Letchford and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration)
[2019] AATA 26
•14 January 2019
Letchford and Minister for Home Affairs (Migration) [2019] AATA 26 (14 January 2019)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2018/6129
Re:Adam James Letchford
APPLICANT
AndMinister for Home Affairs
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member D. J. Morris
Date:14 January 2019
Place:Melbourne
The Tribunal decides to affirm the decision under review.
...............[sgd].........................................................
Senior Member D. J. Morris
Catchwords
MIGRATION – visa applicant – applicant fails character test under s 501(1) of Migration Act – sexual offending – other offending – discretion exercised on previous occasion to revoke mandatory cancellation of visa – subsequent offending – consideration of ministerial Direction – decision affirmed
Legislation
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss, 32, 116, 500, 501, 501CA
Migration Regulations 2004, Sch 2Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (Vic)
Cases
Cao and Minister for Home Affairs, Re [2018] AATA 1261
Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 153 ALD 337
GWSC and Minister for Home Affairs, Re [2018] AATA 4353
Singh and Minister for Home Affairs, Re [2018] AATA 2307
YQNY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466Secondary Materials
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, opened for signature 28 July 1951, 189 UNTS 137 (entered into force 22 April 1954)
Migration Act 1958 – Direction under section 499 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s501CA (Dated 22 December 2014)Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, opened for signature 31 January 1967, 606 UNTS 267
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member D. J. Morris
14 January 2019
Background
Mr Adam Letchford was born in February 1986 in New Zealand and is a New Zealand citizen. He first arrived in Australia in June 1989 when his parents emigrated. On 25 April 1997 he was granted a Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa as a New Zealand citizen entitled to reside in Australia. That visa was cancelled on
3 November 2017 under section 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs (the Respondent) cancelled the visa because the delegate was satisfied that Mr Letchford did not pass the character test because of the operation of section 501(6)(e) of the Act (sexually based offences involving a child) and because the Applicant was at the time of cancellation serving a sentence of imprisonment for a criminal conviction.
On 19 October 2018, a delegate of the Respondent made a decision to refuse to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa under section 501CA(4) of the Act. The Applicant has asked the Tribunal to review that decision.
The hearing was held on 3 January 2019. Mr Letchford represented himself, made submissions, gave evidence and was cross-examined. Mrs Jessica Letchford, the Applicant’s wife, gave evidence in support of his application. The Respondent was represented by Ms Siran Nyabally of the Australian Government Solicitor.
The Respondent tendered two volumes of documents under section 500(6F) of the Act (‘GD’ documents and ‘SGD’ documents), which were taken into evidence. The Tribunal also had before it a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions from both the Applicant and the Respondent, and other exhibits which are described in Appendix 1.
Issues and legislation
Section 501CA(4) of the Act provides that the decision-maker may revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa provided that:
(a)Mr Letchford made representations within the relevant time period provided for in the Migration Regulations 1994 (28 days in accordance with reg 2.52); and
(b)the Tribunal determines that the Applicant passes the “character test”, or, as provided for under subsection 501CA(4)(b), there is another reason why the mandatory cancellation decision should be revoked.
At GD, p 342 was a letter dated 3 November 2017 advising Mr Letchford of the delegate’s decision not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa. Mr Letchford made representations on 16 November 2017 seeking revocation of the mandatory visa cancellation decision and it was not contested by the Respondent that he had made representations within the time period set out in the regulations.
Section 501(3A) of the Act is a mandatory cancellation power. It relevantly provides that the Minister (or his delegate) must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if:
(a) the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because of the operation of:
(ii)paragraph (6)(e) (sexually based offences involving a child); and…
(b)the person is serving a sentence of imprisonment, on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory.
Before the Tribunal was a National Police Certificate dated 15 December 2017. It listed the offences of Mr Letchford commencing with a conviction in the Melbourne County Court on 3 October 2006 of sexual offences (three counts) committed between November 2004 and January 2005, namely sexual penetration of a child under 16 years. The Court sentenced the Applicant to 12 months’ imprisonment on the first count, the sentence wholly suspended for 2 years. On the second count, he was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment, 3 months of the sentence concurrent. This sentence was wholly suspended for 2 years. On the third count, he was sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment concurrent, that sentence wholly suspended for 2 years. Therefore, the total sentence imposed by the Court was 2 years’ imprisonment, suspended for 2 years.
The National Police Certificate also records that Mr Letchford was sentenced at Benalla Magistrates Court on 17 October 2017 for the following offences: Drive whilst disqualified, with a sentence of an aggregate 2 months’ imprisonment, concurrent and licence cancelled and disqualified for 12 months; Drive whilst disqualified (3 charges), and unlicensed driving (2 charges), with a sentence of an aggregate 2 months’ imprisonment concurrent; Fail to comply with reporting obligations, with a sentence of an aggregate 2 months’ imprisonment concurrent and a Community Correction Order for 12 months and to perform unpaid community work for 120 hours for 12 months on release from imprisonment.
Mr Letchford was also convicted on the same date of the following offences: use unregistered motor vehicle – highway (2 charges), drive vehicle with number plate not affixed/displayed as required (2 charges), fail to ensure child aged between 6 months and 4 years in suitable restraint, use methamphetamine, contravene a conduct condition of bail, commit indictable offence while on bail granted; the offences of: Breach alcohol interlock condition, fail oral fluid test within 3 hours of driving (2 charges), accompanying driver – exceed prescribed concentration of drugs; fail oral fluid test – 3 hours; drive vehicle whilst exceeding prescribed concentration of drugs, and convicted on each charge; the offences of: Possess methamphetamine, possess/use/carry prohibited weapon without appropriate exemption, possess controlled weapon without excuse. For all of these charges Mr Letchford was convicted and sentenced to a Community Corrections Order for 12 months and to perform 120 days of unpaid community work on release from prison, a condition that goes for 12 months (GD, p 45-46).
Offences contained in the National Police Certificate are relevantly reproduced at Appendix 2, omitting irrelevant or unproven items.
Section 501CA of the Act relevantly provides that:
(1)This section applies if the Minister makes a decision (the original decision) under subsection 501(3A) (person serving sentence of imprisonment) to cancel a visa that has been granted to a person.
