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

Li and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2021] AATA 169 (10 February 2021)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2020/4856
Re:Yutian Li
APPLICANT

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

DECISION
Tribunal:Dr Stewart Fenwick, Senior Member
Date:10 February 2021
Place:Melbourne

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
[sgd]........................................................................
Dr Stewart Fenwick, Senior Member
Catchwords
MIGRATION – Mandatory visa cancellation – citizen of PRC – Bridging (Class WA) (subclass 010) visa – single conviction – failure to pass character test – whether another reason the mandatory cancellation should be revoked – Ministerial Direction No. 79 applied – decision affirmed
Legislation
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Cases
Applicant in WAD 230/2014 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (No 2) [2015] FCA 705
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCFCA 185
HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 202
YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466
Secondary Materials
Direction No. 79 – Migration Act 1958 – Direction under section 499: Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA
REASONS FOR DECISION
Dr Stewart Fenwick, Senior Member
10 February 2021
BACKGROUND

Ms Li applied on 13 August 2020 for review of a decision of a delegate of the Respondent Minister dated 5 August 2020 not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of her Bridging (Class WA) (subclass 010) visa under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
Ms Li is a 40-year-old citizen of China who first arrived in Australia on 18 August 2015 on a tourist visa. She subsequently obtained a student visa on 6 February 2017, prior to obtaining her bridging visa on 25 October 2018. This visa was cancelled on 24 October 2019 under the mandatory cancellation provision in s 501(3A) of the Act.
The offending which led to the mandatory cancellation of Ms Li’s visa arose from her association with Mr Paul Pisasale, formerly the Mayor of Ipswich between 2004-2017.[1] Ms Li was convicted of two extortion offences having been involved in an enterprise which led to the widely publicised conviction of herself, Mr Pisasale, and another co-accused. Ms Li was convicted in the District Court of Queensland on 25 July 2019 and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 15 months, suspended after seven months.
[1] >
Ms Li was serving this term of imprisonment when given the opportunity, on 24 October 2019, to make representations with respect to the cancellation of her visa. Following imprisonment Ms Li was transferred to immigration detention, and she subsequently voluntarily repatriated to China in July 2020.
The Respondent lodged G documents, Supplementary G documents, and a Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (SFIC). Ms Li lodged a SFIC and additional documents were taken into evidence at the hearing, being: DFAT Country Information Report People’s Republic of China (3 October 2019) (Exhibit A1); a bundle of six documents regarding employment and social issues in China (Exhibit A2); letter from Mr Neil Kavanagh, dated 16 November 2019 (G14, pp 237-238) (Exhibit A3); and, a letter from Mr Paul Cook, dated 18 November 2019 (G14, pp 239-240) (Exhibit A4).
The hearing was held via Microsoft Teams and a Mandarin language interpreter attended to support the conduct of the hearing. Ms Li was the only witness in the matter.
Ms Li lodged an appeal in the Queensland Supreme Court against her conviction and on 10 March 2020 the appeal was dismissed (G5, pp 28-71). I was informed at the hearing that an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court had been lodged and, following the hearing, Ms Li’s representative confirmed that this application was pending.
LEGISLATION
Under s 501(3A) of the Act, the Minister must cancel a person’s visa if the person does not pass the character test because they have a substantial criminal record and are serving a sentence of imprisonment. Substantial criminal record incudes (by operation of s 501(6) and s 501(7)) where the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
Under s 501CA(4) of the Act, the Minister may revoke a mandatory cancellation decision under s 501(3A) if the Minister is satisfied that either the person passes the character test, or is satisfied that ‘there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked’.
Direction No. 79 – Migration Act 1958 – Direction under section 499: Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA (the Direction) sets out Objectives, General Guidance, Principles and considerations that are to be applied to decisions under s 501CA, including not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa. The Direction is made under s 499(1) of the Act and, under s 499(2A) decision makers must comply with its guidance.
The Direction sets out in Section 2 how the legislative discretion is to be exercised when taking into account particular considerations which are categorised as ‘primary’ and ‘other’. Both types may weigh either in favour of or against revocation of a mandatory cancellation (paragraph 8(3)). Primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than other considerations (paragraph 8(4)), and one or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations (paragraph 8(5)).
Application of the considerations is to be informed by the principles set out in paragraph 6.3 of the Direction:
(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.
OFFENDING CONDUCT
As will be seen from the summary of evidence below, aspects of the circumstances of Ms Li’s offending were raised at the hearing. I have already noted the ongoing appeals process in relation to her conviction. I will therefore set out the fundamentals of Ms Li’s offending drawing primarily on police and court documents.
The National Criminal History Check (G4, p 26) notes that Ms Li was convicted of the following offences: extortion with intent to gain benefit with threat of detriment (on or about 15 January 2017); and, extortion with intent to cause a detriment with threat of detriment (between 1 February 2017 and 17 March 2017).
The decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal (G5, pp 28-71) includes a description of the background to Ms Li’s offending which I summarise:
(a)Mr Pisasale formed a friendship with Ms Li when she was working as an escort in Australia and she told him, through her limited English, that she was ‘angry at the treatment she had received at the hands of the complainant, [X]’;
(b)amongst other things, she told Mr Pisasale that when living in Singapore in early 2016, she met the complainant (‘X’) and developed an intimate relationship. X led her to believe they would marry and live in Australia, later telling her he had a terminal illness and did not want her to go through the resultant suffering;
(c)Ms Li arrived unannounced in Sydney, intending to look after X and discovered he was married with a child, was not unwell, and did not wish to marry her;
(d)Ms Li told Mr Pisasale she wanted to investigate the truth, and said it had cost her airfares, accommodation and investigation costs, and Mr Pisasale resolved to try to get her costs from the complainant;
(e)Ms Li encouraged and joined Mr Pisasale, saying she wanted to punish the complainant, and provided full names, addresses and other information about her relationship with X;
(f)as a consequence, Mr Pisasale phoned the complainant on 15 January 2017 demanding a sum of money between $5-10,000 for the costs of private investigation incurred by Mr Pisasale, and threatened to cause detriment including by subjecting X to court proceedings, suing him for $200,000, court costs of $20,000, and being subject to adverse publicity from the proceeding.
The following summary is drawn from the transcript of the sentencing remarks of the Judge of the District Court of Queensland (G6, pp 72-80) on 25 July 2019:
(a)Ms Li was convicted on the basis she was a party to each offence and not the principal offender;
(b)the Judge did not know how accurate the information regarding Ms Li’s treatment by X was, and considered it was not relevant to the proceeding. However, a conversation between Ms Li and Mr Pisasale was covertly recorded and Ms Li ‘spoke of Pisasale having to punish [X] for what he had done’:
I do not have any doubt that you understood the correct meaning of that word, and that this notion of punishment … was the catalyst for this offending conduct … You wanted him punished for the way he treated you, either financially, or alternatively, by causing his wife to find out about his relationship with you.
(c)Ms Li ‘knowingly aided or assisted in the commission of each offence by providing Pisasale with [her] name and [X’s] phone number and address …’;
(d)by encouraging Pisasale to punish X, the Judge was satisfied that Ms Li had formed ‘a common intention to unlawfully obtain money from [X]’;
(e)sums of $10,000 and $8,400 were sought from X which the Judge considered a large sum for an ordinary person, and, furthermore, the offending under count 2 occurred over a two-week period;
(f)the Judge noted that it was partially to Ms Li’s credit that she eventually told Pisasale that she did not want him to chase X, and she told X, probably on 16 January 2017, that she did not want money. However, Ms Li then subsequently supplied Pisasale with documents concerning X;
(g)the Judge also noted that threats of harm in this matter included the threat of litigation, legal costs, adverse publicity about X’s extra marital affair [with Ms Li] and the risk of prosecution;
(h)while Ms Li’s counsel argued for a fully suspended term of imprisonment of 12 months, the Judge was of the opinion that ‘full suspension of a sentence would not properly reflect all of the relevant considerations’ and that actual imprisonment was necessary.
To provide further context I include the following drawn from the sentencing remarks relating to Mr Pisasale’s offending:
(a)Mr Pisasale and Ms Li embarked upon a course of conduct to punish X, and she said as much to Mr Pisasale on 13 January 2017, and ‘it is obvious that [they] had discussed this prior to that recorded phone call’;
(b)Mr Pisasale impersonated someone conducting a health survey, and also falsely pretended to be a private investigator in a number of phone conversations with X, and later enlisted a solicitor to ramp up the pressure on X;
(c)Mr Pisasale knew that Ms Li had not incurred costs as claimed in his conversations with X, and he also knew that Ms Li had flown to Australia ‘not at the invitation of [X] but of her own volition after being told by [X] that [their] relationship was over’;
(d)the offending conduct was only discovered incidentally to monitoring of Mr Pisasale’s conversations conducted by investigators of the Queensland Crime and Corruption Commission.
Returning to the Court of Appeal decision I note the Court’s observation that:
(a)Ms Li did not give evidence at trial and was not interviewed by police;
(b)Ms Li had only met X on three occasions;
(c)evidence from Mr Pisasale of what he was told by Ms Li was not admitted as proving the truth of what was said, and recorded telephone calls showed only that on 13 January 2017 she said to Mr Pisasale “you needed to punishing my ex-boyfriend”.
EVIDENCE
In her evidence Ms Li stated that she was in temporary employment in China, assisting at an English education institution. She had been in that role since October, and it would last until the end of 2020. Ms Li stated that she did not know what would be next for her in employment as the economic environment is not good and men are prioritised over women.
Ms Li confirmed that she completed a Personal Circumstances Form (G14, p 134) when in immigration detention with the assistance of her present legal representative. She stated that the contents of representations made to the Department (G14, p 149) and a further statement (G18, p 287) were true and correct.
When asked about her first application for a student visa, Ms Li explained that this occurred when she left the home of X, who she confirmed was the victim of her offending. Ms Li stated at that time she had lost her previous job in Singapore and considered she needed better qualifications for a better job in China. When asked why in 2018 she sought to enrol in early childhood studies, Ms Li responded, ‘I love children’ and because of her love for education she wanted to work for a kindergarten in China in the future.
Ms Li confirmed that at this time she had already been charged and was on bail. She stated that she studied between January 2019 and her court appearance in July 2019 and still had a further two to three months of study to complete her Certificate III qualification. Ms Li stated that she intended to go on to complete the further qualification in a Diploma course. Ms Li stated that if she were able to successfully complete this course, she intended to return to China and seek relevant employment.
Ms Li stated that when residing in Melbourne she both worked and studied. Outside of these activities she exercised, spent time with classmates and friends, and went shopping and to restaurants. Ms Li was asked how she met two individuals who had provided statements in support, Mr Kavanagh (Exhibit A3) and Mr Cook (Exhibit A4). She explained that she met Mr Cook at a bar and later visited his sister’s house on three occasions. Ms Li also met other friends of Mr Cook. Ms Li stated that she knew Mr Kavanagh as his girlfriend was a Chinese national and a friend of hers. She stated they went out together and usually met at his girlfriend’s house.
In addition to these friendships, Ms Li stated that she had other friendships and classmates in Melbourne and identified one classmate, one neighbour, her two landlords, a Chinese national and an Australian of Chinese background.
Ms Li confirmed the description of her relationship with X set out in her further statement (G14, pp 151-154) was accurate. She stated that they hoped to marry and have a family together. Ms Li stated that she was aged 37-38 at the time and did not have much time left to have a child. She stated that X had sent her pictures of a five-bedroom home which he said would be their future home. When he later asked for money, Ms Li stated she told him to speak to his family.
Ms Li stated that after four-to-five weeks, X said he became seriously sick and she sought advice of a Chinese doctor about how to help him. She stated that she ‘took [her] money’ and went to Australia. Ms Li confirmed that this is why she originally arrived in Australia in December 2016. Ms Li stated that on arrival her suspicions were aroused when she found intimate pictures of X with another woman. She stated that she became confused and thought he might be lying, although she was not sure. Ms Li stated that she then went to Melbourne to visit her only friend.
Ms Li confirmed the account of her relationship with Mr Pisasale (G14, pp 154-158). She stated that she did not know who Mr Pisasale was when they first met, just that he was an old man who would help her find the truth. Ms Li stated her English ability at the time was very basic and she used an application on her phone to communicate, which involved entering a Chinese word and showing or texting Mr Pisasale the resulting translation. When asked, Ms Li stated that she could not understand him as he spoke with a thick accent.
Ms Li confirmed that she provided Mr Pisasale with X’s contact details and overheard a call between them, which she mostly did not understand. Ms Li stated that she did hear X claim to be married with children, and not sick, which made her feel very miserable. She confirmed that she considered that X had lied to her and she wanted to stop him from doing to someone else what he had done to her. Ms Li stated that she translated the Chinese word for ‘warning’ and showed the result to Mr Pisasale which appeared as ‘punish’. She stated she did not know what the word ‘punish’ meant.
After a further conversation between Mr Pisasale and X, the latter called Ms Li and said that a man had called and asked for money, saying that Ms Li had engaged him. Ms Li stated that she ‘never asked anyone to ask money’. She denied knowing about further conversations and did not think X should pay money. Ms Li stated she did not know that demanding compensation was a crime and, if she knew what had happened, she would stop anyone from committing a crime. She stated that she had previously contacted X through WeChat, but on this and a later conversation he had telephoned her using a Chinese number.
In answer to several questions about the offence, Ms Li stated that the first time she understood the charge was extortion was when she appeared in court in Melbourne. She stated an interpreter told her it was considered that she protected Mr Pisasale and Ms Li stated further that she did not understand what extortion meant. With the assistance of the interpreter, Ms Li confirmed that she did understand what the offence was in Mandarin.

