Lansdowne and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration) - [2019] AATA 2448

Lansdowne and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration) [2019] AATA 2448 (7 August 2019)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2019/2747
Re:Paul Lansdowne
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Home Affairs
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Member Tigiilagi Eteuati
Date:7 August 2019
Place:Brisbane

The decision under review is affirmed
............................[SGD]............................................
Member Tigiilagi Eteuati
Catchwords
MIGRATION – Non-revocation of mandatory cancellation of Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa – Applicant does not pass character test – whether there is another reason why the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa should be revoked – consideration and application of Ministerial Direction No 79 – decision under review affirmed
Legislation
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Cases
Afu v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1311
DKXY v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 495
Doan v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 1172
Doan and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration) [2019] AATA 169
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 500
Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1166
Marzano v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 66
Ngo v The Queen [2017] WASCA 3
SCJD and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration) [2018] AATA 4020
Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594
TGXY and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration) [2019] AATA 75
Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] HCA 15
Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 348
YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466
Secondary Materials
Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Health, National Drug Strategy 2017-2026
Direction No 79 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s501CA
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member Tigiilagi Eteuati
7 August 2019
BACKGROUND

This is an application by Paul Jeffery Lansdowne (“the Applicant”) for review of a decision made by the delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs (“the Minister” or “the Respondent’) on 15 May 2019 to refuse to revoke, under section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”), the cancellation of the Applicant’s Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa (“TY 444 visa”).
The Applicant first arrived in Australia in 1977, aged 19 years.[1]
[1] Exhibit G1, G Documents, G02, page 130, Movement History, dated 18 January 2019.
While a TY 444 visa is technically a temporary visa, it allows its holder to remain indefinitely in Australia. When the holder of a TY 444 visa departs Australia, the visa ceases but, subject to a person continuing to meet the visa criteria, they are granted a new TY 444 visa when they re-enter Australia.
The Applicant was last granted a TY 444 visa on his last arrival in Australia on 19 May 2003 after he had travelled to Timor. It was this visa that was cancelled under section 501(3A) by the Minister’s delegate on 27 April 2018.[2]
[2] Exhibit G1, G Documents, G02, pages 122 – 126, Notice of visa cancellation under s501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958, dated 27 April 2018.
The Applicant’s visa was cancelled by the Minister on the basis that the Applicant did not pass the character test as set out in section 501(6)(a) of the Act (when read with section 501(7)(c)) as he had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than

12 months and was serving a full-time term of imprisonment. On 8 May 2018, the Applicant sought that the cancellation decision be revoked.[3] On 28 February 2019, the Minister provided the Applicant with a copy of Direction 79 for his comment.[4]

On 14 May 2019, the Minister refused to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s TY 444 visa.[5] On 20 May 2019, the Applicant applied to this Tribunal for review of that decision.[6]
[3] Exhibit G1, G Documents, G02; pages 38 – 42, Email request for Revocation, sent 8 May 2019; pages 45 - 48, Request for Revocation of a Mandatory Visa Cancellation under s501(3A) completed form.
[4] Exhibit G1, G Documents, G02, pages 131 – 167, Further Information relevant to decision under s 501CA of the Migration Act 1958 on whether to revoke the original decision to cancel your visa, 28 February 2019.
[5] Exhibit G1, G Documents, G02, pages 10 – 25, Notification of decision not to revoke cancellation decision made under s501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958, dated 15 May 2019.
[6] Exhibit G1, G Documents, G01, pages 1 – 2, Notice of Application for Review of Decision, dated 20 May 2019.
The matter was heard on the 22 July 2019. For the reasons below, I have found that the Minister’s delegate’s decision to refuse to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa is the correct decision and I have affirmed that decision.
ISSUES
Pursuant to section 501CA(4) of the Act, the Minister may revoke the decision made under section 501(3A) of the Act to cancel the Applicant’s visa. Subsection 501CA(4) provides:
(4)The 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.
The Applicant was invited to make representations to the Minister about revocation of the cancellation of his visa and he made representations in accordance with the invitation. Thus, section 501CA(4)(a) of the Act is satisfied in this case.
The two remaining issues are:
a.Whether the Applicant passes the character test as defined in section 501 of the Act; and
b.Whether there is another reason why the decision to cancel the Applicant’s visa should be revoked.
If the Tribunal finds that the Applicant passes the character test or that there is another reason why the decision to cancel the Applicant’s visa should be revoked, the cancellation decision must be revoked.
The Tribunal considers that the meaning of “another reason” in subparagraph 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act is a reason other than that the Applicant passes the character test. The Full Court of the Federal Court has found that there is no residual discretion to be exercised once the Minister (and in this case, the Tribunal) finds that the Applicant passes the character test or there is another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked. The Full Court has also found that the “reason” in subparagraph 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act does not mean “any reason” but rather the determinative reason for revocation arrived at after a balancing of factors both in favour and against revocation.
In Marzano v Minister for Immigration & Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 66 the Full Court of the Federal Court (Collier J, with whom Logan and Murphy JJ agreed), after citing with approval the reasons of North ACJ at paragraphs [38] and [39] of his decision in Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[2016] FCA 1166, stated at [31] and [32]:
“I agree with this analysis. The primary Judge in these proceedings found, and the parties are ad idem, that s 501CA(4)(b) requires the Minister to revoke the cancellation if he or she is satisfied of relevant requirements. To that extent his Honour held that “may” in s 501CA(4)(b) means “must”.
I consider that this is a correct construction of s 501CA(4)(b).
In relation to the question whether s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) contemplates an evaluative process on the part of the Minister, I respectfully adopt the reasoning of North ACJ in Gaspar [2016] FCA 1166 at [38]- [39]. In so doing, I note that the section does not, for example, require the Minister to revoke a cancellation decision if the Minister finds “any” reason why the cancellation decision “could” be revoked”. The requirement that the Minister revoke a cancellation decision if he or she determines that there is another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked, imports an assessment by the Minister of the propriety of a revocation decision, balancing factors both in favour and against revocation. This is the exercise upon which the Minister clearly embarked in this case. It follows that I respectfully agree with the view formed by his Honour at [52] and [53] of the primary Judgment.”
If the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant passes the character test or that there is another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked the Tribunal must find in the Applicant’s favour. The appropriate decision in these circumstances would be for the decision refusing to revoke cancellation to be set aside and for a decision in substitution to be made revoking the cancellation decision.
EVIDENCE
The Tribunal has considered all of the evidence permissibly before it including the documents described in section 501G of the Act (“G Documents” or “G1”), the documents tendered into evidence by the Applicant and marked as exhibits A1 to A14 and the documents tendered into evidence by the Respondent and marked as exhibits R1 to R4. The evidence contained in these documents is discussed throughout this decision: see ‘Annexure A’ to this decision.
The Tribunal is of course aware of the restrictions on the consideration of certain evidence contained in sections 500(6H) and (6J) of the Act. The Tribunal has not had regard to any evidence provided in support of Applicant’s case which was not provided to the Respondent at least two clear business days prior to the hearing. However, in accordance with the decision of the High Court in Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] HCA 15, the Tribunal has considered the evidence of witnesses provided in answer to questions in cross-examination by the Respondent and questions from the Tribunal.
A summary of evidence of witnesses is provided below from paragraph 37 of these reasons.
DOES THE APPLICANT PASS THE CHARACTER TEST?
Section 501(6) relevantly provides:
(6) For the purposes of this section, a person does not pass the character test if:
(a)the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by subsection (7)); or
…
Section 501(7) relevantly provides:
(7) For the purposes of the character test, a person has a substantial criminal record if:
…
(c)the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more; or
…
The Applicant will be taken to have a substantial criminal record, and thus not pass the character test, if he has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
Section 501(12) of the Act provides that “imprisonment” includes any form of punitive detention in a facility or institution.
Offending history
The Applicant’s National Police Certificate records the Applicant as having the following disclosable court outcomes:[7]
[7] Exhibit G1, G Documents, G02, pages 27 – 29, National Police Certificate, dated 4 July 2018.

Court Court Date Offence Court Result

Court of Appeal of Queensland 29 Aug 2017 Appeal against conviction imposed on 29/09/2016 (re: trafficking in dangerous drug specified in schedule 1) Appeal dismissed

Brisbane Supreme Court 29 Sep 2016
DM 5(a) trafficking in dangerous drugs – schedule 1 (btn 22/02 & 25/06/2013)

DM 9(b) possess dangerous drug specified in schedule 1
(on 10/05/2013)

Conviction recorded Sentenced imprisonment: 4y to be suspended for: 4y after serving: 2y

Conviction recorded

Not further punished

Maroochydore Magistrates Court 18 Aug 2014
[BA] 29(1) breach of Bail Condition granted (on 15/08/2014)

[BA] 29(1) breach of Bail Condition granted (on 15/08/2014)

[WA] 50(1)(c)(i) unlawful possession of weapons category d/h/r weapon (on 15/08/2014)

[EXA] 11(1) offence in relation to unauthorised and prohibited explosives (on 15/08/2014)

On all charges conviction recorded sentence imprisonment: 3mo to be suspended for: 2yr concurrent

On all charges conviction recorded sentenced imprisonment: 6mo to be suspended for: 2yr concurrent

Maroochydore Magistrates Court 18 Jul 2013 Fail to furnish approved form
(12 charges) On all charges convicted.
Fined $10,000

Maroochydore Magistrates Court 21 Dec 2009
[DM] 9 possessing dangerous drugs (on 22/04/2019)

[WA] 50(1)&(c)(i) unlawful possession of weapons category d/h/r weapon (on 22/04/2009)

No conviction recorded; fined $200.00. In default imprisonment: 2d
Time to pay: 2mo

No conviction recorded; fined $200.00. In default imprisonment: 2d
Time to pay: 2mo

Forbes Local Court 09 Apr 1996
1.     State false name

2.     Unlic

3.     Exceed speed

On each charge

Fined $300

cc $50

Court of Appeal of Queensland 27 Oct 1994 Appeal by the commonwealth director of public prosecutions against sentence of 3.06.94
Dismissed

Original sentence imposed:

Fined $3000

2 months to pay i/d 6 months imp.