…
(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.
Section 501(6) sets out the grounds for failing the character test. It states, in part:
(6)For the purposes of this section, a person does not pass the character test if:
(e)a court in Australia or a foreign country has:
(i)convicted the person of one or more sexually based offences involving a child; or…
Section 501(7) states, relevantly in this matter, in setting out what a substantial criminal record is:
(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…
The Tribunal had before it the Reasons for Sentence of His Honour Judge Chettle of the County Court of Victoria on 3 October 2006 (GD, p 51). On the basis of this evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Letchford was convicted of a sexually based offence involving a child on that date and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than 12 months. The Tribunal also notes, as set out above, that at the time of the visa cancellation, Mr Letchford was serving a sentence of full-time imprisonment. The Tribunal finds that he fails the character test under section 501(3A)(a)(ii) of the Act, which requires the Minister to cancel the visa of a person who satisfies that provision.
The sole issue before the Tribunal, therefore, becomes whether there is another reason why the original decision to cancel Mr Letchford’s visa should be revoked. In Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] 153 ALD 337 North ACJ stated at [345]:
The preferable conclusion is that s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) requires the Minister to examine the factors for and against revoking the cancellation. If satisfied, following an assessment and an evaluation of those factors, that the cancellation should be revoked, the Minister is obliged to act on that view. There is a single, not a two stage, process and the Minister does not have a residual discretion to refuse to revoke the cancellation if satisfied that it should be revoked…
Minister’s Direction – Direction No. 65
Section 499(1) of the Act provides that the Minister may give directions about the exercise of functions or powers under the Act. On 22 December 2014 the then Minister made Direction No. 65 (the Direction) and it came into operation on 23 December 2014.
The Tribunal must, under section 499(2A) of the Act, comply with the Direction in considering this matter. Paragraph 6.1 of the Direction states, in part:
6.1Objectives
(1)The objective of the Act is to regulate, in the national interest, the coming into, and presence in, Australia of non-citizens.
…
(3)Under subsection 501(3A) of the Act, the decision-maker must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if the decision-maker is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because of the operation of paragraph (6)(a) (on the basis of paragraph (7)(a), (b) or (c) or paragraph (6)(e)) and the non-citizen is serving a sentence of imprisonment on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory. A non-citizen who has had his or her visa cancelled under section 501(3A) may request revocation of that decision under section 501CA of the Act. Where the discretion to consider revocation is enlivened, the decision-maker must consider whether to revoke the cancellation given the specific circumstances of the case.
Relevantly, the Direction includes the following principles:
(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 vulnerable members of the community such as minors, 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 a 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.
In the case of deciding whether to refuse to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a
non-citizen’s visa, the Direction requires a decision-maker to take into account the considerations set out in Part C, which are divided into primary considerations and other considerations.The primary considerations in Part C are set out in paragraph 13(2) of the Direction:
· Protection of the Australian community;
· The best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision; and
· Expectations of the Australian community.
Other considerations set out in paragraph 14(1) of the Direction include but are not limited to: International non-refoulement obligations; strength, nature and duration of ties; impact on Australian business interests; impact on victims; and extent of impediments if removed.
The Direction sets out that the primary considerations should generally be given more weight than the other considerations and that one or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations (paras 8(4) and 8(5)).
2014 visa cancellation decision
Before proceeding to consider the provisions of the Direction, the Tribunal must consider the written submissions of the Applicant which outlined that, because Mr Letchford’s visa was cancelled on 19 December 2014 owing to his conviction for sexually based offences and that cancellation decision was subsequently revoked by the Minister, the visa should not have been revoked in November 2017 relying on the same offences. The written statement submitted that this was a form of ‘double jeopardy’.
The Tribunal finds that this argument has no foundation. The exercise of a discretion by the Minister or his delegate in relation to revoking the cancellation of a visa does not mean that the visa-holder’s conduct may not be reassessed at any time in the future. All temporary visas are inherently subject to the power of cancellation within the requirements of the Act (see sections 116 and 501). In addition, it is explicit that the Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa is, by operation of section 31(1) of the Act and Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 2004, a temporary visa.
The exercise by the Minister of the discretion, in this case to revoke the December 2014 mandatory cancellation of Mr Letchford’s temporary visa, does not mean that the Minister’s powers in that regard are spent. On 24 November 2015 an officer of the Department wrote to Mr Letchford (GD, p 337) to advise him that, following consideration of the Applicant’s representations at that time, the decision-maker had decided to revoke the original decision to cancel his visa. That meant that under section 501CA(5) of the Act, the 2014 cancellation decision is taken not to have been made and Mr Letchford was deemed to continue to hold his visa. The letter went on, in bold type, to state:
Please note: this decision does not mean that your case cannot be reconsidered again on character grounds in the event of further criminal offending by you.
Mr Letchford agreed in evidence that he had received the letter and had signed a written acknowledgment of receiving it at the time. That receipt (GD, p 339) relevantly states:
I, Adam James LETCHFORD, acknowledge that I have received the Notice of decision to revoke visa cancellation under s501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958. I understand that I can again be considered for cancellation of any visa I hold if further information of relevance comes to the attention of the department at any time in the future and that if this happens, my past conduct and previous relevant information can also be reconsidered.
Signature: A. J. Letchford [signed]
Date: 24.11.15
As partly outlined above, Mr Letchford has been convicted by the Court of more than 30 offences between November 2015 and December 2017. This led to the reconsideration of his visa status and the cancellation of the visa.
The presently constituted Tribunal considered this particular question in Re:Singh and Minister for Home Affairs [2018] AATA 2307. That case related to a visa refusal decision, but the general principle relating to the discretionary power is the same when considering the merits of a refusal to revoke a visa cancellation. Relevant to this matter, in finding that the Minister’s discretionary power is not ‘spent’ having been exercised in a particular way, I said in that decision:
The Respondent drew the attention of the Tribunal to the recent decision of Senior Member Pintos-Lopez in Re Cao and Minister for Home Affairs [2018] AATA 1261, which considered the general question of whether a discretionary power can be considered again when a previous decision-maker has exercised it in a particular way. With respect, the Tribunal agrees with the learned Senior Member in his conclusion at [59]:
In relation to the Applicant’s third submission, if accepted, that submission would be entirely contrary to the requirement that decision-makers, once empowered by statute to make a decision, must exercise that power independently (not substituting the decision of another) and for a proper purpose, that is, by turning their mind to the decision before them. The Applicant’s third submission proposes, in effect, that a decision be made without consideration and application of the relevant facts that bear upon that decision. I reject that submission.
The Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s argument of ‘double jeopardy’ is misconceived. However, it is important to keep in mind that while the power given to the Minister by the Act to cancel a temporary visa remains, the person’s offending history and other circumstances since an earlier exercise of the discretion may well be particularly relevant in the Tribunal’s review of a visa refusal or cancellation decision.
Oral submission of the Applicant
Mr Letchford told the Tribunal that he is the father of four young children: four boys aged 12, 4 and 18 month old twins. He stated that he came to Australia as a 3 year old infant with his parents. He said that when he was 10 years old, his mother left his father, and the family home. His parents subsequently divorced. He said he was forced to live with his father until one Christmas his mother returned and took the Applicant and his siblings away from their father. He said that at the age of 7, his father first introduced him to illicit drugs, teaching him how to snort a line of cocaine, and also forcing him to drink alcohol. His father committed suicide, according to the Court remarks (GD, p 52), when Mr Letchford was aged 17.
Mr Letchford said that he has been ‘heavily addicted’ to methamphetamine (ICE) for the last 12 years but has been ‘clean’ for the last 14 months. He told the Tribunal that while he was driving a truck on a highway in 2016, he witnessed a horrific crash involving two other trucks just ahead of him on the road. One driver was killed instantly and the second driver died of his injuries soon after in Mr Letchford’s arms. He said that this event had deeply traumatised him to the extent that he had found himself unable to re-enter a truck cabin since that time.
Mr Letchford told the Tribunal that he took full responsibility for his criminal history. He said he was proud of none of it and deeply shameful about some. Mr Letchford said he had stuffed up too many times and just wanted to be released from immigration detention to return to his children and to his wife, whom he married in January 2018. He said that Mrs Jessica Letchford had been a huge support for him in helping to ‘shake’ his drug addiction.
In terms of his children, Mr Letchford said that he had some contact with the oldest, who lives with his mother in another part of the State, but he regularly spoke to him by telephone. His second son was born while he was in prison in 2014, but lives with his mother in the same town as the Applicant, his wife and their twins. He said that prior to entering prison, he did visit his second son regularly.
Mr Letchford said that his brother lives in Albury and has spoken to the manager of a removals company who had indicated he could have a job there if he is allowed to stay in Australia. He said the manager knows his background of having been employed generally in the removalist industry for most of his working life and also knew of his general offending history.
Mr Letchford said that his mother, who owns a removalist business with his stepfather, was not understanding of the mental trauma he experienced from witnessing the truck crash and was herself physically abusive when he was a child and, perhaps more importantly, stood by when his father abused him. The Tribunal asked Mr Letchford whether his father was sexually abusive, and the Applicant described an incident where his father tried to force him to have sexual relations with a woman when he was aged 8 and he was subsequently sexually abused by a female friend of his father.
In terms of the sexual offences for which Mr Letchford was convicted, he said that when he was just 18 years old, he met a girl at a nightclub and they commenced a sexual relationship. He subsequently met the girl’s mother who invited him to live in her house, with her daughter. He said at that stage he learned that his girlfriend was aged 14. The mother condoned the relationship. He said that on one occasion his girlfriend brought a 13 year old friend home and he also had intercourse with her.
The circumstances of the offending were reflected in the Judge’s remarks (GD, p 52):
Briefly speaking, you were in a relationship with one young lady by the name of [redacted], who was 14 years at the time of age. You were residing in the home and with the knowledge of her mother you had a relationship with her. Over the course of about two months, between November and January of 2005, you engaged in several acts of sexual intercourse with her. You also, in the same period engaged in several acts of oral sex. They form the basis of Counts 1 and 2 of the presentment.
Whilst you were living with [name redacted] in her mother’s home, a friend, one [name redacted], the complainant in Count 3 was staying with you overnight. She was only 13 and you had sex with her at the behest apparently, of your girlfriend at the time. It appears that your conduct in relation to this complainant occurred on only one occasion on the night that she stayed over. She was 13, you were 18 and I initially had some concerns about that count in particular.
However, you are a young man of now 20 with only one prior court appearance when you were in the Children’s Court in June 2002 of theft, making a false representation and obtaining property by deception where the charged were dismissed without a conviction. Those offences related to you stealing and pawning apparently a CD player belonging to a friend of yours.
You have no other convictions, nothing of a sexual nature and you have no subsequent convictions or outstanding matters. Your background is set out in Exhibit 1, the report of Mr Newton, and I take all of the matters in that report into account in sentencing you. Before perhaps dealing with that report, I should revert, and each of the girls to whom I referred have made victim impact statements, and they were victims, they were under the age of 16, they were children and you committed offences with each of them.
It appears to me that [name redacted] is really distressed by the process that occurred subsequent to being charged, rather than by the act itself, and she simply describes it as being the result of being in a relationship with you. However [redacted – the complainant who was 13 at the time of the offence] is not so complacent about what has occurred and she talks about feeling uncomfortable where there are men, and that her views in relation to sexual activity have been changed because of what occurred. She believed that she would have become sexually active perhaps at 17 or 18, not at 13 and she’s been subsequently diagnosed with severe anxiety disorder and it seems as a result of the conduct that occurred. I take the victim impact statements into account in sentencing you.
Your personal background, as I said, is set out in the report of Mr Newton and I take all the matters in that report into account. Mr Grant, in a thorough and comprehensive [sic] on your behalf, traced your family history and I do not propose to repeat it. You have had a disrupted and dysfunctional life. You have moved around a lot as a child and you have had a family background that has been less than desirable. You have been left to fend for yourself, you have been moved from home to home and you have had to deal with a father who was obviously close to you but nonetheless an alcoholic and had his own violent habits and problems in the past.
