Mounga and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)
[2021] AATA 4053
•5 November 2021
Mounga and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2021] AATA 4053 (5 November 2021)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2021/5552
Re:Mikaele Mounga
APPLICANT
AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal:Mr S Evans, Member
Date:5 November 2021
Place:Sydney
The Tribunal decides that the decision under review, being the decision of a delegate of the Minister on 13 August 2021 not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of Mr Mounga’s Class BS (Subclass 801) (Spouse) visa, is set aside. In substitution it is decided that the decision to cancel the visa made on 5 June 2018 is revoked.
.................................[sgd].......................................
Mr S Evans, Member
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – mandatory visa cancellation – failure to pass character test – whether there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked – Direction No. 90 – protection of the Australian community – family violence – best interests of minor children – expectations of the Australian community – extent of impediments if removed – impact on victims – links to the Australian community – decision under review set aside and substituted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958(Cth) ss 499, 500, 501, 501CA
Migration Regulations 1994(Cth) reg 2.52
CASES
EPL20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 173
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185
Hands v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 225
NTTH and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2021] AATA 1143
Sillars v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 174
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Direction no. 90 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA
Walter, Maggie and Belinda Hewitt, ‘Post-separation parenting and Indigenous families’ (2012) Australian Institute of Family Studies Family Matters No. 91
REASONS FOR DECISION
Mr S Evans, Member
5 November 2021
The applicant, Mikaele Mounga (‘Mr Mounga’), seeks review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (‘the Minister’) not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa.
INTRODUCTION
Mr Mounga is a 43-year-old citizen of Tonga who first arrived in Australia on 9 March 1985 as a six-year-old. On 27 June 2018 Mr Mounga was convicted of resist or hinder police officer in the execution of duty, three counts of assault police officer in execution of duty w/o abh-T2 and goods in personal custody suspected of being stolen (not m/v) and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 18 months and a non-parole period of 13 months and 15 days.
Subsequently Mr Mounga’s Class BS (Subclass 801) (Spouse) visa (‘the visa’) was mandatorily cancelled under subsection 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘the Act’) on 5 June 2018.
On 16 July 2018 the Department of Home Affairs received representations from Mr Mounga seeking revocation of the mandatory cancellation. On 13 August 2021 a delegate of the Minister decided under subsection 501CA(4) not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the visa (‘the reviewable decision’).
Regulation 2.52 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) provides that a representation made under paragraph 501CA(3)(b) must be made within 28 days of a person being given the notice of the particulars of relevant information under paragraph 501CA(3)(a). The representations made by Mr Mounga were not made within the prescribed timeframe of 28 days. In light of the recent decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in EPL20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 173 and Sillars v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 174, the Minister has agreed that it is appropriate Mr Mounga’s application be considered as if the power under subsection 501CA(4) were enlivened.
RELEVANT LAW AND MINISTERIAL DIRECTION NO. 90
Section 501CA of the Act applies where the Minister makes a decision under subparagraph 501(3A)(a)(i) to cancel a visa that has been granted to a person.
Subsection 501(3A) of the Act states that the Minister must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test due to the operation of subsections 501(6) and 501(7).
Paragraph 501(6)(a) of the Act provides that a person does not pass the ‘character test’ if the person has a ‘substantial criminal record’. Paragraph 501(7)(c) provides that a person has a substantial criminal record if the person has been sentenced to a term of 12 months imprisonment or more.
The Minister may revoke the original cancellation decision pursuant to subsection 501CA(4) of the Act which provides that:
(4) The Minister may revoke the original decision if:
(a) the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation; and
(b) the Minister is satisfied:
(i) that the person passes the character test (as defined by section 501); or
(ii) that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.
Paragraph 500(1)(ba) of the Act provides the Tribunal with the power to review decisions of a delegate of the Minister under subsection 501CA(4) not to revoke a decision to cancel a visa.
The Minister has made written directions under section 499 of the Act which apply to decision-makers in the exercise of power under subsection 501CA(4). The relevant direction is Direction no. 90 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (‘the Direction’ or ‘Direction 90’).
Paragraph 5.2 of Direction 90 provides principles which I have considered when reviewing the applicant’s application. It relevantly provides:
(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) Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen'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 8.4(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.
Part 2 of the Direction identifies the considerations the Tribunal must have regard to when determining whether to exercise the discretion to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa. The primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations, and one or more considerations may outweigh other considerations. However, other considerations should not be considered secondary considerations as in certain circumstances other considerations may outweigh primary considerations.
The primary considerations in the Direction are:
(1)protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(2)family violence committed by the non-citizen;
(3)best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision; and
(4)expectations of the Australian Community.
Direction 90 also sets out other considerations which must be taken into account where relevant which include but are not limited to:
(a)international non-refoulement obligations;
(b)extent of impediments if removed;
(c)impact on victims; and
(d)links to the Australian community.
ISSUE TO BE DETERMINED
The issue for the Tribunal to consider is whether to revoke the original decision to cancel Mr Mounga’s visa pursuant to subsection 501CA(4) of the Act.
The Tribunal may revoke the original decision if the Tribunal is satisfied:
(a)that the applicant passes the character test as defined by paragraph 501(6)(a) and subsection 501(7) of the Act; or
(b)that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked: paragraph 501CA(4)(b).
It is agreed by both parties that Mr Mounga does not pass the character test as he has a ‘substantial criminal record’ as defined by the Act. Therefore, the only relevant issue is whether there is another reason to revoke the original cancellation decision.
