Lilly and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration)
[2017] AATA 330
•17 March 2017
Lilly and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2017] AATA 330 (17 March 2017)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2016/4344
Re:Mark Lilly
APPLICANT
AndMinister for Immigration and Border Protection
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member CR Walsh
Date:17 March 2017
Place:Perth
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
........[Sgd]................................................................
Senior Member CR Walsh
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – mandatory cancellation of applicant’s visa – applicant has “substantial criminal record” and does not pass the “character test” – primary considerations and other relevant considerations considered – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 – s 2A
Evidence Act 1995 – s 163
Migration Act 1958 – s 48A – s 82(2) - s 501 - s 501(3A) – s 501(6) – s 501(7) – s 501(7A) – s 501CA(4)CASES
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Daniele (1981) 5 ALD 135
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Gungor (1982) 4 ALD 575
Saffron v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (No 2) (1991) 30 FCR 234; 102 ALR 19
Taillez and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] AATA 1045SECONDARY MATERIALS
Administrative Appeals Tribunal General Practice Direction, issued by President Kerr J on 30 June 2015 at [4.41]
Direction No. 65 – 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 501CAREASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member CR Walsh
17 March 2017
INTRODUCTION
Mr Lilly seeks review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Minister), dated 15 June 2016, not to revoke the mandatory cancellation, under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Act), of Mr Lilly’s Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category visa pursuant to s 501CA(4) of the Act, as he was not satisfied that Mr Lilly passed the “character test”, as defined in s 501 of the Act (s 501CA(4)(b)(i) of the Act) or that there was another reason why the mandatory visa cancellation decision should be revoked (s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act).
FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Mr Lilly is a 35 year old citizen of New Zealand.
Mr Lilly migrated to Australia with his parents in 1988 at the age of 8. Mr Lilly has resided in Australia since that time except for a few short visits to New Zealand and Bali.
Mr Lilly was the holder of a Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa.
On 4 June 2015, Mr Lilly’s visa was cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Act on the basis that he did not pass the “character test” (in s 501(6)(a)) by virtue of his “substantial criminal record) (as defined in s 501(7)(c)) and because he was then serving a sentence of full-time imprisonment at Acacia Prison in Western Australia for a criminal conviction.
On 7 July 2015, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (Department) received a “Request for Revocation of a Mandatory Visa Cancellation Under Section 501(3A)”, dated 29 June 2015 (Revocation Request). Mr Lilly’s reasons for requesting revocation of his visa cancellation are set out in a letter attached to the Revocation Request, as follows:
I arrived in Australia with my mother, father and sister in 1988 at the age of 8 years old. I’m currently living at Acacia Prison. Since coming to Acacia Prison I’ve had a lot of time to reavaluate (sic.) my life chooses (sic.) and the choses (sic.) I wish to make in the future. I’ve tried (sic.) to better myself by doing voluntre (sic.) coruses (sic.) and coruses (sic.) issued to me such as a Cert 4 in OHS, Cert I IT, CCG SKILL witch (sic.) consiss (sic.) of life choices. I’ve all so (sic.) done a pathways course witch (sic.) looks at my behaviour with drug and alcohol choices. I feel along with these courses and my strong mind set I’m able to change my ways and better myself so I can be a better person for my family and the community (sic.). I’m currently looking into doing a degree in drug & alcohol cousiling (sic.). So once released I can help stear (sic.) young youth to not travel down the same path that I’ve traveled (sic.) down.
I have a 12 year old little girl that I’ve cared for since she was born and my main focus is to make sure upon my release my dauther (sic.) has a stable father and a deasent (sic.) role model to give her the best chance. While being in prison my daughter has been residing at my mother & fathers house. Just last year my father suffed (sic.) a brain anyisium (sic.) and since then his health has started to decline so I am also focusing on picking up a lot of the slack as my family need me to do so.
If I were to be deported it would be a major struggle for myself and I could only imagine the pain it would cause my daughter and loved ones. In NZ I have no family or friends of who (sic.) I could ask for any help even so I’ve had no contact with them and neather (sic.) has my imediete (sic.) family.
So I am asking you to reconsider my visa canselation (sic.) as these are just some valid points as to why I wish stay and at a later date my family and friends will send referenced also regarding my carater (sic.).
On 15 June 2016, the Minister decided not to revoke the cancellation of Mr Lilly’s visa as he was not satisfied that Mr Lilly passed the “character test” or that there was another reason why the cancellation of his visa should be revoked.
On 15 September 2016, Mr Lilly lodged with the Tribunal an extension of time to lodge an application for review for review of the Minister’s decision, dated 15 June 2016, not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa. That extension was granted.
Mr Lilly subsequently filed an application for review with the Tribunal but did not pay the applicable filing fee (allowing him to lodge the application) until 1 November 2016, following being notified by the Tribunal that his application would be dismissed if this fee was not paid. On 1 November 2016, the Tribunal issued a “Notice of Application for Review of Decision” to both Mr Lilly and the Minister.
In support of his review application, Mr Lilly provides a letter, dated 3 July 2016, stating the following:
…
Obviously I do have a criminal record which is the originator for the cancelation (sic.) of my visa and I am accountable for my own criminal behaviour.
I do wish to apply for mercy in the consideration of my application for review of the decision from the Ministers office. My request for mercy is mostly due to my father’s ill-health.
My father is 70 years old on the 23rd of December this year,…and he’s suffered a severe aneurysm (sic.) in his brain and his health has been in decline since which has placed even more strain on my mother who has developed depression because she is looking after him and my daughter who is 12 years old.
To put it simply my daughter needs her Dad, my Dad needs me and so does my mother. All three of those people wish to act as my sponsor and I wish to remain as their (sic.) carer. My father’s health is declining and is affecting my mother’s health. It is too much to ask them to take on my daughter as well. They all need me here in Australia to help.