Brisbane Supreme Court 03 Jun 1994
Know.conc.possess prohibited import (cannabis)

Possn prohibited import (6/2/92)

Convicted.

Fined $3000

Fined $3000 i/d 6 mths imp. to be paid within 2mths

Casino Local Court 07 Feb 1992 1.     Knowingly concern the import of proh drug Extradition to Queensland to appear at Brisbane Magistrates Court

The Applicant also has two convictions as informed by a New Zealand Police Check. Those two convictions are:[8]
·24 May 1976 – Other Endangering/Interfering, heard before the North Shore DC. Result – convicted and sentenced: Fine - $50.00; and
·31 October 1976 – Driving with Excess Blood Alcohol Level, heard before the North Shore DC. Result – Other: Fine $125.00 / Disqualification from Driving – 03/03/1977 – 9 months.
[8] Exhibit G1, G Documents, G09, pages 363 - 364, New Zealand Police Conviction History, dated 19 June 2018.
In addition, the Applicant has an extensive traffic violation record as detailed by the Queensland Police Service Traffic Record. The Applicant has no less than 56 traffic violations including, but not limited to: failing to keep left of continuous double lines; disobeying red traffic light; speeding; unlicensed driving / driving whilst disqualified; and drive while under the influence.[9]
[9] Exhibit G1, G Documents, G05, pages 288 – 293, Queensland Police Service Traffic Record, printed 7 October 2016.
I am satisfied the Applicant has a substantial criminal record for the purposes of section 501(6)(a) when read with section 501(7)(c) of the Act, as the Applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than 12 months.
Consequently, I am satisfied that the Applicant does not pass the character test.
The only remaining issue is whether there is another reason why the decision to cancel the Applicant’s visa should be revoked.
IS THERE ANOTHER REASON WHY THE CANCELLATION OF THE APPLICANT’S VISA SHOULD BE REVOKED?
In considering whether there is another reason why the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa should be revoked, the Tribunal must comply with any directions made by the Minister pursuant to section 499 of the Act. In this case Direction No 79 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s501CA (“the Direction”) applies. The Direction provides guidance for decision-makers in determining, relevantly, whether there is another reason why the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa should be revoked.
Paragraph 8(1) of the Direction provides that decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case.
The relevant considerations in relation to consideration of revocation of a cancellation decision are contained in Part C of the Direction.
Paragraph 13 of the Direction provides for three primary considerations. They are:
(a)Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(b)The best interests of minor children in Australia; and
(c)Expectations of the Australian community.
Paragraph 14 of the Direction provides for other considerations. They include, but are not limited to:
(a)International non-refoulement obligations;
(b)Strength, nature and duration of ties;
(c)Impact on Australian business interests;
(d)Impact on victims; and
(e)Extent of impediments if removed.
Subparagraphs 8(3) to (5) of the Direction provide:
(3)    Both primary and other considerations may weigh in favour of, or against, refusal, cancellation of the visa, or whether or not to revoke a mandatory cancellation of a visa.
(4)    Primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations.
(5)    One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.
In Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594 Colvin J stated at [23]:
“… Direction 65 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.”
The Tribunal considers that Colvin J’s assessment regarding the various considerations in Direction 65 apply equally to the considerations in the Direction.
The principles in paragraph 6.3 of the Direction reflect community values and standards with respect to determining whether the risk of future harm from a non-citizen is unacceptable and are to inform the consideration of each of the primary and other considerations.
The principles in paragraph 6.3 provide a framework within which decision-makers should approach their task of deciding whether to revoke cancellation. The principles in paragraph 6.3 are as follows:
(1)Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia’s law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
(2)The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they commit serious crimes in Australia or elsewhere
(3) A non-citizen who has committed a serious crime, including of a violent or sexual nature, and particularly against women or children or vulnerable members of the community such as the elderly or disabled, should generally expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.
(4)In some circumstances, criminal offending or other conduct, and the harm that would be caused if it were to be repeated, may be so serious, that any risk of similar conduct in the future is unacceptable. In these circumstances, even other strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa.
(5)Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by people 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 in relation to a non-citizen who has lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.
(6)Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa Applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, reflecting that there should be no expectation that such people should be allowed to come to, or remain permanently in, Australia.
(7)The length of time a non-citizen has been making a positive contribution to the Australian community, and the consequences of a visa refusal or cancellation for minor children and other immediate family members in Australia, are considerations in the context of determining whether that non-citizen’s visa should be cancelled, or their visa application refused.
Summary of evidence of witnesses