CONSIDERATION
Background
Mr Mounga was born in Tonga and when he was six years of age his grandmother brought him to Australia so that he might live with his father. He first met his father after arriving in Australia. He never met his mother. In Australia he initially stayed with a great uncle and then left to live with his father, who was married to an Aboriginal woman, Lorna Ebsworth. Growing up in Australia Mr Mounga became close to his father and Ms Ebsworth’s children from a previous relationship.
Through his upbringing by his father and Ms Ebsworth, Mr Mounga began to see himself as part of the Aboriginal community. When he was 18 years of age he formed a relationship with Suzanne Donovan. Beverley Donovan is Suzanne Donovan’s aunt and an Aboriginal Elder in the Mount Druitt community of Western Sydney. Beverly Donovan writes in a letter dated 21 February 2020 that Mr Mounga is known in the Aboriginal community of Mount Druitt. She acknowledges his family ties to the Ebsworth family and writes that Mr Mounga has ‘a strong cultural connection with the Aboriginal community [and] he is well respected and accepted as such’.
Beverley Donovan writes that Suzanne Donovan and Mr Mounga were together from 1998 through to 2014. They have five children together and Confirmation of Aboriginality certificates from the Butucarbin Aboriginal Corporation for each of the children are in evidence. The eldest child was born in May 2003 and the youngest in February 2009.
Mr Mounga’s six half siblings are Aboriginal Australians. He was adopted by his late stepmother who was an Aboriginal elder. Mr Mounga identifies as Aboriginal Australian. It is submitted that Mr Mounga has made a positive contribution to his community. Mr Mounga writes in a letter dated 7 May 2021:
My name is Mikale Mounga and all my life I was bought up as an Aboriginal boy in a Tongan body, I came to Australia at a young age with my grandmother to reunite with my father who was married to an Aboriginal woman and instantly I became a part of their family, l have 3 brothers and 3 sisters all being Aboriginal and claimed me as a sibling no questions asked.
I never new I was an illegal immigrant; I lived my life as an Aboriginal boy.
In 1997 I met Suzanne Donovan who is also aboriginal and we have 5 beautiful children who mean the absolute world to me and they are the reason I am fighting my heart out to stay In Australia.
[errors in original]
Following the death of his step-brother and father Mr Mounga began using methylamphetamine or ice. When using ice he became argumentative, aggressive and controlling, particularly towards Ms Donovan. He attributes Ms Donovan leaving him to be with one of his friends as contributing to his drug use.
I now turn to the considerations set out in Direction 90.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 1 – PROTECTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL OR OTHER SERIOUS CONDUCT
The Tribunal must have regard to the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct. When considering the protection of the Australian community, Direction 90 requires decision-makers to have regard 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
Mr Mounga has an extensive criminal history (see Annexure) dating back to 1995 and continuing through until his most recent offending in March 2018. Mr Mounga does not dispute his criminal record. The following summary of Mr Mounga’s offending is informed by the National Criminal History Check and the Minister’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions.
Offences involving domestic violence
Mr Mounga has been convicted of over 15 offences relating to domestic violence spanning from January 2008 to November 2017. The victim of Mr Mounga’s domestic violence has been his ex-partner, Ms Donovan.
A NSW police facts sheet records that on 17 January 2008 Mr Mounga approached Ms Donovan with a screwdriver whilst she was showering and he threatened to stab her with it. He then punched Ms Donovan several times and Mr Mounga began following Ms Donovan around with a gathered electrical extension cord. Following the incident Mr Mounga was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm and stalk/intimidate intend fear of physical/mental harm and sentenced to six months of periodic detention as well as a two year section 9 good behavior bond.
On 29 August 2012 Mr Mounga was convicted of two counts of contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic) and one count of stalk/intimidate intend fear of physical/mental harm. He was sentenced to one month and 25 days of imprisonment, and a 12 month suspended sentence.
On 23 April 2014 he was convicted of contravene prohibition/restriction AVO (Domestic), stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (domestic) and destroy or damage property (DV) and sentenced to a 12 month aggregate sentence of imprisonment. The police facts record that despite an Apprehended Violence Order (‘AVO’) being in place, Mr Mounga made threats that caused Ms Donovan to fear for her and her family’s safety, sending her upwards of 24 text messages and calling her 185 times from a private number. On 21 December 2013 Mr Mounga verbally abused Ms Donovan and proceeded to punch the windscreen of her vehicle causing it to crash.
On 29 September 2017 Mr Mounga was convicted of common assault (DV) and sentenced to three months imprisonment. On 17 November 2017 he was convicted of two counts of contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO as well as stalk/intimidate intend fear physical harm. He was sentenced to five months imprisonment as well as a 12 month Intensive Correction Order (‘ICO’).
Other violent offending
On 27 June 2018 Mr Mounga was sentenced in the Local Court of Penrith to an aggregate term of 18 months imprisonment having been convicted of resist or hinder police officer in the execution of duty and three counts of assault police officer in execution of duty w/o abh-T2.