I wish to be able to submit more documents subsequent to this submission to establish both my mother and father’s medical conditions to demonstrate the compassionate and compelling grounds on which I rely.
My daughter does not have any support or contact with her mother, I am her only perant (sic.) and it is in her best interests to have a relationship with her natural perant (sic.). If I am forceably (sic.) removed from Australia it will have a significant negative impact upon her both psychologically and emotionally. I am very worried about her future. My daughter is innocent and just starting out in life and it has been a rough start for her with her mother gone and me in prison.
A lot of hard work needs to be done to help her develop and adjust to adult life. I can’t do that from New Zealand. I need to be here.
Again I would like the opportunity to provide documents to this Tribunal to assist in my application for review. For example letters of support from friends and family.
I ask for an injunction preventing my removal from Australia until a final determination is made on my visa to remain in Australia…
I would also like to provide an affidavit in support of this application and the injunction as well as affidavits from friends and family.
I would also like to call people to give evidence in support of my application, if possible.
Of course I am very upset about the damage I have done to my family and my adopted country and I would like to make amends by careing (sic.) for my perants (sic.) and my daughter for the rest of their (sic.) lives. I know saying sorry doesn’t make it all better but I am sorry. I can’t imagine how scared my daughter is faced with the prospect of growing up without either of her pernants (sic.) and more than likely having to care for my perants (sic.) at a very young age. It (sic.) not right and I wish to atone for wrongs by picking up some of the load for all of the ones I love.
I would be willing to submit to any conditions this Tribunal sees fit in order to remain here in Australia.
I would also be willing to undertake further participation in programs to address any behavioural concerns this Tribunal has about me [and] any perceived threat that it is considered I may pose to the Australian community.
Please give this application and the subsequent documents I submit your careful and merciful consideration for the sake of my family.
At the commencement of the hearing, Mr Lilly said that he was not ready to proceed with the hearing of his application and that he wanted to get legal representation. Mr Lilly said that he was not aware that the matter was to be heard on 13 March 2017 and that he thought the hearing was to be held on 17 March 2017.
However, it is clear from the Registry file that the Tribunal’s Acting Deputy District Registrar, sent Mr Lilly a listing notice on 24 January 2017 advising him that this matter had been listed for hearing on 13 and 17 March 2017 (i.e. for two days).
The Tribunal notes that the General Practice Direction, issued by the President of the Tribunal, Kerr J, on 30 June 2015, states the following in relation to adjournment applications:
4.41 We will not grant an application for adjournment made less than ten working days before the hearing unless there are particular and compelling reasons for the hearing to be adjourned. An application made on the day of the hearing, even when advance notice has been given, will not be granted unless there are exceptional reasons.
The purpose underlying the General Practice Direction is that the Tribunal must manage cases in a way that brings them to an early conclusion. Section 2A of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the AAT Act) provides as follows:
2A Tribunal’s objective
In carrying out its functions, the Tribunal must pursue the objective of providing a mechanism of review that:
…
(b) is fair, just, economical, informal and quick;
…
This application has been on foot since at least 14 September 2016: refer to paragraph 8 above. As such, Mr Lilly has had ample time to obtain legal representation and prepare for this application (for example, by obtaining witness statements in support of his application from family members and friends as he indicated in the letter in support of his application that he would or by making relevant family members and/or friends available at the hearing to give evidence: refer to paragraph 10 above). The Tribunal finds that no “exceptional reasons” for granting an adjournment on the day of the hearing exist in this case. It was on this basis that the Tribunal refused Mr Lilly’s request for an adjournment (at the commencement of the hearing) and proceeded to hear his application.
ISSUES
The issue for the Tribunal is whether in the circumstances of this case, the discretion in s 501CA(4) of the Act should be exercised in Mr Lilly’s favour such that the mandatory cancellation of his visa should be revoked.
In consideration of this, the Tribunal will need to determine, on the facts, whether it is satisfied that:
(i)Mr Lilly passes the character test (in s 501 of the Act); or
(ii)there is another reason why the mandatory cancellation of Mr Lilly’s visa should be revoked.
CONSIDERATION
Mandatory visa cancellation
Section 501(3A) of the Act provides:
Decision of Minister or delegate – mandatory cancellation
501(3A)The Minister 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:
(i)paragraph (6)(a) (substantial criminal record), on the basis of (7)(a), (b) or (c); or
(ii) …; and
(b)the person is serving a sentence of imprisonment, on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, for an office against a law of the Commonwealth, State or Territory.
(emphasis added)
Section 501(6) of the Act provides:
Character test
501(6)For the purposes of this section, a person does not pass the “character test” if:
(a)the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by subsection (7)); or
(emphasis added)
Section 501(7)(c) of the Act states:
Substantial criminal record
501(7)For the purposes of the character test, a person has a “substantial criminal record” if:
…
(d)the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.
(emphasis added)
It is common ground that Mr Lilly does not pass the “character test” (in s 501(6) of the Act as he has a “substantial criminal record” (as defined in s 501(7)(d) of the Act) and, at the time his visa was cancelled, he was serving a “sentence of imprisonment, on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law” of the State of Western Australia (for the purpose of s 501(3A)(b) of the Act) such that the Minister “must” cancel Mr Lilly’s visa under s 501(3A) of the Act.
Discretion to revoke mandatory visa cancellation – s 501CA
Section 501CA(4) of the Act provides that the Minister “may” revoke a decision to cancel a visa under s 501(3A) of the Act (referred to in s 501CA(4) of the Act as the “original decision”) if:
(a) the person makes representation 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.
(emphasis added)
Direction 65 commenced on 22 December 2014 and is binding on all decision-makers (including the Tribunal on review) from that date. Direction 65 provides guidance to decision-makers on, inter alia, the exercise of the discretion in s 501CA(4) of the Act to revoke the cancellation of visa which was mandatorily cancelled by the Minister pursuant to s 501(3A) of the Act.