The following is a summary of the evidence before the Tribunal including evidence of witnesses who appeared before the Tribunal. The evidence referred to below includes evidence provided in written statements submitted to the Department and the Tribunal and evidence given by the witnesses at the hearing in response to questions in cross examination and from the Tribunal.
The Applicant
The Applicant is an un-partnered, 62-year-old man. He has no partner or children or any other blood relatives in Australia. The Applicant was born in 1957 in Auckland, New Zealand. The Applicant first arrived in Australia on 30 September 1977 as a 19-year-old. The Applicant’s Movement History indicates that he has travelled overseas and returned to Australia on 13 occasions between October 1984 and May 2003.
The Applicant said that he grew up in Albany in the north of Auckland. He said that his father was a painter and his mother performed home duties. He said that he had an older sister and an older brother.
The Applicant said that he attended school in New Zealand until he was 15 years old. He left school and began working in his father’s painting business where he worked for about three years before moving to Australia. The Applicant said that his father was a member of the Deer Stalkers Association and that he would go hunting with his father on occasion. He said that they would use 303 rifles to hunt deer. He said that when he was a boy he had an air pistol.
The Applicant said that he moved to Australia to start a business importing a textured ceiling spray called “PearlCoat” which was manufactured in New Zealand. He said that he hadn’t had much contact with his family since he moved to Australia. He said that he was aware that his parents have both passed away and that he has had no contact with his siblings for about 30 years. He said that he grew up in a violent “atmosphere” in which it was hard to form close relationships with his family members.
The Applicant said that after some time he left the “PearlCoat” business and started working as a painter for a painting business in Brisbane. He said that he worked for that business until about 1988. The Applicant said that in 1990 he started a brake and mechanic business performing mobile brake repair. That same year he bought a house and a block of land near Eumundi. He said that he built a cottage on the land which he rented out.
The Applicant indicated that he discontinued the brake and mechanic business in about 1995 after which he started a T-shirt business selling T-shirts to motoring enthusiasts at markets and conventions. The Applicant indicated that he was making and selling T-shirts until about 2003.
The Applicant indicated that between 2003 and about 2012 he supported himself on the rental income that he received from the cottage on his land. He indicated that he did not file taxation returns during this period because he did not think that he earned enough income to require him to file a tax return.
The Applicant indicated that in 2012 he bought a pizza shop in Nambour which he began operating.
The Applicant indicated that in about July 2013 he was charged with (1) trafficking in methamphetamine between February 2013 and June 2013 and (2) possessing methamphetamine in May 2013.
The Applicant indicated that at about the same time he was charged with failing to file a tax return for a number of years. As he did not attend court, he was sentenced in his absence of 12 counts of failing to lodge tax return and fined $10,000. The Applicant indicated that after these convictions he filed all the outstanding tax returns and was owed $128.
The Applicant indicated that after he was charged with the trafficking offences he had to sell his pizza shop and property at Eumundi to pay for his legal fees. He said that he bought a tip truck and began working as a subcontractor for a business called BTL. The Applicant indicated that he worked for BTL for about 18 months prior to his imprisonment.
The Applicant indicated that he had ceased using methamphetamine before he was imprisoned, that his imprisonment had come as a big shock to him and that he was embarrassed by turning 60 in prison. The Applicant said that he had no intention of ever using methamphetamine again, that he wanted to move on with his life and work to save money for his retirement.
The Applicant indicated that he had been offered work as a subcontractor with BTL if he was allowed to remain in Australia. He said that he was guaranteed work with BTL for years into the future that he would be earning about $4000 a week as a subcontractor.
The Applicant said that he had nothing left in New Zealand. He said that both of his parents had passed away and he had not spoken to either of his siblings in about 30 years. He said that he did not know where his siblings were or whether they were still alive. In his statutory declaration, the Applicant indicated that he had only left Australia on three occasions since arriving in Australia in 1977.[10] However, it was put to him at the hearing by the Respondent that his movement record indicated he had in fact made 13 trips outside of Australia in that time. While the Applicant originally refuted this, it appeared that he ended up accepting that he had left Australia many more than three times during his period of residence here.
[10] Exhibit A1, Statutory Declaration of P Lansdowne sworn on 19 October 2018.
The Applicant indicated that he did not know what he would do if he returned to New Zealand, that he had nothing there, and he was worried that as a 60-year-old with a criminal record, he would not be able to find employment in New Zealand. He indicated that he had no savings to help fund himself. He said that he would not know how to find housing or secure welfare payments in New Zealand.
The Applicant indicated that all of his friends and his godchildren were in Australia. He indicated that, while he had no blood relations in Australia, he considered his friends to be his family.
The Applicant indicated that there was no risk of him reoffending if he was allowed to remain in Australia. He said that he had not used methamphetamine for a number of years and indicated that he would not commit any further traffic offences including driving under the influence as he needed a drivers licence in order to maintain his proposed employment as a truck subcontractor.
Offending history
The Applicant’s criminal record has been reproduced above at paragraph 21.
The Applicant’s most serious offences were those for which he was sentenced on 29 September 2016 for (1) trafficking in dangerous drugs and (2) possess dangerous drug. For the former offence he was sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment, to be suspended for four years after serving a term of two years’ imprisonment. The Applicant was convicted of the second offence and no further punishment was imposed.
The details relating to those offences were described in the sentencing judge’s remarks as follows:
“I will briefly outline the nature of your conduct that facilitated the trafficking of others. I find that you were a user of methylamphetamine at the time, and you were obviously using methylamphetamine that was produced by [name redacted]. It seems that you were involved in a meeting with [name redacted]of New South Wales on 23 February 2013, at the commencement of the particularised period of trafficking, where you either collected methylamphetamine or chemicals used to produce methylamphetamine, or paid Ward for one or the other. The evidence that was available to the Prosecution was not such that the case could proceed with any precision, but what you did on that day, as an agent of others, facilitated their trafficking business. You are also involved in organising another meeting with [name redacted] on 12 March 2013, where I infer that you were to deliver a sum of money in the amount of $14,900 that was in the possession of [name redacted]on 11 March 2013 when he was intercepted by police, and that money was seized, so that the meeting on 12 March 2013 did not take place.
Your residence was the subject of a listening device, and a day in question, of 10 May 2013, was the subject of a number of conversations involving [name redacted]and others, which revealed, on that day, your use of methylamphetamine, but it also confirmed that [name redacted] had manufactured methylamphetamine the previous day and brought some to your house. Some of it was used by you and [name redacted] and others who were there on that day. It seems, from the recording device, that sum was left at your place, and I infer, from the conversations that took place on that day, that you had a quantity of methylamphetamine yourself, but I cannot make any finding as to what that quantity was. I infer that the methylamphetamine that you had was somehow part of your reward for being involved in the trafficking activities, and it enabled you to supply methylamphetamine to others, such as an electrician who did work for you, and to give some to another person associated with [name redacted], which is referred to in the conversations. Your counsel advises your role is something less than a courier, but it seems to me that you were a conduit for supplies of methylamphetamine, as was evidenced by a conversation that you had with [name redacted] on 28 May 2013, from which I infer that, when [name redacted] said to you that:
As fast as you can get it here. As fast as I can get rid of it.
in the context of an oblique inquiry about a delivery that was obviously anticipated, that that is consistent with your role in performing tasks such as collecting methylamphetamine or, possibly chemicals for the manufacture of methylamphetamine, as it is very clear that [name redacted] was manufacturing it, and you were aware of what he was doing. It seems, from the recorded conversations, that you were willing to let your residence are used for a production of methylamphetamine on the 13^th June that did not go ahead, as it appears there was no PH meter at your house, so it appears that some part of the production was anticipated to be done at your house. You’re being sentenced on the basis that you did, over that period of four months, tasks that were facilitating the trafficking business of others."[11]