The circumstances of the offending are detailed in the sentencing remarks of Magistrate Hiatt. Mr Mounga was seated in the passenger seat of a vehicle which was stopped by police. The officers conducted checks which revealed an outstanding prison warrant and revocation of parole warrant. Mr Mounga was placed under arrest, handcuffed and searched. A mobile phone not belonging to him was found in his possession. A caged police truck arrived to take Mr Mounga and he was directed to enter the rear of the caged vehicle. He declined to follow directions and began verbally abusing an officer and attempted to head butt one officer. Further police assisted in an attempt to restrain Mr Mounga and place him into the caged vehicle. Magistrate Hiatt stated in part:
The accused pressed his heel up against the rear of the caged vehicle and refused to comply. The accused was able to turn around and at which point he has then kicked Senior Constable [name] in the chest, that is the sequence 3 offence before the Court. As a result police deployed a burst of OC spray. The accused continued to resist and swear at police. It took five police officers to take the accused to the ground and handcuffs were moved from the front to the rear and the accused continued to violently struggle and resist police during this process. The accused continued resisting police by propping his feet against the rear of the vehicle. Eventually he was forced into the rear of the vehicle and as police were attempting to close the cage door the accused has again lashed out with his feet and kicked Senior Constable [name], which is the sequence 4 offence before the Court, and Senior Constable [name] in the legs, chest, shoulder a number of times and the accused also used his feet to hold the cage door open and, again, it took five police to close and secure the door.
Mr Mounga’s actions resulted in physical injuries to two police officers.
Driving offences
Mr Mounga has never held a driver’s license. His criminal record includes driving related offences beginning with a conviction in 1995 relating to the theft of a motor vehicle and driving while unlicensed and driving while never licensed. In February 2009 he was imprisoned for four months and fined for driving whilst disqualified from holding a licence. His most recent driving related conviction was for driving a motor vehicle during a disqualification period in July 2016.
Formal warnings
On 28 March 2013 Mr Mounga was sent a formal counselling letter advising him that any further criminal convictions could result in the Department considering whether to cancel his visa. The letter stated in part:
The purpose of this letter is to warn you that any further criminal convictions, or any other conduct on your behalf that comes within the scope of subsection 501(6), could result in consideration of the cancellation of your visa. The consequences of visa cancellation under section 501 of the Act include removal of the former visa holder from Australia and, in certain cases, bars on re-entering Australia.
[emphasis in original]
On 30 October 2014 Mr Mounga was sent a notice advising him that a delegate had considered whether to cancel his visa on character grounds but had decided not to do so. In similar terms to the formal counselling letter, the notice stated in part:
Mr Mounga needs to be absolutely aware that his offending has brought his Australian visa into very close question for the second time. His convictions relate to violence which the delegate is required to view seriously. After reviewing the case very carefully in this instance the delegate has decided not to cancel his visa. Mr Mounga should not draw any comfort that any future criminal offending will lead to further warnings rather than a cancellation. If Mr Mounga wishes to ensure that his Australian visa is not cancelled in the future he should refrain from any further offending. The consequences of any further offending could mean his visa is cancelled which could mean he is removed from Australia - and as a result he would be separated from his family (if they were to remain in Australia). It would be in Mr Mounga's best interests to take this warning very seriously.
Incident whilst in immigration detention
On 21 November 2020 Mr Mounga is reported to have been involved in an incident at the Yongah Hill detention facility where he was being held in immigration detention. The details of the incident are set out in a Department of Home Affairs Incident Detail Report. Mr Mounga was observed arguing with another detainee and was seen throwing a punch at him which resulted in that detainee falling over.
In a written statement Mr Mounga explains that following a game the other detainee became angry at him. He recalls that the other detainee was taking drugs at the time and was yelling at him calling him a ‘cheat’. Mr Mounga attempted to leave the situation and the other detainee followed him outside and continued following him. Detention centre staff did not intervene to stop the other detainee who was acting very aggressively from following Mr Mounga and he ‘ended up punching him just to get him to stop’. He writes that he accepts that it was wrong and would ‘never do this in the community’. Noting there appears no further action beyond reporting of the incident, I accept Mr Mounga’s explanation.
Conclusion as to the nature and seriousness of the offending to date
Mr Mounga’s offending history is extensive and dates back to 1995. His crimes include violent crimes and domestic violence which the Direction states are viewed very seriously. The fact that the most recent offending included acts of violence towards police officers in the performance of their duties adds to the seriousness of his offending.
Sentences involving terms of imprisonment are the last resort in the sentencing hierarchy and must be viewed as a reflection of the objective seriousness of the offending.
Mr Mounga has been convicted of failing to appear in accordance with bail acknowledgements on two occasions which demonstrates, in addition to his lengthy criminal record, a disregard for authority and the law. His driving record indicates a willingness to disregard the safety of the Australian community for his own benefit.
Mr Mounga’s conduct must be regarded as very serious.
The risk to the Australian community
Paragraph 8.1.2(1) of Direction 90 provides that in considering the protection of the Australian community, I should have regard to the Government’s view that the Australian community’s tolerance for any risk of future harm lessens as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. In assessing the risk posed by the non-citizen to the Australian community, I should consider, cumulatively:
(a)The nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and
(b)The likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account available information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen reoffending and evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of decision, with weight to be given to the time spent in the community since the non-citizen’s most recent offending.
The nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct
The Minister submits that the nature of the harm that would be caused should Mr Mounga engage in further violent behaviour is very serious and is likely to involve significant physical and psychological harm to members of the Australian community including Mr Mounga’s family.
In addition, the nature of the harm from driving without a license includes the potential for serious injury to other road users. Traffic offences can result in serious injury or death to other road users.
The likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct – risk of reoffending
Mr Mounga has expressed remorse for his offending and maintains that he has made significant progress and commitment to sobriety since entering jail and detention. He contends that he is now committed to sobriety, engaged and motivated to maintain sobriety and ready to attend a residential rehabilitation program upon release from detention. In a statement dated 15 September 2021 Mr Mounga writes:
The crimes I committed when I was using ice are shocking. They include my threatening Suzanne, my being physically aggressive with Suzanne and my hurting Suzanne. I have read the summonsed material which details incidents where I punched her face with my fist, where I smashed the windscreen of her car, where I made threats to kill her and Kane, where I demanded access to my kids when I really should not have been attempting to see them while high.
I have read the accounts of my resisting arrest with police officers who seriously hurt themselves just trying to do their jobs. I have read about myself swearing and creating scenes in front of my kids which would have caused them huge distress to witness.
I don’t deny that I did these things. I feel shame thinking about all of these incidents.
I now feel sick when I think about this. It hurts me to think of the pain I put Suzanne through, and I hate the idea that she or my children were scared of me. It’s not the type of person I want to be. It’s not the sort of thing I would usually do.
I understand that the impact of my behaviour on her is likely to take some time to heal. I understand that I have likely made her feel fearful, anxious and depressed. My behaviour was jealous and controlling. Mentally it disturbed her really bad. Emotionally – I pushed her to the point that she had to call it quits on our relationship.
Mr Mounga argues that his remorse means he is now at a lower risk of offending. He contends that during his period in prison and detention he has resisted opportunities to use drugs as he is strongly motivated to change. He has family support including accommodation, financial support, support to find work and guidance with employment, emotional support and any broader support that he may require.
Should he be released back into the community he intends to undertake residential rehabilitation and then to continue to pursue sobriety with the assistance of regular sessions with a psychologist and any recommended treatment.
Mr Mounga has completed or commenced courses including an anger management course which he claims has taught him how to control his anger and ‘walk away’. He is also attending other online courses and the Marrin Weejali Aboriginal Corporation has accepted Mr Mounga into the non-residential alcohol and other drug healing program which began on 23 September 2021. The course covers anger management and domestic violence behaviour change. He has participated in the Odyssey House SMART Recover Online and completed a number of certificate courses aimed at behavioural change.
Mr Mounga expresses a strong view that his offending is linked to his drug use, specifically ice. In a letter dated 7 May 2021 he writes in part:
I was never a drug user, I tried ice for the first time in 2009 and it got hold of me and turned me into someone I didn't even know let alone my friends and family. I never thought I would become addicted. [Ms Donovan] tried to help me many times for many years as her only addiction was loving me and our children, but she finally gave up on loving me.
I went to prison many times and done my time peacefully, I abided by all the rules and looked forward to my release date to come home and be a better person but I failed at that many times. All I wanted was my family and I lost them so I took to abusing ice even more, I felt it took away my pain but it made things worse.
When sentenced in the Local Court of Mount Druitt on 17 November 2017 Mr Mounga was directed to attend a 12-week rehabilitation program at The Glen. Magistrate Viney warned that ‘[i]f [Mr Mounga] fails to do that of course he will find himself exactly back where he is at the moment. It is to be done subject to the direction of community corrections’. She went on to state:
Now, you muck this up either by non-compliance, by committing further offences or just determining that you are not going to do the things like attend the rehab you are required to, then this sentence just becomes effectively almost a full time sentence and you will just go straight back into custody.
Previously when appearing before Magistrate Viney on 29 September 2017 her Honour was told:
[Mr Mounga] acknowledges that he has to stop drug use if he is going to have any legal access at all. Certainly one would have down the track a parenting arrangement can be made between the two so that he can have access, lawful access, to those children. At this stage he is going to have none until he is off his drugs and he knows that. He hasn’t used drugs since he has been in custody. All of his offending was whilst he was under the influence of Ice. The pre-sentence report indicates Ice used for the last ten years on an almost daily basis. He indicated to me either he gets it for free from friends, or spends his work money, his salary, on Ice. Some of it goes to the children but he is addicted and in one of the reports it indicates that he is well aware of the addictive nature of Ice. So, he wants to do something about it, he feels he is drug free, this is the longest for a period of time that he has remained drug free, Ice free. He feels he is no longer addicted but time will tell.
In sentencing Mr Mounga, Magistrate Viney stated: ‘It is really quite frankly his last opportunity to serve any custodial sentence in the community, because, given his history, one may see it as somewhat of a backward step given the sentence in 2014 but I am taking into account hopefully now this renewed vigour to address his drug problem and his desire to have some meaningful part in his children’s lives’.
Report of psychologist Julie Dombrowski
Ms Dombrowski has provided a report dated 11 October 2021 to the Tribunal following a review of Mr Mounga’s criminal history and an interview with Mr Mounga. She also provided evidence under affirmation to the Tribunal. In her report she provides an assessment of the likelihood that Mr Mounga will reoffend. She states in part:
Mr Mounga’s risk of committing further offences is assessed as being “high-moderate” (based on the findings of the SAQ [Self-Appraisal Questionnaire]). His risk of violent (and general) recidivism can be reduced through the successful completion of an intensive drug rehabilitation program (e.g., Odyssey House residential treatment program with follow-up counselling in the community). While he will likely experience improvement in his emotional and behavioural regulation upon achieving long term methylamphetamine abstinence, he will also benefit with treatment that assists him to develop specific strategies to improve his behavioural regulation skills and manage his impulsivity. This treatment need can be addressed through the completion of the Circuit Breaker program (which he is currently completing) with adjunct counselling from Marrin Weejali Aboriginal Corporation. Mr Mounga was largely raised by an Aboriginal family since the age of six and identifies as Aboriginal. As such, treatment will need to be culturally sensitive. Management of psychosocial factors such as a return to employment, avoidance of antisocial peers and suitable housing will also need to be managed to support his rehabilitation.