Paragraph 7(1) of Direction 65 provides guidance as to how the discretion in s 501CA is to be exercised. Paragraph 7(1) of Direction 65 states:
7. How to exercise the discretion
(1) Informed by the principles in paragraph 6.3 above, a decision-maker:
(a)must take into account the considerations in Part A or Part B, where relevant, in order to determine whether a non-citizen will forfeit the privilege of being granted, or of continuing to hold, a visa; or
(b)must take into account the considerations in Part C, in order to determine whether the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen’s visa will be revoked.
Paragraph 8 of Direction 65 states:
8. Taking the relevant considerations in account
(1)Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case…
…
(4)Primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations.
(emphasis added)
Paragraph 13(2) of Part C of Direction 65 sets out the primary considerations that a decision-maker must take into account in deciding whether to revoke the cancellation of a non-citizen’s visa. Paragraph 13(2) of Direction 65 states:
13. Primary considerations – revocation requests
…
(2)In deciding whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen’s visa, the following are primary considerations:
(a)Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(b)The best interests of minor children in Australia;
(c)Expectations of the Australian community.
Due consideration is to be given by decision-makers (including the Tribunal on review) to the “General Guidance” and “Principles” set out in the “Preamble” in paragraph 6 of Direction 65. In particular, paragraphs 6.2(1), 6.3(2) 6.3(3), 6.3(3), 6.3(4), 6.3(5)and 6.3(7) of Direction 65 provide:
6.2 General Guidance
(1)The Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. The principles below are of critical importance in furthering that objective, and reflect community values and standards with respect to determining whether the risk of future harm from a non-citizen is unacceptable.
…
6.3 Principles
…
(2)The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizen’s, 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 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.
…
(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.
(emphasis added)
Primary considerations
(i) Protection of the Australian Community
Paragraph 13.1(1) of Direction 65 provides that decision-makers considering protection of the Australian community should be guided by paragraph 6.2(1) of Direction 65 (set out above in paragraph 22) and paragraph 13.1(2) of Direction 65 identifies the following two factors to which consideration should also be given:
(a) The nature and seriousness of the person’s conduct to date; and
(b)The risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
(emphasis added)
(a) Nature and seriousness of the conduct
Paragraph 13.1.1(1) of Direction 65 provides a non-exhaustive list of factors to which decision-makers must have regard in considering the nature and seriousness of the person's criminal conduct. Paragraph 13.1.1(1) of Direction 65 provides:
13.1.1 The nature and seriousness of the conduct
(1) In considering the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s criminal offending or other conduct to date, decision-makers must have regard to factors including:
(a)The principle that, without limiting the range of offences that may be considered serious, violent and/or sexual crimes are viewed very seriously;
(b)The principle that crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community (such as minors, the elderly and the disabled), or government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties, are serious;
(c) The sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes;
(d)The frequency of the non-citizen’s offending and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;
(e) The cumulative effect of repeat offending;
…
(g)Whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware, in writing, about the consequences of further offending in terms of the non-citizen’s migration status (noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered in the non-citizen’s favour);
…
A summary of Mr Lilly’s criminal history is set out in Annexure A to these Reasons for Decision. Suffice it to say, it is extensive and includes serious and violent offences: paragraphs 6.3(3) and 13.1.1(1)(a) of Direction 65.
The WA Police “Detected Incidents Report” records the narrative of the incident on 21 March 2012 which led to Mr Lilly’s conviction for “grievous bodily harm” as arising from an assault of a former landlord of Mr Lilly at Mr Lilly’s former residence, from which he had been evicted three weeks previously. The narrative records, inter alia:
Mr S (vic 1) received a phone call from the rentee of [address] stating someone is breaking into her (sic.) address.
Mr S lives with his brother Mr C.S (vic 2) attended the address in possession of an inert air rifle.
Mr S went to the rear of the premises where he was confronted by a male and female. These persons were the ex tenants, Mark LILLEY (poi 1) and Ms G (poi 2). They had forced open a rear window and had attempted to gain entry. Both had been evicted 3 weeks ago, the locks changed, advised not to return and all their property removed from the house. New tenants now lease the premises.
Mr S told them they were not allowed to be here and to leave. An altercation has taken place and the parties have made their way to the front of the premises.
LILLEY has grabbed the firearm [an inert air rifle] off of Mr S and attempted to strike him with it but Mr S managed to defend the blows.
LILLEY has taken a couple of steps back run at Mr S holding the firearm by the butt and struck Mr S to the face with the barrel.
The blow knocked six teeth out, lacerated the top and bottom lip all the way through and fractured the right side of Mr S’ jaw. The blow snapped the firearm in two.
LILLEY continued to chase Mr S around still armed with the remaining part of the firearm up the road threatening to further assault him.
Mr S sought refuge in a house up the road... The occupants were also threatened by Mr S that if they assisted him they would be assaulted as well.
Mr S is 71 years of age.
(emphasis added)
As is evident from the above “Detected Incidents Report”, Mr Lilly’s “grievous bodily harm” crime, being a serious and violent crime, was committed against a 71 year old man, being a vulnerable member of the community: paragraphs 6.3(3) and 13.1.1(1)(b) of Direction 65. This weighs against revocation of the mandatory cancellation of Mr Lilly’s visa.
At the hearing, Mr Lilly said that he pleaded “not-guilty” to the “grievous bodily harm” offence and that it was he who had had his life threatened. It is well-established that the Tribunal cannot go behind a conviction and examine the facts on which it is based: Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Gungor (1982) 4 ALD 575; Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Daniele (1981) 5 ALD 135; Saffron v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (No 2) (1991) 30 FCR 234; 103 ALR 19.