[11] Exhibit G1, G Documents, G02, Transcript of sentencing remarks of Her Honour Justice Mullins, Supreme Court of Queensland, pages 32-33.
In relation to these offences the Applicant said that from early 2013 he was being investigated by the Queensland police in relation to his involvement with two other men who were manufacturing and trafficking in methamphetamine. He said that he was not a central figure in the operation and that he did not make any money from the activity but he accepted that he committed a crime “by doing some precursor materials for them in return for cheaper access to methamphetamine”. In his statutory declaration he stated that he did not remember ever offering his house to be used to manufacture methamphetamine and he was certain that he would not have offered for that to happen or let that happen. At the hearing, the Applicant indicated that the statutory declaration was not correct in this regard and that he had in fact offered for the methamphetamine to be pH tested at his house but this had not occurred as a pH testing machine was not sourced.
The Applicant indicated that on 15 August 2014 he was charged with two offences for breach of bail as well as possession of a weapon and position of explosives. The explosives were ammunition for a working replica of what the Applicant described as a .22 calibre old Western gun.
The Queensland Police Service Court Brief in relation to the weapon and ammunition offences indicated that:
“A search of the premises by police located a cleverly constructed concealed cavity in the bathroom cupboard which contained a .22 calibre Magnum revolver, .22 calibre ammunition, revolver barrel.
An examination of the weapon found that it was a category H firearm
Inq’s by police established that the deft. LANSDOWNE was not the holder of a license to possess the firearm or authority to possess ammunition.”[12]
[12] Exhibit R4, supplementary materials, SM2, page 75.
During the hearing the Applicant was asked why he possessed the firearm. He indicated that the gun was a replica and a collectible, indicating that it was not intended to be used. However, when the Applicant was asked why he had live ammunition for the pistol he indicated that he had the ammunition in the event that he wished to fire the gun.
The Applicant was also asked why he had kept the gun in a cleverly constructed, concealed cavity in the bathroom. The Applicant replied that the compartment was like a safe and that he kept valuables in the compartment to avoid them being stolen. While the Applicant indicated that he had kept valuables such as money in the safe, there is no record in the police report of anything other than the gun, ammunition and a second revolver barrel being contained within the cavity.
It was put to the Applicant that this was the second time that he had been convicted of possessing an unlicensed firearm so he must have known that possessing this firearm was unlawful. The Applicant acknowledged he had known this and that he had simply acted stupidly by possessing an unlicensed firearm for the second time.
The Applicant indicated that one of the breaches of bail related to him being driven home by one of his co-accused for the methamphetamine trafficking offence when it had been a condition of his bail that he not associate with either of his co-accused. The other breach of bail related to the Applicant renting out his cottage to a member of the Rebels Outlaw Motorcycle Club when it had been a condition of his bail that he not associate with members of the Rebels Outlaw Motorcycle Club.
The Applicant indicated that on 29 September 2016, he was convicted for trafficking in dangerous drugs and sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment to be suspended for four years upon serving two years imprisonment. On that date the Applicant was also convicted of possess dangerous drug and no further punishment was imposed. The Applicant was released from prison in September 2018 and was immediately taken into immigration detention where he has remained since.
The Applicant also gave evidence in his written statement and during the hearing in relation to some of his older offences. The Applicant said that in 1992 he was arrested near Casino in New South Wales and charged with possessing a prohibited import being cannabis. In his statement he said that he was arrested while he was “doing work on the truck” as the truck had cannabis in it. He said that he wasn’t involved in profiting from the cannabis. At the hearing the Applicant said that while he was working on the truck he was aware that it contained cannabis.
The Applicant indicated that he was extradited to Queensland for this offence and released on bail. He said that in 1994 he was sentenced for possessing a prohibited import and find $3000.
The facts relating to this offence were evident from the judgement of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland dismissing an appeal of the sentence imposed on the Applicant. That decision indicates that 192kg of cannabis was imported from Thailand to Australia. The decision indicates that the cannabis was being transported in a content container on a truck on route to a property in New South Wales. That truck was accompanied by a Holden sedan driven by the Applicant. Upon reaching the destination the Applicant and others searched the container for the drugs and were intercepted by police while doing so. The Applicant was acquitted of the major charge of being knowingly concerned with the import of a prohibited drug. However he was convicted of being knowingly concerned with the possession of a prohibited import and fined $3000. In sentencing the Applicant in relation to the possession charge the sentencing judge stated:
“...The approach that I have taken follows what I have called a charitable interpretation of the jury’s verdict which acquitted you both of the major charge. That means that the facts upon which you fall to be sentenced are that you were ignorant of what the commodity was until a very late stage when the others spoke about it and, notwithstanding that, you continue to help them search for it with in the container.”[13]
[13] Exhibit R2 – Decision of R v Allingham, Lansdowne, Marshall and Booth [1994] QCA 433, page 12.
The Applicant indicated he had been told that, on 9 April 1996, he was convicted and fined $300 for charges of providing a false name, unlicensed driving and speeding but he could not remember ever going to court in relation to those charges.
The Applicant indicated that on 22 April 2009 he was charged with possessing dangerous drugs and unlawful possession of a weapon. He said that the police found a small amount of methamphetamine in his possession and when they searched his house they found an unlicensed firearm. In his statement the Applicant indicated that he had the handgun because he had grown up with guns and lived on a rural property. He indicated that it was stupid of him not to have applied for a licence for the gun. At the hearing the Applicant indicated that the handgun was a .45 calibre semiautomatic weapon. The Applicant admitted that this was not the type of firearm which was normally kept on a rural property. The Applicant said that he used the firearm to hunt pigs.
The Applicant indicated that after pleading guilty to possessing dangerous drugs and unlawful possession of a weapon on 21 December 2009, no conviction was recorded and he was fined $200 in relation to each charge.
The Applicant admitted that he had been found guilty of two minor charges in New Zealand in 1976 prior to his arrival in Australia. The Applicant also admitted to having over 50 traffic violations in Australia including, but not limited to: failing to keep left of continuous double lines; disobeying red traffic light; speeding; unlicensed driving / driving whilst disqualified; and drive while under the influence.
The Applicant admitted that he had provided false information in an incoming passenger card when entering Australia on 19 May 2003. That incoming passenger card had enquired as to whether the Applicant had any criminal convictions and the Applicant answered in the negative notwithstanding that by 2003, the Applicant had been convicted of offences including being knowingly concerned in possessing prohibited import in 1994 and being convicted of various traffic related offences in 1997, 1999 and 2002.
When the Applicant was asked during the hearing why he had provided incorrect information on the incoming passenger card, he said that at the time he had thought that he had not been convicted of an offence for over 10 years and believed that convictions over 10 years old were treated as spent sentences which were not required to be disclosed. The Applicant then said that he had not really read the questions on the incoming passenger card. The Tribunal notes that all of the convictions mentioned in the previous paragraph where imposed within 10 years of the Applicant filling in the incoming passenger card in May 2003. It was put to the Applicant that he had answered untruthfully as he did not want to be prevented from entering Australia owing to his prior criminal record. The Applicant denied this.
The Tribunal notes that there were a number of media articles in the G Documents in relation to the Applicant’s trafficking offence and a charge in relation to association in public with members of an outlaw motorcycle club.[14] The Tribunal has placed no weight on any of these reports. The Tribunal notes that the charge in relation to association in public with members of an outlaw motorcycle club was dismissed and the Tribunal has placed no weight on that charge or any of the reported circumstances surrounding that charge. Indeed, the Tribunal has placed no independent weight on the fact that the Applicant, by his own admission, was a member of the Rebels Outlaw Motorcycle Club for over 30 years other than where his membership was directly relevant to one of the offences for which he was found guilty, for example his breach of his bail condition to have no contact with members of the Rebels Outlaw Motorcycle Club.
[14] Exhibit G1, G Documents, G02, pages 111 - 121.
Witness 1 – Dr Jacqueline (Jacqui) Yoxall