You reconciled with him as years went by and in the immediate background to these offences your father suicided on New Year’s Eve 2003 and as I understand it, that is 31 December 2003, just some months before these offences occurred.
You were clearly an immature an[d] troubled young man at the time of these [sic] offending. Since then you are in a stable relationship and you have now become a father yourself. You have, I think, young [name redacted] to look after, and I hope you behave in ways that will enable you to see him grow up, because I propose to take a course that will see you released, but on a suspended gaol term.
The Judge took into account that Mr Letchford had made full admissions and pleaded guilty in imposing a two year but wholly suspended prison sentence.
Judge Chettle also told Mr Letchford that he would be entered onto the Victorian Sexual Offenders Register. Mr Letchford said he was subsequently interviewed at a police station and each of the conditions that he would be required to meet, as a person on the Register, was explained to him at that time.
In cross-examination, he agreed that he had failed to comply on nine occasions with his obligations under the Sex Offenders Registration Act 2004 (Vic) and that he was convicted in relation to failure to comply in 2008, 2009, 2012, 2015 and 2017. Mr Letchford said these failures to report were my own fault and involved failing to inform the police of new mobile phones in his name and notify the police of his new residential addresses. He accepted Ms Nyabally’s suggestion that this shows a pattern of disrespecting the law, but said it was stupid, not deliberate.
In relation to the most recent failure to comply in 2017, Mr Letchford said my drug offending is the biggest cause of my offending and my forgetfulness. He said that he became addicted to ICE and was using two grams a day from early 2016, after he witnessed the truck collision until he went to gaol. He said he was battling mental demons. When asked how he funded the habit, Mr Letchford said he didn’t have to pay because he was the driver of a drug dealer in the town where he was living and she gave him ICE as payment.
Mr Letchford also admitted to some use of cannabis, which he said he stopped using when he was around 15 years old, and that he used LSD when he was in his early 20s as a ‘social drug’. He said he also took speed and eventually graduated to using ICE.
Mr Letchford gave evidence of a turbulent relationship history with the mother of his oldest son. She was also an ICE user and drank alcohol to excess. He told an officer of the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services in 2015 that they were both taking speed, ecstasy and acid (GD, p 303). He told the author of the report that he and his then partner often engaged in physical fighting, but not in front of their son.
Mr Letchford was also taken through other offences of which he has been convicted, including threatening to kill and damaging his then partner’s car. He was asked about stealing offences in 2013 and said he was then living with a new partner, the mother of his second son, and hanging around with the wrong people and doing the wrong thing. He said that he committed burglaries in order to fund his ICE habit; he told the Tribunal that his (second) partner was also an ICE user, as were his then boss and his boss’s wife. He said that, because it was a small town, they targeted holiday homes for stealing property.
When asked why he recommenced offending after the Minister revoked the cancellation of his visa at the end of 2015 and he was released from detention, Mr Letchford said he was traumatised by witnessing the truck crash and also by the suicide of a friend in his presence. He agreed that he resumed taking illicit drugs early in 2016.
When asked about his June 2016 offence of trafficking in amphetamine (speed), Mr Letchford said he had a drug habit and was trying to make a quick buck. He said he was selling but only to his friends, and only selling speed, not ICE.
In terms of the prospects of him being repatriated, Mr Letchford said he had no relatives of whom he was aware in New Zealand; he said his grandmother, who lived there, died in early 2004. He said that he had made enemies with New Zealand bikies when he was in detention in 2015 because they had found out about his sex offences, and he believed they could target him if he was returned to that country.
Evidence of Mrs Letchford
Mrs Letchford gave evidence and endorsed written statements she had submitted in support of the Applicant (GD, various, and Exhibit A4). She said she first met the Applicant five years ago but they became reacquainted in 2016 and began a relationship. She said she saw that Mr Letchford needed someone to provide mental and emotional support and she loved him and realised that he was keeping bad company, from which he needed to be separated.
Mrs Letchford said she met the Applicant soon after he had witnessed the truck accident. She said she was then addicted to ICE but not using it to the extent that Mr Letchford was. She made her own decision to give up and told her partner that if he didn’t try to give up, their relationship would end. She said he started to give up.
Mrs Letchford gave evidence about the supportive role the Applicant’s general practitioner had played (which the Tribunal notes is corroborated in the G documents) and that she was arranging to expand this support if Mr Letchford is allowed to stay in Australia. Mrs Letchford said that she could not afford to move to New Zealand if her husband is repatriated and she felt that she would lose the current support network she relies upon in their town. She also considered that Mr Letchford would not fend well in New Zealand.
Respondent’s submissions
The Respondent said that Mr Letchford had engaged in protracted offending over a long period of time. Ms Nyabally conceded that much of the offending was ‘low level’ but that Mr Letchford seems to have been undeterred by the 2014 cancellation and subsequent 2015 revocation of that cancellation. She said that he continued to offend, despite being warned of the consequences.
Ms Nyabally said that the Respondent conceded that there was no doubt that
Mr Letchford had endured a violent and abusive upbringing but also that he turned to using illicit drugs in times of stress, noting he had made admissions to the Tribunal of using cannabis, speed, hallucinogenic mushrooms, cocaine and ICE. She noted that he had disregarded Court orders in relation to domestic violence. Ms Nyabally drew the Tribunal’s attention to the bench remarks at the Benalla Magistrates’ Court on
17 October 2017 (GD, p 70-71) where Magistrate Watkins said:
I am not going to release you today…There are just too many charges of driving whilst disqualified. That is a serious offence and you are really showing your contempt for court every time you are disqualified by continuing to drive. That has got to stop.
The Respondent contended that the sustained period over which Mr Letchford has offended is so serious, and the risk to the Australian community is so great, that this risk outweighs all other relevant considerations in this case and that, accordingly, the visa cancellation decision should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF THE DIRECTION
Primary consideration: Protection of the Australian community (paragraph 13.1 of the Direction)
The Direction requires, at paragraph 13.1(2), decision-makers to give consideration to the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date, and 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 conduct (paragraph 13.1.1)
In terms of the three counts of sexual offences for which Mr Letchford has been convicted, in his written statement lodged with the Tribunal before the hearing, the Applicant submitted:
To give this offending context, the incident occurred when the applicant was aged 18 and involved his girlfriend at the time (aged 14) and her friend (aged 13). The applicant lived with his girlfriend and her mother at the time of the incident, and the girlfriend’s mother was aware of the relationship. The sexual dealings were consensual, albeit illegal.