The serious nature of Mr Lilly’s offending is reflected in the sentences imposed on Mr Lilly (13.1.1(1)(c) of Direction 65), specifically in relation to the sentences of imprisonment for the offences of grievous bodily harm, burglaries and breaches of suspended sentences and the consideration to the substantial number of custodial sentences imposed. Sentences involving terms of imprisonment are the last resort in the sentencing hierarchy: Taillez and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] AATA 1045 at [38]. Accordingly, where the Courts have sentenced an offender to a term of custodial imprisonment, such sentences must be viewed as an objective reflection of the seriousness of the offence involved.
The serious nature of Mr Lilly’s offending behaviour is demonstrated in the sentencing remarks of Magistrate Woods who noted (in relation to a “burglary offence” on 21 December 2012):
In relation to the burglary, burglaries are serious. You have a long record of matters and some of those are burglaries... there will be imprisonment for the burglary charge.
Similarly, Magistrate Randazzo noted (in relation another “burglary offence” on 2 May 2013):
You have a record, of course, your record does not aggravate the circumstances of these offences, but you’re certainly not a person that can claim to have a good character and mitigation... Apart from your lack of good character there is a need for an element of punishment and to deter you from further contemplating offences of this nature in the future, bearing in mind that your record shows that you have had previous convictions for burglary... no other sentencing option in my view is appropriate having regard to the seriousness of the offence [burglaries]. there were two machetes and a knuckle duster that were in your possession… for the burglary offence, I will sentence you to a term of imprisonment of 12 months, that is cumulative upon any sentence that you are presently serving... in respect of each of the prohibited weapon and controlled weapon charges... I will take the view that a sentence of one month’s imprisonment for each offence [is appropriate].
Mr Lilly’s significant, and frequent, history of disregard for Australian law (in circumstances where, since the age of 16, he has continually been charged by police for offences, despite spending significant amounts of time in incarceration, on intensive supervision orders or on suspended sentences) and trend of increasing seriousness in his offending weigh against revocation of the mandatory cancellation of Mr Lilly’s visa: paragraph 13.1.1(1)(d) and (e) of Direction 65.
Mr Lilly has continued to re-offend despite being formally warned by the Department. That is, on 14 April 2008, the Department sent Mr Lilly a “Formal Counselling Letter” advising him that it had come to the Department’s attention that he had a criminal record and that such a record may cause him not to pass the character test in s 501 of the Act. The letter states:
No consideration is currently being given to cancelling your Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category visa, under section 501 of the Act. Your visa will therefore continue to provide you with permission to remain in Australia.
The purpose of this letter is to warn you that any further criminal convictions, or any other conduct on your behalf that comes within the scope of subsection 501(6), could result in the consideration of the cancellation of your visa.
(emphasis added)
Since receiving the letter, Mr Lilly committed 23 further offences which attracted sentences of imprisonment totalling 69 months of incarceration (although some have been served concurrently): see Annexure A.
At the hearing, Mr Lilly said that he never received the abovementioned letter. In this regard, the Tribunal notes s 163 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Evidence Act) which states:
Proof of letters having been sent by Commonwealth agencies
(1)A letter from a Commonwealth agency addressed to a person at a specified address is presumed (unless evidence sufficient to raise doubt about the presumption is adduced) to have been sent by prepaid post to that address on the fifth day after the date (if any) that, because of its placement on the letter or otherwise, purports to be the date on which the letter was prepared.
There is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal to rebut the presumption in s 163 of the Evidence Act.
In conclusion, the nature and seriousness of Mr Lilly’s offending weighs heavily against the revocation of the mandatory cancellation of his visa pursuant to the discretion in s 501CA(4) of the Act.
(b) Risk to the Australian community
Paragraph 13.1.2 of Direction 65 sets out principles and factors to which decision-makers should and must have regard in assessing whether the non-citizen represents an unacceptable risk of harm to members of the Australian community. It provides:
13.1.2 The risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serous conduct
(1) In considering whether the non-citizen represents an unacceptable risk of harm to individuals, groups or institutions in the Australian community, decision-makers should have regard to the principle that the Australian community's tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.
(2) In considering the risk to the Australian community, decision-makers must have regard to, cumulatively:
(a)The nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and
(b)The likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account available information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen re-offending (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken.
It is clear from Annexure A that Mr Lilly is a repeat offender with a lengthy and serious (and violent) criminal history.
At the hearing, Mr Lilly said that he is sorry for his past criminal conduct, that he has done a number of rehabilitation courses whilst in prison “to better himself” and that he is no longer a risk to the Australian community: see also paragraphs 6 and 10 above.
The Tribunal finds that there is insufficient evidence before it for it to be satisfied that Mr Lilly does not pose a risk of engaging in serious conduct, of the kind committed to date, in the future. Any such risk that the serious and violent criminal conduct previously engaged in by Mr Lilly may be repeated is unacceptable.
Based on the following evidence, the Tribunal cannot be confident that Mr Lilly will not engage in further serious criminal conduct and that he does not pose a risk to the Australian community:
· Mr Lilly has been imprisoned on numerous occasions and has continued with a consistent pattern of serious and violent offending and there appears to be a trend of increasing seriousness to that pattern;
· Mr Lilly has not shown that he can remain abstinent from drugs whilst in prison (i.e. his urine having tested positive for drugs whilst in prison);
· Mr Lilly has not yet had the opportunity to demonstrate any meaningful rehabilitation outside a supervised prison environment;
· Mr Lilly has continuously reoffended whilst subject to suspended sentences and after being warned that his visa may be cancelled if he reoffended;
· Although Mr Lilly has made some progress towards rehabilitation whilst in prison (i.e. by attending vocational courses including a Certificate IV in Occupational Health & Safety, Certificate I in Information Technology, a cognitive skills Think First program and a Pathways program), whilst in prison Mr Lilly has also been found guilty of four charges between June 2015 and September 2015, one involving misconduct and three relating to the use of a drug not lawfully issued to him (cannabis, methylamphetamine and Buprenorphine) ; and
· Mr Lilly has not provided any character references or other evidence from family members or friends in support of his claims that he is reformed and that he no longer poses any risk to the Australian community.