Doctor Jacqui Yoxall, Psychologist, was engaged by the Applicant to assess his risk of reoffending. Dr Yoxall completed a written report dated 15 July 2019 which was provided to the Tribunal by the Applicant.[15] Dr Yoxall was also called to give oral evidence at the hearing. She was the only expert witness called to give evidence.
[15] Exhibit A14, Report of Dr Jacqui Yoxall, dated 15 July 2019.
Dr Yoxall’s written report concludes as follows:[16]
“…
Mr Lansdowne acknowledges that incarceration (a controlled environment) has assisted him to resolve his drug use. It is my opinion that he presents with Substance Use Disorder (Methylamphetamine dependence) in full remission in a controlled environment. There is no indication of any other psychological disorder or dysfunction, either in the past or at the present time. Although Mr Lansdowne maintains that he is confident he will be able to abstain from illicit drug use in the community, this is yet to be tested. He has used illicit substances, of some form, for nearly 50 years. The expectation that he can now maintain abstinence (outside of a controlled environment) without evidence-based rehabilitation is unrealistic and, in my view, very likely to not be met.
Mr Lansdowne is now 62 years old and is not financially stable. He has what appears to be, realistic plans for employment which may allow him to establish some financial stability whilst he is physically able to work a labour intensive job. He reports that he has an offer of employment and an offer of stable accommodation with a law-abiding friend. He reports that he has prosocial support in the form of many friends who are law-abiding citizens.
However, Mr Lansdowne also has ongoing association with individuals who remain in the Rebel Motorcycle Club and others who have a criminal history. In my view the key risk factors for reoffending are: illicit drug use (relapse to dependence); financial instability; and influence of criminal friends and associates. Without evidence based intervention to address the risk of relapse to illicit drugs use; and to address and modify cognitions and beliefs that he has developed and maintained over many years in regard to acceptance of and participation in, antisocial activities (both by himself and his close friends), it is my view that his risk of reoffending is moderate. The risk of further incarceration or deportation is not in my view, sufficient deterrent, on its own, to ensure that Mr Lansdowne does not reoffend once he returns to the community.
…”
[my emphasis].
[16] Exhibit A14, Report of Dr Jacqui Yoxall, dated 15 July 2019, pages 20 - 23.
After having received Dr Yoxall’s report, on 17 July 2019 the Applicant submitted a further statement indicating that he had become aware of the extent of his drug addiction in more recent years and that he was committed to ongoing rehabilitation to ensure that he avoided using drugs in the future. The Applicant indicated that his term of imprisonment and the real threat of removal from Australia had “shaken me into a sense of reality” enlivening a determination to avoid drug use.
The Applicant indicated that he had a positive support network of friends in Australia who would assist him in abstaining from using drugs.
The Applicant indicated that he had undertaken some Internet research into relevant rehabilitation programs and that he intended to continue to conduct further research to find suitable rehabilitation courses.
The Applicant indicated that he was concerned that he would find it difficult to secure employment in New Zealand due to his age, past convictions, limited assets and lack of social support in New Zealand.
Witness 2 – Judith Louise Earthrowl
A written statement from Mrs Judith Earthrowl dated 26 October 2017 was tendered into evidence.[17] She also gave evidence under oath at the hearing. Mrs Earthrowl is a friend of the Applicant and the mother of Nicole Earthrowl. Nicole is the mother of Jess Earthrowl and Jordann-Leigh Earthrowl, who both provided written statements in support of the Applicant. Jess and Jordann-Leigh Earthrowl along with Jay Walsh are the adult godchildren of the Applicant. Mrs Earthrowl gave evidence that she first met the Applicant over 20 years ago when she was introduced to him by her daughter Nicole. She gave evidence that the Applicant had always been respectful when visiting her home for various family gatherings. In her statement from 2017, Mrs Earthrowl indicated that she was aware that the Applicant had been incarcerated for drug trafficking.
[17] Exhibit A3, Letter of Support from Mrs J L Earthrowl, dated 26 October 2017.
Mrs Earthrowl indicated that she was aware that the Applicant had a truck company on the Sunshine Coast which ensured that he would have ongoing employment if he remained in Australia.
Mrs Earthrowl indicated that the Applicant was considered part of their family, that he would be welcomed in their home and that they were prepared to assist the Applicant in any way required.
Witness 3 – Ben Henderson
Mr Henderson provided an undated statement to the Tribunal,[18] and gave oral evidence at the hearing. Mr Henderson owns and operates a transport company named BTL with a number of contracts on infrastructure projects. Mr Henderson indicated that the Applicant worked for him as a subcontractor for about 18 months prior to his imprisonment. Mr Henderson indicated that he had around 180 subcontractors working with him and that the Applicant had been one of his better subcontractors. Mr Henderson indicated that he was prepared to offer the Applicant subcontracting work as a truck driver if the Applicant is able to remain in the Australia. Mr Henderson admitted that while his company would not suffer financially if the Applicant was unable to remain in Australia, as the Applicant was a good worker, it would be “good to have him back in the team”.
[18] Exhibit A9, Statement from Mr B Henderson, undated; Exhibit G1, G Documents, G02, page 108, Statement from Mr B Henderson, dated 24 November 2018.
Mr Henderson indicated that there would be work for the Applicant into the foreseeable future and that the Applicant could expect to earn about $4000 a week as a subcontractor.
Witness 4 – Ann Walsh
The Tribunal had before it an undated statement from Ms Walsh who also gave evidence before the Tribunal.[19] Ms Walsh is a friend of the Applicant and claims she has known him for some 27 years. Ms Walsh indicated that the Applicant had played a large role in her life and the lives of her children who were now all adults. Ms Walsh indicated that the Applicant was the godfather of her youngest son Jay and that Jay had always depended on the Applicant for guidance.
[19] Exhibit A7, Statement of Ms A Walsh (undated).
Ms Walsh indicated that she had a very strong relationship with the Applicant and always looked to him for help and advice. She said that although she was fully aware of the Applicant’s criminal history, this did not change the respect that she had for him. Ms Walsh indicated that she and her family would be very upset if the Applicant had to leave Australia as he had been a dependable, reliable and loyal friend.
Witness 5 – Jordann-Leigh Earthrowl
Ms Earthrowl provided a written statement to the Tribunal dated 9 July 2019[20] and gave evidence during the hearing. Ms Earthrowl is the 25-year-old grand-daughter of Judith Louise Earthrowl. Ms Earthrowl indicated that the Applicant was her godfather and that she has “known [the Applicant] her whole life” and that he is a father to her.
[20] Exhibit A13, Statement from Ms J-L Earthrowl, dated 9 July 2019.
Ms Earthrowl claimed that the Applicant had a major role in raising her. She said that despite the fact that she is now an adult, she still needed the Applicant in her life. She said that she and her partner were currently trying to have a child and that she wanted the Applicant to remain in Australia so that he could play a role in the life of the child in the future.
Ms Earthrowl indicated that she had witnessed “incredible personal and mental development” from the Applicant over the last five years.
Ms Earthrowl indicated that she believed that the Applicant would never again associate with the Rebels Outlaw Motorcycle Club and that he would never reoffend.
Ms Earthrowl indicated that if the Applicant was removed to New Zealand she would visit him there.
In addition to the evidence mentioned above, the Tribunal had before it numerous statements from other close friends of the Applicant in Australia. Most of those statements indicated that the authors were shocked upon hearing about the Applicant’s drug trafficking offence. Most of the statements indicated that the Applicant was a close family friend and was considered by many to be a member of the family. Most of the statements indicated that the Applicant’s offending was out of character and that the Applicant was unlikely to ever reoffend.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION A: PROTECTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL OR OTHER SERIOUS CONDUCT
The Tribunal must have regard to the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct. Paragraph 13.1(2) of the Direction provides that decision-makers should 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 13.1.1(1) of the Direction specifies that decision-makers must have regard to a number of factors including:
a)   The principle that, without limiting the range of offences that may be considered serious, violent and/or sexual crimes are viewed very seriously;
b)   The principle that crimes of a violent nature against women or children are viewed very seriously, regardless of the sentence imposed;
c)   The principle that 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, are serious;
d)   Subject to subparagraph (b) above, the sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes;
e)   The frequency of the non-citizen’s offending and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;
f)    The cumulative effect of repeated offending;
g)   Whether the non-citizen has provided false or misleading information to the department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending;
h)   Whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware, in writing, about the consequences of further offending in terms of the non-citizen’s migration status (noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen’s favour);
i)    Where the non-citizen is in Australia, that 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 is serious, as is an offence against section 197A of the Act;
The offences committed by the Applicant cannot be described as violent or sexual crimes. The offences were not of a violent nature and were not committed against women or children. The offences were not committed against vulnerable members of society or Government officials or representatives.
It does not appear that the Applicant has provided false or misleading information to the Department such as to justify any significant increase in an assessment of the seriousness of the offending or its nature.
However the Tribunal does have some concern that the Applicant indicated that he had no criminal convictions on an incoming passenger card in 2003 when he knew very well that he had criminal convictions at that point. In circumstances where the Applicant had been convicted of offences in 1994, 1997, 1999, and 2002, the Tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s explanation that he thought that his convictions had been spent as he had not been convicted in the 10 years prior to 2003.
The Applicant committed two minor offences in New Zealand before his arrival in Australia. The Applicant’s offences were not committed while the Applicant was in immigration detention or during an escape from immigration detention.
The nature of the Applicant’s offending has been described above. The Tribunal considers that the Applicant’s offending conduct falls roughly into five categories. The first category of offences involves offences relating to drugs. They include is most serious offence of trafficking in dangerous schedule 1 drugs, his offence of possessing dangerous schedule 1 drugs, his offence in 2009 of possessing dangerous drugs, and his offence in 1994 of being knowingly concerned with possessing prohibited import (cannabis). I will refer to these offences as the drug-trafficking and drug possession offences.
The second category of offences involves 12 offences relating to failure to file taxation returns. I will refer to these offences as the taxation offences.
The third category of offences involves two offences of unlawful possession of a category H firearm, in each case a handgun, and possession of ammunition for one of the handguns. I will refer to these offences as the firearms offences.
The fourth category of offences involves the breach of bail offences for having contact with a co-accused in his drug-trafficking offence and having contact with members of the Rebels Outlaw Motorcycle Club despite the conditions of the Applicant’s bail prohibiting such contact. The Applicant was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment for these offences to be suspended for two years. I will refer to these offences as the breach of bail offences.
The final category of offences or violations relates to the Applicant’s traffic related violations which number over 50. For the sake of convenience, also included in this category is the offence of stating a false name to which the Applicant was found guilty in 1996. I will refer to these offences as the traffic violations.
In relation to the Applicant’s serious offending for which he was convicted on 29 September 2016, the sentencing judge made the following comments in relation to the seriousness of the Applicant’s offending:
“It’s still a serious criminal offences that you’re being found guilty of, trafficking in the dangerous drug methylamphetamine, which carries with it a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment.
…
The primary purpose of sentencing someone for trafficking is to deter them and others from engaging in that criminal activity. Those who carry on the business of trafficking in a schedule 1 drug such as methylamphetamine cause a lot of harm in the community. And although you are being sentenced as a party to the offending of others who have greater criminality, your conduct, as a party, still facilitates the significant criminal offence of trafficking, and that’s why you’ve been found guilty by your conduct of the same offence of trafficking in a dangerous drug. That said, the sentence has to reflect the matters that are indicated during the course of the sentencing in your favour, and that is why I’ve concluded that the appropriate head sentence should be four years imprisonment, and that enables me to suspend it after you’ve served two years.”[21]
[21] Exhibit G1, G Documents, G02, Transcript of sentencing remarks of Her Honour Justice Mullins, Supreme Court of Queensland, pages 35-36.
The deleterious effects of drug trafficking on the community are well-known and often stated. Australia’s National Drug Strategy 2017-2026, referred to by the Respondent, notes that:[22]
“Over the last five years there has been an increase in the availability and purity of methamphetamine… As a consequence, states and territories are reporting an increase in the harms associated with its use including increased presentations to drug treatment services, ambulance attendances and presentations/admissions to Australian public hospitals.”
[22] Department of Health, National Drug Strategy 2017 -2026, p12.
In Ngo v The Queen [2017] WASCA 3, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Buss P with whom Mazza JA agreed) stated that the victim of trafficking or attempted trafficking in illicit drugs was the Australian community generally and that:
“The illicit drug trade is a scourge. It inflicts very significant damage on the people who consume the drugs. Also, the deleterious effects of illicit drug consumption extend to the families, friends and associates of the consumers and society generally.”[23]
[23] Ngo v The Queen [2017] WASCA 3, paragraph [63].
The Respondent in his written submissions referred to the Tribunal’s decision in SCJD and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration) [2018] AATA 4020 (“SCJD”). In SCJD, Senior Member Cameron stated the following in relation to the harmful effects of drug trafficking at [80] to [83]:
“The seriousness of drug trafficking is well known. It has been commented on by several of the trial judges before whom the Applicant has come.
The corrupting effect of drug trafficking on the community has many facets. In many instances such as with overdosing on heroin it leads to death. The heroin toll in this country is almost as high as the road toll but rarely rates the same attention. It destroys families. Parent and children relationships frequently cease as a result of a person’s drug dependency. There is a massive toll on the nation’s mental health system caused by consumption of drugs. Frequently, this leads to the triggering of or early onset of a variety of mental health afflictions. These can include anxiety, psychosis, schizophrenia, bipolar disorders and paranoia. Tragically, drugs are all too frequently trafficked to young people including secondary school pupils. It leads to lives and potential careers being derailed, if not finished. It places demands on hospitals, health care systems, disability support networks and agencies, ambulance services, police, courts and other associated organisations and entities.
In the course of ruining lives drug abuse leads to its victims often having to descend into crimes such as burglary, shoplifting and robbery (amongst others) to support their habit. Innocent people going about their lives can be the subject of robbery and attack by drug affected persons.
There is also the organised crime element involved in drug trafficking. The insidious trade of drug trafficking generates vast amounts of cash upon which no tax is paid. This loss of the revenue which is enormous, means that society as a whole is deprived of income that could be provided towards and possibly improve essential public services such as schools, hospitals, police and emergency services.”
For the reasons mentioned above the Tribunal considers that the Applicant’s drug trafficking offence is very serious.
The Tribunal considers that the Applicant’s drug possession charges are far less serious than his drug trafficking offence, however the Tribunal notes that the circumstances surrounding his conviction in 1994 for being knowingly concerned with possessing prohibited import (cannabis) involve the Applicant becoming aware that he and others were in possession of a large amount of cannabis in a container on a truck and yet remaining to search the crate for the cannabis.
The Tribunal considers that the Applicant’s firearm offences are very serious. Possessing an unlicensed firearm and ammunition represents a danger to members of the Australian community either at the hands of the owner of the firearm or another person should that firearm fall into their hands. The Applicant was found guilty of possessing a .45 calibre semiautomatic handgun in 2009 and fined $200. Despite the leniency shown to the Applicant in relation to his first firearms offence, and despite the Applicant clearly understanding that it was an offence to possess an unregistered firearm, and despite that the Applicant was on bail in relation to the trafficking offence, the Applicant was convicted of possessing another unlicensed firearm and ammunition in 2014. On that occasion the Applicant was convicted and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment to be suspended for two years.