Whilst these circumstances do not detract from the serious nature of the offending, it should nevertheless be recognized that whilst the charges related to dealings with a minor, the behaviour of the applicant at the time did not typify that of a person given to committing offences against minors, and neither does it demonstrate any desire or propensity toward an attraction to minors. Given the applicant’s troubled background and his mental state at the time, it rather points to any immaturity of decision-making and reckless behaviour on the part of the applicant.
The Tribunal notes that, in his sentencing remarks, Judge Chettle discussed the circumstances of the offending. Each of the offences to which Mr Letchford pleaded guilty carries a ten year maximum period of imprisonment. It is relevant that Mr Letchford gave evidence that he did not realise the age of his girlfriend until after he had commenced a sexual relationship with her. Nevertheless, with this knowledge, the Tribunal notes he continued the relationship, knowing it was wrong, and exacerbated his offending by committing a sexual offence on another, younger, girl. He admitted in in evidence that he knew his conduct was illegal but that he didn’t understand the full implications.
These were serious offences: the Applicant was an adult of 18 and the two complainants were four and five years younger. The Court imposed a sentence of imprisonment commensurate with the gravity of the offending, but also exercised the discretion to wholly suspend that sentence, taking into account the relevant circumstances. It is a relevant consideration that Mr Letchford, when requested, voluntarily attended a police station and made full admissions of the offending and, when the matter came to Court, pleaded guilty.
The Direction requires that decision-makers view sexual crimes very seriously, especially such crimes when committed against vulnerable members of the community such as minors, as in this case. The circumstances of the offending provide no excuse for an adult undertaking this behaviour, but the Tribunal takes into account the considered quantum of the sentence imposed by the Court, which had relevant reports and other documents before it which were not available to the Tribunal.
The sentence for the sexual offences was suspended until 3 October 2008. Regrettably, before that date, Mr Letchford had again been before the Courts, convicted of failing to comply with reporting obligations and unlawful assault. The pattern of the Applicant’s offending continued, with convictions in 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016 and 2017. The Tribunal accepts the Respondent’s submission that the offending is, in general, of ‘low range’. However, there are some examples in a more serious category of offence such as assaulting with a weapon, making threats to kill and criminal damage. In addition, the number and nature of driving charges against Mr Letchford is not insignificant and, especially concerning, involved driving motor vehicles while affected by drugs. The cumulative effect of re-offending in this case is stark.
The Direction requires that a decision-maker also take into account whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned in writing about the consequences of further offending on his migration status. As set out above, that is the case in this matter. Mr Letchford had little to say in explanation of this, except to fully accept he knew that he was on notice regarding his immigration status, but that he did not have his heart in rehabilitative measures in 2016.
The risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct (paragraph 13.1.2)
The Tribunal considers that the risk of Mr Letchford engaging in further sexual offences is low. The Applicant’s written statement suggested that a possibility of the applicant re-offending in a similar manner can be ruled out. The Tribunal cannot go that far, because the fact that the Applicant has been convicted of sexual offences against two persons, offences that he knew at the time were illegal, means that there is always a possibility, if not a probability, of him re-offending in same way.
However, the Tribunal accepts that there was an element of immaturity in the sexual offending, coloured by a childhood which can only be described as blighted. Since that time, Mr Letchford has committed no other offences of this nature and has had adult relationships and children with three women. There were no psychological assessments before the Tribunal of his recidivism likelihood in regard to sexual offences, but there equally was no evidence of any such offending since 2004/05.
However, the Tribunal is required to consider all of Mr Letchford’s offending. Noting that the reporting requirements of the Sex Offenders Register are strict, Mr Letchford gave evidence that he knew what his obligations were, and yet he has continued to breach them – on nine occasions. Ms Nyabally asked the Applicant directly at the hearing whether he accepted that his failure to report shows a pattern of disrespecting the law, and he accepted that. He has also contravened domestic violence orders. He has committed property crimes, principally to fund his drug habit, and some crimes against the person. As the Magistrate said at the 2017 Benalla Court hearing, the Applicant has committed too many offences of driving whilst disqualified.
At the Court hearing on 17 October 2017, in relation to what was found in the car Mr Letchford was driving when stopped by police, the prosecutor told the Court (GD, p 60):
Police located an athletic [bag] with red trim on the passenger seat. Inside the bag was the accused’s wallet, three yellow sharps, disposal containers with syringes in it, silver and black electronic scales, small silver hand-held blow-torch, Kincrome box cutter knife, small calico wallet with a syringe, and Eclipse breath mint container, inside container small pink coloured Ziploc bag containing crystal powder substance weighing approximately 3.11 grams believed to be methamphetamine, another small Ziploc bag with point 38 grams of a crystal substance, again believed to be methamphetamine, another one being 3.11 gram… [and a] nunchaku.
Mr Letchford said in the hearing that he took responsibility because the items were in the vehicle he was driving but were not his. The Tribunal does not accept this as an adequate explanation, given that from the Court transcript, it was his wallet in the bag with the other drug-dealing paraphernalia. The Tribunal considers that there is not an insignificant risk to the community that Mr Letchford could commit further offences. He has shown a consistent, almost sustained, disposition to flout the law. Perhaps this is more through weakness of character than open defiance, but the net result is the same. He has a sustained pattern of unacceptable offending.
This primary consideration weighs against revoking the mandatory cancellation decision.
Primary consideration: Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision (paragraph 13.2)
As mentioned above, Mr Letchford is the father of four minor children. They are significantly affected by the cancellation of his visa. The Tribunal notes that the two older children are in the care of their respective mothers but that, especially in the case of
Mr Letchford’s oldest son, he does have regular contact with them.