(ii) Best interest of minor children in Australia
The second primary consideration listed in Direction 65 is the “Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision” and paragraph 13.2(1) of Direction 65 states:
13.2 Best interests of minor children affected by the decision
(1)Decision-makers must make a determination about whether revocation is, or is not, in the best interests of the child.
(2)This consideration applies only if the child is, or would be, under 18 years old at the time when the decision to revoke or not revoke the mandatory cancellation decision is expected to be made.
…
(4)In considering the best interests of the child, the following factors must be considered where relevant:
a)The nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the non-citizen. Less weight should generally be given where the relationship is non-parental, and/or there is no existing relationship and/or there have been long periods of absence, or limited meaningful contact (including whether an existing Court order restricts contact);
b)The extent to which the non-citizen is likely to play a positive parental role in the future, taking into account the length of time until the child turns 18, and including Court orders relating to parental access and care arrangements;
c)The impact of the non-citizen’s prior conduct, and any likely future conduct, and whether that conduct has, or will have a negative impact on the child;
d) The likely effect that any separation from the non-citizen would have on the child, taking into account the child’s or non-citizen’s ability to maintain contact in other ways;
e)Whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child;
f)Any known view of the child (with those views being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child);
g)Evidence that the non-citizen has abused or neglected the child in any way, including physical, sexual and/or mental abuse or neglect; and
h)Evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma from the non-citizen’s conduct.
Mr Lilly relies on this ground heavily in his submissions: refer to paragraphs 6 and 10 above. In particular, Mr Lilly notes that he has a thirteen year old daughter whom he has carer obligations for. He notes that his daughter’s mother abandoned Mr Lilly’s daughter shortly after birth and does not offer any care to the child.
Mr Lilly also notes that his daughter is currently living with his parents, but that his parents need his support because they are aging and his father recently suffered a brain aneurism. He notes that he intends to move into a house close to his parents so that he can assist them.
A Department file note, dated 2 September 2015, records a conversation that a Department employee had with Mr Lilly’s father regarding his and his wife’s care of the Mr Lilly’s daughter. The file note states:
Mr Lilly stated that he and his wife have full legal custody of their granddaughter Lexie, aged 12 and this was done with their son's full consent. They stated that this occurred not because of any concerns in relation to their son as a parent, but due to the erratic behaviour of his former partner, the child's mother. Mr Lilly stated that their primary aim was to protect the child from the mother's behaviour and provide as stable environment for her.
Mr Lilly’s father’s comments suggest that Mr Lilly did not have custody of his daughter even prior to his most recent incarceration and that Mr Lilly’s parents have raised his daughter. Further, the WA Police Summons Records disclose a history of altercations between Mr Lilly and his daughter’s mother dating back to at least 2008 and indicate that there was a Family Court custody dispute on foot at that time.
In further support of his application, Mr Lilly provided an “Affidavit”[1] (Affidavit). Attached to the Affidavit as “Annexure A” is a copy of his daughter’s birth certificate, demonstrating that his daughter is his biological daughter. Also attached to the Affidavit as “Annexure B” is copies of a number of medical reports relating to Mr Lilly’s father’s medical conditions.
[1] Received by the Tribunal on 10 March 2017 and tendered at the hearing as Exhibit 3.
The Affidavit states:
6.I say that the medical documents verify my previous claims to this Tribunal of my father’s ill health.
7.I say that it is in my natural daughter’s best interests for me to remain in Australia to care for her as her natural perant (sic.)
8.I say that my father needs me to stay in Australia to support him in his ageing years as his health aflictions (sic.) potentially get worse.
9.I say that my mother is carrying all the responsibilities of careing (sic.) for my daughter and assisting my father and it is too much to ask of her.
Notwithstanding that Mr Lilly has a minor child present in Australia, that, of itself, does not warrant the revocation of the mandatory cancellation of Mr Lilly’s visa pursuant to the discretion in s 501CA(4) of the Act.
Whilst the Tribunal acknowledges that it is likely to be in the best interest of Mr Lilly’s minor daughter that he remain in Australia, that consideration is outweighed by the protection of the Australian community (the nature and seriousness of Mr Lilly’s conduct and the risk Mr Lilly poses to the Australian community) and the expectations of the Australian community. That is, the second primary consideration is outweighed by the first and third primary considerations in Mr Lilly’s case.
(iii) Expectations of the Australian Community
The third primary consideration listed in paragraph 13(2) of Direction 65 is the “expectations of the Australian Community”. Paragraph 13.3 of Direction 65 provides:
13.3 Expectations of the Australian community
(1)The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has breached, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they will breach this trust or where the non-citizen has been convicted of offences in Australia or elsewhere, it may be appropriate to not revoke the mandatory visa cancellation of such a person. Non-revocation may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences are such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not continue to hold a visa. Decision-makers should have due regard to the Government’s views in this respect.
It is clear that the Australian community would hold considerable concerns about a person, like Mr Lilly, who has been convicted of repeated serious offences which include violent offences: refer to Annexure A to these Reasons for Decision.
The Tribunal refers to the stated principles in paragraph 6.3 of Direction 65 (refer to paragraph 22 above) and, in particular, the principle that the Australian community expects the Australian Government to cancel the visas of non-citizens, like Mr Lilly, who commit serious (and, in particular, violent) crimes and that such persons should generally expect to have their visa cancelled and forfeit the privilege of staying in Australia.
The Tribunal finds that this consideration weights against the revocation of the mandatory cancellation of Mr Lilly’s visa pursuant to the discretion in s 501CA(4) of the Act.
(iv) Other considerations
Paragraph 14(1) of Direction No 65 states:
14. Other considerations – revocation requests
(1)In deciding whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa, other considerations must be taken into account where relevant, including. These considerations include (but are not limited to):
(a) International non-refoulement obligations;
(b) Strength, nature and duration of ties;
(c) Impact on Australia business interests;
(d) Impact on victims;
(e) Extent of impediments if removed.