The Tribunal considers that the Applicant’s taxation offences are less serious than his drug and firearms offences but do show a disregard for compliance with Australia’s taxation laws over a lengthy period of time.
Similarly, the Tribunal considers that the Applicant’s breach of bail offences are less serious than his drugs and firearms offences but do show an astonishing disregard for the law and the conditions of bail imposed on him.
While the Tribunal considers that the Applicant’s traffic violations are less serious than his drug and firearms offences, the Tribunal considers that some of these offences, including driving under the influence, speeding, driving an unroadworthy vehicle, unlicensed driving, fail to keep left of continuous double lines, fail to stop at red light and drinking liquor while driving represent a danger to members of the Australian community if repeated. As with the Applicant’s taxation offences, the Tribunal considers that the Applicant’s repeated traffic violations numbering over 50 and spanning from 1978 until 2015 show a clear and continuous disregard for compliance with Australia’s traffic laws for almost 40 years.
The risk to the Australian community should the applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct
Subparagraph 13.1.2 of the Direction provides that in considering the risk to the Australian community presented by an applicant, the Tribunal must have regard to the two sub-considerations listed in paragraph 13.1.2(1) of the Direction cumulatively. They are:
a)The nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and
b)The likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account available information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen reoffending (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken).
The nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct
The Tribunal finds that if the Applicant were to re-engage in criminal conduct similar to his drug trafficking offence, it is likely that the nature of the harm to victims would be that they would suffer from the harmful physical and mental effects of illicit drugs mentioned above. If the Applicant were to re-engage in drug possession offences, this could result in harm to the Applicant and those who consume the drugs he possesses including the harmful physical and mental effects of illicit drugs mentioned above.
If the Applicant were to re-engage in the firearms offences, it is likely that he will increase the risk to the community of being injured by unlicensed firearms. Such injuries could include serious physical harm or death.
If the Applicant were to re-engage in his traffic offences, especially those which directly endanger life such as driving under the influence, the harm that could result includes serious physical injury or death.
If the Applicant were to re-engage in his taxation offences this would be likely to result in the Applicant failing to lodge tax returns in the future, hindering attempts to ensure that he pays tax in accordance with his taxation liability.
If the Applicant were to re-engage in offences similar to his breach of bail offences, this would be likely to result in the Applicant failing to comply with the conditions for his release on bail mandated by the court or other relevant authorities.
The likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct
Dr Yoxall was engaged by the Applicant to assess the risk that the Applicant would reoffend. Her evidence was the only expert evidence before the Tribunal regarding the risk of the Applicant reoffending. As mentioned previously, Dr Yoxall’s written report concludes as follows:[24]
“…
Mr Lansdowne acknowledges that incarceration (a controlled environment) has assisted him to resolve his drug use. It is my opinion that he presents with Substance Use Disorder (Methylamphetamine dependence) in full remission in a controlled environment. There is no indication of any other psychological disorder or dysfunction, either in the past or at the present time. Although Mr Lansdowne maintains that he is confident he will be able to abstain from illicit drug use in the community, this is yet to be tested. He has used illicit substances, of some form, for nearly 50 years. The expectation that he can now maintain abstinence (outside of a controlled environment) without evidence-based rehabilitation is unrealistic and, in my view, very likely to not be met.
Mr Lansdowne is now 62 years old and is not financially stable. He has what appears to be, realistic plans for employment which may allow him to establish some financial stability whilst he is physically able to work a labour intensive job. He reports that he has an offer of employment and an offer of stable accommodation with a law-abiding friend.
He reports that he has prosocial support in the form of many friends who are law-abiding citizens.
However, Mr Lansdowne also has ongoing association with individuals who remain in the Rebel Motorcycle Club and others who have a criminal history. In my view the key risk factors for reoffending are: illicit drug use (relapse to dependence); financial instability; and influence of criminal friends and associates. Without evidence based intervention to address the risk of relapse to illicit drugs use; and to address and modify cognitions and beliefs that he has developed and maintained over many years in regard to acceptance of and participation in, antisocial activities (both by himself and his close friends), it is my view that his risk of reoffending is moderate. The risk of further incarceration or deportation is not in my view, sufficient deterrent, on its own, to ensure that Mr Lansdowne does not reoffend once he returns to the community.
…”
[my emphasis].
[24] Exhibit A14, Report of Dr Jacqui Yoxall, dated 15 July 2019, pages 20 - 23.
The Applicant has not undertaken any rehabilitation or counselling services in relation to his offending although he has indicated that he would do so if he is allowed to remain in Australia.
The Tribunal has considered the numerous statements in support of the Applicant provided by his close friends in Australia. Most of those statements speak glowingly of the Applicant, referring to him as a generous and dependable friend who is considered part of the family by many of his friends. The statements indicate that the Applicant’s offending was out of character and that the Applicant would not re-offend.
The Tribunal has taken into account that the Applicant has an offer of employment as a subcontractor with BTL which is likely to provide the Applicant with well-paying employment into the future.
The Tribunal notes that this information, including the letter from Mr Henderson of BTL and all of the letters of support (other than that of Jordann-Leigh Earthrowl), was before Dr Yoxall and yet she still came to the conclusion that the Applicant posed a moderate risk of re-offending.
Dr Yoxall found that in the absence of evidence-based rehabilitation, the Applicant was very likely to continue to use drugs, that he was not financially stable and that he had ongoing association with individuals who remain in the Rebel Motorcycle Club and others who have a criminal history. She stated that “In my view the key risk factors for reoffending are: illicit drug use (relapse to dependence); financial instability; and influence of criminal friends and associates”. She concluded that:
“Without evidence based intervention to address the risk of relapse to illicit drugs use; and to address and modify cognitions and beliefs that he has developed and maintained over many years in regard to acceptance of and participation in, antisocial activities (both by himself and his close friends), it is my view that his risk of reoffending is moderate. The risk of further incarceration or deportation is not in my view, sufficient deterrent, on its own, to ensure that Mr Lansdowne does not reoffend once he returns to the community.”
The Tribunal accepts the evidence of Dr Yoxall, the only expert evidence before the Tribunal in relation to the Applicant’s risk of reoffending, that the Applicant presents a moderate risk of reoffending. The Tribunal considers that the Applicant’s moderate risk of reoffending represents a real risk.
While the Applicant contends that he has conducted some internet research into rehabilitation courses and says that he will undertake such courses, he has not undertaken any such courses at present despite being offered to undertake such a course during his detention. In those circumstances, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the Applicant is likely to undertake evidence based rehabilitation.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration A
The Tribunal has found that much of the Applicant’s offending conduct is serious and some of it, including his drug trafficking conduct and firearms offences are particularly serious. The nature of the Applicant’s offending involves serious drug-related conduct, firearms offences, numerous taxation offences, breaches of bail and numerous traffic violations repeated over a number of years.
The Tribunal has found that if the Applicant were to reoffend in Australia, this could result in physical and psychological harm to members of the Australian community.
The Tribunal has found there is moderate likelihood that the Applicant will reoffend and that this represents a real risk to the Australian community if he is allowed to remain in Australia.
After giving thoughtful and thorough consideration to this primary consideration, the Tribunal concludes that the primary consideration of protection of the Australian community weighs against the revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa. The Tribunal considers that the protection of the Australian community and its members are best served by the Applicant no longer being present in Australia.
The Tribunal attributes significant weight against revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa to the primary consideration of the protection of the Australian community.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION B: THE BEST INTERESTS OF MINOR CHILDREN IN AUSTRALIA
Paragraph 13.2(1) of the Direction compels a decision-maker to make a determination about whether revocation is, or is not, in the best interests of a child who may be affected by cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
While the Applicant, in his written submissions, submitted that this consideration “weighs somewhat in favour of revocation” it was conceded at the hearing that this consideration was not relevant as there were no identifiable minor children in Australia whose interests would be affected by the maintenance of a decision to cancel the Applicant’s visa. Thus, neither party contends that this consideration is relevant in the current matter and no issue arises on the material before the Tribunal. In these circumstances the Tribunal places no weight on this consideration.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION C: THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY
Paragraph 13.3(1) of the Direction states:
“The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has breached, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they will breach this trust or where the non-citizen has been convicted of offences in Australia or elsewhere, it may be appropriate to not revoke the mandatory visa cancellation of such a person. Non-revocation 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 hold a visa. Decision-makers should have due regard to the Government’s views in this respect.”
How are those expectations determined?
In Doan and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration) [2019] AATA 169 (“Doan”) I found that the decisions of Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 348 (“Uelese”); Afu v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1311 (“Afu”); and YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466 (“YNQY”) establish that:
·the concept of community expectations is not a matter to be measured as though it is a provable fact. It is not a consideration dealing with any objective, or ascertainable expectations of the Australian community. It is an assessment of community values made on behalf of that community; and
·the Government’s views in relation to community expectations are to be found in the Direction itself. It is open to the Minister to make a statement of the Government’s views as to the expectation of the Australian community, as it has in the Direction, and for the Tribunal to Act on that statement.
While Doan was recently set aside by the Federal Court (Griffiths J) in Doan v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 1172 as being affected by jurisdictional error in the way that I dealt with the evidence of two experts, the Tribunal’s reasoning in relation to the consideration of the “expectations of the Australian community” was left undisturbed.
In Doan, I found that the primary consideration of expectations of the Australian community may weigh in favour or against whether or not to revoke cancellation.
In Doan, I also found that, in addition to the matters provided for in paragraph 13.3(1) of Direction 65 (which are relevantly identical to those in paragraph 13.3(1) of the Direction) and the various principles in paragraph 6.3 of the Direction which inform the expectations of the Australian community regarding its protection, the Government’s views in relation to community expectations are also informed by:
·whether a non-citizen has lived in the Australian community for most of their life or from a very young age (see paragraph 6.3(5) of the Direction);
·the length of time a non-citizen has been making a positive contribution to the Australian community (see paragraph 6.3(7) of the Direction); and
·the consequence of visa refusal or cancellation for minor children and other immediate family members in Australia (see paragraph 6.3(7) of the Direction).
The fact that Direction 79 is relevant to this matter, rather than Direction 65, has no material bearing on this case. The differences between Directions 65 and 79 are primarily that the latter Direction directs that crimes against women and children are serious regardless of the penalty imposed for such crimes.
In YNQY, Mortimer J accepted that the expectations of the Australian community consideration is inextricably linked to the other primary consideration of protection of the Australian community. There is no doubt that this is the case, especially considering that the weight of the principles in paragraph 6.3 of the Direction relate most directly to the protection of the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community regarding its protection.
Thus, the Tribunal considers that, in both the matters that the Tribunal considers in relation to the expectations of the Australian community, and the weight to be attributed to those expectations, the Tribunal should give appropriate weight to consideration of the expectations of the Australian community regarding its protection.
Since my decision in Doan, the Federal Court on 11 April 2019 handed down two decisions which have particular relevance to the determination of the expectations of the Australian community consideration. Those cases are FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 500 (“FYBR”) and DKXY v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 495 (“DKXY”).
In FYBR Her Honour Perry J concluded at [42]:
“It follows, in line with the authorities, that cl 11.3 of Direction 65 is a statement of the Government’s view as to the expectations of the Australian community for the purposes of determining whether or not to refuse a visa. Contrary to the applicant’s submissions, 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. Rather, the Tribunal must give effect to the “norm” stipulated in cl 11(3) which will of its nature weigh in favour of refusal, at least in most cases...”
In TGXY and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration) [2019] AATA 757 (“TGXY”) (handed down on 24 April 2019) I found that this conclusion was consistent, for the most part, with the reasoning that was employed in Doan which employed the principles developed in Uelese; Afu and YNQY.
In DXKY His Honour Griffiths J found that while the Government’s views regarding the expectations of the Australian community must be given due regard, so must all other circumstances which are relevant in a particular case. This interpretation appears to be much broader than that taken in the authorities mentioned above where those authorities appeared to limit consideration of the expectations of the Australian community to the views expressed by the Government in the Direction as to the expectations of the Australian community.
In TGXY I found that, as the weight of Federal Court authority appeared to adopt a somewhat narrower view than that taken by Griffiths J, the Tribunal considered that it should follow the weight of authority which provides for the principles that I set out in Doan and mentioned above.
However, in TGXY, I found that my interpretation of paragraph 8(3) of the Direction, that all of the primary and other considerations may each individually weigh either for or against an Applicant, was supported by the decision in DKXY. Similarly, I considered that my conclusion in Doan that the Government’s views regarding the expectations of the Australian community are informed by the principles in paragraph 6.3 of the Direction, was also supported by the decision in DKXY.
In the present case, the Applicant failed to meet the expectation of the Australian community to abide by the law. This expectation was breached on numerous occasions by the Applicant committing crimes including serious crimes. The Tribunal considers that the Australian community expects the Australian Government to cancel the visas of non-citizens if they commit serious crimes in Australia or elsewhere.[25] In the present matter the Government has acted in accordance with that expectation as was required by section 501(3A) of the Act.
[25] See paragraph 6.3(2) of the Direction.
The Tribunal considers that the Australian community would find that much of the Applicant’s conduct was serious and some of it, including his drug trafficking offence and has firearms offences, was very serious. The Tribunal considers that the Australian community considers that non-citizens who commit serious crimes should generally expect to forfeit the privilege of staying in Australia.[26]
[26] See paragraph 6.3(3) of the Direction.
Against the expectations of the Australian community in relation to its protection, the Tribunal considers that the Australian community would place weight, in the Applicant’s favour, on the negative consequences of non-revocation on the Applicant’s friends in Australia who consider him family and that the Applicant has lived in Australia for most of his life; for some 40 years. The Tribunal is willing to accept that the Applicant, through his employment, involvement with friends and involvement in the community made a valuable contribution to the community when he was not offending.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration C
Overall, given the serious nature of much of the Applicant’s offending, that there is a real chance that he will reoffend, and notwithstanding the negative effects on the Applicant’s close friends in Australia if the cancellation of his visa is not revoked and the lengthy time the Applicant has spent in Australia, the Tribunal finds that the Australian community would consider that the risk of future harm to the community is unacceptable and that the Tribunal should not revoke cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.

