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

This matter concerned an appeal by an applicant against the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs' refusal to approve the grant of Australian citizenship. The refusal was based on the applicant not being of good character, as required by section 21(2)(h) of the *Australian Citizenship Act 2007* (Cth). The applicant had a previous conviction for procuring a child for a sexual purpose, which had since become a spent conviction.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's previous conviction, despite being spent, rendered him not of good character for the purposes of the citizenship application. The applicant argued that his conviction was remote in time, that he was remorseful, and that he was a contributing member of the community. He also sought to attribute his conduct to entrapment by the police and presented his offence as a "victimless crime."

The court considered the applicant's explanations for his conduct, including claims of being aroused, having muddled judgment due to police conditioning, and making assumptions for self-pleasure. The court found that the applicant's assertion that the person he was communicating with online was 14 years old, and his continued engagement in sexual activity for his own benefit despite this knowledge, demonstrated a disregard for the law and the potential harm to a minor. The court noted that the applicant appeared to place blame on the police and seemed unable to admit he intended to engage in illegal conduct with a minor. The court concluded that the applicant's explanations, including the "victimless crime" assertion, were attempts to diminish the seriousness of his actions and did not reflect a genuine understanding of the gravity of his conduct or a manifestation of his essential characteristics.

The Tribunal found that, in light of all the circumstances, the applicant was not of good character and therefore did not meet the eligibility criteria under section 21(2)(h) of the Act. Consequently, the applicant was not eligible for citizenship under section 24 of the Act, and the decision under review was affirmed.