Manebona and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) - [2023] AATA 4123

Manebona and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2023] AATA 4123 (12 December 2023)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number:2021/7039
Re:John Manebona
APPLICANT

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

DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member Hon. J Rau SC
Date:12 December 2023
Place:Adelaide

The decision under review is affirmed.
....................................[Sgnd]....................................
Senior Member J Rau SC
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – mandatory cancellation of Class BC Subclass 100 Spouse visa under section 501(3A)- where Applicant does not pass the character test – Applicant has substantial criminal record – family violence- whether the discretion to revoke the visa cancelation under section 501CA (4) should be exercised – consideration of Ministerial Direction No. 99 - decision under review is affirmed.
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
CASES
Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 348
YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466
Afu v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1311
Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 50
SECONDARY MATERIAL
Direction No 99 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member Hon. J Rau SC
12 December 2023
INTRODUCTION

The Applicant seeks a review of the decision by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs (“the Respondent”) made under section 501CA (4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) on 29 September 2021 not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Class BC Subclass 100 Spouse visa (“the Visa”). His visa was cancelled on 10 February 2021 under section 501 (3A) on the basis that he did not pass the character test.[1]
[1] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Notification of decision not to revoke visa cancelation decision made under s501(3A) Migration Act 1958, 12-37.
Sections 501(6)(a) and 501(7)(c) of the Act provide that a person does not pass the character test if they have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more. The Applicant fails the character test on account of his conviction on 9 December 2020 for domestic violence offences. He was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment, partially suspended.[2]
[2] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Notification of decision not to revoke visa cancelation decision made under s501(3A) Migration Act 1958, Attachment 3: Statement of reasons, 21; Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Notification of decision not to revoke visa cancelation decision made under s501(3A) Migration Act 1958, Attachment A: National Criminal History Check, 39.
The Applicant concedes that he does not pass the character test. The issue before the Tribunal is whether there is ‘another reason’ to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation pursuant to s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act.
The hearing was held on 27 November 2023 the Applicant was self-represented and the Respondent was represented by Emma Letcher-Boldt of Clayton UTZ.
The Applicant gave evidence by Microsoft Teams from Yongah Hill Detention Centre. He was not an impressive witness. His answers were frequently non-responsive to questions. He often answered a simple question like, “did you grab your partner by her neck ……?”, with a lengthy, sometimes argumentative, answer. He denied most of the details of the family violence incidents, as contained in police records and as found by the sentencing judge, notwithstanding his plea of guilty. He told the Tribunal that he entered a plea on the alleged facts, to be rid of onerous bail reporting obligations. The real facts he said, were very different. He was invited on many occasions to state what the real facts were, but he failed to clearly do so, other than to suggest that he was the victim of family violence perpetrated by his partner. He said that he had frequently called police himself, to try to diffuse the situation at home, but he gave few details. The Applicant also denied the accuracy of numerous reports of misbehaviour and drug/alcohol use since he has been in detention. He admitted lying to detention centre staff about drinking and taking unauthorised medication supplied by another detainee.
The overall impression that the Applicant sought to convey was that he was the victim of a series of inaccurate complaints and observations from various and quite unconnected sources, including his former partner, police and several staff at different detention centres. The probability of so many unconnected observers, coincidentally making consistently false complaints about the Applicant, is very remote. The Tribunal is also faced with a conflict between the Applicant’s evidence on the one hand, and his guilty plea plus numerous independent reports on the other. I find that the Applicant’s unsupported evidence carries little weight. I prefer the evidence of independent witnesses including police and detention centre staff where any conflict arises. On several occasions he said that he was sorry for what he had done. This must however be seen in the context of his failure to accept the facts of his misconduct. On his version of events, this apology does not include two separate episodes of choking for example. He has not taken responsibility for his offending, in the sense of acknowledging what he has been convicted of doing. The Applicant’s primary concern and motivation is to have ongoing contact with his two young daughters. On this point at least, the Applicant’s evidence was direct and credible. The prospect of this actually happening is discussed below.
The Applicant did not call any witnesses. His failure to call a psychologist makes assessing the risk of him reoffending, more difficult than it might otherwise have been. His former partner JW was not called. Given the circumstances, and particularly the current order preventing the Applicant from contacting JW, this was understandable. It does mean however, that her views, to the extent that they are known, must be gleaned from a short statement made in January 2021. Whether this is her current view is unknown. The Applicant has quite properly, in the circumstances, had no contact with JW for years.
Background Facts
The Applicant was born in the Solomon Islands on 20 November 1986. He is now 37 years old.
Between 11 September 2001 and 29 August 2002, the Applicant attended school in Rockhampton. He then returned to live with his grandparents in the Solomon Islands. They were unwell. He did not attend school there and worked to help them. They are both now deceased.
He returned to Australia on 9 January 2007, aged 20.[3] He obtained employment.
[3] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Notification of decision not to revoke visa cancelation decision made under s501(3A) Migration Act 1958, Attachment F: Citizenship Questionnaire completed by the Applicant, 63; Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Notification of decision not to revoke visa cancelation decision made under s501(3A) Migration Act 1958, Attachment T: Applicants Movement Records, 103.
On 29 November 2008, the Applicant was caught and fined for traveling without paying the correct fare.[4]
[4] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB25, Material produced under summons, Queensland Police Service Record, 251.
On 3 March 2010, the Applicant was fined $150 for public urination[5]
[5] Ibid.
On 13 October 2010, the Applicant was caught traveling without paying the correct fare and fined $200.[6]
[6] Ibid.
On 7 April 2011, the Applicant was again caught traveling without paying the correct fare and fined $200.[7]
[7] Ibid.
On 20 April 2011, the Applicant was caught shoplifting.[8]
[8] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB25, Material produced under summons, Queensland Police Service Court Brief, 270.
On 23 May 2011, the Applicant was in court charged with unauthorised dealing with shop goods. He was fined $150 and no conviction was recorded.[9]
[9] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Notification of decision not to revoke visa cancelation decision made under s501(3A) Migration Act 1958, Attachment A: National Criminal History Check, 40.
On 28 May 2011, the Applicant was again caught shoplifting.[10]
[10] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB25, Material produced under summons, Queensland Police Service Court Brief, 271.
On 22 June 2011, the Applicant was again in court charged with unauthorised dealing with shop goods. He was convicted, fined $160 and ordered to complete 8 hours of community service.[11]
[11] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Notification of decision not to revoke visa cancelation decision made under s501(3A) Migration Act 1958, Attachment A: National Criminal History Check, 39.
On 14 July 2011, the Applicant was fined $200 for traveling without paying the correct fare.[12]
[12] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB25, Material produced under summons, Queensland Police Service Record, 251.
On 17 July 2011, the Applicant was apprehended by police driving an unregistered vehicle, with false registration plates, without the required learner plates.[13]
[13] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB25, Material produced under summons, Queensland Police Service Court Brief, 272-276.
On 15 August 2011, the Applicant was in court charged with possession of a dangerous drug (on 17 July 2011). He was fined $200, and no conviction was recorded.[14]
[14] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Notification of decision not to revoke visa cancelation decision made under s501(3A) Migration Act 1958, Attachment A: National Criminal History Check, 39.
On 1 October 2011, the Applicant was apprehended by police driving under suspension due to loss of demerit points.[15]
[15] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB25, Materials produced under summons, Queensland Police Service Court Briefing, 277-278.
On 19 October 2011, the Applicant was caught traveling without the correct fare and was subsequently fined $200[16]
[16] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB25, Material produced under summons, Queensland Police Service Record, 251.
On 15 November 2011 the Applicant was apprehended by police driving whilst disqualified.[17]
[17] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB25, Material Produced under Summons, Court Briefing, 278. RB,
On 11 January 2012, the Applicant was in court charged with wilful damage (on 4 December 2011). He was convicted, fined $300 and ordered to make restitution in the amount of $568.[18]
[18] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Notification of decision not to revoke visa cancelation decision made under s501(3A) Migration Act 1958, Attachment A: National Criminal History Check, 39.
On 5 February 2012, the Applicant was again caught travelling without paying the correct fare and fined $200.[19]
[19] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB25, Material produced under summons, Queensland Police Service Record, 251.
On 20 June 2013, the Applicant was in court charged with possession of used pipes or utensils, (on 29 April 2013). He was fined $200, and no conviction was recorded.[20]
[20] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Notification of decision not to revoke visa cancelation decision made under s501(3A) Migration Act 1958, Attachment A: National Criminal History Check, 39.
On 8 August 2012, the Applicant was caught travelling without paying the correct fare and fined $200.[21]
[21] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB25, Material produced under summons, Queensland Police Service Record, 251.
On 28 August 2013, the Applicant was apprehended by police driving whilst disqualified.[22] He told police that he was fully aware that he could not drive.[23]
[22] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB25, Material Produced under Summons, Court Briefing, 282.
[23] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB25, Material produced under summons, Queensland Police Service Record, 252.
‘On 29th of August, 2013 at approximately 3.00am police from Springwood Station were conducting patrols of Logan Road, Underwood where they intercepted a 1992 white Toyota Corolla, Queensland registration 726SZB.
Police spoke to the driver who stated his name as John Coleridge MANEBONA, the defendant in this matter.
Police computer checks revealed the defendant's drivers licence was disqualified in court on the 15th of December 2011 until the 14th of December,2013.
Police questioned the defendant in relation to the matter. He stated he was fully aware his licence was disqualified and that he could not drive. The defendant stated that he was out with his friends when stopped by police. The defendant could offer no lawful or emergent reason for driving.
The defendant was issued with a notice to appear in the Beenleigh Magistrates Court on the 25th of September 2013.’[24]
[24]Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB25, Material Produced under Summons, Court Briefing, 252.
On 8 November 2013, the Applicant breached bail conditions.[25]
[25] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB25, Material produced under summons, Queensland Police Service Record, 253.
On 11 November 2013, a warrant was issued for the Applicant’s arrest.[26]
[26] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB25, Material produced under summons, Queensland Police Service Record, 254.
On 10 December 2013, the Applicant evaded payment of a fare on Translink. He was cautioned. He had received 6 infringement notices in the previous 3 years from transit officers.[27]
[27] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB25, Material produced under summons, Queensland Police Service Record, 255.
On 11 December 2013, the Applicant was in court charged with two counts of failing to appear in accordance with an undertaking. He was fined $200 and no conviction was recorded. [28]
[28] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Notification of decision not to revoke visa cancelation decision made under s501(3A) Migration Act 1958, Attachment A: National Criminal History Check, 39.
On or about 7 June 2014, the Applicant commenced a relationship with JW.[29]
[29] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Notification of decision not to revoke visa cancelation decision made under s501(3A) Migration Act 1958, Attachment J: Statutory Declaration of JW, 88.
On 9 October 2014, police executed a search under warrant and found drug utensils in the Applicant’s possession.[30]
[30] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB25, Material produced under summons, Queensland Police Service Court Brief, 256.
On 20 November 2014, the Applicant was in court charged with possession of pipes or utensils, (on 9 October 2014). He was fined $200 and no conviction was recorded. [31]
[31] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Notification of decision not to revoke visa cancelation decision made under s501(3A) Migration Act 1958, Attachment A: National Criminal History Check, 39.
On 16 June 2015, the Applicant was again apprehended by police for fare evasion.[32]
[32] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB25, Material produced under summons, Queensland Police Service Court Brief, 257.
On 28 June 2015, the Applicant’s daughter, Child A was born. She is now 8 years old.[33]
[33] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Notification of decision not to revoke visa cancelation decision made under s501(3A) Migration Act 1958, Attachment H: Applicants’ Personal Circumstances Form, 74.
The Applicant told the Tribunal that shortly after Child A was born, his relationship with JW was “like a war”. He would often call the police himself to calm the situation. He said that JW got into an argument with the landlord and left with the baby. She went to a women’s refuge for 6 months. This had nothing to do with him, it was all about the landlord. He moved to a new house and JW eventually returned to live with him. It seems that the relationship was always volatile and was coloured by mutual alcohol abuse.
On 6 April 2016, police searched a vehicle in which the Applicant was a passenger. They found him to be in possession of a quantity of a drug. He was cautioned. [34]
[34] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB25, Material produced under summons, Queensland Police Service Court Brief, 259.
On 7 June 2016, the Applicant was in court charged with possession of dangerous drugs and pipes or utensils, (on 6 April 2016). He was fined $400, and no conviction was recorded.[35]
[35] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Notification of decision not to revoke visa cancelation decision made under s501(3A) Migration Act 1958, Attachment A: National Criminal History Check, 39.
On 30 May 2017, the Applicant’s second daughter, Child B was born. She is now 6 years old.[36]
[36] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Notification of decision not to revoke visa cancelation decision made under s501(3A) Migration Act 1958, Attachment H: Applicants’ Personal Circumstances Form, 74
On 6 March 2018, the Applicant was apprehended by police driving an unlicensed vehicle when disqualified, whilst not wearing a seat belt.[37]
[37] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB25, Material produced under summons, Queensland Police Service Court Brief, 260-262.
On 11 December 2018, the police were called by JW as a result of the Applicant’s conduct. The police record states:
‘The respondent in this matter John Colebridge MANEBONA
The aggrieved is (JW)
The aggrieved and the respondent have been in an on/off relationship for the past 4 years. They share 2 children together –Child A and Child B. The aggrieved and respondent do not live together.[38]
[38] This is different to the Applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal.
At about 21:30hrs on 11/12/18, Police were called to attend [redacted] in relation to a DV matter. Upon arrival, Police spoke with the aggrieved. She stated at 20:00hrs, the respondent attended the aggrieved’ s address and stared kicking her front screen door, demanding to be let in. The aggrieved opened the wooden door and told the respondent to leave as she had just put the kids to bed. The respondent appeared heavily intoxicated and was yelling incoherently at the aggrieved and she told him to leave before slamming the door. The aggrieved stated she could hear the respondent hitting the letterbox before starting to walk up and down the road, continuing to yell incoherently.
One of the occupants at another address walked outside and started to speak with the respondent. After half an hour, the respondent reattended the aggrieved’ s address. The aggrieved let the respondent inside and an argument started about the respondent’s behaviour. One of the children walked into the kitchen. The aggrieved pick up the child and said she was going to take them to the local Police station for help. The aggrieved and the respondent became involved in a physical altercation, with the aggrieved on the floor and the respondent standing over her. The aggrieved started kicking out at the respondent and he grabbed her by the throat to stop her. The aggrieved stated her breathing was not restricted, but a bruise was forming on the side of her neck when speaking with Police. The respondent then put the aggrieved in a wristlock to loosen the aggrieved’ s grip on the child who was still in her arms. The respondent then took the child and left the address on foot.
Police believe a protection order is necessary to protect the aggrieved and their children given the assault occurred while the child was in the arms of the aggrieved. The aggrieved stated that the respondent is usually pleasant towards her and the kids, however has been known to become aggressive when he is intoxicated.’[39]
[39] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB26, Further Material Produced under Summons, 310.
On 13 December 2018, a protection order was made against the Applicant in favour of JW, Child A (then aged 4) and Child B (then aged 2) The details as reported by police are as follows:
‘The respondent spouse in this matter is John Coleridge Patter MANEBONA (DOB: 20/11/1986).
The aggrieved spouse in this matter is JW.
The respondent and aggrieved have two children together[40] named Child A and Child B.
On the 13/12/18 a Domestic and Family Violence Protection Order was issued in the Richlands Magistrates Court. The order was made as a result of a police application. The named respondent in this order was MANEBONA and was the named aggrieved. Both their children are named persons and are protected by this order. The Protection Order had two conditions being (1) The respondent must be of good behaviour towards the aggrieved and not commit domestic violence against the aggrieved and (2) The respondent must be of good behaviour towards the child/ren, must not commit associated domestic violence against the child/ren and must not expose the child/ren to domestic violence.
The respondent was present in court when this order was made and unless otherwise ordered this order continues in force to and including the 13/12/23.
At about 6:50pm on the 14th day of October 2019, the aggrieved was at her home at [redacted] with her two children and the respondent in this matter.
The respondent left the house following a verbal argument with the aggrieved for a short period of time and returned home with one of their children. Whilst here, another verbal argument has commenced with the aggrieved in relation to him wanting to leave the dwelling after dropping this child home.
This argument quickly escalated, and the respondent has grabbed the aggrieved around the throat with his right hand and held his left hand behind her head and squeezed with such force that it caused a large amount of bruising across the victim’s neck and stopped her breathing.
The respondent has dragged the victim from one end of the room to the other and continued to squeeze the victims throat using his hands. The aggrieved stated she could not breath for between 5 and 10 seconds.
The respondent has picked the aggrieved off the floor by her neck and dropped her from a height to the ground causing her pain and bruising to her back and head.
The respondent has let go and commenced punching the ground next to the aggrieve d’s head in an attempt to cause the victim fear, but these punches did not connect with her head. The aggrieved states the respondent has kicked her at least on one occasion around the right side of her and lower back. The aggrieved has called for help from the neighbours to call the police. The respondent has then decamped across the road to number [redacted].
At about 7:00pm, Police from Inala Tactical Crime Squad (TCS) attended the incident address and located both the aggrieved and the respondent. Police could see the visible bruising to the aggrieved’ s neck already. Police have arrested the respondent and transported him to the Richlands Watchhouse. The aggrieved was transported to the PA Hospital by QAS officers as a result of the injuries to her neck and head. They identified hematomas to her head and bruising to her neck which required medical assistance.
At about 9:00pm, Detectives from Acacia Ridge Criminal Investigation Branch (CIB) attended the Princess Alexandra (PA) Hospital where the aggrieved was taken to. Detectives identified the injuries to the aggrieved’ s neck and were advised that she sustained bruising to her head and ribs as a result of the assault by QAS and medical staff at the hospital.
At about 10:00pm on this date, Detectives have attended the Richlands Watchhouse and taken up with the respondent in this matter where they offered him the opportunity to participate in an electronic record of interview in relation to this matter, which he agreed.
Detectives cautioned the respondent in accordance with PPRA 2000 and provided him with his safeguards, which he understood and agreed to proceed.
During the interview, the respondent stated that the aggrieved was aggressive towards him and in order to calm her down, he grabbed her by the throat and carried her down to the ground. He stated that he punched the floor near her head as he was not stupid enough to assault her. The respondent stated the aggrieved’ s injuries are as a result of him grabbing her by the throat and could not offer any lawful or emergent excuse for doing so or for his reasoning for assaulting her other than he wanted to make his point known.
The respondent stated that the aggrieved did not give him permission or authority to grab her by the throat, strangle her or assault her.
Following this, Detectives charged the respondent in relation to this matter and completed an objection to bail.
The respondents’ actions have breached both conditions of this order.
Note to Pros
The events which occurred during this domestic violence incident occurred in front of both the respondent’s children which police reasonably believe would have caused them emotional harm.’[41]
[41] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB26, Further Material Produced under Summons, 264-265.