With respect to her Police interview (G14, p 158) Ms Li stated that a Mandarin speaking Victorian Police officer assisted but that his Mandarin was not that good, and he was not an accredited interpreter. She stated that she was asked to provide a statement to assist in the case. Ms Li stated that she was informed the case was not about her and that her costs of returning to Queensland would be covered.
Ms Li stated that after being charged (herself) in Brisbane she understood the reason. She described this as being that she ‘shouldn’t provide basic information to Mr Pisasale’. Ms Li stated that she had hurt X’s family and she was really sorry for that. She was asked her response to the conviction and she stated she was upset and thinks she should not have had contact with Mr Pisasale. When asked whether the story she had given Mr Pisasale was the truth, Ms Li responded that she told him the truth but ‘through translation he misunderstood’.
Ms Li stated in evidence that she ‘felt terrible and horrible in prison’ and would not break the law again. She studied some English while in prison but had limited time to undertake courses. When taken into immigration detention Ms Li was able to contact her family.
Following immigration detention Ms Li stated that she travelled back to China voluntarily in order to look after her mother whose health was not good. Ms Li stated that she stayed with her mother for two months after she returned from hospital and her mother then went to a nursing home. Ms Li then acquired her current employment and pays for her mothers’ fees. Her two sisters helped her mother prior to her return while in detention and gave her accommodation on arrival.
In relation to her current employment Ms Li stated that her monthly salary covers the cost of her mother’s nursing home and her bills. Her accommodation is included in the salary which she estimated at AUD$1,000. Ms Li stated that she has no idea about future work as a lot of Chinese students have returned to China. Lots of people in China have also lost their jobs and the market is very competitive. Ms Li stated that there is a cultural preference to employ older men over young people and she considered it will be difficult to find a job.
Ms Li was asked about the system of household registration in China and she stated that she understood the system and her current registration is in Heilongjiang Province. Ms Li was asked if she was able to change her registration to a larger city with a greater chance of work and she responded that she did not think she could transfer to another city, it was ‘very much challenging’. Ms Li stated that if you are able to obtain work in the location of your registration it is relatively easy to get access to social services. If not employed in the registration location, free medical services are not available and there is a lot of paperwork to obtain partial reimbursement. The position is similar for employment services she stated.
In cross-examination Ms Li stated that she currently resides in Shandong Province. Ms Li stated that in her current role as an assistant at an English school she helps with administration and with English classes. She agreed that she was born and previously a resident in Heilongjiang Province. When asked if she had lived in other parts of China, Ms Li stated she has also been to Beijing for a couple of years. When in Beijing Ms Li worked in a ‘computing’ role related to her qualifications in computer design and programming undertaken in Dalian.
Ms Li stated that she did not enter university from high school, but in 2010 undertook an entrance test for adults to undertake a three year ‘diploma’ course. Her mother sewed, then became a primary school teacher. Her father was an engineer in the private sector and died ten years ago. Ms Li agreed that she was ethnic (Han) Chinese and did not face language barriers where Mandarin prevails, however she is unable to understand some dialects, for example where she is presently living.
When asked about her current intentions, Ms Li stated that she would stay in Shandong if her job allows. She stated that her two sisters are older than her, both retired and over 60, and that the oldest has liver cancer. Ms Li stated they help care for her mother and paid for her care prior to her own assistance. She was unsure of whether they be would be able to pay if she herself became unable to help.
Ms Li confirmed her household registration is in Heilongjiang and to a city within that province.[2] She stated she could not move her registration to ‘a major city’ and had previously tried unsuccessfully to move it to Beijing. Asked whether she had considered other cities, Ms Li stated that she had not considered moving it to another city due to her lack of a permanent job. With reference to the DFAT Country Information Report (Exhibit A1) (at [5.36-5.37]) Ms Li was asked about the possibility of transferring to a smaller city and whether she considered she would be prevented from obtaining benefits and face restrictions in healthcare. Ms Li responded that she has not paid insurance for almost eight years and did not know how to pay in a new city. She agreed, nonetheless, that she was not prevented from moving.
[2] I understood the city to be Suihua.
Ms Li confirmed that she moved to Singapore in around 2013 with her first husband. She stated part of the reason was that the company she was working with in Beijing wanted to expand in Southeast Asia. She was unable to recall the class of visa but stated that she obtained a visa as a result of her marriage, accepting that this was a three-year partner visa. Ms Li stated that she met X around the end of her time in Singapore. She agreed that at this time she was nearing entitlement to permanent residency in Singapore.
Ms Li stated that at this time she was separated from her husband. She could not remember but thought separation commenced in July or August 2015 and they lived in different places. When asked to confirm the time separation occurred, Ms Li stated that she and her husband were still legally married and had not taken steps to divorce. With assistance from the interpreter, Ms Li then stated that the time her relationship with her husband formally ended in the beginning of 2016.
Asked if she maintained her relationship with her husband, Ms Li stated that she contacted him when she was charged, and he helped her with her second student visa. He provided a guarantee and offered to assist her if she could not pay the course fee. He also contacted her on her return to China. Ms Li stated that they are still friends and are close and have agreed to deal with their marriage at a later time. This is because he is a Singaporean citizen and cannot travel due to lockdown restrictions.
