Direction also indicates that non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences is such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not continue to hold a visa. In particular, the Direction states that the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should cancel a visa if the holder raises serious character concerns through certain kinds of conduct. Relevantly in the case of the Applicant, those specified kinds of conduct include assault. Noting that the Applicant has engaged in conduct of that nature, I find that he raises serious character concerns and the community expectation described above applies in this case.
(c)In this regard, I have also noted the Direction states 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.
I have taken into account the submissions made on the Applicant's behalf, including his ties to the community from a young age, and immediate and extended family living in Australia, and strong ties to his community within Australia, his lack of prior offending and the fact that he has already been imprisoned for one of the offences.
However, the Direction explains that the relevant consideration is about the expectation of the Australian community as a whole, rather than expectations that particular members of the community may have. In this regard, the Direction provides that decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government's views in relation to what the Australian community expects as a norm, as articulated the Direction, without independently assessing the community's expectations in a particular case.
Although not strictly relevant I find that the community's expectations in relation to the offence of sexual assault upon a child and offences involving domestic violence, would align with the general expectations about noncitizens, as articulated in the Direction.
I proceed on the basis that the Australian communities’ general expectations about noncitizens as articulated in the direction, apply in this case.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 4
I attribute to this consideration significant weight 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. I will now consider each of the four stipulated sub-paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d.
(a) International non-refoulement obligations
The Applicant does not make any claims with respect to Australia’s non-refoulement obligations, and none arise on the evidence. This Other Consideration is not relevant.
(b) Extent of Impediments if Removed
As a guide for exercising the discretion, 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.
When considering the extent of any impediments that the Applicant, if removed from Australia to his home country, will face in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of Tonga) I have had regard to the following:
(a)The Applicant is now 50 years old and is fit with no known health issues.
(b)The Applicant is familiar with Tongan culture and will not experience any language difficulties bearing in mind that the principal language in his home country is English.
(c)The Applicant has two brothers in Tonga, who struggle to make a living from their farms and he in fact from time to time sent money to them. The Applicant does not own any land in Tonga and will have trouble finding employment.
(d)The Applicant has been absent from Tonga for a considerable period of time and will be separated from his children, grandchildren and extended family with whom he is very close. He will suffer emotional hardship as a result of the separation.
(e)Sexual offences against children are viewed very seriously in Tongan society and the Applicant may well be ostracised should the nature of his offending become known.
(f)Although the Applicant indicated that he would not know how to cope in Tonga and that he does not have the necessary connections to seek employment, he could expect to obtain some support from his brothers.
(g)The Applicant will have access to health services, treatment and welfare services in Tonga although I find the standard and ease of access would not be of the same high standard, and as widely available as those services are to the Applicant in Australia.
Because of the emotional hardship that will obviously flow if his visa cancellation is not revoked, together with the possibility of being rejected by the local community because of his offending, I place significant weight upon this consideration.
(c) Impact on victims
This Other Consideration (c) requires that decision-makers must consider the impact of the section 501 or 501CA decision on members of the Australian community, including victims of the non-citizen’s criminal behaviour, and the family members of the victim or victims, where information in this regard is available and the non-citizen being considered for visa refusal or cancellation, or who has sought revocation of the mandatory cancellation of their visa, has been afforded procedural fairness.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal relating to the impact that the Applicant’s continued presence in Australia would have on any victims. This Other Consideration (c) is therefore neutral.
(d) Links to the Australian Community
In consideration of this Other Consideration (d), paragraph 9.4 of the Direction requires that decision makers must have regard to the following two factors set out in paragraph 9.4.1 and paragraph 9.4.2 respectively:
·the strength, nature, and duration of ties to Australia; and
·the impact on Australian business interests.
The strength, nature, and duration of ties to Australia
The Applicant has three adult children and two grandchildren in Australia. If allowed to remain he proposes reconciliation with his former long-term partner.
The Applicant is a hard worker and has provided for his family for many years. This is confirmed by taxation records for the period 2006 to 2020 which show a reported average annual income of approximately $66,000 including a peak of $82,229 for YE 2016.[88]
[88] G-documents, G2, 173-82.
I find that non-revocation would cause his immediate family to experience emotional, practical and financial hardship.
Letters of support and evidence has been provided from the Applicant's children and their mother being the ex-partner with whom he would like to reconcile. All letters are supportive of the Applicant and state that they believe the convictions to be out of character. All are of the opinion that he will not reoffend, although I note that many still believe that he did not offend in the first place.
There is a very strong relationship between the Applicant and his youngest son who only recently turned 18. The Applicant has been a strong guiding influence on his son's rugby league career and his son is just embarked upon a significant junior contract with a leading Sydney club. His son very much desires to have his father remain in Australia to provide emotional support and guidance in relation to his future career. His son is concerned that he will have trouble coping should his father not be allowed to remain in Australia.
The Applicant has substantial other ties to Australia including a large extended family consisting of his siblings, cousins, aunts and uncles and nieces and nephews.
He is highly regarded in his local community and I find that non-revocation will have a negative effect upon his family, friends and community members who will not only be upset and disappointed but may find it difficult to understand why he should not be permitted to remain after having served a jail sentence for his actions.
The Applicant arrived in Australia the 10 years of age and return to Tonga for four years between 1993 and 1998. He lived in Cyprus for a brief period in early 2000 but has otherwise reside in Australia for approximately 34 years.
He attended primary and secondary schooling in Australia. He has been a contributing member of the workforce for virtually the entire time since leaving school.
Also, it is relevant that the Applicant has developed significant ties throughout the community including through coaching and volunteering for rugby league clubs, being a member of a local church band and attending his local church.
I've taken consideration of the fact that the Applicant lived in Australia for the majority of his life and has been making a positive contribution to the community during this time, which means that the Australian community may therefore afford a higher level of tolerance of his criminal conduct.
I attribute significant weight in favour of the revocation of cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
Impact on Australian business interests
The Applicant does not claim that his removal from Australia would adversely impact on Australian business interests. No weight can be allocated under paragraph 9.4.2 of the Direction.
Findings: Other Considerations
The application of the Other Considerations in the present matter can be summarised as follows:
(a)international non-refoulement obligations: no weight;
(b)extent of impediments if removed: significant weight in favour of the revocation of the cancellation of Applicant’s visa;
(c)impact on victims: neutral weight; and
(d)links to the Australian community including the strength, nature, and duration of ties to Australia; significant weight and the impact on Australian business interests: no weight.
CONCLUSION
I am now required to weigh all of the Considerations in accordance with the Direction.
(a)Primary consideration 1: Protection of the Australian community - very significant weight against the revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's visa.
(b)Primary consideration 2: Family violence - significant weight against the revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's visa.
(c)Primary consideration 3: the best interests of minor children in Australia - significant weight in favour of the revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
(d)Primary consideration 4: the expectations of the Australian community - significant weight against the revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's visa.
The application of the Direction therefore favours the non-revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
Consequently, I decline to exercise the discretion to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
Decision
The decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 192 (one hundred and ninety two) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of A G Melick AO SC, Deputy President