The Tribunal also notes that the Applicant has infant twins with his current wife,
Mrs Jessica Letchford. Mr Letchford gave evidence about other minor children with whom he has regular contact including the son of a disabled friend, for whom he has performed certain fatherly duties, and his brother’s children.
The Respondent conceded that it would be in the best interests of all of these children, in particular Mr Letchford’s four sons, that the visa cancellation decision be revoked. The Tribunal notes, without doubting Mr Letchford’s love for his children, his parental involvement with each of them has differed. The Direction requires (at paragraph 13.2(4)(a)) to consider the nature and duration of the relationship and whether there have been long periods of absence or limited meaningful contact. The Applicant sees his oldest son only periodically, because he lives with his mother in Melbourne. In regard to his second son, he does see him as they live in the same town and it is evidence that he is on cordial terms with his mother, Mr Letchford’s former partner, who provided a written statement in his support (Exhibit A2).
The Applicant’s youngest sons, the twins, were born in July 2017. For a short period
Mr Letchford was forced to live apart from them because the State Department of Human Services was assessing his status as a person on the Sex Offenders Register.
Mr Letchford was arrested for breaching bail conditions and placed in custody on
23 September 2017, before being sentenced in October that year (GD, p 59) to two months’ imprisonment, backdated to when he was first remanded. On completing that prison term, on 22 November 2017 he immediately went into immigration detention, where he has remained. He married in January 2018 while in detention. Owing to the consequences of his offending, there have been long periods of absence in the lives of his youngest children, and Mrs Letchford has inevitably been the principal carer, though there is evidence of frequent contact visits when possible (noting that for a period of immigration detention the Applicant was on Christmas Island, which prevented such contact).
Taking the various sections of this part of the Direction into account, the Tribunal concludes that this primary consideration weighs in favour of revoking the visa cancellation decision.
Primary consideration: Expectations of the Australian community (paragraph 13.3)
The Direction states that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. The Applicant’s written statement said that this was not in dispute. The Respondent drew the attention of the Tribunal to the Federal Court decision in YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466 where Mortimer J said, at [76]
In substance this consideration is adverse to any applicant. :
[at 77] It was inevitable that this consideration would weigh against revocation: that is what it is intended to do (see Uelese [2016] FCA 348; 248 FCR 296 at [64]-[66]).
Ms Nyabally submitted that the Respondent agrees with an earlier observation by the Tribunal (in GWSC and Minister for Home Affairs [2018] AATA 4353) that, when properly considered, the weight of this consideration in the Direction may nevertheless undulate significantly according to the context and circumstances in which a non-citizen’s offending has occurred.
The Tribunal considers that properly informed members of the community might accept that there is a low risk of the Applicant committing a further sexual crime, but would also note a sustained pattern of other offending, and breaching of statutory reporting requirements and court orders. Significantly, the hypothetical community members apprised of the facts of this case would, the Tribunal concludes, expect that a person who has previously been in immigration detention and through the process of making representations about the cancellation of his visa, and therefore been well apprised of the consequences, but who then reverted to re-offending, forfeit the privilege of retaining a visa.
The Tribunal concludes that this primary consideration weighs against revoking the cancellation of Mr Letchford’s visa.
Other consideration: International non-refoulement obligations (paragraph 14.1)
The Tribunal is required to consider Australia’s obligations under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol. Mr Letchford did not make protection claims in this respect, nor were there any submissions relating to the Convention from the Respondent. In this circumstance and in the absence of
Mr Letchford ever having held, or having applied for, a protection visa, the Tribunal did not consider this consideration further, in the context of Australia’s relevant treaty obligations. However, in terms of what is sometimes described as ‘non-protection harm’, Mr Letchford made certain submissions which will be considered later in these reasons.
This other consideration therefore weighs neutrally in this review.
Other consideration: Strength, nature and duration of ties (paragraph 14.2)
There is no doubt on the evidence before the Tribunal that Mr Letchford has strong ties with Australia. The movement record provided by the Department (GD, p 341) showed that he has lived in Australia almost continuously since first arriving as a young child in 1989. He told the Tribunal that he has no close relatives in New Zealand; his mother resides in Queensland and his siblings also in Australia.
The Direction requires decision-makers to take into account what positive contribution a non-citizen has made to Australia. The Tribunal notes that Mr Letchford has been employed for most of his working life, since around the age of 16, apart from periods in prison and immigration detention. That is to his credit. The Tribunal had before it evidence of a number of skills courses Mr Letchford has undertaken over the course of his working life.
The Tribunal is also mindful that cancellation of Mr Letchford’s visa would have a significant and detrimental effect on his wife and children, and on his ability to interact with his wider family.
The Direction also requires the Tribunal to examine whether the Applicant began offending soon after his arrival in Australia. He did not; but the facts are that he first came before the Courts as a juvenile in June 2002 aged 16 (GD, p 52) and then committed a serious offence two years later. As his criminal history shows, he also has had a melancholy history of other offending from 2008 to 2017, appearing before the Courts and being convicted for offences each year in that period except for two.
The Tribunal agrees with the Respondent’s submissions that Mr Letchford would face some emotional hardship if he was repatriated, because of lack of immediate family in New Zealand. Balancing that is, putting to one side his criminal history, he has a good work record and a set of qualifications that would stand him in good stead in regard to potential employment. The Applicant and Mrs Letchford both gave evidence that he would not have the support structures available to him in Australia to help ensure he remains clean from drugs and to help him cope with his diagnosed mental health condition. The Tribunal does not accept this contention, given that New Zealand has a comprehensive range of government and other public support services relating to mental health, drug addiction and live-in treatment services (for example, SGD, pp 563-581). However, in making this assessment, the Tribunal adds the qualification that there is no doubt on the evidence that the Applicant’s now wife has been a positive and supportive influence in helping him get on the right path. Mrs Letchford told the Tribunal that she would not relocate to New Zealand if her husband was repatriated, but that is nonetheless an option she may reconsider.
The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs in favour of revoking the mandatory cancellation decision.
Other consideration: Impact on Australian business interests (paragraph 14.3)
Parties did not make submissions on this consideration. The Direction states that an employment link would generally only be given weight where non-revocation would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia, which is not relevant in this case. The Tribunal did not consider this consideration further.