Ms Li stated that she did not complete her Certificate III course in Early Childhood Education and Care and said that she had two months’ study to complete it. Asked if she had inquired about completing her studies, Ms Li stated that she was advised she needed a visa to complete the course. Ms Li had found a similar course in China but considered the content not as comprehensive as the Australian course.
Ms Li was asked about her employment prospects in China in early childcare and she stated that she could probably get a job if she had a Chinese qualification and was in her early 20’s. For this reason, she stated she needs a ‘gold plated’ qualification in order to be more competitive as, at her age, she is seen as more suitable for administration rather than teaching roles.
Asked about returning to her previous work, Ms Li stated that she does not think she is competitive in computer science. This is because of the need to frequently upgrade your knowledge which she has not done in the eight years since her time in Singapore and Australia. Ms Li also stated that she likes early childcare more.
Ms Li was asked whether she had ‘substantial experience as a masseuse’ to which she replied that she had done ‘some massage’ in Australia. She learned massage in South Korea but stated she had not worked as a masseuse in either South Korea or China. Ms Li stated that she did not think she would work as a masseuse in China as it was very common there. Facial and foot massage in a mall was different to the kind of massage she performed in Australia and she was not interested in that kind of work. Ms Li stated she worked in massage in Australia because she had to live. Ms Li stated that her current job was the second position she had applied for since arriving in China, the first being in Shanghai, which she did not obtain.
Ms Li acknowledged that she obtained a tourist visa in 2016 and subsequently a student visa. Ms Li stated that she was assisted by a migration agent in China with these two visas. When asked whether she failed to disclose the charge to the Department, Ms Li stated that she did not tell the agent, and he did not ask. Ms Li also stated at that time she did not know if it would lead to a conviction, and she was advised by her lawyer to wait until she knew the outcome.
This evidence was then corrected and Ms Li stated: she obtained the 2016 visa through an agent in Singapore; she then engaged an Australian ethnic Chinese migration agent in Sydney for her first student visa; then in August 2018 she found a lawyer to assist with her criminal charges and he was also an experienced migration agent; when this lawyer asked for a deposit of $30,000 to act on her behalf she located another agent based in Melbourne and authorised him to act for her in September or October 2018.
Ms Li stated that she met Mr Pisasale when introduced by a person from Hong Kong. She understood that she was only required to provide a massage but stated that the moment she saw Mr Pisasale she became aware she was required to provide sex. Ms Li agreed that they went to dinner and later returned to his apartment. She stated that she did not think she was selling her body for money but that she had an emotional connection with Mr Pisasale. Ms Li stated she was not paid by Mr Pisasale but by the man from Hong Kong and that this was the first occasion on which she had been paid for sexual services.
Ms Li stated that she had no contact with Mr Pisasale from probably May or June 2017. She stated that she was ‘a little bit’ upset at him for being charged. Ms Li accepted that she had provided Mr Pisasale with X’s name, phone number, address and details about his immigration status. Ms Li agreed that she wanted X ‘warned’ and added that she wanted him to say sorry to her.
With reference to her links to Australia, Ms Li agreed that she has no children, no relationship to an Australian citizen, and that she is not in contact with the friends she met while studying in Australia. Asked about any contribution to the Australian community Ms Li stated: she had made friends with Australian citizens; she assisted classmates who were new to Australia; she exercised; and, in immigration detention she asked a friend to provide some money to a young Malaysian man and also provided some things to a young woman from Taiwan.
In re-examination Ms Li stated that she majored in programming in her undergraduate studies and had never worked in that area. She stated further that her work in China had involved real estate, insurance and Mandarin studies and that she worked in a technology company but in a sales and marketing role.
Ms Li stated that X had talked her out of applying for permanent residency in Singapore and promised to marry her in 2017 in Australia. He bought an engagement ring and had photos taken.
Ms Li named a number of her Australian friends, several of whom she said were Australian citizens and stated that her contribution to the Australian community also included teaching Mandarin to real estate agents for free.
Ms Li agreed that she understood why what she had done was criminal. She stated that she was taught as a child what was right and wrong and that her parents taught her so much, it was traditional that you must follow the law. Ms Li stated she was very good when in China. She stated again that she feels sorry for what happened and should not have provided information to Mr Pisasale.
In response to a question from myself, Ms Li stated that she knew that Mr Pisasale had said that some of the money sought from X was to be for her, however she did not know that Mr Pisasale had ever asked for money.
At the close of oral evidence, two statements in support of the Applicant were admitted. These were included in the G documents and had previously formed part of material submitted to the Department on the Applicant’s behalf. In his statement (Exhibit A3), Mr Kavanagh states:
(a)Ms Li is proud of her childcare studies and worked hard at the course;
(b)she was upset at being charged with the offence and could not understand how this had happened;
(c)being too trusting of others may have led to the charge;
(d)it is very important for her to work in childcare and she wants a visa in order to complete her studies;
(e)she is open, sincere and considerate, and she is not dishonest by nature;
(f)she will apply herself to her studies and return again to China voluntarily upon completion.
In his statement (Exhibit A4), Mr Cook states:
(a)Ms Li was a victim of circumstances, exacerbated by naivety, lack of language and cultural understanding and knowledge of Australian law;
(b)she has demonstrated a strong commitment to study and doing well;
(c)she is of good character, morally responsible and a solid citizen;
(d)he would assist Ms Li with accommodation while she completes her studies should her visa cancellation be revoked.
SUBMISSIONS
On the Applicant’s behalf it was submitted that Ms Li’s was an exceptional case among revocation decisions: her matter is extremely well balanced, but nonetheless the decision should be in favour of revocation. Ms Li should be able to have her revocation revoked in order to return to her studies in Australia.
It was submitted that the range of criminal conduct embraced by the Direction is wide and that, while the Principles at paragraph 6.3 state there is low tolerance for criminal conduct, it is not stated to be ‘no tolerance at all’. This is qualified by the principle that those on short stay visas should have no expectation of remaining in Australia, however, this too should be understood as not meaning that they must have no expectation of retaining a visa.
With respect to the Primary consideration Protection of the Australian community, it was submitted that:
(a)this was a sole offence and it was not pre-meditated, and the co-offenders also did not realise there was never a legitimate claim for money;
(b)the matter did not involve violence, or sexual offending, and the victim was not a vulnerable person;
(c)the sentence of 15 months with a period suspended was less than the 14-year maximum penalty so it was not a serious offence of its kind, and general deterrence was a factor in the custodial outcome;
(d)Ms Li’s offending was restricted to a short period, was out of character to her otherwise exemplary conduct, and she has no prior history of offending;
(e)considering the likelihood and consequences of any future offending (citing Applicant in WAD 230/2014 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [No 2] [2015] FCA 705), the chance in this case is virtually zero and no weight should be given to the possibility of Ms Li re-offending;
(f)if she were to reoffend, it was submitted it was unlikely that there would be serious consequences arising;
(g)the Tribunal should conclude there is no unacceptable risk in this case, and no weight should be given to this consideration.
It was submitted on Ms Li’s behalf that Best Interests of Minor Children was not engaged in this matter.
With respect to Expectations of the Australian community, it was submitted:
(a)this is a deemed expectation, but the decision-maker retains discretion (citing FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCFCA 185 and YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466). It may not be appropriate to give the consideration any weight and there are cases where the consideration does not weigh against the Applicant, and this is such a case;
(b)the Direction clearly allows short term visa holders to be permitted to regain a cancelled visa;
(c)Ms Li was not the principal offender, only aiding in the offence, and had no criminal consciousness while involved, she told the victim and the offenders she did not want any money and told them to cease their actions against X, and the effect on him was only light and he did not pursue the matter himself;
(d)Ms Li had been unable to undertake any relevant courses, assuming her kind of offending can be addressed;
(e)the term of imprisonment served must be understood as having had a deterrent effect on her;
(f)her conduct before and after prison was good and she has expressed remorse, albeit following a plea of not guilty;
(g)accordingly, this consideration does not weigh against revocation.
With respect to Other considerations, it was submitted on Ms Li’s behalf that:
(a)she developed strong friendships in her time in Australia;
(b)there is a slight impact on Australian business interests as it is beneficial to have Chinese students, who also make a cultural contribution by studying here;
(c)there was a negligible impact on the victim, therefore all these factors weigh toward revocation;
(d)despite her voluntary repatriation, Ms Li faces better prospects as an older woman should she gain her desired qualifications, and the consideration Extent of Impediments should weigh in her favour.
On the Respondent’s behalf it was submitted that the Minister’s position was that the question of low tolerance for criminal conduct was determined in the context of the mandatory considerations in the Direction. It remains the position that Ms Li’s visa be cancelled as a result of her offending.
It was argued that the Applicant’s submissions on the protection of the Australian community largely addressed risk of reoffending and that there are other factors involved, and section 13.1.2 of the Direction involves cumulative considerations including likelihood. It was also submitted that a finding of zero risk from consideration of likelihood and consequences in this case reflects a narrow reading of the authorities. The Applicant had not undertaken rehabilitation, and there was no professional assessment of risk and therefore, a low risk exists. Seriousness is also a factor, extortion is a serious offence, and the level of harm arising is not trivial.
It was submitted that the nature and seriousness of the offending and the sentence imposed was not solely a matter of general deterrence, in Ms Li’s case, but a result of considering all the circumstances. A custodial sentence is usually a last resort in the sentencing hierarchy, and this speaks to the seriousness of Ms Li’s offending, particularly as a first-time offender. The fact of conviction itself cannot be dismissed and the matter was upheld on appeal. Taken together with risk, this Primary consideration weighs against revocation.
It was submitted that minor children do not arise for consideration and that the deemed expectation of the Australian community was a matter for the Tribunal. However, it was submitted that this consideration weighs in favour of non-revocation because the seriousness of the offending indicates the expectation is that the visa remains cancelled.
With respect to Other considerations it was submitted the offending occurred shortly after Ms Li’s arrival in Australia. Taking into account the matters raised on the Applicant’s behalf by way of contribution to the Australian community, these should be considered as ‘grass roots’ conduct and do not amount to a significant positive contribution. They are not sufficient to overcome the Primary considerations.