Sarah Hayek is Ms Donovan’s sister and an Aboriginal health practitioner. Should Mr Mounga be released back into the community Ms Hayek indicated that she can assist Mr Mounga by referring him to support services for housing as well personally supporting him.
In considering the risk of Mr Mounga reoffending, I take into account his attributing his offending in large part to his use of drugs and in particular ice. He states that he began using ice in 2009 and it was a coping mechanism for the passing of his father and his step-brother. His drug use was again amplified following a difficult separation from Ms Donovan and her entering into a relationship with a close friend of Mr Mounga. In regard to this explanation I observe that Mr Mounga’s offending began in 1995, preceding by many years the events to which he refers. However, the evidence supports offending escalating significantly in seriousness and frequency when he began using ice.
Mr Mounga has been afforded many opportunities both from the courts, who had previously referred him to rehabilitation to address his drug use, and immigration who had warned him on two occasions that his visa may be cancelled on account of his offending. Mr Mounga did not take advantage of the opportunities afforded to him or heed the warnings provided.
He argues that the Tribunal can be confident that he has learnt from these experiences and that he is determined that he will abstain from drug use if provided an opportunity to remain in the community. He believes that he has learnt from his mistakes, he has seen the reality of what being deported would mean for him and his children. Further, he has an extended period of sobriety behind him from which to begin recovering in the community. He has strong support in the community, insights on what he needs to do from Ms Dombrowski and plans to attend a residential treatment facility should he be released from detention.
I do not doubt Mr Mounga’s intention to avoid using ice. I accept that having had an extended period in jail and then detention, during which he was not taking drugs, the reality of his circumstances has become clear to him. Based on the evidence I accept that he has come to appreciate the reality of having his visa permanently cancelled and the impact that would have on he and his children. I accept these factors are significant motivating factors in Mr Mounga’s future rehabilitation.
I balance this against the hard reality of Mr Mounga’s extensive and prolonged offending history. For his entire adult life he has regularly appeared before the courts and it would appear that sentences of community detention or imprisonment have failed to restrain or have a lasting and meaningful influence on his behaviour. He has previously acknowledged the impact of drug use on his criminal behaviour, stated he has overcome his addiction and committed to attending rehabilitation, only to end up reoffending and being sentenced to another term of imprisonment.
It is in Mr Mounga’s favour that he has abstained from drug use since being imprisoned, which provides him with a sustained period of two years of sobriety. This is a strong foundation from which to rehabilitate. The insight he has demonstrated indicates that he appreciates the seriousness of his offending, the harm it has caused to others and the role of drugs. I consider these are positive factors which may reduce the risk of his reoffending.
However, when considering the totality of the evidence, including his offending history, the report of Ms Dombrowski and his previous failure to engage in rehabilitation services, I accept there is a real risk that Mr Mounga will reoffend.
For these reasons, this primary consideration weighs heavily against revoking the mandatory cancellation decision.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 2 – WHETHER THE CONDUCT ENGAGED IN CONSTITUTED FAMILY VIOLENCE
The second primary consideration is whether the conduct engaged in by Mr Mounga constituted family violence. Direction 90 subparagraph 8.2(3)(a) to 8.2(3)(d) provides that in considering the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen, factors such as the frequency of the conduct, any trend of increasing seriousness, the cumulative effect of repeated acts of family violence, rehabilitation achieved and whether the non-citizen has reoffended since being formally warned are relevant factors.
Mr Mounga concedes that he has committed family violence over a sustained period of time against his former partner Ms Donovan. His offences include stalking, intimidating and assault of Ms Donovan, as well as a history or repeatedly contravening AVOs.
Ms Donovan has provided a statement in which she writes that Mr Mounga’s offending towards her was related to his drug use. His drug use, she writes, ‘completely changed who he was as a person. He was a horrible person under the influence of ice. He was unpredictable and scary’. She recalls:
The worst thing that I remember him doing to me is when he would be physically aggressive: he punched my face with his fist once, he smashed the windscreen of my car, he woke me up by slapping me. When he was high he was defensive, jealous and aggressive. He was a nightmare.
There were times after episodes of aggression that he would try to kill himself by hanging himself. He had tried to do himself in the car, with a seatbelt. He’s just tried to escape.
Our relationship ended around 2012. That’s when it was clear we just couldn’t make it work.
Ms Donovan claims that the family violence was ‘kept from’ their children. She writes that ‘even though [Mr Mounga] has been to prison for Domestic Violence this never affected the children, he was never violent towards them and most of the times our breakdowns were never in front of our kids, they hardly knew that there father and I were fighting or arguing as it was done behind closed doors’.
For his part, Mr Mounga has accepted responsibility and apologised to Ms Donovan and their children. He has come to accept that she has moved on with her life and now has a new partner. In a statement he writes:
I don’t deny that I did these things. I feel shame thinking about all of these incidents.
I now feel sick when I think about this. It hurts me to think of the pain I put Suzanne through, and I hate the idea that she or my children were scared of me. It’s not the type of person I want to be. It’s not the sort of thing I would usually do.