It is common grounds that international non-refoulement obligations (paragraph 14(1)(a) of Direction 65) and the impact on Australian business interests (paragraph 14(1)(c) of Direction 65) are not relevant in this case.
Strength, nature and duration of ties
Paragraph 14.2(1) of Direction 65 provides:
14.2Strength, nature and duration of ties
(1)The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia. Reflecting the principles at 6.3, decision-makers must have regard to:
(a)How long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child, noting that:
i.less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and
ii.more weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community.
(b)The strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia, including the effect of non-revocation on the non-citizens immediate family in Australia (where those family members are Australian citizens who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely).
In relation to the strength, nature and duration of ties in Australia, Mr Lilly has resided in Australia since the age of 8. Mr Lilly’s mother, father, sister, daughter, four uncles/aunts, twelve cousins and daughter all reside in Australia. Undoubtedly, the removal of Mr Lilly from Australia to New Zealand will have a negative impact upon his family in Australia and, in particular, his daughter (i.e. cause them some hardship).
However, by the age of 16 Mr Lilly was engaging in escalating criminal activities. In such circumstances less weight should be given to the strength, nature and duration of Mr Lilly’s ties to Australia: paragraph 14.2(1)(a)(i) of Direction 65.
Further, the evidence fails to demonstrate that Mr Lilly has spent any meaningful amount of time contributing positively to the Australian community since arriving in Australia, aged 8: paragraph 14.2(1)(a)(ii) of Direction 65. The evidence also fails to provide any real insight into the strength, nature and duration of Mr Lilly’s ties to friends and family in Australia. As such, the Tribunal places little weight on this “other” consideration.
Impact on victims
Paragraph 14.4 of Direction 65 states:
14.4 Impact on victims
(1)Impact of a decision not to revoke on members of the Australian community, including victims of the non-citizen’s criminal behaviour, and the family members of the victim or victims where that information is available and the non-citizen being considered for revocation has been afforded procedural fairness.
There is no specific detail with respect to the impact on Mr Lilly’s victims.
However, it is noted that the victim of Mr Lilly’s grievous bodily harm offence was 71 years of age at the time of the offence. To the extent that the offence was against an elderly person (being a vulnerable member of the Australian community), the Tribunal finds that the aggravated nature of the assault would have had a detrimental effect on the victim: refer to paragraph 31 above. This weighs against revocation of the mandatory cancellation of Mr Lilly’s visa.
Extent of impediments if removed
Paragraph 14.5(1) of Direction No 65 provides:
14.5 Extent of impediments if removed
(1)The extent of any impediments that the non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintain basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account:
(a) The non-citizen’s age and health;
(b) Whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and
(c)Any social, medical and/or economic support available to them in that country.
Mr Lilly submits that if he is removed from Australia to New Zealand he will not have the support of family (all of his family live in Australia) or friends.
Whilst the Tribunal acknowledges that Mr Lilly has lived in Australia since the age of 8, all of his (known) family and friends live in Australia and that relocating to New Zealand will not be without its challenges and hardship for both him and his family members remaining in Australia (including, in particular, his minor daughter and parents), that is insufficient to warrant an exercise of the discretion to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa and does not outweigh the first and third primary considerations, being protection of the Australian community and expectations of the Australian community.
The Tribunal notes that Mr Lilly is currently only 37 years old and will suffer no language impediments if removed from Australia to New Zealand. Further, as a New Zealand citizen, Mr Lilly would have access to employment, health services, education and socials services (noting that New Zealand is a first world country which is broadly comparable to Australia in terms of its economy and culture).
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the Tribunal finds that:
· the primary consideration which favours revocation of the mandatory cancellation of Mr Lilly’s visa, being the best interests of Mr Lilly’s minor daughter who lives in Australia and the “other” considerations which weigh in favour of revocation in Mr Lilly’s case are outweighed by the first and third primary considerations, being the protection of the Australian community (the nature and seriousness of Mr Lilly’s conduct and the risk to the Australian community) and the expectations of the Australian community; and
· the Minister’s decision, dated 15 June 2016, not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of Mr Lilly’s visa, pursuant to the discretion in s 501CA()4) of the Act, is the correct and preferable one.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
I certify that the preceding 75 (seventy-five) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member CR Walsh
......[Sgd]..................................................................