It was argued that the Applicant’s submission with respect to impact on Australian business interests was misconceived. The outcome of this matter would not be the granting of another visa, so the Tribunal is not able to make a finding that there is any particular expectation with respect to her future enrolment in education.
With respect to the Impact on the victim, it was submitted there is no first-hand evidence from the victim. On the question of the Extent of impediments if removed, it was submitted that as a Han Chinese, Ms Li faces no significant barriers to living in China. It is disingenuous to assert that she is unable to access government services and the position is that there has been a significant relaxation of the registration requirements. Indeed, in her evidence the Applicant accepted that she could move. Accordingly, it is tolerably clear Ms Li could move and have the benefit of her existing qualifications. Therefore, the Applicant has the capacity to support herself and her mother to a standard available to other citizens of China. In summary, impediments do not give rise to matters outweighing the primary considerations.
It was submitted that the matter is indeed quite balanced but that where considerations weigh against revocation then the residual matters cannot outweigh such considerations.
In reply it was submitted on the Applicant’s behalf that her conviction was the subject of a special leave application in the High Court.
CONSIDERATION
I find that as a result of her conviction in the District Court of Queensland leading to a sentence of 15-months imprisonment, Ms Li does not pass the character test under ss 501(6)(a) and (7)(c) of the Act. Accordingly, I must consider whether there is another reason why the mandatory cancellation of her visa should be revoked.
Primary considerations
Protection of the Australian community
Under this consideration decision-makers must have regard to the principle that the Australian Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm arising from criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens (paragraph 13.1(1) of the Direction). In exchange for the opportunity to remain in Australia, non-citizens are expected to be law-abiding, respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
More specifically, decision-makers should also give consideration to the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date (paragraph 13.1.1 of the Direction), and the risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences, or engage in other serious conduct (paragraph 13.1(2)(a) and (b)).
In considering the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct, decision-makers must have regard to factors which include the sentence imposed, and the frequency or trend of offending. In considering risk to the Australian community, decision-makers must have regard, cumulatively, to the nature of harm to individuals or the community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or serious conduct, and the likelihood of further criminal or other serious conduct taking into account available information and evidence.
Ms Li has engaged in conduct which amounts to a relatively brief and confined period of offending. While the term may not be entirely appropriate, it might be considered an instance of ‘white collar’ crime. This does not mean that it should be considered less serious than, for example, assault or drug offences. This much is clear from the 14-year maximum that was available to the sentencing judge. Equally, the actual outcome in her case indicates that her particular conduct might be understood as having warranted a lower range penalty. The sentencing judge was, however, clear in stressing the importance of a custodial sentence.
I raised with Ms Li’s representative the intended impact of written and oral submissions which emphasise Ms Li’s limited culpability. I note, further, the ongoing appeal process. Her representative submitted that it was accepted that it was not possible to look behind her conviction, a position which I consider is consistent with the authorities.[3] Accordingly, evidence with respect to the nature and circumstances of the offending may play a more significant role when addressing the forward-looking elements of this consideration, risk to the Australian community.
[3] See HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 202 at [48].
My reading of the material arising from the criminal process, nonetheless, demonstrates to my satisfaction that the sentencing judge and the appeal court took account of arguments raised on Ms Li’s behalf relating to her culpability. That is, matters such as Ms Li’s misapprehension about language (‘warn’ v ‘punish’) and her apparent desire to interrupt the scheme implemented by Mr Pisasale, were front and centre in the criminal process and these arguments, in particular, were rejected.
It is appropriate to take account of the fact that circumstances and chance appear to have played an important, and probably critical, part in bringing Ms Li to the situation in which she currently finds herself. She was, however, found to be an active participant in the extortion enterprise, and I consider that I should place appropriate weight on the findings and outcome of the criminal process. I also take account of her evidence at [57] above. While slightly contradictory, Ms Li’s response to my direct question indicates awareness of the nature of the enterprise underway. That is, notwithstanding her particular fate, fate alone cannot be seen as explaining her involvement in the scheme.
I take account of the evidence advanced on her behalf with respect to the nature and circumstances of the offending, to the extent that they speak to the risk and impact of further offending. As part of this consideration I also accept that Ms Li has expressed contrition and that there is no indication of any prior or subsequent poor conduct, let alone criminal activity. I am not able to accept the oral submission at the hearing, however, that Ms Li has a zero chance of reoffending.
Some time was spent at the hearing examining the lodging of visa applications in the context of the timeline of Ms Li’s involvement in the legal process. I understand this evidence was pursued in relation to the Respondent’s argument in its SFIC that Ms Li failed to disclose this information to the Department. That is, that Ms Li arguably should have advised the Department that she had been charged and bailed. I also note that paragraph 13.1.1(g) of the Direction requires consideration of any non-disclosure of prior offending.
The issue of Ms Li’s apparent failure to make disclosure to the Department was the subject of a separate review decision in the Migration and Refugee Division of the Tribunal. I understand the evidence to demonstrate that Ms Li was not considered personally liable for misleading the Department, and on that basis, I do not see this matter as clearly revealing poor conduct on her part. This issue does not trigger consideration under paragraph 13.1.1(g) of the Direction as her conduct is not criminal offending until the conclusion of the criminal process.
The second limb of this Primary consideration rests on a cumulative assessment of the nature of any harm should Ms Li reoffend and the likelihood of further offending. This is not an easy assessment in a case where the offending conduct is, to a large extent, contested, the offending conduct is very limited in scope, and Ms Li’s time in Australia was limited.
The submissions by the parties cover a limited, but distinct, range from recommending I find either zero risk of reoffending, or low risk of reoffending. I note from the Applicant’s SFIC (ASFIC) that her risk of reoffending is there characterised as a very low risk. I consider this to be a more appropriate submission given that the ultimate finding of zero risk may well be a very difficult outcome to substantiate.
Formal evidence as to risk is limited, but not entirely absent. It is submitted in the ASFIC and in another submission made on Ms Li’s behalf to the Department (G16, p 243) that she was assessed by Queensland Corrective Services as having a reoffending risk of 1 out of a scale up to 22. The relevant report (G16, p 248) states Ms Li was assessed on the Risk of Reoffending – Prison Version as having a score of 1, described as falling into the ‘category of prisoners who pose a low risk of further general offending’. This assessment was not addressed at the hearing and it may therefore be inappropriate to analyse it, and the purpose for which it was created, to any significant degree.
In summary, I consider that Ms Li’s offending conduct must be understood as serious, based on the findings made and outcome reached in the criminal process. I draw on this same material with respect to considering the harm that might arise from future offending. Based on her sole offence, I consider it reasonable to find that the impact of any future offending could also be serious. Adverse financial consequences and other serious inconvenience is a foreseeable outcome for victims from this form of offending.
I also find that there is a low risk of Ms Li reoffending, but a risk nonetheless. This finding arises from the limited formal evidence to hand, but also from my assessment of the significance of the particular findings in the criminal process and Ms Li’s response to this process. While respecting her continuing pursuit of legal appeal avenues open, I consider that there is a troubling ambiguity at the heart of her case. I accept that Ms Li has expressed remorse, and I accept that she became involved in an enterprise not entirely of her making. However, as noted, I consider that the particular findings in the criminal process are contrary to core arguments raised on her behalf.
