Miller and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an application to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the applicant's Class BF Transitional (permanent) visa. The applicant, a citizen of the United Kingdom, had failed the character test due to a history of serious criminal offending, including aggravated sexual intercourse with a minor, persistent sexual abuse of a child, property damage, and break, enter, and steal offences. The decision-maker was required to consider whether there was another reason to revoke the visa cancellation, applying Direction No. 99.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's criminal conduct was so serious that it outweighed any factors favouring revocation of the visa cancellation, and whether the specific considerations outlined in Direction No. 99, such as the protection of the Australian community, the best interests of minor children, and the strength of the applicant's ties to Australia, warranted a different outcome. The court was also required to determine the weight to be given to the applicant's history of substance abuse and mental health issues in assessing the seriousness of his conduct and the risk of reoffending.

The court reasoned that while the applicant had significant ties to Australia and impediments to re-establishing himself in the UK, including potential difficulties accessing medical care and a higher risk of relapse into substance abuse, these factors were outweighed by the seriousness of his criminal conduct. The court found that the applicant's offending, which included violent and sexual crimes against women and children, had persisted over a long period and increased in seriousness. The court determined that the protection of the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community weighed heavily against revocation, and that the applicant's history of family violence was also a significant factor. The court concluded that the applicant's alcohol and drug use disorders did not provide a basis for treating his serious crimes less seriously, particularly in light of Direction No. 99's emphasis on the gravity of such offences.

Ultimately, the court was not satisfied that there was another reason to revoke the cancellation of the applicant's visa. The decision-maker affirmed the original decision to cancel the visa.