The Applicant was asked about this incident, and he told the Tribunal that he had not grabbed JW’s throat, but he had “put her on the floor….... she was trying to stop me running away”. The Applicant said that JW did not have Child A in her hands. He wanted to take Child A and leave. He said that there was no fighting. He then said, ’she hit me and wouldn’t let me leave the house…she broke everything in the house in front of my kids…she didn’t mention this.”
On 14 October 2019, the Applicant contravened the domestic violence order.[42] The background and circumstances of this offending as recorded by police are as follows:
[42] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Notification of decision not to revoke visa cancelation decision made under s501(3A) Migration Act 1958, Attachment A: National Criminal History Check, 38; Exhibit XX, Remittal Bundle, RB26, Further Material Produced under Summons, 290-294.
‘Background
l. The defendant and the complainant (JW) have been in an on and off again relationship for approximately 5 years. They have two children together. (Child A) who was 4 at the time of the offences and (Child B) who was 2 at the time of the offences.
2. On 13 December 2018, a Protection Order was granted naming the complainant as the aggrieved and the defendant as the respondent. (Child A) and (Child B) are named persons protected on the order. The order stated that the defendant must be of good behaviour to the complainant and the children, and must not commit domestic violence against the complainant nor associated domestic violence against the children. The defendant was present in court when the order was made.
3. On 14 October 2019 the complainant and the defendant were at home with their children. At around 3pm the defendant left the house with (Child A). They returned around 7pm with an associate of the defendant who was unknown to the complainant. The defendant appeared intoxicated and angry.
4. The complainant felt uncomfortable and asked the defendant if he and his friend could leave. The defendant's friend left which caused the defendant's anger to escalate.
Offending
5. The defendant grabbed the complainant by the arms and shoulders in attempts to push her out of the front door. The complainant resisted. (count 1)
6. In response, the defendant grabbed the complainant's throat with his hand and squeezed her neck. The complainant could not make any sound and the pressure caused her to lose her breath for approximately 5- 10 seconds. The complainant struggled but could not escape the defendant's hold. (count 2)
7.The defendant dragged the complainant by the throat into the living room. Using two hands he picked the complainant up by the throat so her feet were off the ground and threw her to the ground. The complainant landed bard on the ground and felt pain to her head. (count 3)
8. (Child A) and (Child B) were both in the living room and witnessed the assault.’
9. The complainant managed to get away and ran to the front yard where she called out for help. The defendant went to the neighbours house.
Injuries
10. The complainant received medical attention following the offending. She had bruising to her neck, head and back, abrasions to her side and red hand marks on her neck.
Arrest and Interview
11. Police attended the address and located the defendant at his neighbours house. The defendant was transported to Richlands Watchhouse where he was interviewed.
12. The defendant acknowledged grabbing the complainant by the throat and that the bruises would be a result of his actions. He stated he could have handed things differently. He denied squeezing the complainant’s throat.’ [43]
[43] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB25, Material Produced under Summons, SM3, Court Briefing, 243-244.
The Applicant was asked about this incident, and he told the Tribunal that this was “not my side of the story”. They were both intoxicated. He accepted that alcohol contributed to his offending. JW was “yelling to the neighbour to call the police when I wasn’t doing anything.” He did not harm JW. He hit the floor “to show her to stop”. He put his “arm around her neck and pushed her away.” He did not squeeze her neck. He did throw her to the ground. He agrees that the children were in the house. He denies that JW suffered any injuries.
The Applicant said that the police had not recorded “his side of the story…. the police take the female side... they don’t look at it properly to see what is true and untrue…. I had to go to the police station for 1 year on bail and I wanted it over and done with…I just want to get on with my life…. I took responsibility for it... it’s my fault, it’s both our fault”
The Applicant agreed that he had entered a guilty plea but said “if I had known that I would end up here (in detention) I would have fought the case.”
On 15 October 2019, a temporary protection order was made.[44]
[44] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB26, Further material produced under summons, Temporary Protection Order, 300.
On 16 October 2019, the Applicant was granted bail.[45]
[45] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB25, Material produced under summons, Queensland Police Service Court Brief, 269.
On 6 February 2020, a final protection order was made in these terms:
“It is ordered that the Protection Order made at Magistrates Court Richlands on 13/12/2018 be varied to read as follows:
(1)The respondent must be of good behaviour towards the aggrieved and not commit domestic violence against the aggrieved.
(2)Respondent is prohibited from remaining at, entering or attempting to enter the premises OR approaching to within 500m of the premises where the aggrieved lives, works, frequents.
(3)The respondent is prohibited from contacting or attempting to contact or asking someone else to contact the aggrieved.
(4)The respondent is prohibited from contacting or approaching the aggrieved when the aggrieved is at any place.
(5)The respondent is prohibited from making telephone calls or sending text messages to the aggrieved.
(6)The respondent be of good behaviour towards the named person and not commit associated domestic violence against the person and not expose the child to domestic violence
The respondent was not present in Court when this order was made.
UNLESS OTHERWISE ORDERED THIS ORDER CONTINUES IN FORCE TO AND INCLUDING 05/02/2025’[46]
[46] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB26, Further material produced under summons, Temporary Protection Order, 299.
On 23 June 2020, a warrant of apprehension was issued.[47]
[47] Ibid.
On 9 December 2020, the Applicant was in court charged with choking suffocation strangulation domestic relationship, assaults occasioning actual bodily harm, common assault. He entered pleas of guilty. These were all domestic violence offences directed at JW and took place in the presence of his two infant children. He was sentenced to 2 years imprisonment, suspended after serving 3 months. [48]
[48] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Notification of decision not to revoke visa cancelation decision made under s501(3A) Migration Act 1958, Attachment A: National Criminal History Check, 39; Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Notification of decision not to revoke visa cancelation decision made under s501(3A) Migration Act 1958, Attachment B: Transcript of proceedings in the District Court of Queensland, 41-44.
In sentencing the Applicant, Judge Smith said:
“HIS HONOUR: Stand up, please, Mr Manebona. Mr Manebona, you’ve pleaded guilty to one count of common assault, one count of choking in a domestic setting, and one count of assault occasioning bodily harm. I take into account the pleas of guilty and reduce the penalties I would otherwise have imposed by reason of the pleas. They show cooperation in the administration of justice and have saved the cost of a trial. In sentencing you, I have regard to the principles of sentencing mentioned in section 9, subsection (1) of the Penalties and Sentences Act, the relevant matters in subsection (2), and because violence and harm was involved here,(2A) applies, and I primarily have regard to subsection (3).
You were born on the 20th of November 1986. You were 32 at the time; you’re now 34. You have a criminal history, but there is none for violence. There’s a domestic violence order in place; exhibit 2. I’ve considered section 42 of the Act and do not consider any amendments are necessary. As to the facts of this case, you and the complainant have been in an on and off relationship for about five years. There were two children: (Child A), who was four, and (Child B), two, at the time of the offences. It seems to me, from what I’m told, it was a fairly toxic relationship, with alcohol being involved with both parties. On 13 December 2018, a protection order was granted in favour of the complainant against you, and the children were named persons. That order said that you had to be of good behaviour.
On the 14th of October 2019, you and she were at home and there was an argument. You left to try and prevent an escalation of the argument; both had consumed alcohol, but you returned at 7 pm intoxicated and angry. She was uncomfortable and asked you and your friend to leave, but that caused your anger to escalate. You then grabbed her by the arms and shoulders; count 1. She resisted; in response, you grabbed her by the throat, squeezed the neck. The pressure caused her to lose her breath for about five to 10 seconds. She struggled but could not escape your hold. You then dragged her by the throat into the living room, and using both hands, picked her up by the throat so her feet were off the ground and threw her to the ground. She landed hard and felt pain to the head; count 3. The children saw this.
She managed to get away and called for help. You went to a neighbour’s house. There was bruising to the neck, head and back, abrasions to the side, and red hands marks on the neck. Police attended; you were interviewed. You made some admissions; you denied squeezing her throat though, which is not accepted. I’ve seen the photographs here. There’s no victim impact statement, but of course, it can readily be inferred that the offending here has caused some emotional and physical distress. She’s quite charitable though and says she doesn’t want you to go to jail.
The Crown’s relied on HBZ [2020] QCA 73, which case has assisted me in reaching
my decision. Now, your barrister has told me you’re a citizen of the Solomon Islands and clearly enough, by reason of any sentence I impose excess of 12 months today, there’s a real risk of deportation and immigration detention, and I specifically have regard to the statements of principle in Norris and Abdy regarding that and mitigate the sentence by reason of that.
Ms Juhasz concedes two years is appropriate as a head sentence but submits, in light of the timely plea, your being on bail for a year with no further offending and no breaches of the order you should stay on today. She has told me you were born on the Solomon Islands, but your mother resides in Australia; she’s here in court to support you. You had a grandparent in the Solomons, but she has died – was it a female or a male, sorry?
MS JUHASZ: The grandmother recently died.
HIS HONOUR: Grandmother. So there’s no direct family, although there’s an extended family. As I say, you were born in the Solomons; you came to North Queensland and had school in Rockhampton from 14 to 16. You went back to the Solomons to live with your grandparents after that, but then came back to Queensland in the early 2000’s. You’ve been consistently employed; you’ve worked as a welder. Presently, you’re working in a pallet factory. I’ve also had regard to exhibit 7, and I’m impressed, actually, you’ve done this recovery program. I hope that that helped, and I’ve seen that certificate in that regard.
Ms Juhasz stresses the nature of the relationship, which was dysfunctional. You’re willing to pay child support. The complainant had her own mental health issues. Alcohol clearly was a bad thing for both of you. You made admissions in your record of interview. She stresses the absence of previous convictions for violence, which is very relevant. You’re very remorseful for this, and you’d like to ultimately have contact with the children, but I’ve put that off because, of course, this needs to be dealt with first.
In the end, it was reasonably protected. Choking is regarded seriously by the courts; deterrent sentences are necessary. I think you need to go to jail, but I propose to significantly reduce the actual custody, in light of the deportation issues, which I’ve mentioned, and the other mitigating factors.
On each count, a conviction is recorded. On count 1, I impose three months imprisonment; count 2, two months imprisonment; count 3 – sorry, two years imprisonment; count 3, 18 months imprisonment. Those terms of imprisonment are to be served concurrently with each other. I order the terms of imprisonment be suspended after you have served a period of three months imprisonment, and you must not commit another offence punishable by imprisonment within a period of two years, if you are to avoid being dealt with for the suspended term of imprisonment. Mr MacIntyre, anything further?...........”[49]
[49] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Attachment B, R v Manebona REVISED SENTECNE, 41-44.
On 16 January 2021, JW provided a letter of support to the Respondent. This says;
‘To whom it may concern,
I (JW) am the partner off John Manebona, we have been together since 7th of June 2014, [50]John and I share two children together, their names are (Child A) aged 5 years old and (Child B) aged 3 years old.
[50] This statement is inconsistent with reports made to police at the time of the family violence offences.
Our 5-year-old daughter (Child A) loves her father, they have a very good relationship, they are like best friends. (Child A) misses her father dearly, she is very stressed and unsettled and confused all the time asking and crying for her father. (Child A) is also not sleeping or eating very well at night due to not being able to see her father or visit him.
(Child B) our other daughter aged 3 years old is also asking and crying for her father. (Child B) loves her father very much, she sometimes gets confused on who to call dad due to her age, which can be unfair and heartbreaking to witness.
Both my daughters are missing out on their father John Manebona, which I (JW)
believe is unfair for both off them, and unsettling and painful to witness.
I (JW) do not want my two daughters missing out on their father, and also
do not want John Manebona the father off my two daughters, to miss out seeing his two
daughters growing up in Australia. I (JW) believe John Manebona is a very good person and important role model and father figure for (Child A) and (Child B) John loves and adores his two little girls very much.
For the health and wellbeing off my both my daughters (Child A and Child B), I hope and pray we do not lose their father from our lives, we all love and miss him dearly.’[51]
[51] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Notification of decision not to revoke visa cancelation decision made under s501(3A) Migration Act 1958, Attachment J: Statutory Declaration of JW, 88.
58.On 10 February 2021, the Minister cancelled the Applicant’s visa.[52]
[52] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB32, Manebona v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 116, 464.
59.On 24 February 2021, the Applicant was in court charged with contravention of the DV order on 14 October 2019. He was convicted and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment (concurrent).[53]
[53] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Notification of decision not to revoke visa cancelation decision made under s501(3A) Migration Act 1958, Attachment A: National Criminal History Check, 38; Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Notification of decision not to revoke visa cancelation decision made under s501(3A) Migration Act 1958, Attachment C: Transcript of proceedings in the Magistrates Court of Queensland, 46-47.
60.In his sentencing remarks Magistrate Shearer said:

“BENCH: All right, Mr Manebona. I’ve taken into account your plea of guilty. I don’t think anyone in any universe could say that it was an early plea by any stretch of the imagination, given that you were first before the court on the 15th of October 2019. So it was well over a year before any pleas were entered. The reality is that this is a – this was a very serious breach of the domestic violence order constituted not just by not being of good behaviour, but by strangulation, assault occasioning bodily harm and common assault, and Judge Smith came to the very lenient view that you need only serve three months in custody for that without, it seems, requiring anything of you apart from walking out the prison door. Given that this the court that deals with domestic violence, makes domestic violence orders, has to consider all of the applications of domestic violence orders – and I assume that one has been made in this case, has it?
MR HORGAN: Yes, your Honour. There’s one in place already.
BENCH: Part of the peer role of this court is to ensure that domestic violent – domestically violent offenders don’t reoffend. Now, I don’t know that that can be achieved by the – a complete suspension of the order with no counselling, no evidence that you’ve undertaken any sort of domestic violence programs or anything like that to reduce the risk of reoffending.
A fact that you don’t have any previous convictions for violence says, in the scheme of things, I think really neither here nor there because strangling someone, and assaulting them in the way you did, is not normal human behaviour and, occurring in a domestic setting, it’s something that the community I think would expect the courts to take steps to ensure that the person received supervision and some sort of domestic violence counselling or courses to ensure that it doesn’t happen again because I’m sure the complainant in this matter is someone who obviously you’re not going to be having a relationship with in future, but you may very well have a relationship with someone else and this sort of behaviour simply can’t be allowed to recur. The Parliament has made that perfectly clear by doubling the maximum penalty for this offence that can imposed in this court and increasing it to five or adding the new offence that increases it to five when dealt with in the District Court. So in my view, it would not be an appropriate sentencing response to merely convict and not further punish you.
I’m not going to inference with your release date, but I do think that you ought to be subject to supervision for some period of time and that that include domestic violence – a domestic violence course or counselling and that can only be achieved on parole. Leaving it up to you to do it I think would be a guarantee that it didn’t happen. So I’ve taken into account totality and that’s why your release date won’t be interfered with, but for the reasons I’ve just said, in my view, parole is appropriate. So for this charge, you’re convicted and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment. Parole release is fixed at the 8th of March 2021. Right. Thank you.- - -“[54]
[54] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB30, Manebona v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 730, 47.