For this reason, I am not comfortably persuaded that there is adequate evidence before me to outweigh the significance that I must place on an ongoing risk of reoffending, albeit that risk may be quite low.
On balance, I find that this primary consideration weighs slightly against revocation of the mandatory cancellation decision.
Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision
There are no minor children affected by the decision and accordingly this consideration weighs neutrally.
Expectations of the Australian community
This consideration states that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia (paragraph 13.1(1) of the Direction). It states further that where a non-citizen has breached, or there is an unacceptable risk they will breach this trust, or where the non-citizen has been convicted in Australia, it may be appropriate to not revoke the mandatory visa cancellation. The consideration requires decision-makers to have ‘due regard to the Government’s views’ in respect of the issue of expectations.
I accept that, based on the authorities, this consideration is a ‘deemed’ expectation and therefore I am not to determine for myself what the community expectation might be. I also accept that there remains a discretion in the weight to be afforded to this expectation in individual cases.[4]
[4] See FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCFCA 185.
I have noted the submissions from the parties which have in common the position that this matter is quite finely balanced. I should also observe that, while there may be some rather sensational aspects to the background in this matter, such a perspective should not overshadow a more dispassionate consideration of the facts and circumstances.
I accept on its face Ms Li’s interest in returning to Australia for a specific and defined purpose. However, I take into account the principles expressed at paragraph 6.3(5), (6) and (7) of the Direction when noting that Ms Li has made a somewhat marginal contribution to the Australian community. She has spent a total of only some three and a half years in Australia, 12 months of which has been in prison or detention. Furthermore, the offending occurred within an extremely short period of time after her arrival in Australia.
Submissions on Ms Li’s behalf stressed in part the absence of criminal consciousness, and her subsidiary part in the extortion scheme. I have addressed these issues above with respect to Protection of the Australian community. I consider it appropriate to refer to these factors in relation to whether there may be an unacceptable risk of Ms Li reoffending. On balance, and taking these factors related to culpability into account, I do not consider the ongoing risk of reoffending in this case to be unacceptable.
However, this is not the only aspect to this Primary consideration. Under paragraph 13.1(1) I consider it is open to make a finding that the prior history of a breach of Australian law is sufficient on which to make an adverse finding under this consideration, because the existence of an unacceptable risk is expressed as an alternative ground in this paragraph.
On balance, I am satisfied that it is appropriate in this case to find that this Primary consideration weighs slightly against revocation of the mandatory cancellation decision.
Other considerations
In deciding whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation, several considerations are identified, but the Direction does not limit the range of other considerations (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.
No matters were raised by the legal representatives in this matter with respect to non-refoulement obligations. I do not consider the evidence to indicate that such obligations arise, and Ms Li has voluntarily repatriated to her country of citizenship. Accordingly, this consideration weighs neutrally.
I noted above the competing submission made on the issue of impact on Australian business interests. This consideration is stated in the following way (paragraph 14.3(1)):
Impact on Australian business interests if the non-citizen’s visa cancellation is not revoked, noting 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.
It appears from the wording of this consideration that it may be enlivened where there is a link to be made between the prior, or perhaps, intended future employment of the non-citizen. Ms Li’s employment history in Australia appears to be restricted to engaging in massage and escort services (the latter, on her evidence, for a brief period only). It was observed at the hearing by Ms Li’s representative that her particular work history did not involve illegal activity.
Ms Li’s evidence centred, rather, on her intention to continue studies. I consider her very indirect prospective contribution to the conduct of business by an unspecified education provider to be too remote to engage this consideration. Accordingly, this consideration weighs neutrally.
The Other consideration Impact on victims (paragraph 14.4(1)) addresses the impact of a decision not to revoke visa cancellation on members of the Australian community, including the victims and their family members, ‘where that information is available and the non-citizen … has been afforded procedural fairness’.
This Other consideration is expressed in terms which appear to require some specificity as to the impact of a non-revocation decision, together with a procedural fairness requirement. No evidence was produced which directly meets the requirements of this consideration. I might speculate, given the publicity arising from the convictions in this matter, as to the possible impact in the community, or among the individuals specified in the consideration, of a decision in the Applicant’s favour, but this would be outside the scope of the Direction. Accordingly, this consideration weighs neutrally.
Strength, nature and duration of ties
Under this Other consideration (paragraph 14.2(1)) specific reference is made to the principles set out in paragraph 6.3 (and cited above), and, in effect, reiterates principles 6.3(5), (6) and (7). Further, the consideration requires decision-makers to have regard to: the length of time the non-citizen has resided in Australia (less weight to be afforded where offending began soon after arrival, and more weight to time the non-citizen has made a positive contribution to the Australian community); and, the strength, nature and duration of any family or social links with citizens or permanent residents. Consideration must also be given the effect of non-revocation on immediate family members in Australia, but no such consideration arises in this matter.
Prior to her offending, Ms Li arrived in Australia on 12 December 2016. Within the space of a month she moved between Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, where she encountered Mr Pisasale. By mid-January she had relocated to Melbourne in order to study, graduating with certificate and diploma courses in September 2017 and October 2018, respectively. During this time Ms Li became engaged with the justice system, first in relation to the investigation of Mr Pisasale, and later as a subject herself. Ms Li was granted bail on 14 September 2017 (Attachment 3 to the ASFIC). The offending conduct took place in January 2017.
I have considered the evidence provided by Ms Li with respect to her personal connections while in Australia, largely surrounding her time as a student, and her conduct said to indicate a positive contribution to the Australian community.
Ms Li spent a remarkably short period of time in Australia prior to engaging in the offending conduct. I do not discount the fact that Ms Li appears to have developed a relatively typical range of local and international colleagues and friends as an international student. I also do not discount the contribution she says she has made outside her friendships, and in detention.
Ms Li’s personal connections and contributions, however, are not substantial. I consider it appropriate also to take into account the fact that she engaged in her offending conduct immediately after arriving in Australia. I will not restate here the issues addressed above said to reduce her culpability. I raise them only to observe that I do not consider these issues to be sufficient to outweigh the weight I consider it appropriate to apply to the short time spent in Australia prior to offending.
I accept that Ms Li’s history of offending, and the relative impact of her offending, are only relatively limited. On the whole, I consider the strength, nature and duration of her ties to Australia to be minimal and, accordingly, I find that this Other consideration weighs neutrally.
Extent of impediments if removed
Under this Other consideration (paragraph 14.5(1)) it is necessary to give consideration to the impediments of removal to the non-citizen’s 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 account of their age and health, any substantial language barriers, and any social, medical and/or economic support available to them.
I have considered the material admitted on the Applicant’s behalf that deals with age and gender discrimination in China. I accept, as a general proposition, that in the employment market there may be a pervasive gender bias against women, in certain roles, and that there has, at least in the past, been something of a bias toward younger employees. My understanding of this material indicates that at least part of the basis for discrimination relates to women’s role in child rearing and their expected domestic contribution in families.