............................[sgd]............................................
Associate
Dated: 20 October 2021

Date of hearing: 13, 14 and 21 September 2021

Solicitor for the Applicant Mr Daniel Bellissimo
Timpson Immigration Lawyers

Solicitor for the Respondent Mr Oliver Morris
Australian Government Solicitor
List of Exhibits

EXHIBIT

DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE

PARTY

DATE OF DOCUMENT

DATE RECEIVED

1 G-documents Respondent Various 13 September 2021

2 Tender bundle of summonsed material Respondent Various 13 September 2021

3 Affidavit sworn by KHLJ Applicant 7 September 2021 13 September 2021

4 Report of Mr Paul Stevenson Applicant 27 August 2021 13 September 2021

5 Affidavit sworn by A, the Applicant’s partner Applicant 7 September 2021 14 September 2021

6 Affidavit sworn by W, the Applicant’s son Applicant 6 September 2021 14 September 2021

7 Affidavit sworn by L, the Applicant’s daughter Applicant 7 September 2021 14 September 2021

8 Affidavit sworn by LP, the Applicant’s cousin Applicant 6 September 2021 14 September 2021

9 Affidavit sworn by I, the Applicant’s son Applicant 6 September 2021 14 September 2021

10 Affidavit sworn by P, the Applicant’s cousin Applicant 7 September 2021 14 September 2021

11

Report of Professor James Freeman

Applicant

29 January 2021

21 September 2021

Date	Court	Offence	Result
30/09/2020	Brisbane District Court	Indecent treatment of children under 16 lineal descendent/ guardian/carer	Conviction recorded Sentenced imprisonment: 9MO To be suspended for: 3Y after serving 4MO.
		Indecent treatment of children under 16 lineal descendent/ guardian/carer	Conviction recorded Sentenced imprisonment 6MO to be suspended for 3Y after serving 4MO
		Indecent treatment of children under 16 lineal descendent/ guardian/carer	Conviction recorded Sentenced imprisonment: 3MO All terms of imprisonment to be served concurrently
13/03/2018	Brisbane Magistrates Court	Breach of Bail condition; Common assault domestic violence offence	On all charges No conviction recorded Probation period: 9MO
01/11/2011	Brisbane Magistrates Court	Assault Police Officer Obstruct Police Officer	One penalty imposed: Convicted and fined $200
30/11/1998	Brisbane Magistrates Court	Breach bail Act (contempt)	Convicted and fined $200
01/09/1988	Brisbane Magistrates Court	Stealing	Probation 12MO

Date of hearing:	13, 14 and 21 September 2021
Solicitor for the Applicant	Mr Daniel Bellissimo Timpson Immigration Lawyers
Solicitor for the Respondent	Mr Oliver Morris Australian Government Solicitor

EXHIBIT	DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE	PARTY	DATE OF DOCUMENT	DATE RECEIVED
1	G-documents	Respondent	Various	13 September 2021
2	Tender bundle of summonsed material	Respondent	Various	13 September 2021
3	Affidavit sworn by KHLJ	Applicant	7 September 2021	13 September 2021
4	Report of Mr Paul Stevenson	Applicant	27 August 2021	13 September 2021
5	Affidavit sworn by A, the Applicant’s partner	Applicant	7 September 2021	14 September 2021
6	Affidavit sworn by W, the Applicant’s son	Applicant	6 September 2021	14 September 2021
7	Affidavit sworn by L, the Applicant’s daughter	Applicant	7 September 2021	14 September 2021
8	Affidavit sworn by LP, the Applicant’s cousin	Applicant	6 September 2021	14 September 2021
9	Affidavit sworn by I, the Applicant’s son	Applicant	6 September 2021	14 September 2021
10	Affidavit sworn by P, the Applicant’s cousin	Applicant	7 September 2021	14 September 2021
11	Report of Professor James Freeman	Applicant	29 January 2021	21 September 2021