On 27 September 2021, the Applicant attended a drug and alcohol abuse programme.[55]
[55] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB12, Certificate of attendance for Early Recovery Substance Use Program, 185.
62.On 28 February 2021, the Applicant made representations to the Minister seeking the cancellation of the visa revocation.[56]
[56] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB32, Manebona v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 116, 464.
63.In a report dated 18 July 2021, psychologist Suzan Utai says:
“Dear Sir/Madam
I am an accredited Mental Health Practitioner providing Psychological Therapies with Grow Support Incorporated. I received a referral from John's doctor, Dr. Rosemary Gunningham, requesting support for him from a therapeutic perspective regarding relationships. John attended therapy articulating his desire to further rectify and gain an understanding of how to learn strategies in assisting him to mend his relationship with his partner/mother of his children. John explained he had charges against him, although stated he did not agree with the charges.
John was referred in November 2019 and attended sessions throughout 2020. John presented very stressed and worried about his children. He said he wanted to be there for
his children. Throughout sessions he expressed his love for his children. He really missed
his children and believes he and his partner could overcome their differences with help. John was taking the steps to develop a plan so together he and his partner could be better parents together and have a better relationship.[57]
[57] This proposition was, on the evidence, totally unrealistic.
The absence of not having the children in John's life has impacted his levels of stress, this
stems from his cultural identity being that from a 'Collective perspective' and therefore, as
a consequence, struggles to manage his loss of identity, in this fundamental value
principal role as a father. The children were taken by their mother to John's sisters place
because she realised how important that bond was. Although this was a nice gesture, this
then again impacted John at being denied quality time with his children.
Although John disagreed with the charges, he knows he wants to be a better father and partner and was open to learning new coping mechanisms when things were not going well. John was also very open to change to ensure his daughters will grow up in a safe environment.
Although John had Domestic Violence charges against him, he has constantly maintained charges were over-exaggerated. He knows domestic violence is not appropriate and came to see me seeking better coping skills to manage his own behaviour.
I have spoken to John's mother and John's daughter who visited the office in support of
trying to get the help he needs to be reunited with his family.
John has never presented abusive or violent and has always been pleasant and courteous
to staff and clinicians.”[58]
64.The Applicant has not seen Ms Utai since he was imprisoned but he has had telephone contact with her. He last spoke with her 3 months ago.
[58] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Notification of decision not to revoke vis cancelation decision made under s 501(3A) Migration Act 1958, Attachment S: Letter by Suzanne Utai, Mental Health Practitioner at Grow Support Incorporated, 101-102.

On 29 September 2021, the Minister (by a delegate) refused to revoke the cancellation. On the same day, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate’s decision. [59]
[59] Ibid.
On 12 October 2021, the Applicant wrote a letter of apology to JW which states:
“Dear JW,
I have found it hard to write this letter due to what it regards, but I must say I regret my shameful actions I committed towards you.
I wish to apologise to you for what I have done and everything that you have gone through. I did not really understand the severity of my actions but I see the seriousness of what I did. The act was despicable and I wish for many feelings of remorse to reach you so that you may find forgiveness in your heart. We have had two beautiful children together and I know what I did not only affected you but because our kids witnessed it I also hurt them as well.
I have spent the past few months trying to see things from your perspective and I would never want anything like that to happened to me. I will never let myself do harm to anyone ever again. I wish that I could take back what I did. I realise that once something is done you cannot take it back so all I can do is apologise for hurting you the way that I did.
Please understand that it was not my intention to cause you so much pain. However I understand that what I did was wrong and the pain I caused you is inexcusable. The blame is on me and me alone.[60]
I am ashamed by my behaviour. You did not deserve for what I did to happen to you. I accept full responsibility for my actions as I am the only one to blame for my actions.
Though what I did can’t be reversed, please know that I regret my actions. I will continue to seek help and make positive changes to make sure this will never happen again.
Again, I am truly sorry for the pain and suffering I have caused you.
Sincerely,
John Coleridge Patterson Manebona”[61]
[60] In evidence he said that they were both at fault and that the police had not accepted his side of the story.
[61] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB13, Apology letter filed on 23 November 2021, 186.
On 12 October 2021, the Applicant also wrote a letter of apology to the Australian community which states:
“To all whom this concerns,
I wish to apologise to my family, the Australian Community, the Courts Justice system and most importantly the victim whom I have committed my offences against. In the time I have served in prison and the immigration centre, I have had time to reflect on my actions and attitudes towards everyone involved. I realise that what I have done is my fault and my responsibility to make sure that this never happens again.
To the victim,
I am sorry for my actions towards you. The disgusting acts that I have committed were wrong and considered inhuman. I am sorry for hurting you and betraying your trust. It is my hope that you can forgive for the choice that I made.
To my family,
I am sorry for disappointing you. I am sorry for putting you in this position of having to deal with me doing these things. I am also sorry for leaving you to got to jail and not being present in you present in your lives to provide financial and emotional support for you all. This aims me to know that I have let you down. To my children, I am sorry for what you had to experience witnessing what I have done. I know that this affected you both and hurt you. I am sorry and I love you both. My hope would be to be a good role model for you and show you that your father can recover and his past ways.
To the Australian Community and the Australian Justice system. I also want to apologise for my actions to you. Living in Australia is a priveledge and I did not take that into consideration when doing what I did. I understand now how wrong I was to break such laws and will never do something like this again. I am aware and regretful of my offending and the serious nature of my behaviour. I deeply regret my family violence behaviour and its impact on my children. Please understand that I have two young children who have been without a father for two years.
I respectfully request your consideration in allowing me to regain my visa, and I can only hope you can believe and trust my rehabilitation has created a long term positive change.
Respectfully,
John Coleridge Patterson Manebona.”[62]
[62] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB14, Apology letter filed on 23 November 2021, 187.
On 25 October 2021, the Applicant also wrote an email to the Respondent which states:
“To whom it may concern,
I am writing for your consideration to change your decision to cancel my visa and deport
me to the Solomon Islands.
I am aware and regretful of my offending and the serious nature of my behaviour. I deeply
regret my family violence behaviour and its impact on my children.
I have two young children who have now been without a father for two years. My hope
would be to be a good role model for them and show them that their father can recover and change his past bad ways.
I respectfully request your consideration in allowing me to regain my visa, and I can only
hope you can believe and trust that my rehabilitation has created long term positive change.
Respectfully,
John Manebona”[63]
[63] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB15, Applicant’s submission letter, 188.
The Applicant has indicated that he is prepared to do continue to do courses in the future, if he is returned to the community.[64] He has engaged with a psychologist.[65] He has no concrete plans to continue rehabilitation or counselling support however, if released.
[64] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Notification of decision not to revoke visa cancellation decision made under s 501(3A) Migration Act 1958, Attachment H: Personal Circumstances Act, 79; Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Notification of decision not to revoke visa cancellation decision made under s 501(3A) Migration Act 1958, Attachment R: Letter by the Applicant in response to Natural Justice Letter received from the Department, 100.
[65] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB19, Letter from Grow Support, 197.
On 17 December 2021, the Tribunal constituted by Member Maguire affirmed the visa cancellation decision.[66] ( the AAT decision)
[66] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB27, AAT 2021/7039 Decision and Reason for Decision, 314-371.
On 20 December 2021 detention centre staff were conducting a headcount and, in the process, had found a container of fermented liquid which was later confirmed as homebrew by another staff member in the possession of the applicant.[67]
[67] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB35, Applicant’s Detention Records- Incident Reports, 517.
On 18 January 2022, the Applicant sought judicial review of the AAT decision in the Federal Court.
On 24 June 2022, Derrington J dismissed that application for review.[68]
[68] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB30, Manebona v Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 730, 440-461.
On 11 October 2022, the Applicant was injured in an accident though had little recollection as the Applicant stated that he had consumed approximately 1 litre of homebrew, a fermented liquid made by detainees. [69]
[69] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB34, Applicant’s Detention Records- Individual Management Plan Review, 496.
On 11 January 2023, a search of all “gold two” rooms was conducted, Mr Manebona’s rooms is mentioned as a targeted room. During the search Mr Manebona was observed walking into his room and picking up a bag of laundry, Mr Manebona was alerted that staff would have to search the items he was attempting to remove from the room. As a result of the search there were what was thought to be suboxne strips wrapped in cling wrap, Mr Manebona took ownership for these.[70]
[70] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB35, Applicant’s Detention Records - Incident Reports, 504-505.
On 8 March 2023, Mr Manebona along with two others were found to be in the possession contraband, which was a bucket of what appeared to be homebrew.[71]
[71] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB35, Applicant’s Detention Records - Incident Reports, 507.
On 14 July 2023, Mr Manebona was involved in an incident in which he approached another detainee in a threating manner and stated ‘you think you are big, you are fucking nothing and I’m sick of your shit. If I catch you one on one, I am going to smash you’ though there was not a physical alternation reported on this date [72]
[72] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB35, Applicant’s Detention Records - Incident Reports, 510-511.
On 23 July 2023, a staff member was alerted that Mr Manebona and another detainee were consuming alcohol. It is reported that Mr Manebona was sitting at a table drinking out of a juice bottle which was later confiscated.[73]
[73] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB35, Applicant’s Detention Records - Incident Reports, 513-515.
On 26 July 2023, the Applicant appealed the Federal Court decision to the Full Bench of the Federal Court. The appeal was allowed, and the matter remitted to the Tribunal.[74]
[74]Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB32, Manebona V Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCAFC 116, 459-494.
In a letter dated 21 August 2023 Suzan Utai, psychologist stated:
“Dear Sir/Madam,
John contacted me recently to update me on his situation. I have not seen John since December 2020 due to him being detained. I am willing to continue working with John if released and am happy to be contacted if required.
I am an accredited Mental Health Practitioner who has providing Psychological Therapies on behalf of Grow Support Incorporated previously. I now work for Nesian Point Therapy.
Set out below are my interactions with John in the past.
John was referred to me by his doctor in November 2019 and had 19 sessions with me, the last one in December 2020. As a Psychotherapist, while working with John, I used a combination of interventions focusing on Psycho-education, Cognitive behavioural therapeutic strategies and Interpersonal Therapy. I also incorporated skills training with John in problem solving skills, anger management, stress management and communication training.
During the sessions, John was able to accept his responsibility in his relationship and work on improving behaviours that were not conducive to a healthy relationship. He was able to recognise healthy vs unhealthy relationships, use strategies to control his anger, understand where his downfall was and was working on better communications skills to enhance his relationship rather than break it down further.
John realised things he was doing wrong in his relationship and was trying to change negative behaviours. He gained an insight into the effects of his behaviours on his children and was very remorseful of the impact it would have caused his children.
John was help seeking in wanting to have a better relationship. During sessions, he learned different strategies and I believe his insight into his behaviours had a big impact on the way he viewed the relationship. John was learning new ways of dealing with stressful situations that also had an impact on his relationship.
Given what John had been learning through sessions, I believe he was wanting to change and wanting to better himself as a better father and partner in his family.”[75]
[75] Exhibit 7, Letter from Susan Utai.
It is notable that this letter still talks in terms of the Applicant restoring his relationship with JW and his children. This is not only prohibited by a current Intervention Order, but he conceded in his evidence, that there was no chance of his relationship with JW being restored.
The Applicant has a history of drug and alcohol use. He attributes his offending to alcohol abuse.
The Applicant has undertaken various courses including dealing with drug and alcohol abuse/ addiction, anger management, relationships, parenting, babysitting, building self-esteem, communication with diplomacy and tact, confidence building, and domestic violence.[76]
[76] See Exhibit 9-16.
The Applicant’s detention records indicate ongoing behavioural issues including possession and use of drugs/alcohol.
The Applicant told the Tribunal that his physical and mental health is good.
The Applicant’s father and grandparents are deceased. He does however have many aunts and an uncle in the Solomon Islands. Through them, he has more than 20 cousins there. He has not been in contact with them for a while and has been careful not to tell them about his present circumstances. He said that his family there would support him in the event of him returning there and having any needs.
If the Applicant told the Tribunal that if he were to be released into the community, he would live with his mother and support her. She has a room available for him. He would try to get work and to financially support his children. He has a job waiting for him in Brisbane. He is also interested in well paid contract work in Perth. He wants to get legal aid to assist in reconnecting with his children. He would continue rehabilitation in the community. He said that he may try alcohol again in the future, but he has learned his lesson, and he will not reoffend. He will keep away from his old drinking friends. He accepts that his children will continue to live with JW. He now has no plans to resume his relationship with JW.
The Applicant’s criminal history,[77] is annexed hereto and marked “B”.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
[77] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Notification of decision not to revoke visa cancellation decision made under s 501(3A) Migration Act 1958, Attachment A: National Criminal History Check, 38-41.
Does the Applicant Pass the Character Test?
As discussed above, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant has a “substantial criminal record” and, therefore, he does not pass the character test. This is not disputed by the Applicant. The Tribunal must consider whether “there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked”.
Is there another reason why the original decision should be revoked under section 501CA(4)?
In considering whether to exercise this discretion, the Tribunal is bound by s 499(2A) to comply with any directions made under the Act. In this case, Direction No 99 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (“the Direction”) has application.[78]
[78] On 15 April 2021, the former applicable direction, Direction No. 79 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s501CA, was revoked and was replaced by Direction 90, this in turn was replaced by Direction 99 on 3 March 2023.
For the purposes of deciding whether to refuse or cancel a non-citizen’s visa or whether or not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen’s visa, paragraph 5.2 of the Direction contains several principles that must inform a decision maker’s application of the considerations identified in Part 2 where relevant to the decision.
The principles that are found in paragraph 5.2 of the Direction may be briefly stated as follows:
(1)Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia’s law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
(2)Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.
(3)The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
(4)Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non- citizens 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 by non- citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.
(5)With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia will generally afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age. The level of tolerance will rise with the length of time a non-citizen has spent in the Australian community, particularly in their formative years.
Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the noncitizen’s conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation. In particular, the inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence and the other types of conduct or suspected conduct mentioned in paragraph 8.55(2) (Expectations of the Australian Community) is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient in some circumstances, even if the non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
Paragraph 6 of the Direction provides that:
Informed by the principles in paragraph 5.2, a decision maker must take into account the considerations identified in sections 8 and 9, where relevant to the decision.
Paragraph 8 of the Direction sets out five Primary Considerations that the Tribunal must take into account and they are:
(1)protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(2)whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;
(3)the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia:
(4)the best interests of minor children in Australia; and
(5)expectations of the Australian community.
Paragraph 9 of the Direction sets out five Other Considerations which must be taken into account. These considerations are:
a)Legal consequence of the decision;
b)extent of impediments if removed;
c)impact on victims; and
d)links to the Australian community, including:
i)strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia; and
ii)impact on Australian business interests.
I note the importance of the Other Considerations being “other” considerations, as opposed to “secondary” considerations. As noted by Colvin J in Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection:[79]
“…Direction 65 [now Direction 99] makes clear that an evaluation is required in each case as to the weight to be given to the 'other considerations' (including non‑refoulement obligations). It requires both primary and other considerations to be given 'appropriate weight'. Direction 65 does provide that, generally, primary considerations should be given greater weight. They are primary in the sense that absent some factor that takes the case out of that which pertains 'generally' they are to be given greater weight. However, Direction 65 does not require that the other considerations be treated as secondary in all cases. Nor does it provide that primary considerations are 'normally' given greater weight. Rather, Direction 65 concerns the appropriate weight to be given to both 'primary' and 'other considerations'. In effect, it requires an inquiry as to whether one or more of the other considerations should be treated as being a primary consideration or the consideration to be afforded greatest weight in the particular circumstances of the case because it is outside the circumstances that generally apply.”[80]
[79] [2018] FCA 594.
[80] Ibid, [23].
OFFENDING HISTORY