I understand that the impact of my behaviour on her is likely to take some time to heal. I understand that I have likely made her feel fearful, anxious and depressed. My behaviour was jealous and controlling. Mentally it disturbed her really bad. Emotionally – I pushed her to the point that she had to call it quits on our relationship.
I understand that what I’ve done to her has wrecked her. To the point she had to take the kids and move away from me.
Suzanne got sick of me being on ice all the time. She would ring the police to try to help me get clean.
Because I was often high, I was aggressive and arrogant and not willing to listen to what she had to say. I argued with her, even though she was right. In my mind, she was still playing mind games with me, because that’s the way my mind worked with I was high. That’s what really brought our relationship to fall – me being abusive to her when I was high on ice.
[errors in original]
In considering the factors set out in the Direction, whilst making allowance for Mr Mounga’s remorse, the influence of drugs and the work he has done on managing his anger, Mr Mounga’s domestic violence must be viewed as extremely serious and weighs in favour of not revoking the mandatory cancellation of his visa.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 3 - BEST INTERESTS OF MINOR CHILDREN IN AUSTRALIA
Mr Mounga has five children, four of whom are minors. IA was born in 2005, NA in 2006, LE in 2007 and NA in 2009. TA, born in 2003, is no longer a minor.
Direction 90 sets out a number of factors to be considered in assessing the best interests of minor children. These include the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the person; the extent to which the person is likely to play a positive parental role in relation to the child; the likely effect that any separation from the person would have on the child; whether there are any other people who fulfil parental roles with the child; any known wishes of the child; and any evidence that the person abused or neglected the child or that the child has otherwise suffered from trauma from the person’s actions including through exposure to family violence.
In relation to his children Mr Mounga writes:
I identify as Aboriginal. For me this means I am a part of the community and I belong to mob. My Dad’s step-mum accepted me as part of her family. My children are aboriginal.
For me this means that I am really worried about my five kids growing up without their father – that they will lose connection to me. That they will be Aboriginal kids without a father without connection.
I worry that this will mean that they will be more at risk of coming into contact with the criminal justice system. I worry that particularly with my eldest, they could be at risk of suicide.
I feel like they deserve every success in life. I want to be here in Australia in order to support them and in order for them to feel connectedness to family, culture and land.
Mr Mounga submits that should he have his visa reinstated it is his intention to return to work, support his children and relieve Ms Donovan from some of her carer responsibilities. Mr Mounga has maintained stable employment throughout most of his life and the evidence supports that he has been able to provide for his children in some capacity.
In a statement dated 5 May 2021 the children’s mother, Ms Donovan, writes that Mr Mounga has always been a ‘good father’ and an active parent to their children. She believes he has an important role to play in the lives of their children and a special bond with each of them. She writes in part:
[Mr Mounga] was always a very active parent in their lives even through difficult circumstances like his time incarcerated and his struggles with his addictions.
Our children don't hold any negative thoughts on their fathers choices in life they just want and need him to be apart if they're lives. Our eldest boy is turning 18 on the 20th of May 2021 and even though this age is usually a big celebration our son does not want to celebrate due to his father not being able to attend which is heart breaking as a mother who has raised him most of his life. This just shows how much of this has impacted his mental health and general well being.
[Mr Mounga] always supported our children playing sport and anything that involved him he was always there for our children.
As a man and a great father he is very remorseful for the choices his made and wants a chance to be able to rectify those decisions and prove to not only his children but society that he is a better person.
I fully support [Mr Mounga] remaining in Australia, I have a new partner and 2 other children which has made [Mr Mounga] well aware that our relationship was ended some years ago and we now are able to move forward with no conflict, we have been in touch many times and we actually get along better than ever, moving forward our concerns are our children who are missing their father immensely.
[errors in original]
Mr Mounga maintains that it would have a devastating impact on the children should the decision to cancel his visa not be revoked. The Minister accepts that non-revocation will have a negative impact on Mr Mounga and that this consideration weighs in favour of revocation.
The cancellation of Mr Mounga’s visa would affect his ability to make a financial contribution to his family and young children’s stability. He contributes emotionally to his family and had full time employment and was generally a positive contribution and influence in his community.
In a joint statement dated 2 July 2020, Mr Mounga’s four minor children write that not knowing what is going to happen to their father is very stressful. They say they need their father to ease some of the burden their mother has in caring for them without his assistance. They miss him and they speak to him every day but want to be able to see him.
The children’s statement is consistent with Ms Dombrowski’s observations following an interview with the four minor children and contained in her report dated 11 October 2021. When asked to describe their father, all of the children described him in positive terms including that he is ‘an affectionate, caring and loving father’. They reported feeling supported by him and ‘described feeling saddened by their father’s periods of incarceration, particularly because they are unable to have regular physical contact with him when he is in prison’. Each of the children reported having daily telephone contact with Mr Mounga since he has been in immigration detention.
In considering the best interests of the children it is relevant that they are of Aboriginal descent. Documents in evidence include studies examining the role of fathers in Aboriginal families.
A report titled Post-separation parenting and Indigenous families considers the post separation parenting amongst indigenous families. The study observed that children of parents living elsewhere tended to have environments that were more disadvantaged than children whose parents lived together. Of relevance to this application, where Mr Mounga and Ms Donovan are separated, the report concludes that children with a birth parent living elsewhere who were able to see that parent at least once each week were advantaged over those who were not.