Ms Li presently has no children and remains legally married. However, I would not wish to overplay this limited evidence about her personal circumstances. I note the context in which the issue of discrimination was raised by Ms Li’s representative. Ms Li’s application was advanced on the basis that she seeks to continue her childcare studies in Australia, over a defined period, in order to improve her standing in her preferred field of work. Ms Li has already obtained short-term employment in this area. She also has a history of studying and working in China until the age of 34.
Ms Li has, of course, also been out of the Chinese job market for over seven years. Nonetheless she also has a record of working for a Chinese company while living in Singapore and has Chinese undergraduate qualifications. There may well be some competition for work in childcare and age may be somewhat of a barrier, but I note she has relatively little work experience in the area and overall it is difficult to determine conclusively what impact discrimination might have on her future work expectations.
I consider the evidence as to the impact on Ms Li of the civil registration system to be inconclusive. Ms Li has demonstrated the capacity to live and work in different locations in China and her evidence did not suggest that working outside her registered location was a bar to government assistance. I also note the official Australian government analysis of the situation in the DFAT Country Information Report (Exhibit A1) indicates that the registration system is becoming less rigid.
On balance, I do not consider the exhibited material, and Ms Li’s own evidence as to employment practices, to demonstrate that she faces particularly significant challenges. While Ms Li may face some inconvenience, the evidence does not demonstrate, in the context of Ms Li’s particular circumstances, that it is particularly challenging for her to meet the relatively low benchmark that this consideration establishes for returning non-citizens.
I also consider it reasonable to take note of the fact that Ms Li voluntarily repatriated and has, on her evidence, been effectively engaging in daily life since return. Accordingly, I find this other consideration weights neutrally.
CONCLUSION
Of the Primary considerations I have found: Protection of the Australian community weighs slightly against revocation; Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision weighs neutrally; and, that Expectations of the Australian community weighs slightly against revocation.
Of the Other considerations, I have found that three of the stated considerations weigh neutrally due to their limited scope for application in this matter. Of the remaining considerations I have found: Strength, nature and duration of ties weighs neutrally; and, Extent of impediments if removed also weighs neutrally.
Under the terms of the Direction I may decide to give greater weight to Primary considerations. There is nothing arising from the evidence or my considerations and findings that weighs positively in Ms Li’s favour. I also note that I am not constrained to consider only Other considerations identified by the Direction. However, again, there is nothing arising from the evidence to cause me to identify a relevant factor that might amount to another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision.
Finally, I note that Ms Li plead not guilty and was convicted of a not insubstantial offence against Australian law. While on one level her conviction remains under challenge, the fundamental legal facts are presently also not in Ms Li’s favour.
Accordingly, I find that the decision under review should be affirmed as I have found that two of the Primary considerations weigh slightly against revocation.
DECISION
For the reasons given above, the Tribunal decides that the decision under review is affirmed.

127. I certify that the preceding 126 (one hundred and twenty-six) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Dr Stewart Fenwick, Senior Member

[sgd]..............................................................
Associate
Dated: 10 February 2021

Dates of hearing: 23 November 2020

Advocate for the Applicant: Daniel Cole

Advocate for the Respondent: Adrian Downie

Solicitors for the Respondent: Minter Ellison

[2021] AATA 169

10 February 2021

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Natural Justice

Statutory Construction

Remedies

Standing

Dates of hearing:	23 November 2020
Advocate for the Applicant:	Daniel Cole
Advocate for the Respondent:	Adrian Downie
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Minter Ellison