The Applicant’s criminal record as produced by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission is outlined at Annexure B.
The Applicant has been in Australia since 2007. He arrived as an adult. His offending, albeit initially very minor, commenced within 2 years of his arrival, as set out above. From 2011 onwards, it escalated.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 1 – PROTECTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY
In considering this Primary Consideration 1, paragraph 8.1 of the Direction requires decision-makers to keep in mind the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. Decision-makers should have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that this country confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, that they will respect important institutions and that they will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
In determining the weight applicable to Primary Consideration 1, paragraph 8.1(2) of the Direction requires decision-makers to give consideration to:
a)The nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date; and
b)The risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
The Nature and Seriousness of the Applicant’s Conduct to Date
When assessing the nature and seriousness of a non-citizen’s criminal offending or other conduct to date, paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction specifies that decision-makers must have regard to a number of factors. I will now turn to addressing these considerations.
Sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction provides that without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, violent and/or sexual crimes; crimes of a violent nature against women or children (regardless of the sentence imposed); or acts of family violence (regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed) are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community.
The Applicant has been involved in various types of criminal offending. Aside from the very minor matters set out above, his offending began in 2011. This has included driving and drug offences. His most serious offending involves family violence. The victim was his some-time domestic partner, and mother of his children, JW. His offending occurred in the presence of his very young daughters, Child A and Child B. The effect on JW must have been very frightening. She was choked by the Applicant on two separate occasions. Independent observations of her resulting injuries were made by police. She was taken to hospital for treatment. She was not admitted. On the second occasion the Applicant was in breach of an order made to protect JW and the children. The Applicant concedes that his children witnessed his offending.
Sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction provides that without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are considered by the Australian Government and the Australian community to be serious:
(i)causing a person to enter into or being party to a forced marriage (other than being a victim), regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed;
(ii)crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community (such as the elderly and the disabled), or government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties;
(iii)any conduct that forms the basis for a finding that a non-citizen does not pass an aspect of the character test that is dependent upon the decision-maker’s opinion (for example, section 501(6)(c));
(iv)where the non-citizen is in Australia, a crime committed while the non-citizen was in immigration detention, during an escape from immigration detention, or after the non-citizen escaped from immigration detention, but before the non-citizen was taken into immigration detention again, , or an offence against section 197A of the Act, which prohibits escape from immigration detention.
The Applicant’s conduct is such that he does not pass the character test.
Sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker (with the exception of the crimes or conduct mentioned in sub-paragraphs (a)(ii), (a)(iii) or (b)(i) of paragraph 8.1.1(1)) to have regard to the sentence(s) imposed by the Courts for a crime or crimes of a non-citizen/applicant. The imposition of a custodial term is regarded as the last resort in any reasonably and correctly applied sentencing process. Custodial terms are viewed as a reflection of the objective seriousness of an applicant’s offending.
The Applicant has had many encounters with the criminal justice system since coming here as a 20-year-old man. He has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for family violence. The sentencing remarks, set out above, speak of the relative seriousness of his offending.
Sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to have regard to the frequency of a non-citizen’s offending and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness.
The Applicant’s offending since 2011 has escalated and become increasingly serious. His most recent offence seems to have been the most serious.
Sub-paragraph (e) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to have regard to the cumulative effect of an Applicant’s repeated offending.
The cumulative effect of the Applicant’s offending is significant. The Applicant’s offending against JW has been very serious. He is now prohibited from having any contact with her until at least 2025. His actions have also been witnessed by his infant daughters, who as a result, have also had to deal with an absent father. There is no evidence before the Tribunal, concerning the damage done to Child A and Child B, by the Applicant’s behaviour. At very least though, they have been exposed to family violence in their home and denied optimal coparenting by their father.
Sub-paragraph (f) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to have regard to whether a non-citizen has provided false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending.
There is no evidence of this.
Sub-paragraph (g) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to have regard to whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned about the consequences of further offending in terms of the non-citizen’s migration status (noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen’s favour).
There is no evidence of this.
Sub-paragraph (h) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to have regard, where the offence or conduct was committed in another country, to whether that offence or conduct is classified as an offence in Australia.
There is no evidence of this.
I do not consider factors (f), (g) and (h) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction apply to the Applicant’s offending or circumstances. The rest of the relevant sub-paragraphs of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction, in their totality, weigh heavily against revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
The Risk to the Australian Community Should the Applicant Commit Further Offences or Engage in Other Serious Conduct
Paragraph 8.1.2(1) provides that in considering the need to protect Australian community (including individuals, groups or institutions) from harm, decision-makers should have regard to the Government’s view 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.
Paragraph 8.1.2(2) provides that in assessing the risk that may be posted by the non-citizen 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;
(b)the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account :
(c)(i) information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen re-offending; and
(d)(ii) evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence; and
(e)(iii) where consideration is being given to whether to refuse to grant a visa to the non-citizen - whether the risk of harm may be affected by the duration and purpose of the non-citizen’s intended stay, the type of visa being applied for, and whether there are strong or compassionate reasons for granting a short stay visa.
Nature of harm should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct
Assessing the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community that may occur if the Applicant were to engage in further criminal or other serious conduct, is informed by the nature of his offending to date, including any escalation in his offending. This assessment also notes that the Direction provides that the Australian community’s tolerance for harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable. (Paragraph 8.1.2(1))
The Applicant has shown a consistent disregard for the laws of Australia since soon after he arrived here as a 20-year-old man. There is a pattern of criminal conduct which has been progressively becoming more serious. He has conceded that this has often involved alcohol. The evidence suggests that despite undertaking various courses, he has continued to use alcohol, even since he has been in detention.
The Direction makes it plain that family violence is totally unacceptable. In this case we have two serious instances of family violence, the latter in breach of an ADVO. Both episodes involved choking JW. Offending of this violent nature could easily escalate to the point that it is life threatening. The potential for future harm applies not only to JW, but to any other partner, and any other children, that the Applicant may have a “family” association with in the future. Exposing his young children to this conduct, makes it especially reprehensible.
The nature of the potential future harm is so serious that it can be shown little tolerance. It borders on the sort of conduct any repetition of which, is “unacceptable.”
Likelihood of engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct
There was no expert witness called before the Tribunal to assist with an assessment of the Applicant’s risk of recidivism. There was some evidence from psychologist Susan Utai, as set out above. This suggests that the Applicant’s account of his history, as given to his treating psychologist, was inaccurate in material respects. For example, he told her that the charges against him were “over-exaggerated”. She does not give an assessment of the risk of further offending.
The Tribunal is asked to accept the Applicant’s assurance that he will not reoffend. Taken at its highest, this is his current aspiration.
The Applicant has done various on-line courses as discussed above. He has also seen a psychologist for therapy.
The Applicant has apologised for his conduct as discussed.[81] He says that he is remorseful. Whether this remorse is a consequence of his present circumstances, or a genuine expression of empathy for his victim (s), is difficult to assess. What exactly he may be remorseful for is also in doubt, given his denial of various critical facts, such as choking JW.
[81] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB13, Apology letter filed on 23 November 2023, 186-188.
In his personal circumstances form completed on 28 March 2021, the Applicant said of his offending:
“Although I pleaded guilty to the offences as charged the circumstances were not so one sided. My former partner and I had troubles fro some year especailly when alcohol was involved. Although we argued and had this terrible incident which I very much regret, we still care for one another and love and want the best for our children, who will suffer the most if I am deported.I have shown whilst on bail for a year that I can and will obey court orders, refrain from domestic violence, and do the right thing with respect to my former partner and our children…
Yes, I completed a course on avoiding domestic violence and will send copy of the certifcate. I am willing to do more with respect to avoiding abuse of alchol and self development to do much better in future, but these cousres are not offered at B.C.C…
After my experiences in prison and otherwise with respect to this offence, I am certain that I will not offend in the future if given the opportunity to remain with my family, supporters and to look after my children.”[82]
[82] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Notification of decision not to revoke visa cancellation decision made under s 501(3A) Migration Act 1958, Attachment H: Applicant’s Personal Circumstances Form, 79.
The Applicant says that he is willing to participate in rehabilitation programmes in the future,[83] but he has no concrete plans to do so.
[83] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Notification of decision not to revoke visa cancellation decision made under s 501(3A) Migration Act 1958, Attachment R: Letter by the Applicant in response to Natural Justice received from the Department, 100.
The Applicants claims to have ceased using drugs following the birth of his children[84], this is untrue.[85]
[84] Exhibit 9, Response to Natural Justice Letter 26^th April, 2021.
[85] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Notification of decision not to revoke visa cancellation decision made under s 501(3A) Migration Act 1958, Attachment A: National Criminal History Check, 39; Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB25 Material produced under summons, Verdict and Judgement Record, 248; Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB35, Applicant’s Detention Records – Incident Reports, 505.
The Applicant has continued to use alcohol, even when in detention.[86]
[86] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB34, Applicant’s Detention Records- Individual Management Plan Review, 496; Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB35, Applicant’s Detention Records – Incident Reports, 507; Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB35, Applicant’s Detention Records – Incident Reports, 512-517.
There is a link between the Applicant’s use of alcohol and his offending.
The Applicant’s plans if returned to the community are vague, beyond having a desire to reconnect with his children.
The Applicant’s capacity to remain drug and alcohol free in the community has not been tested, but his record in detention suggests that he will struggle in an uncontrolled environment.
I assess his risk of reoffending if released into the community as being at least moderate, if not higher. This risk, combined with the gravity of his offending weighs very heavily against revocation.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 1
Primary consideration number one weighs very heavily against revocation of the Applicant’s visa cancellation.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 2: FAMILY VIOLENCE
Paragraph 8.2 of the Direction provides:
(1)The Government has serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of entering or remaining in Australia. The Government’s concerns in this regard are proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen (see paragraph (3) below).
(2)This consideration is relevant in circumstances where:
a)a non-citizen has been convicted of an offence, found guilty of an offence, or had charges proven howsoever described, that involve family violence; and/or
b)there is information or evidence from independent and authoritative sources indicating that the non-citizen is, or has been, involved in the perpetration of family violence, and the non-citizen being considered under section 501 or section 501CA has been afforded procedural fairness.
(3)In considering the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non- citizen, the following factors must be considered where relevant:
a)the frequency of the non-citizen’s conduct and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;
b)the cumulative effect of repeated acts of family violence;
c)rehabilitation achieved at time of decision since the person’s last known act of family violence, including:
i.the extent to which the person accepts responsibility for their family violence related conduct;
ii.the extent to which the non-citizen understands the impact of their behaviour on the abused and witness of that abuse (particularly children);
iii.efforts to address factors which contributed to their conduct; and
d)Whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware by a Court, law enforcement or other authority, about the consequences of further acts of family violence, noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen’s favour. This includes warnings about the non- citizen’s migration status, should the non-citizen engage in further acts of family violence.
The Applicant’s history of family violence has been canvassed at length above.
The Applicant has committed two known acts of family violence against his former partner, (JW), the second in breach of an ADVO. This offending was witnesses by his infant daughters. In the first case, an infant was directly involved in the violent behaviour. In this context, they are both also victims of his offending.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 2
This consideration weighs very heavily against revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
Primary Consideration 3: Ties to Australia
Paragraph 8.3 of the Direction provides:
(1) Decision-makers must consider any impact of the decision on the non-citizen’s immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
(2) In considering a non-citizen’s ties to Australia, decision-makers should give more weight to a non-citizen’s ties to his or her child and/or children who are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
(3) The strength, duration and nature of any family or social links generally with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
(4) Decision-makers must also consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the non-citizen has to the Australian community. In doing so, decision-makers must have regard to:
a) the length of time the non-citizen has resided in the Australian community, noting that:
i. considerable weight should be given to the fact that a noncitizen has been ordinarily resident in Australia during and since their formative years, regardless of when their offending commenced and the level of that offending; and
ii. more weight should be given to the time the non-citizen has resided in Australia where the non-citizen has contributed positively to the Australian community during that time; and
iii. less weight should be given to the length of time spent in the Australian community where the non-citizen was not ordinarily resident in Australia during their formative years and the noncitizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia.