In considering this primary consideration, I am mindful of the nature of Mr Mounga’s offending. Even if it were the case that the children were insulated from the domestic violence, being subject to AVOs and periods of incarceration would be expected to limit his meaningful contact with the children for periods of time.
Nonetheless, in considering the factors set out in the Direction, I accept that Mr Mounga plays an important role in the lives of his minor children and his presence is a significant factor in their wellbeing. Consequently, I find that this primary consideration weighs heavily in favour of revocation of the cancellation decision.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 4 - EXPECTATIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY
Paragraph 8.4 of the Direction requires me to consider the expectations of the Australian community. Subparagraph 8.4(1) relevantly states:
The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia.
The Direction proceeds to list specific conduct which the Australian community as a whole expects would raise serious character concerns and an expectation that the person would not hold an Australian visa.
In FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185 (‘FYBR’) the Full Federal Court decided by majority that it is not for the decision-maker to assess what the expectations of the Australian community are for the purpose of applying this consideration. That is, 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. Rather, the expectations of the community that decision makers are required to consider are those set out at paragraph 11.3 of Direction 65, the direction considered in that case which is analogous to paragraph 8.4 of the Direction.
With reference to FYBR, Senior Member Morris in the matter of NTTH and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2021] AATA 1143 states:
It was the Court’s view [in FYBR] that it is not for a decision-maker to make his or her own personal assessment of what the ‘expectations’ of the Australian community may be. In this respect, the expectations articulated in the Direction are deemed — they are what the executive government has declared are its views, not what a decision-maker may derive by some other assessment or process of evaluation.
It is significant that the new Direction imports the statement that the expectations of the Australian community are to be considered as a ‘norm’, which I take to be an acknowledgement of the approach taken by the plurality of the Court in FYBR.
Observing the norm and the principles outlined in in paragraph 5.2(2), (3) and (4) of Direction 90, I am satisfied that the expectations of the Australian community would normally weigh against revoking the visa cancellation on account of his criminal conduct.
Mr Mounga arrived in Australia as a child, he has lived here from a very young age and for most of his life. Consistent with the principle in subparagraph 5.2(4) I afford this consideration less weight as Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal conduct by noncitizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.
OTHER RELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS
Extent of Impediments if removed
I am required to consider the extent of any impediments that Mr Mounga may face if removed from Australia to his home country of Tonga in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards.
Mr Mounga is a middle-age man who suffers from diabetes and is insulin dependent. He contends that it will be difficult to obtain medical treatment for his diabetes in Tonga.
In a statement dated 4 May 2019 Ms Donovan speculates that if Mr Mounga is returned to Tonga he would not survive. She writes ‘it would be like sending him to a foreign country, he has no family there, he doesn't eat the food, he can hardly speak the language, he only knows the Aussie way of life’.
Whist the Minister acknowledges that Mr Mounga would face difficulty in Tonga re-establishing himself, it is submitted that the anticipated hardship would not preclude him from resettlement.
Mr Mounga gave evidence that he does not know anyone in Tonga. He has no family in Tonga and is likely to face substantial language and cultural barriers.
Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that Mr Mounga would be expected to face practical, financial and emotional hardship upon returning to Tonga due to his lack of family and social support, and lack of personal and economic support. Though he would be expected to have access to health services, treatment and welfare services similar to those available to other people in Tonga they would not be expected to be of the same standard as those in Australia.
Further, whilst Mr Mounga has presented evidence of being part of the Aboriginal Australian community, there is little evidence or indication of his participation or belonging to the Tongan community in Australia. I am satisfied that the practical impediments Mr Mounga would face in Tonga would be exacerbated by language and cultural barriers.
For these reasons, this consideration weighs in favour of revoking the cancellation decision.
Impact on victims
The Direction provides that where information is available, decision makers must consider the impact of the non-citizen’s criminal behavior.
Ms Donovan is the primary victim of Mr Mounga’s domestic violence related offending. Whilst she and Mr Mounga are now separated, she has given evidence in support of Mr Mounga’s application to have the mandatory cancellation of his visa set aside. She has detailed not only how the revocation of the cancellation decision would benefit her children, but also that she would be ‘devastated’ if Mr Mounga were removed from Australia. Ms Donovan told the Tribunal that Mr Mounga has consistently provided financial support to her or the children whilst he was working and that having him continue to do so and fulfill his parental role would benefit her.
I find that this consideration weighs in favor of revoking the cancellation decision.
Links to the Australian community
Paragraph 9.4.1 of the Direction requires me to have regard to the strength, nature and duration of Mr Mounga’s ties to Australia. In doing so I am to consider the impact on his immediate family members where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
Having lived in Australia since he was six years old, Mr Mounga has substantial and meaningful social and family ties to Australia.
As mentioned above Mr Mounga’s eldest child, TA, is no longer a minor. Both Mr Mounga and Ms Donovan state that TA has experienced difficulties with anxiety and depression. Mr Mounga writes that he fears for TA and that there is a risk he may self-harm and wishes to be there for him and to support him.
Though Mr Mounga was in a relationship when he was imprisoned in 2018, he gave evidence that the relationship had now ended.
Tarek Khaled writes that he is aware of Mr Mounga’s offending and his incarceration. He describes Mr Mounga as an honest and hardworking man who works hard to provide for his children. He would be prepared to offer him employment should he be allowed to remain in Australia as he does not want to lose a hard worker.