Other consideration: Impact on victims (paragraph 14.4)
As noted above, Judge Chettle referred to one of the victims of Mr Letchford’s 2006 convictions as having suffered a severe anxiety disorder as a consequence of the 2004/05 offending. However, these events are now some 14 years ago and there was no contemporary information before the Tribunal relating to impact on victims, so the Tribunal did not consider this consideration further.
Other consideration: Extent of impediments if removed (paragraph 14.5)
The Direction requires the decision-maker to consider the extent of any impediments
Mr Letchford may face in establishing himself in New Zealand. Apart from the separation from his family, there was no evidence that Mr Letchford would be otherwise disadvantaged in terms of what is available to other New Zealand citizens were he to be repatriated. There is no language or cultural barrier and the social security support available in New Zealand is broadly equivalent to that provided in Australia. In particular, New Zealand has a range of accessible services to assist the rehabilitation of those with drug habits. There is evidence before the Tribunal of medication taken by the Applicant, in particular antidepressant medication, which would be available through the New Zealand public health system.
The Tribunal finds that this consideration weighs against revoking the visa cancellation decision.
Other matters
The Tribunal is not constrained only to consider matters covered in the Direction in considering whether there is ‘any other reason’ why a mandatory cancellation decision should be revoked. The Respondent drew the Tribunal’s attention to Mr Letchford’s conduct while in immigration detention and referred to a number of incident reports relating to the two occasions when he has been detained. The Tribunal was unpersuaded that these reports, taken as a whole, reflected particularly adversely on the Applicant. In particular the Tribunal notes that, where it was alleged in one report that certain
drug-related items were found in his room at a detention centre, Mr Letchford’s response that he shared the room with three other detainees and the items were found hidden in the bed of another occupant undermines this report, in the view of the Tribunal, as being probative.
It is convenient here to consider Mr Letchford’s written submissions, reiterated in his oral evidence, that certain members of New Zealand ‘bikie gangs’ were aware of his 2006 sexual offences and would, in his words hunt him down should he be repatriated. When asked in the hearing why he did not consider the New Zealand police would be able to protect him, Mr Letchford intimated that these gangs had infiltrated the police in that country.
Mr Letchford did not present any corroborative evidence to back his claims. While these claims were mentioned by others (for example his stepfather, GD, p 105), their knowledge was second-hand, based only on what the Applicant had relayed to them. The Applicant’s sexual offending was in 2004/2005 and that offending was, in essence, an isolated incident. There has been no other offending of that nature since that time that would be a matter of notoriety.
The Tribunal does not accept Mr Letchford’s assertion that the New Zealand police would not be able to provide protection to him in the event he is repatriated. The Tribunal considers these particular claims to be essentially inchoate and in the absence of any corroboration, does not consider that the Applicant has been able to make out a
well-founded fear of harm. The Tribunal therefore did not place weight on them in this merits review.
Conclusion
As noted above, one consideration might outweigh other considerations. The Tribunal does not take the approach that this assessment should be approached as a ‘tick and cross’ exercise. There is no doubt that the most significant factor in favour of Mr Letchford is the fact that he has four Australian citizen minor children. However, he had one child as at 19 December 2014 when his visa was previously cancelled (and another was born six days later). This is not a case where a visa-holder did not know, and did not know in detail, the consequences for his migration status if he continued to offend. The fact that his visa was cancelled in 2014 and the Minister revoked that cancellation with a written warning in late 2015 not to re-offend is pivotal in the Tribunal’s consideration.
Mr Letchford admitted openly that he knew the consequences if he continued to offend. Yet he persisted in putting himself in harm’s way, both in terms of drug offences, but also drug driving offences that could have had devastating consequences for him and potentially for other road users. Even taking into account mitigating circumstances such as his turbulent upbringing, and the trauma of witnessing a horrific road accident,
Mr Letchford appeared to the Tribunal to be an intelligent person whose adult conduct cannot be isolated and all attributed only to those external factors. He is responsible for his own actions and for the consequences thereof. An example is when he was forced to live temporarily away from Mrs Letchford and his children because of what might be regarded as a dubious decision of the State Department of Human Services. The Applicant said he could not obtain emergency housing so he decided to live with a friend, who he told the Tribunal was a local drug dealer. This is an example of one poor decision. But it was followed by an even poorer decision, when he told the hearing that he then became the ‘driver’ for this drug dealer. This decision led directly to his arrest and most recent 2017 convictions.
The Tribunal has carefully weighed all the considerations. There is a pattern of frailty of conduct which inclines the Tribunal to conclude that the risk of the Applicant re-offending, which the Tribunal judges is not insignificant, outweighs the considerations which weigh in the other direction. The Tribunal concludes that there is not another reason why the visa cancellation decision should be revoked. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the decision of the Respondent not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of Mr Adam Letchford’s Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa should be affirmed.
DECISION
The Tribunal decides to affirm the decision under review.
I certify that the preceding 96 (ninety six) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member D. J. Morris
..................[sgd]......................................................
Associate
Dated: 14 January 2019
Date(s) of hearing: 3 January 2019 Applicant: In person Advocate for the Respondent: Ms Siran Nyabally Solicitors for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor APPENDIX 1
List of Exhibits
A1 Letter from Wangaratta Community Correctional Services, 9 November 2017
A2 Written statement from Steffanie Tojner, 1 December 2018
A3 Written statement from Krystal Health, 24 October 2018
A4 Written statement from Jessica Letchford, 20 November 2018
A5 Written statement from Pauline De Bono, 28 November 2018
A6 Written statement from Lyndsey Letchford, 28 November 2018
R1 Volume of G-documents
R2 Volume of Supplementary G-documents
APPENDIX 2
Redacted National Police Certificate dated 15 December 2017
Court
Court Date
Offence
Court Result
Benalla Magistrates Court
17 Oct 2017
Drive whilst disqualified
Aggregate 2 months imprisonment. Concurrent.
Licence cancelled and disqualified for 12 months.Drive whilst disqualified (3 charges)
Unlicensed driving
(2 charges)
Aggregate 2 months imprisonment. Concurrent.