The Applicant first came to Australia when he was 14 years old. He stayed for almost a year to attend school. He then returned to the Solomon Islands until he was 20 years old. He did not spend most of his formative years here.
He started offending, aside from very minor infringements, in 2011, about 4 years after his return to Australia.
The Applicant has strong family ties in Australia, including his mother, sister, brother, children, and two nieces.[87]
[87] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Notification of decision not to revoke visa cancellation
decision made under s 501(3A) Migration Act 1958, Attachment H: Applicant’s Personal Circumstances Form, 76-78.
The Applicant has provided some history of employment.[88]
[88] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Notification of decision not to revoke visa cancellation
decision made under s 501(3A) Migration Act 1958, Attachment H: Applicant’s Personal Circumstances Form, 80.
There is evidence to suggest that he is a valued worker and would be offered employment if returned to the community.[89]
[89] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB20, Letter from JG50 Pty Ltd, 198.
Having regard to all of the material before the Tribunal, this Primary Consideration weighs moderately in favour of revocation of the Applicant’s visa cancellation.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 3
This consideration weighs moderately in favour of revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 4: THE BEST INTERESTS OF MINOR CHILDREN IN AUSTRALIA
Paragraph 8.4(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to make a determination about whether cancellation or refusal under section 501, or non-revocation under section 501CA is in the best interests of a child affected by the decision. Paragraphs 8.4(2) and 8.4(3) respectively contain further considerations. The former provides that for their interests to be considered, the relevant child (or children) must be under 18 years of age at the time when a decision about whether or not to refuse or cancel the visa or not to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision is being made. The latter provides that if there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests may differ
The Direction sets out a number of factors to take into consideration with respect to the best interests of minor children in Australia. Those include, relevantly:
·     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);
·     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 any Court orders relating to parental access and care arrangements;
·     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;
·     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;
·     whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child;
·     any known views of the child (with those views being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child);
·     evidence that the child has been, or is at risk of being, subject to, or exposed to, family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen, or has otherwise been abused or neglected by the non-citizen in any way, whether physically, sexually or mentally;
·     evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen’s conduct.
The relevant minor children in Australia are:[90]
Child A.Daughter – born June 2015, aged 8.
Child B.Daughter – born May 2017, aged 6.
Child C.Niece – born May 2010, aged 13.
Child D.Niece – aged 1 year.
[90] Exhibit 11, Screenshots of Video Chats with Daughters and Nieces; Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Personal Circumstance Form, 74-76.
The Applicant is very strongly motivated to be reunited with his children. He says that they will suffer if he is returned to the Solomon Islands. This is not however a straightforward matter. In his personal circumstances form dated 28 March 2021, the Applicant said:
“Before difficulties with their mother, I lived with my daughters and my relationship with them was very good. I very much regret what happened between their mother and me which the children were largely not privy to, but this caused us to be living apart. However, I continued to have contact with the children by telephone and sharing regularly in their care. They would live with me when not with their mother on weekends and school holidays. My sister and mother would look after them whilst I was at work, but I would care for them alone before and after work. They ask for and about me every day whilst I have been in prison and I can have telephone contact with them when I call my sister as they stay with her most weekends. We have decided it is best not to subject them to a prison visit…
…. As my relationship, notwithstanding my imprisonment, is very close with my children, they will be severely impacted adversely by my inability to personally care and provide for them. I will not be able to work in the Solomon Islands to generate the income necessary to properly look after them in Australia and I will not be able to care for them and have them visit or live with me. Despite the challenges their mother and I have had, we still care for one another and depend on each other to jointly care for and I am the main financial contributor to the necessary family income.”[91]
[91] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Notification of decision not to revoke visa cancellation decision made under s 501(3A) of Migration Act 1958, Attachment H; Applicant’s Personal Circumstances Form, 75.
Child A and Child B are Australian citizens.
Child A and Child B are, as previously observed, proximate victims of the Applicant’s offending, by reason of their exposure to it. The breach of the ADVO by the Applicant was also a breach of an order made to protect them.[92]
[92] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB25, Materials produced under summons, Queensland Police Service Court Brief, 263; Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB25, Materials produced under summons, Queensland Police Service Court Brief, 266.
The Applicant is not their primary care giver. That is JW. The Applicant has not lived with the children at least since October 2019. It is unclear when he was last living with them before that. His statement (above) suggests that they were already separated for some time.
The Applicant and JW were not in a stable relationship for many years prior to October 2019. There was at least one period during which JW lived in a shelter with Child A for a period of 6 months. They have not been living together for much of the time since the birth of the children.
The Applicant told the Tribunal that he would not live with JW and the children if returned to the community. He is prohibited from having any contact with the children’s mother until at least 05/02/2025. [93] The prospect of him seeing his children at all, may depend on the outcome of future court actions.
[93] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB26, Further material produced under summons, Temporary Protection Order, 299.
That said, JW has provided a statement dated 21 January 2021 supporting the Applicant’s continuing relationship with Child A and Child B.[94] That statement gives an impression which even then, was at best misleading. For example, he was not at that time, or for some time before, her “partner”. She has provided no other statement since 2021. Whether she continues to hold that view is unknown. Her support must be seen in the light of her continuing to be the beneficiary of an order protecting her from the Applicant. It is reasonable to deduce, given the continuing protection orders, that her interests in seeing the Applicant returned to the community are primarily financial.
[94] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Notification of decision not to revoke visa cancellation decision made under s 501(3A) of Migration Act 1958, Attachment I: Copies of Queensland Birth Certificate, 88.
It seems that the children do have weekly, fortnightly, or monthly contact with the Applicant’s mother and sister.
The Applicant has maintained contact electronically with the children since he has been incarcerated. This has been achieved by ringing his mother when the children are visiting her. He could continue to do this from the Solomon Islands.
The Applicant says that if he is returned to the community, he will obtain employment. He will contribute to his daughters’ financial security as well was supporting them practically and emotionally.
The exact form that this might take is a matter for speculation, given the history of family violence, JW’s safety concerns and the possible interest that child protection authorities may take in the children’s welfare. Any steps that the Applicant might wish to take to re-establish contact with his daughters would almost certainly involve legal proceedings. This may involve attempting to vary the existing ADVO and/or Family Court applications. The possible outcome of any such matters, especially in circumstances where JW’s present views are unknown, is purely a matter for speculation. One possible outcome is that very little actually changes in terms of his access to his daughters. If he goes to Perth for work, as he indicated to the Tribunal that he may, very little would change in terms of contact. The most likely positive outcome for the children would be if the Applicant obtained work in Australia, he may contribute to their financial wellbeing. I accept that he would be more likely to be able to make a meaningful financial contribution working in Australia, than he would if he returned to the Solomon Islands.
If the Applicant were to reoffend, a prospect of which I have assessed there of being at least a moderate risk, the consequences for the girls may be very damaging.
The Applicant has also identified Child 3, his niece. He says in his personal circumstances form completed on 28 March 2021:

“I am very close with my niece, my sister, and her in laws especially my niece’s grandfather, who has provided a letter of support. All of the family lives close by and interacts regularly and often. I treat my niece like my own daughters and they are close cousins. Like Child A and Child B, I look after Child C before and after work or when my sister need me to do so otherwise I will return to living with them when released if this visa cancellation is resolved in favour of me remaining resident permanently in Australia.
Child C will also be adversely affected if I am removed from Australia. She already misses me whist I have been in jail and I would like to return to helping to support her.”[95]
[95] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Notification of decision not to revoke visa cancellation decision made under s 501(3A) of Migration Act 1958, Attachment H; Applicant’s Personal Circumstances Form, 77.
The Applicant has not performed a parental role in Child C’s life. He told the Tribunal that he spent some more with Child C before his own children were born. He would likely play some role in her life if he returned to live in Brisbane. If he went to Perth, nothing much would change for Child C.
They could maintain electronic communications from the Solomon Islands.
Child C will be 18 in about 4 years.
The Applicant told the Tribunal that his sister has another daughter, Child D, who is just 1 year old. He has never met her but has seen her and talked to her on phone/ video calls.
Given Child D’s age and level of contact with the Applicant, his impact on her life is minimal. If he were to remain here, and to live in Brisbane, he may have a positive relationship with her as an uncle. If he were to return to the Solomon Islands, she could still have electronic communication with him.
Having regard to all of the above, and assuming in the Applicant’s favour that he does not reoffend, primary consideration 4 weighs moderately in favour of revocation of the Applicant’s visa cancellation.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 5 – THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY
The relevant paragraphs in the Direction
In making the assessment for weight to be allocated to Primary Consideration 5, paragraph 8.5(1) of the Direction provides that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. I should consider whether the Applicant has breached, or whether there is an unacceptable risk that he would breach, this expectation by engaging in serious conduct.
Paragraph 8.5(2) of the Direction directs that a visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, 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 be granted or continue to hold a visa. In particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, of the following kind:
(a)acts of family violence; or
(b)causing a person to enter into, or being party to (other than being a victim of), a forced marriage;
(c)commission of serious crimes against women, children or other vulnerable members of the community such as the elderly or disabled; in this context, ‘serious crimes’ include crimes of a violent or sexual nature, as well as other serious crimes against the elderly or other vulnerable persons in the form of fraud, extortion, financial abuse/material exploitation or neglect;
(d)commission of crimes against government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties; or
(e)involvement or reasonably suspected involvement in human trafficking or people smuggling, or in crimes that are of serious international concern including, but not limited to, war crimes, crimes against humanity and slavery; or
(f)worker exploitation.
Paragraph 8.5(3) of the Direction provides that the above expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
Paragraph 8.5 (4) of the Direction provides guidance on how the expectations of the Australian community are to be determined. This paragraph states:
This consideration is about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole, and in this respect, decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government’s views as articulated above, without independently assessing the community’s expectations in the particular case.
Paragraph 8.5(4) is consistent with the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185 (“FYBR”) which affirmed the approach established in previous authorities that it is not for the Tribunal to determine for itself the expectations of the Australian community by reference to an Applicant’s circumstances or evidence about those expectations. The Tribunal is to be guided by the Government’s views as to the expectations of the Australian community, which are to be found in the Direction.[96]
[96] See Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 348; Afu v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1311; YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466 and FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 500.
Paragraph 8.5 contains a statement of the Government’s views as to the expectations of the Australian community, which operates to ascribe to the whole of the Australian community an expectation aligning with that of the executive government which the decision maker must have regard to.
Analysis – Allocation of Weight to this Primary Consideration 5
Accordingly, in assessing the weight attributable to Primary Consideration 5, it is necessary to have regard to the following matters:
(a)the Applicant’s criminal record as set out in Annexure B.
(b)The very low tolerance that the community has for family violence and breaches of court orders and the other matters discussed above at length.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 5
Primary consideration 5 weighs heavily against revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
It is necessary to look at the Other Considerations listed at paragraph 9 of the Direction.
(a) Legal consequence of the decision;
This issue does not arise in this case.
This Other Consideration is neutral.
(b) Extent of Impediments if Removed
Paragraph 9.2 of the Direction directs a decision-maker to take into account the extent of any impediments that the non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account:
(a)the non-citizen’s age and health;
(b)whether there are any substantial language or cultural barriers; and
(c)any social, medical and/or economic support available to that non-citizen in that country.
The Applicant is 37 years old.
He told the Tribunal that he does not suffer from any physical ailments, though the evidence suggests that he may have some substance/alcohol abuse issues.[97] These may require treatment, which may be more difficult to obtain in the Solomon Islands.
[97] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Notification of decision not to revoke visa cancellation decision made under s 501(3A) of Migration Act 1958, Attachment H; Applicant’s Personal Circumstances Form, 81.
There is no evidence to suggest that the Applicant would experience any significant language or cultural issues if he were to return to the Solomon Islands. He did after all live there, but for a short period in his teen years, until he was 20 years old.
There is no evidence to suggest that he would not have access to the same social, medical and economic support as any other citizen.
Having lived in Australia for many years, he would no doubt experience some emotional, practical and economic hardships if he were to return. His access to particular services for his substance/alcohol abuse problems may be limited. Psychological support may also be comparatively limited. I accept that he would be distressed by his removal from Australia, his relatives here and his daughters.
The Applicant has a large extended family in the Solomon Islands. He says in his personal circumstances form of 28 March 2021:
“

In Australia

Other country- specify

Number of uncles/aunts

NIL

6 – Solomon Islands

Number of nieces/nephews

1

>20- Solomon Islands

Number of cousins

NIL

NIL—Solomon Islands

Number grandparents

NIL

NIL

Although my father has remarried having more children and a large extended family in the Solomon Islands I am not close with them and cannot expect or rely on their support. I will be ashamed to return there after being in prison and will not be welcome as they have a bad impression of what I have done and because I am not married to a Solomon Island lady with children there.”[98]
[98] Exhibit 2, Remittal Bundle, RB2, Notification of decision not to revoke visa cancellation decision made under s 501(3A) of Migration Act 1958, Attachment H; Applicant’s Personal Circumstances Form, 78.

His evidence to the Tribunal was very different. He said that he was sure that his relatives would be there to support him if he returned to the Solomon Islands.

Having regard to all of the evidence, this Other Consideration weighs moderately in favour of revocation of the visa cancellation.
(c) Impact on victims
Paragraph 9.3 of the Direction directs a decision-maker to take into account the impact of the section 501 or 501CA decision 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 information in this regard is available and the non-citizen being considered for visa refusal or cancellation, or who has sought revocation of the mandatory cancellation of their visa, has been afforded procedural fairness.
The primary victim here is JW. She has provided a statement in support of the Applicant dated 16 January 2021[99]. There is no way of knowing her current views, as no such evidence was before the Tribunal. She did not give evidence and is still protected from the Applicant by an ADVO until 2025.
[99] See above at paragraph 57.
I note that JW says that returning the Applicant to the Solomon Islands will have a negative impact on her and her children. As previously observed, Child A and Child B are in some respects, also victims of the Applicant’s offending.
I accept that the Applicant has evidence of support from his victim(s). Assuming in the Applicant’s favour that JW still holds the same opinion, this weighs slightly in his favour.
This Other Consideration (c) weighs slightly in favour of revocation.
(d) Impact on Australian business interests
Paragraph 9.4 of the Direction directs a decision-maker to take into account the following:
Decision-makers must consider any impact on Australian business interests if the non-citizen is not allowed to enter or remain in Australia, noting that an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision under section 501 or 501CA would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.
There is no evidence to suggest that this Other Consideration is enlivened.
This Other Consideration (d) is neutral.
Findings: Other Considerations
The application of the Other Considerations in the present matter can be summarised as follows:
(a)Legal consequence of decision under s501 or s501CA: is neutral;
(b)extent of impediments if removed: weighs moderately in favour of revocation;
(c)impact on victims: weighs slightly in favour;
(d)the impact on Australian business interests: is neutral.
CONCLUSION
It is necessary to weigh up all of the primary and other considerations.
Primary consideration 1 weighs very heavily against revocation.
Primary consideration 2 weighs very heavily against revocation.
Primary consideration 3 weighs moderately in favour of revocation.
Primary consideration 4 weighs moderately in favour of revocation.
Primary consideration 5 weighs heavily against revocation.
Other considerations, (a) and (d) are neutral.
Other consideration, (b) weighs moderately in favour of revocation.
Other consideration, (c ) weighs slightly in favour of revocation.
This case essentially involves weighing the gravity of the Applicant’s family violence offending, and his risk of continuing to offend, against his personal disadvantages and those of his family, JW, friends and minor children in Australia, if he were to be returned to the Solomon Islands.
The Applicant’s family violence offending, and breach of a protection order are extremely serious. The Direction makes it clear that family violence is unacceptable. The Applicant’s no doubt genuine desire to be a positive part of his daughter’s lives, must be tempered by practical reality. He stands little prospect of being a regular, physical presence in their lives in the foreseeable future, if ever during their minority. He may possibly offer some financial support if he were to remain in Australia, but otherwise, his contact with them by electronic means may be basically the same whether he was in Brisbane, Perth, or the Solomon Islands. In my view, Primary Considerations 1, 2 and 5, greatly outweigh Primary Considerations 3 ,4 and the Other Considerations.
In my view, the proper application of the Direction favours the Tribunal not exercising the discretion to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa. I find that there is not “another reason” pursuant to s501CA (4)(b)(ii) to revoke the original decision.
DECISION
The decision under review is affirmed.

I certify that the preceding two hundred and fifteen (215) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member J Rau SC.

...........................[Sgnd]..........................
Associate

Dated:   12 December 2023

Date of hearing: 27 November 2023

Advocate for the Applicant:

Self-Represented

Advocate for the Respondent: Emma Letcher-Boldt
Lawyer
Clayton UTZ

Annexure A – List of Exhibits

Exhibit no.