Administrative Assistant
Dated: 17 March 2017
Date of hearing: 13 March 2017 Applicant: In person Representative for the
Respondent:Mr A Burgess Solicitors for the Respondent:
Sparke Helmore Lawyers
Annexure A
Court Result Date Att. Offence Count Offence Date Brief No. Spent Result Perth Magistrates Court 02-MAY-2013 Burglary and Commit Offence in Dwelling: Criminal Code (WA): 401(2)(b) 1 11-JUN-2012 PPE 12 29890 IMPRISONMENT: 12 Months CUMULATIVE FROM 02-MAY-2013 Perth Magistrates Court 02-MAY-2013 Possessed a controlled weapon: Weapons Act 1999; 7(1)A 1 11-JUN-2012 PPE 12 29896 IMPRISONMENT: 1 Months CONCURRENT FROM 02-MAY-2013. Perth Magistrates Court 02-MAY-2013 Possessed a controlled weapon: Weapons Act 1999; 7(1)A 1 11-JUN-2012 PPE 12 29897 IMPRISONMENT: 1 Months CONCURRENT FROM 02-MAY-2013. Perth Magistrates Court 02-MAY-2013 Possessed a controlled weapon: Weapons Act 1999; 6(I)(b)B 1 11-JUN-2012 PPE 12 29895 IMPRISONMENT: 1 Months CONCURRENT FROM 02-MAY-2013. Perth Magistrates Court 02-MAY-2013 Possessing stolen or unlawfully obtained property: Criminal Code (WA): 428(1) 1 11-JUN-2012 PPE 12 29894 FINE: $300. Perth Magistrates Court 02-MAY-2013 Stealing: Criminal Code (WA): 378 1 11-JUN-2012 PPE 12 29891 NO PENALTY S. 11 Perth Magistrates Court 02-MAY-2013 Stealing: Criminal Code (WA): 378 1 11-JUN-2012 PPE 12 29892 NO PENALTY S. 11 Perth Magistrates Court 02-MAY-2013 Stealing: Criminal Code (WA): 378 1 11-JUN-2012 PPE 12 29893 NO PENALTY S. 11 Perth District Court of Western Australia 19-APR-2013 RE-HEARING 11.4.13 APPLICATION S 37(1) CORRECTION OF SENT 1 21-MAR-2012 CTI MI 5390/2012 IMPRISONMENT: 3 YRS 3 MTHS Perth District Court of Western Australia 19-APR-2013 RE-HEARING 11.4.13 APPLICATION S 37(1) CORRECTION OF SENT 1 14-APR-2009 PE 6270/2009 IMPRISONMENT: 9 MTHS CUM TOTAL: 4 YRS IMP FROM 12.6.12 Perth District Court of Western Australia 11-APR-2013 BREACH OF SUSPENDED SENT (ORDER 21.2.12) 1 14-APR-2009 PE 6720/09 IMPRISONMENT: 9 MTHS FROM 12.6.12 Perth District Court of Western Australia 11-APR-2013 Grievous Bodily Harm (circumstance of aggravation as per S.221 CC): Criminal Code: S. 297 1 21-MAR-2012 COUNT 1 MI 5390/12 IMPRISONMENT: 3 YRS & 3 MTHS FROM 12.3.13 Perth Magistrates Court 23-AUG-2012 Possess a Prohibited Drug (Cannabis): Misuse Of Drugs Act (WA) 1981: 6 (2) B 1 23-MAR-2012 PPE 12 34563 FINE: $300. Perth Magistrates Court 21-FEB-2012 Breach of Bail Undertaking: Bail Act (WA) 1982: 51(1) 1 22-NOV-2011 PPE 11 55025 FINE: $300. Perth Magistrates Court 21-FEB-2012 Breach of Bail Undertaking: Bail Act (WA) 1982: 51(1) 1 05-SEP-2011 PPE 11 55026 FINE: $300. Perth Magistrates Court 21-FEB-2012 Carried a controlled weapon: Weapons Act 1999; 7(1) 1 12-OCT-2010 PPE 10 62472 FINE: $200. Perth Magistrates Court 21-FEB-2012 Final hearing following PSO, from appearance on 15-DEC-2009 1 14-APR-2009 PMI 09 6270 SUS IMP ORDER: 9 Months CONCURRENT SUSPENDED 12 Months FROM 21-FEB-2012. Perth Magistrates Court 21-FEB-2012 Stealing: Criminal Code (WA): 378 1 12-OCT-2010 PPE 10 62473 FINE: $500. Midland Magistrates Court 08-DEC-2011 Stealing: Criminal Code (WA): 378 1 30-JUL-2011 PMI 11 8543 FINE: $500. Midland Magistrates Court 08-DEC-2011 Stealing: Criminal Code (WA): 378 1 30-JUL-2011 PMI 11 8544 FINE: $1000. Perth Magistrates Court 17-JUN-2011 Breach of Bail Undertaking: Bail Act (WA) 1982: 51(1) 1 30-MAY-2011 PPE 11 30272 FINE: $200. Perth Magistrates Court 21-MAR-2011 Wilfully & unlawfully destroy or damage property: Criminal Code (WA): 444(1)(b) 1 12-OCT-2010 PPE 10 62474 DISMISSED: For Want of Prosecution. Perth Magistrates Court 20-DEC-2010 No Authority to Drive – Never Held: Road Traffic Act 1974: S. 49(1)(a): No M.D.L. 1 17-OCT-2010 910953-2 FINE: $200 Midland Magistrates Court 28-AUG-2009 Burglary. In The Place Of Another Person W/Out Consent: Criminal Code (WA): 401(2)A 1 14-APR-2009 PMI 09 6270 PRE SENT ORDER: Adjourned. Return to court. Perth Magistrates Court 25-FEB-2008 BREACH OF SIO (ORDER OF 19.5.06) 1 PMI 06001937 IMPRISONMENT: 12 MTHS - Concurrent Perth Magistrates Court 25-FEB-2008 Receiving: Criminal Code: S. 414 1 18-OCT-2007 PPE 07059945 IMPRISONMENT: 7 MTHS - Concurrent Perth Magistrates Court 25-FEB-2008 Receiving: Criminal Code: S. 414 1 18-OCT-2007 PPE 07059946 IMPRISONMENT: 7 MTHS - Concurrent Midland Magistrates Court 19-MAY-2006 Aggravated Burglary and Commit Offence in Place: Criminal