The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs against revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa. The Tribunal places moderate weight on this consideration in favour of non-revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
While the list of “other” considerations in the Direction is not exhaustive, there are five “other considerations” named in the Direction under paragraph 14(1):
a)     International non-refoulement obligations;
b)     Strength, nature and duration of ties;
c)     Impact on Australian business interests;
d)     Impact on victims;
e)     Extent of impediments if removed.
(a)    International non-refoulement obligations
Neither party has raised any issue about non-refoulement obligations regarding the Applicant, and no issue arises on the material before the Tribunal. In these circumstances, this consideration is not relevant in this matter.
(b) Strength, nature and duration of ties
Paragraph 14.2 of the Direction provides:
… Reflecting the principles at 6.3, decision-makers must have regard to:
(a)How long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child, noting that:
i.less weight should be given where the noncitizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and
ii.more weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community.
(b)The strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia, including the effect of cancellation on the non-citizen's immediate family in Australia (where those family members are Australian citizens, permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely).
The Applicant first arrived in Australia in 1977 as a 19 year old. For most of that time the Applicant has been contributing to the Australian community primarily through paid employment. The Applicant’s first criminal offence according to the National Police Certificate occurred in 1992, some 15 years after he arrived in Australia. However, as outlined above, the Applicant has an extensive traffic violation record (commencing in 1978) and a serious criminal history which has spanned a 24 year period.
The Tribunal has taken into account the Applicant’s statement and the statements provided by his friends in support of him as being relevant to his ties to Australia.
The Applicant has no blood relations, or a partner in Australia, although he does have close friends. The Tribunal accepts that those friends may feel deeply saddened at the Applicant’s departure from Australia.
The Tribunal has also taken into account under this consideration the hardship to the Applicant which will result if he must leave Australia. If it had not, the Tribunal would have considered this matter as a separate “other” consideration. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant will be severely adversely affected if he has to relocate to New Zealand.
Overall, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant has strong and enduring ties to Australia forged over a lifetime. The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs in favour of the revocation of the decision to cancel Applicant’s visa. The Tribunal places significant weight on this consideration in the Applicant’s favour.
(c) Impact on Australian business interests
In his written submissions, the Applicant stated:
“In circumstances where, if allowed to remain in Australia, the Applicant will undertake work as a subcontractor as part of a major public infrastructure project (a highly extension project in Caloundra, Queensland) it is submitted that a non-revocation decision may have an adverse impact on Australian business interests. The submission is supported by Ben Henderson, principal of BTL Plant Hire (the entity with whom the Applicant would be subcontracting).
For that reason it is submitted that this consideration weighs somewhat in favour of revocation.”
Mr Henderson indicated that he had around 180 subcontractors working with him and that the Applicant had been one of his better subcontractors. Mr Henderson indicated that the Applicant had worked with his company for a period of about 18 months prior to his imprisonment in 2016. Mr Henderson admitted that while his company would not suffer financially if the Applicant was unable to remain in Australia, as the Applicant was a good worker, it would be “good to have him back in the team”.
In circumstances where the Applicant only worked with BTL for 18 months and BTL appears to be doing very well with the 180 other subcontractors on its books despite the Applicant having not worked with BTL for about three years, the Tribunal finds that non-revocation of the cancellation decision will have no impact on Australian business interests.
The Tribunal places no weight on this consideration.
(d) Impact on victims
Paragraph 14.4(1) of the Direction provides:
“Impact of a decision not to revoke 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 that information is available and the non-citizen being considered for revocation has been afforded procedural fairness.”
There is no direct evidence of the impact of a decision not to revoke on members of the Australian community including victims. While, illegal drugs, and particularly methamphetamine have a significant negative impact on the Australian community in terms of both the health and criminal consequences, the Tribunal considers that the prudent course in the absence of direct evidence of the impact of a non-revocation decision is to place no weight on this consideration. In these circumstances the Tribunal places no weight on this consideration.
(e) Extent of impediments if removed
Paragraph 14.5 of the Direction provides:
(1) 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 substantial language or cultural barriers; and
c)Any social, medical and/or economic support available to them in that country.
The Applicant is now 62 years of age and indicated during the hearing that he does not suffer from any medical conditions. It does not appear that there are any language or cultural barriers which would act as impediments to the Applicant establishing himself in New Zealand. As a citizen of New Zealand, the Applicant will be entitled to any social, medical and economic support available to New Zealand citizens in New Zealand.
The Applicant has always been gainfully employed in Australia and has an offer of employment here despite his lengthy criminal record. The Tribunal considers that this augurs well for his employment prospects in New Zealand. However, the Tribunal has considered the Applicant’s concerns that he may find it difficult to gain employment in New Zealand owing to his age, limited assets, past convictions and lack of social support.
The Tribunal finds that the Applicant will face difficulty in re-establishing himself in New Zealand and accepts that the Applicant may face difficulties in securing employment in New Zealand. He has lived almost his entire adult life in Australia and has deep and lasting connections to this country and its people. The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant would be very upset if he were permanently removed from Australia.
The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs against cancellation of the Applicant’s visa. The Tribunal attributes moderate weight to this consideration in the Applicant’s favour.
Conclusion: Is there Another Reason to Revoke the Cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa?
The Tribunal has found that the primary consideration of the protection of the Australian community weighs significantly against revocation of visa cancellation. Similarly, the Tribunal has found that the primary consideration of the expectations of the Australian community weighs moderately against revocation of visa cancellation. The Tribunal has found that the Applicant’s drug-trafficking and firearms offences are very serious, that there could be great harm to Australian citizen’s and residents if they were repeated and that there is a real risk that the Applicant will re-offend. The Tribunal has also found that the Australian community would expect that the Tribunal not revoke cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
On the other hand, the Tribunal has found that the consideration of the strength, nature and duration of ties of the Applicant to Australia weighs in favour of revocation of the cancellation decision and attributed significant weight to this consideration. The Tribunal has found that the Applicant and his close friends in Australia including his godchildren will be significantly adversely affected if the cancellation decision is not revoked. Finally, the Tribunal has found that the consideration of the extent of impediments if removed weighs in favour of revocation of the cancellation decision and attributed moderate weight to this consideration.
After considering all of the relevant considerations in this matter and the weight that I have attributed to them, informed by the principles in paragraph 6.3 of the Direction, I have decided that the primary considerations of the protection of the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community outweigh all other considerations in the Applicant’s favour both individually and cumulatively. In all the circumstances in this case, the Tribunal finds that the risk of future harm from the Applicant is unacceptable.
The Tribunal has found that the Applicant does not pass the character test and that there is not another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked.
Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the Minister’s delegate’s decision, to refuse to revoke the decision to cancel the Applicant’s visa, is the correct decision.
DECISION
The decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding 180 (one hundred and eighty) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member Tigiilagi Eteuati