Lodged by

Document

1

Applicant

Applicant SOFIC due on 19 October 2023

2

Respondent

Respondent SOFIC due on 2 November 2023

3

Respondent

Remittal Bundle (located in separate folder)

4

Applicant

Combined SMART Recovery Verification Emails

5

Applicant

Letter of Apology from Mr Manebona

6

Applicant

Letter from Counsellor (28 July 2023)

8

Applicant

Bundle of Documents – Support Letters and Identification

1.    Letter of Support from Joyce Sheedy (01.11.2022)

2.    Birth Certificate

3.    Letter of Support from Duran Angiki (22.09.2023)

4.    Drivers License of Joyce Sheedy

5.    Godparents Certificate

6.    Letter of Support from Joanne Fourie (26.09.2023)

7.    Letter from Mr Manebona (19.09.2023)

8.    Letter of Support from Joyce Sheedy (23.09.2023)

9.    Letter of Support from Royce Lacey

10. Letter of Support from Lorrain Wane (22.09.2023)

9

Applicant

Bundle of Documents

1.    Letter from S. Taylor

2.    Certificates of Course Completion

10

Applicant

Bundle of Documents

1.    Letter of Support from Jamie Warnock (16.01.2021)

2.    Letter of Support from Joyce Sheedy (26.01.2021)

3.    Statutory Declaration from Jamie Warnock (16.01.2021)

4.    Birth Certificate

5.    Letter from Applicant (14.05.2021)

6.    Letter of Support from Jacquelin A Tipene (25.10.2019)

7.    Letter of Support from Joanne Fourie (11.02.2021)

8.    Letter of Support from Peter Grabar (08.01.2021)

9.    Letter of Support from Royce Peter Lacey (27.01.2021)

10. Letter of Support from Mental Health Practitioner, Suzanne Utai (18.07.2021)

11. Letter of Attendance from Inala Alcohol and Drugs Services (07.11.2019)

12. Course Completion Certificates

13. SMART Recovery Participation Records

14. Letter of Support from Mental Health Practitioner, Suzanne Utai (25.11.2021)

15. Course Completion Certificates

16. Confirmation of Contact with Anglicare’s Living without Violence Program Team (02.11.2021)

17. Course Completion Certificate

18. Letter of Apology from Applicant (13.10.2021)

19. Letter of Support from Brisbane South Day Program (23.11.2022)

20. Letter of Support from Brisbane South Day Program (23.11.2022) **DUPLICATE**

11

Applicant

Screenshots of Video Chats with Daughters

12

Applicant

Screenshots of Video Chats with Daughters and Nieces

13

Applicant

Screenshots of SMART Recovery Meetings

14

Applicant

Screenshots of SMART Recovery Meetings

15

Applicant

Letter of Support from Duran Angiki (08.10.2023)

16

Applicant

1.    SMART Recovery Verification Emails (10.10.2023)

2.    SMART Recovery Verification Emails (11.10.2023)

17

Applicant

1.    SMART Recovery Verification Emails (16.10.2023)

2.    SMART Recovery Verification Emails (17.10.2023)

3.    SMART Recovery Verification Emails (18.10.2023)

18

Applicant

SMART Recovery Verification Emails (24.10.2023)

;
Annexure B – Applicant’s Offending History

Court

Court Date

Offence

Court Result

Richlands Magistrates Court

24/02/2021

[DFVPA2012] 177(2)(B)

CONTRAVENTION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ORDER (ON 14/10/2019)

BCS1904038586

12-month conviction concurrent

Brisbane District Court

09/12/2020

CC 315A(1)(A)&(B)(I)&47(9)

CHOKING SUFFOCATION

STRANGULATION DOMESTIC

RELATIONSHIP - DOMESTIC

VIOLENCE OFFENCE

(ON 14/10/2019)

2-year conviction to be suspended for 2 years after serving 3 months

Brisbane District Court

09/12/2020

CC 339(1)&564(3A) ASSAULTS

OCCASIONING BODILY HARM -DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENCE

(ON 14/10/2019)

18-month conviction to be suspended for 2 years after serving 3 months

Brisbane District Court

09/12/2020

CC 335&564(3A) COMMON ASSAULT- DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENCE

(ON 14/10/2019)

ABOVE REFERS TO INDICTMENT

NO: 1356/20

3-month conviction to all terms of imprisonment are to be served concurrently.

Brisbane Magistrates Court

07/06/2016

[DM] 9 POSSESSING DANGEROUS DRUGS (ON 06/04/2016)

BCS1601438514

[DM] 10(2)(B) POSSESS UTENSILS OR PIPES ETC THAT HAD BEEN USED (ON 06/04/2016)

No conviction recorded

Fined $400

Brisbane Magistrates Court

20/11/2014

[DM] 10(2)(A) POSSESS UTENSILS OR PIPES ETC FOR USE (ON 09/10/2014)

No conviction recorded

Fined $200

Brisbane Magistrates Court

11/12/2013

[BA] 33(1) FAILURE TO APPEAR IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNDERTAKING (ON 08/11/2013) BCS1304178988

[BA] 33(1) FAILURE TO APPEAR IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNDERTAKING (ON 08/11/2013) BCS1304179071

No conviction recorded

Fined $200

Richlands Magistrates Court

20/05/2013

[DM] 10(2)(B) POSSESS UTENSILS OR PIPES ETC THAT HAD BEEN USED (ON 29/04/2013)

No conviction recorded

Fined $200

Holland Park Magistrates Court

11/01/2012

[CC] 469 WILFUL DAMAGE (ON 04/12/2011)

Conviction Recorded

Fined $200

Holland Park Magistrates Court

15/08/2011

[DM] 9 POSSESSING DANGEROUS DRUGS (ON 17/07/2011)

No conviction recorded

Fined $200

Holland Park Magistrates Court

22/06/2011

[RO] 5(1)(C) UNAUTHORISED DEALING WITH SHOP GOODS (MAXIMUM $150) (ON 28/05/2011)

Conviction Recorded

Fined $160

8hrs of Community Service

Holland Park Magistrates Court

23/05/2011

[RO] 5(1)(C) UNAUTHORISED DEALING WITH SHOP GOODS (MAXIMUM $150) (ON 20/04/2011)

No conviction recorded

Fined $150

In Australia	Other country- specify
Number of uncles/aunts	NIL	6 – Solomon Islands
Number of nieces/nephews	1	>20- Solomon Islands
Number of cousins	NIL	NIL—Solomon Islands
Number grandparents	NIL	NIL

Date of hearing:	27 November 2023
Advocate for the Applicant:	Self-Represented
Advocate for the Respondent:	Emma Letcher-Boldt Lawyer Clayton UTZ

Exhibit no.	Lodged by	Document
1	Applicant	Applicant SOFIC due on 19 October 2023
2	Respondent	Respondent SOFIC due on 2 November 2023
3	Respondent	Remittal Bundle (located in separate folder)
4	Applicant	Combined SMART Recovery Verification Emails
5	Applicant	Letter of Apology from Mr Manebona
6	Applicant	Letter from Counsellor (28 July 2023)
8	Applicant	Bundle of Documents – Support Letters and Identification 1. Letter of Support from Joyce Sheedy (01.11.2022) 2. Birth Certificate 3. Letter of Support from Duran Angiki (22.09.2023) 4. Drivers License of Joyce Sheedy 5. Godparents Certificate 6. Letter of Support from Joanne Fourie (26.09.2023) 7. Letter from Mr Manebona (19.09.2023) 8. Letter of Support from Joyce Sheedy (23.09.2023) 9. Letter of Support from Royce Lacey 10. Letter of Support from Lorrain Wane (22.09.2023)
9	Applicant	Bundle of Documents 1. Letter from S. Taylor 2. Certificates of Course Completion
10	Applicant	Bundle of Documents 1. Letter of Support from Jamie Warnock (16.01.2021) 2. Letter of Support from Joyce Sheedy (26.01.2021) 3. Statutory Declaration from Jamie Warnock (16.01.2021) 4. Birth Certificate 5. Letter from Applicant (14.05.2021) 6. Letter of Support from Jacquelin A Tipene (25.10.2019) 7. Letter of Support from Joanne Fourie (11.02.2021) 8. Letter of Support from Peter Grabar (08.01.2021) 9. Letter of Support from Royce Peter Lacey (27.01.2021) 10. Letter of Support from Mental Health Practitioner, Suzanne Utai (18.07.2021) 11. Letter of Attendance from Inala Alcohol and Drugs Services (07.11.2019) 12. Course Completion Certificates 13. SMART Recovery Participation Records 14. Letter of Support from Mental Health Practitioner, Suzanne Utai (25.11.2021) 15. Course Completion Certificates 16. Confirmation of Contact with Anglicare’s Living without Violence Program Team (02.11.2021) 17. Course Completion Certificate 18. Letter of Apology from Applicant (13.10.2021) 19. Letter of Support from Brisbane South Day Program (23.11.2022) 20. Letter of Support from Brisbane South Day Program (23.11.2022) DUPLICATE
11	Applicant	Screenshots of Video Chats with Daughters
12	Applicant	Screenshots of Video Chats with Daughters and Nieces
13	Applicant	Screenshots of SMART Recovery Meetings
14	Applicant	Screenshots of SMART Recovery Meetings
15	Applicant	Letter of Support from Duran Angiki (08.10.2023)
16	Applicant	1. SMART Recovery Verification Emails (10.10.2023) 2. SMART Recovery Verification Emails (11.10.2023)
17	Applicant	1. SMART Recovery Verification Emails (16.10.2023) 2. SMART Recovery Verification Emails (17.10.2023) 3. SMART Recovery Verification Emails (18.10.2023)
18	Applicant	SMART Recovery Verification Emails (24.10.2023)

Court	Court Date	Offence	Court Result
Richlands Magistrates Court	24/02/2021	[DFVPA2012] 177(2)(B) CONTRAVENTION OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ORDER (ON 14/10/2019) BCS1904038586	12-month conviction concurrent
Brisbane District Court	09/12/2020	CC 315A(1)(A)&(B)(I)&47(9) CHOKING SUFFOCATION STRANGULATION DOMESTIC RELATIONSHIP - DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENCE (ON 14/10/2019)	2-year conviction to be suspended for 2 years after serving 3 months
Brisbane District Court	09/12/2020	CC 339(1)&564(3A) ASSAULTS OCCASIONING BODILY HARM -DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENCE (ON 14/10/2019)	18-month conviction to be suspended for 2 years after serving 3 months
Brisbane District Court	09/12/2020	CC 335&564(3A) COMMON ASSAULT- DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OFFENCE (ON 14/10/2019) ABOVE REFERS TO INDICTMENT NO: 1356/20	3-month conviction to all terms of imprisonment are to be served concurrently.
Brisbane Magistrates Court	07/06/2016	[DM] 9 POSSESSING DANGEROUS DRUGS (ON 06/04/2016) BCS1601438514 [DM] 10(2)(B) POSSESS UTENSILS OR PIPES ETC THAT HAD BEEN USED (ON 06/04/2016)	No conviction recorded Fined $400
Brisbane Magistrates Court	20/11/2014	[DM] 10(2)(A) POSSESS UTENSILS OR PIPES ETC FOR USE (ON 09/10/2014)	No conviction recorded Fined $200
Brisbane Magistrates Court	11/12/2013	[BA] 33(1) FAILURE TO APPEAR IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNDERTAKING (ON 08/11/2013) BCS1304178988 [BA] 33(1) FAILURE TO APPEAR IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNDERTAKING (ON 08/11/2013) BCS1304179071	No conviction recorded Fined $200
Richlands Magistrates Court	20/05/2013	[DM] 10(2)(B) POSSESS UTENSILS OR PIPES ETC THAT HAD BEEN USED (ON 29/04/2013)	No conviction recorded Fined $200
Holland Park Magistrates Court	11/01/2012	[CC] 469 WILFUL DAMAGE (ON 04/12/2011)	Conviction Recorded Fined $200
Holland Park Magistrates Court	15/08/2011	[DM] 9 POSSESSING DANGEROUS DRUGS (ON 17/07/2011)	No conviction recorded Fined $200
Holland Park Magistrates Court	22/06/2011	[RO] 5(1)(C) UNAUTHORISED DEALING WITH SHOP GOODS (MAXIMUM $150) (ON 28/05/2011)	Conviction Recorded Fined $160 8hrs of Community Service
Holland Park Magistrates Court	23/05/2011	[RO] 5(1)(C) UNAUTHORISED DEALING WITH SHOP GOODS (MAXIMUM $150) (ON 20/04/2011)	No conviction recorded Fined $150