Fail comply with reporting obligations
Aggregate 2 months imprisonment. Concurrent.
Convicted and a community corrections order for 12 months. Unpaid community work, perform 120 hours of community work.
This condition starts on release from imprisonment and goes for 12 months.Use unregistered motor vehicle – highway (2 charges). Driv veh-nr plate not affix/displ as req (2 charges). Fail ens child in suit restraint – 6m-4yrs. Use methylamphetamine contravene a conduct condition of bail. Commit indictable offence whilst on bail granted.
Convicted and a community correction order for 12 months. Unpaid community work perform 120 hours of community work.
This condition starts on release from imprisonment and goes for 12 months.Breach alcohol interlock condition.
Fail oral fluid test within 3hr of driving (2 charges) accompanying driver – exceed p.c.d.
Fail oral fluid test- 3hrs accomp driver
Drive whilst exceeding p.c.d.
On each charge:
Convicted and a community correction order for 12 months.
Unpaid community work perform 120 hours of community work.
This condition starts on release from imprisonment and goes for 12 months.
Licence cancelled and disqualified for 12 months.Possess methylamphetamine
Convicted and a community correction order for 12 months.
Unpaid community work perform 120 hours of community work. This condition starts on release from imprisonment and goes for 12 months.
Poss/use/carry proh weapon wo exemption/appr possess controlled weapon without excuse
Convicted and a community correction order for 12 months.
Unpaid community work perform 120 hours of community work.
This condition starts on release from imprisonment and goes for 12 months.Mansfield Magistrates Court
19 Oct 2016
Possess cannabis
Possess methylamphetamine Possess amphetamineWith conviction, fined an aggregate of $1000.00
Use cannabis
Use methylamphetamine
Commit indictable offence whilst on bail
Contravene a conduct condition of Bail GrantedWith conviction, fined aggregate of $1000.00
Mansfield Magistrates Court
29 June 2016
Traffick amphetamine
With conviction, fined an aggregate of $800.00 with $117.00 statutory costs.
Use amphetamine
Possess cannabisWith conviction, fined an aggregate of $800.00 with $117.00 statutory costs as Letchford, Adam James
Mansfield Magistrates Court
28 Jan 2015
Fail comply with reporting obligations
With conviction, fined $500.00
Wangaratta Magistrates Court
18 Nov 2013
Drive whilst disqualified
3 months imprisonment. Concurrent.
Licence cancelled and disqualified for 3 months.Mansfield Magistrates Court
25 Sep 2013
Drive whilst disqualified
(2 charges)
Burglary ( 3 charges)
TheftAggregate 12 months imprisonment. Concurrent.
Concurrent with state sentences presently being served and imposed prior to this day.Go equipped to steal/cheat
Aggregate 12 months imprisonment. Concurrent.
Concurrently with state sentences presently being served and imposed prior to this day.Possess amphetamine
Use amphetamineAggregate 12 months imprisonment.
Concurrent.
Effective total state term imposed is 1 year.
Concurrent with state sentences presently being served and imposed prior to this day.
Non-parole period fixed at 6 months.Handle/receive/dispose of stolen goods
Aggregate 12 month imprisonment.
Concurrent.
Concurrent with state sentences presently being served and imposed prior to this day.Contravene community correction order
Proven
Breach re 11/02/2013 Contravene fam violence order
1 month imprisonment.
Concurrent.
Concurrent with state sentences presently being served and imposed prior to this day.Contravene suspended sentence order
Proven
Breach re 07/03/2012
Fail to comply with reporting obligations
(2 charges)Suspended sentence wholly restored. The restored term to be served is 45 days imprisonment.
Effective total state term imposed is 45 days concurrent with state sentences presently served and imposed prior to this day.Concurrent with other state sentences imposed on this day.
Contravene community-based order
Proven
Breach re 20/12/2011
Criminal damage (intent damage/destroy)
Unlawful assaultAggregate 1 month imprisonment.
Concurrent.
Concurrent with state sentences presently being served and imposed prior to this day.Sunshine Magistrates Court
11 Feb 2013
Contravene fam violence intervention order
Convicted and a community correction order for 15 months.
Unpaid community work perform 75 hours of community work.
This condition starts on 11/02/2013 and goes for 15 months.Broadmeadows Magistrates Court
07 Mar 2012
Fail comply with reporting obligations (2 charges)
Aggregate 45 days imprisonment.
Concurrent.
Sentence is wholly suspended under section 27 of the Sentencing Act 1991.
Operation period is 12 months.Sunshine Magistrates Court
20 Dec 2011
Make threat to kill
(4 charges)Aggregate 30 days imprisonment.
Concurrent.
Sentence is wholly suspended under section 27 of the sentencing act 1991.
Operation period is 12 months.
As Letchford, Adam JamesCriminal damage (intent damage/destroy
Unlawful assaultConvicted and a community based order for 12 months.
Mansfield Magistrates Court
21 Oct 2009
Prohibited person possess a firearm
With conviction, fined $1000.000
as Letchford, Adam JamesSunshine Magistrates Court
05 Oct 2009
Breach intervention order
Convicted and discharged.
Mansfield Magistrates Court
22 Apr 2009
Fail comply with reporting obligations (3 charges)
With conviction, fined an aggregate of $1500.00 as Letchford, Adam James
Broadmeadows Magistrates Court
1 Aug 2008
Fail comply with reporting obligations (2 charges)
With conviction, fined and aggregate of $500.00
Unlawful assault
With conviction, adjourned to 31/07/2009.
To continue counselling with the Sunbury Community Health Centre and provide a report to the court confirming that treatment.Melbourne County Court
03 Oct 2006
Sex pen of a child under
16 years12 months imprisonment. Sentence suspended for 2 years under section 27 of Sentencing Act.
Sex pen of a child under 16 years
6 months imprisonment. 3 months of sentence concurrent. Sentence suspended for 2 years under section 27 of Sentencing Act.
Sex pen of a child under 16 years
6 months imprisonment. 3 months of sentence concurrent. Sentence suspended for 2 years under section 27 of Sentencing Act.
As Letchford, Adam James
5
0