.........................[SGD]..............................................
Associate
Dated: 7 August 2019

Date of hearing:

22 July 2019

Applicant:

By video link

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Ms J Samuta

Samuta McComber Lawyers

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Ms E Wallis

Clayton Utz

Attachment A
EXHIBIT REGISTER

File No       2019/2747................................................................................................................
Between     Paul Lansdowne................................................................................... (Applicant)
And            Minister for Home Affairs............................................................... (Respondent)
Heard on    Monday, 22 July 2019
At               Brisbane .................................................................................................................

Exhibit Number Description of Evidence

A1

Statement - Applicant (P Lansdowne) dated 19 October 2018

A2

Letter of Support from J Earthrowl dated 22 October 2017

A3

Letter of Support from J L Earthrowl dated 27 October 2017

A4

Letter of Support from W and A Cameron dated 20 October 2017

A5

Letter of Support from T Kosenko dated 7 November 2017

A6

Letter of Support from A Gorman-Walsh undated

A7

Letter of Support from A Walsh undated

A8

Letter of Support from A Callow undated

A9

Letter of Support from B Henderson undated

A10

Letter of Support from S Stan undated

A11

Letter of Support from W Burton undated

A12

Further Statement – Applicant (P Lansdowne) dated 17 July 2019, including attachment for “Lives Lived Well”

A13

Letter of Support from J-L Earthrowl dated 9 July 2019

A14

Independent report of Dr Jacqui Yoxall, Psychologist, dated 15 July 2019

G1

S 501G Documents

R1

Decision of Supreme Court of Queensland – Court of Appeal in the matter of
R v Lansdowne [2017] QCA 184

R2

Decision of Supreme Court of Queensland – Court of Appeal in the matter of
R v Allingham, Lansdowne, Marshall and Booth [1994] QCA 433

R3

Bundle of Summons material - Documents provided by Queensland Police Service of the Applicant's offending and Solicitors Office Report details.

R4

Bundle of Summons Material - Extract of documents received on summons from Maroochydore Magistrates Court

Court	Court Date	Offence	Court Result
Court of Appeal of Queensland	29 Aug 2017	Appeal against conviction imposed on 29/09/2016 (re: trafficking in dangerous drug specified in schedule 1)	Appeal dismissed
Brisbane Supreme Court	29 Sep 2016	DM 5(a) trafficking in dangerous drugs – schedule 1 (btn 22/02 & 25/06/2013) DM 9(b) possess dangerous drug specified in schedule 1 (on 10/05/2013)	Conviction recorded Sentenced imprisonment: 4y to be suspended for: 4y after serving: 2y Conviction recorded Not further punished
Maroochydore Magistrates Court	18 Aug 2014	[BA] 29(1) breach of Bail Condition granted (on 15/08/2014) [BA] 29(1) breach of Bail Condition granted (on 15/08/2014) [WA] 50(1)(c)(i) unlawful possession of weapons category d/h/r weapon (on 15/08/2014) [EXA] 11(1) offence in relation to unauthorised and prohibited explosives (on 15/08/2014)	On all charges conviction recorded sentence imprisonment: 3mo to be suspended for: 2yr concurrent On all charges conviction recorded sentenced imprisonment: 6mo to be suspended for: 2yr concurrent
Maroochydore Magistrates Court	18 Jul 2013	Fail to furnish approved form (12 charges)	On all charges convicted. Fined $10,000
Maroochydore Magistrates Court	21 Dec 2009	[DM] 9 possessing dangerous drugs (on 22/04/2019) [WA] 50(1)&(c)(i) unlawful possession of weapons category d/h/r weapon (on 22/04/2009)	No conviction recorded; fined $200.00. In default imprisonment: 2d Time to pay: 2mo No conviction recorded; fined $200.00. In default imprisonment: 2d Time to pay: 2mo
Forbes Local Court	09 Apr 1996	1. State false name 2. Unlic 3. Exceed speed	On each charge Fined $300 cc $50
Court of Appeal of Queensland	27 Oct 1994	Appeal by the commonwealth director of public prosecutions against sentence of 3.06.94	Dismissed Original sentence imposed: Fined $3000 2 months to pay i/d 6 months imp.
Brisbane Supreme Court	03 Jun 1994	Know.conc.possess prohibited import (cannabis) Possn prohibited import (6/2/92)	Convicted. Fined $3000 Fined $3000 i/d 6 mths imp. to be paid within 2mths
Casino Local Court	07 Feb 1992	1. Knowingly concern the import of proh drug	Extradition to Queensland to appear at Brisbane Magistrates Court

Date of hearing:	22 July 2019
Applicant:	By video link
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Ms J Samuta Samuta McComber Lawyers
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Ms E Wallis Clayton Utz

Exhibit Number	Description of Evidence
A1	Statement - Applicant (P Lansdowne) dated 19 October 2018
A2	Letter of Support from J Earthrowl dated 22 October 2017
A3	Letter of Support from J L Earthrowl dated 27 October 2017
A4	Letter of Support from W and A Cameron dated 20 October 2017
A5	Letter of Support from T Kosenko dated 7 November 2017
A6	Letter of Support from A Gorman-Walsh undated
A7	Letter of Support from A Walsh undated
A8	Letter of Support from A Callow undated
A9	Letter of Support from B Henderson undated
A10	Letter of Support from S Stan undated
A11	Letter of Support from W Burton undated
A12	Further Statement – Applicant (P Lansdowne) dated 17 July 2019, including attachment for “Lives Lived Well”
A13	Letter of Support from J-L Earthrowl dated 9 July 2019
A14	Independent report of Dr Jacqui Yoxall, Psychologist, dated 15 July 2019
G1	S 501G Documents
R1	Decision of Supreme Court of Queensland – Court of Appeal in the matter of R v Lansdowne [2017] QCA 184
R2	Decision of Supreme Court of Queensland – Court of Appeal in the matter of R v Allingham, Lansdowne, Marshall and Booth [1994] QCA 433
R3	Bundle of Summons material - Documents provided by Queensland Police Service of the Applicant's offending and Solicitors Office Report details.
R4	Bundle of Summons Material - Extract of documents received on summons from Maroochydore Magistrates Court