Code: S. 401(2)(a) 1 19-FEB-2006 PMI 06001937 SUSP IMP ORDER: 12 MTHS IMP CONC SUSPENDED FOR 2 YRS Perth District Court of Western Australia 12-MAY-2006 BREACH OF ISO (ORDER OF 3.8.04) 1 SUS IMP ORDER: 8 MTHS IMP SUSPENDED FOR 12 MTHS Joondalup Magistrates Court 26-OCT-2005 POSSESS PROHIBITED DRUG 1 $300 Joondalup Magistrates Court 15-JUN-2005 POSSESS PROHIBITED DRUG 1 $200 Perth District Court of Western Australia 03-AUG-2004 BREACH OF SUSPENDED SENT (ORDER OF 1.8.01) 1 18 MTHS ISO (ADULT) Perth District Court of Western Australia 03-AUG-2004 BREACH OF SUSPENDED SENT (ORDER OF 8.8.01) 18 MTHS ISO (ADULT) Perth District Court of Western Australia 03-AUG-2004 BURGLARY & COMMIT OFFENCE AGG (PLACE) 1 18 MTHS ISO (ADULT) Midland Court of Petty Sessions 22-JUN-2004 PROHIBITED PLANT POSSESS 1 $200 Perth Court of Petty Sessions 27-APR-2004 BURGLURY & COMMIT OFFENCE (HABITATION) 1 12-MAR-2004 12 MTHS IMP CONC Perth Court of Petty Sessions 21-OCT-2002 POSSESS PROHIBITED DRUG 1 6 MTHS CRO (ADULT) $100 UNDERTAKING Perth Court of Petty Sessions 21-OCT-2002 UNLAWFUL POSSESSION 1 $150 Perth Court of Petty Sessions 08-AUG-2001 No Motor Drivers Licence – Under Suspension: Road Traffic Act 1974: S. 49(1)(a) & (2)(a) 1 22-MAY-2001 FINE: $400
DISQ HOLD/OBT MDL 3 MTHS MANDPerth Court of Petty Sessions 08-AUG-2001 Susp.Imp.Sent. Breached 1 22-MAY-2001 12/5/06 AMENDED IMP 3 MTHS SUSP SENT 18 MTHS TO $400 FINE (PERTH DC) Midland Court of Petty Sessions 01-AUG-2001 No Motor Drivers Licence - Under Suspension: Road Traffic Act 1974: S. 49(1)(a) & (2)(a) 1 25-JUN-2001 FINE: $600
DISQ HOLD/OBT MDL 16 MTHS CUMMidland Court of Petty Sessions 01-AUG-2001 Sus.Imp.Sent.Breached 1 25-JUN-2001 12/5/06 AMENDED IMP 3 MTHS SUSP SENT 18 MTHS TO $600 FINE (PERTH DC) Joondalup Court of Petty Sessions 09-NOV-2000 No Motor Drivers Licence - Under Fines Suspension: Road Traffic Act 1974: S. 49(1)(a) & (2)(iv) 1 20-JUN-2000 FINE: $400
DISQ HOLD/OBT MDL 9 MTHS CUMJoondalup Court of Petty Sessions 25-OCT-2000 No Motor Drivers Licence - Under Fines Suspension: Road Traffic Act 1974: S. 49(1)(a) & (2)(iv) 1 20-JUN-2000 FINE: $500
DISQ HOLD/OBT MDL 9 MTHS CUMJoondalup Court of Petty Sessions 25-JAN-2000 BREACH OF BAIL 1 $300 Perth Court of Petty Sessions 25-JAN-2000 BREACH OF CBO (ORDER 2.6.98) 1 $100 Joondalup Court of Petty Sessions 24-JAN-2000 RESIST ARREST 1 $300 Joondalup Court of Petty Sessions 24-JAN-2000 THREATENING WORDS 1 $300 Joondalup Court of Petty Sessions 19-JAN-2000 No Motor Drivers Licence: Road Traffic Act 1974: S. 49(1) 1 31-DEC-1999 FINE: $100
DISQ HOLD/OBT MDL 3 MTHS MANDJoondalup Court of Petty Sessions 19-JAN-2000 Exceed The Speed Limit By 10-19 Kilometres Per Hour 1 31-DEC-1999 FINE: $150
88/70K ZONEMidland Court of Petty Sessions 24-MAY-1999 RESIST ARREST 1 $100 Midland Court of Petty Sessions 24-MAY-1999 THREATENING WORDS 1 $100 Perth Court of Petty Sessions 24-DEC-1998 DAMAGE 1 $200 Perth Court of Petty Sessions 19-SEP-1998 STEALING 1 $200 Perth Court of Petty Sessions 19-AUG-1998 BREACH OF BAIL 2 $200 EA CHG Perth Court of Petty Sessions 19-AUG-1998 FRAUD 1 $200 Albany Court of Petty Sessions 13-AUG-1998 POSSESS PROHIBITED DRUG 2 30 DAYS IMP CONC EA CHG Perth Court of Petty Sessions 02-JUN-1998 STEALING 1 18 MTHS CBO (ADULT) 80 HRS COMM WORK Perth Children’s Court 07-OCT-1997 ASSAULT COMMON 1 6 MTHS ISO (ADULT) Perth Court of Petty Sessions 07-OCT-1997 FAIL TO PAY TRAIN FARE 1 $100 Perth Court of Petty Sessions 07-OCT-1997 FALSE NAME AND/OR ADDRESS 1 $100 Perth Court of Petty Sessions 07-OCT-1997 VIOLENT BEHAVIOUR 1 $200 Perth Children’s Court 07-MAY-1997 ASSAULT OCCASSIONING BODILY HARM 1 3 MTHS IYSO Joondalup Children’s Court 11-MAR-1997 INSULTING BEHAVIOUR/WORDS 1 $300 GB BOND 6 MTHS Joondalup Children’s Court 11-MAR-1997 LOITERING 1 $300 GB BOND 6 MTHS Joondalup Children’s Court 11-MAR-1997 POSSESS OFFENSIVE WEAPON 1 $300 GB BOND 6 MTHS Perth Children’s Court 23-AUG-1996 BREACH OF RESTRAINT ORDER 1 21 DAYS SPENT IN CUSTODY 3 MTHS YCBO Perth Children’s Court 23-AUG-1996 FRAUD 2 21 DAYS SPENT IN CUSTODY 3 MTHS YCBO Perth Children’s Court 23-AUG-1996 STEALING 2 21 DAYS SPENT IN CUSTODY 3 MTHS YCBO Midland Children’s Court 27-MAR-1996 STEALING 1 $300 GB BOND 6 MTHS Midland Children’s Court 23-OCT-1995 STEALING 2 REFERRED TO JJT MIDLAND
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Natural Justice
-
Jurisdiction
-
Remedies
0
5
0