Mr Mounga is a member of the Aboriginal community. He identifies as Aboriginal and is accepted as such. He was raised in the Aboriginal community by his stepmother who was Aboriginal. Ms Donovan is Aboriginal as are their children. In her statement of 21 February 2020 Beverly Donovan details some of Mr Mounga’s participation and involvement in the community:
Micka has a strong cultural connection with the Aboriginal community he is well respected and accepted as such. He is proud of his aboriginal heritage and this is proven with his involvement with his children with their sporting abilities and achievements through cultural activities.
He has always participated in the annual Aboriginal football knockout which is one of the largest events on the Aboriginal calendar for Aboriginal people only, Micka is always happy to help and participate in NAIDOC and cultural events.
In Hands v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCAFC 225 (‘Hands’) Allsop CJ considered, on appeal, the implications of deportation on an applicant who was accepted by the community as a Koori man. The Court observed that ‘kinship, family and community lie at the heart of Aboriginal society, underpinning its laws, rules, and social behaviour’ and that the applicant’s ‘place in that community and the effect on the Aboriginal community of his removal were matters of significant importance’.
I accept that Mr Mounga’s removal from the community would be expected to be an issue of significant cultural importance with deep implications the nature of which were observed in Hands. When considering Mr Mounga’s ties to the community, I have done so based on the evidence and with regard to identified individuals and the strength, nature and duration of his ties to the community.
Where there is evidence, as is the case with separating Mr Mounga from his immediate and extended family, I accept that it would have a significant impact on those individuals. I also accept that his removal may have consequences owing to the cultural considerations identified in Hands.
For these reasons, this consideration weighs in favor for revoking the mandatory cancellation decision.
CONCLUSION
Having considered Mr Mounga’s circumstances as they relate to the considerations outlined in Direction 90, I am now required to weigh up these considerations.
Mr Mounga’s consistent offending over an extended period of time and limited success to date in managing his drug addiction mean that the protection of the Australian community weighs against revocation. The primary considerations regarding family violence and the expectations of the Australian community also weigh against revocation of the mandatory cancellation decision, but are afforded less weight in light of Ms Donovan’s support for Mr Mounga’s application and the fact that he has lived in Australia since he was a child.
The best interests of Mr Mounga’s minor children weigh heavily in favour of his application. Whilst Ms Donovan cares for the children, I accept that they have a meaningful relationship and dependency on Mr Mounga. The impact on victims also weighs in favour of revocation. The extent of Mr Mounga’s links to the Australian community also weigh in favour of revocation, as do the impediments to removal which are significant.
In balancing these considerations, they weigh in favour of Mr Mounga and in favour of revocation of the decision under review.
DECISION
For the reasons outlined above, the Tribunal decides that the decision under review, being the decision of a delegate of the Minister on 13 August 2021 not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of Mr Mounga’s Class BS (Subclass 801) (Spouse) visa, is set aside. In substitution it is decided that the decision to cancel the visa made on 5 June 2018 is revoked.
I certify that the preceding 115 (one hundred and fifteen) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr S Evans, Member
.............................[sgd]...........................................
Associate
Dated: 5 November 2021
Dates of hearing: 21-22 October 2021 Solicitors for the Applicant: K Wrigley, Legal Aid NSW Solicitors for the Respondent: T Hillyard, Sparke Helmore Lawyers ANNEXURE
Court date
Date of Offence
Offence
Penalty
27 June 2018
9 March 2018
Resist or hinder police officer in the execution of duty (H 66839904)
Imprisonment (aggregate): 18 months commencing 09/03/2018
concluding 08/09/2019
Non-parole period:
13 months and 15 days
commencing
09/03/2018 concluding
23/04/2019.
Indicative: (h66839904)
2018/00077919-003
(004) 11months and 7
days 2018/00077919-
002 (003) 11 months
and 7 days
2018/00077919-005
(006) 2 months and 7
days 2018/00077919-
001 (002) 5 months
and 7 day
2018/00077919-004
(005) 9 months.
27 June 2018
9 March 2018
Assault police officer
Imprisonment
in execution of duty
(aggregate): 18 months
w/o abh-T2
commencing
(H 66839904)
09/03/2018, concluding 08/09/2019
Non-parole period : 13
months and 15 days
commencing
09/03/2018, concluding
23/04/2019.
INDICATIVE:
(H66839904)
2018/00077919-003
(004)
11 months and 7 days
2018/00077919-002
(003) 11 months and 7
days 2018/00077919-
005 (006) 2 months and
7 days 2018/00077919-
001 (002) 5 months and
7 days 2018/00077919004
(005) 9 months.
27 June 2018
9 March 2018
Assault police officer
H 66839904:
in execution of duty
imprisonment
w/o abh-T2
(aggregate): 18 months
(H 66839904)
commencing
09/03/2018, concluding
08/09/2019
Non-parole period: 13
months and 15 days
commencing
09/03/2018, concluding
23/04/2019.
Indicative: (h66839904)
2018/00077919-003
(004) 11months and 7
days 2018/00077919-
002 (003) 11 months
and 7 days
2018/00077919-005
(006) 2 month sand 7
days 2018/00077919-
001 (002) 5 months
And 7 days
2018/00077919-004
(005) 9 months
27 June 2018
9 March 2018
Goods in personal
imprisonment
custody suspected being stolen (not m/v)
(aggregate): 18 months
commencing 09/03/2018, concluding
(H 66839904)
08/09/2019
non-parole period : 13
months and 15 days
commencing
09/03/2018, concluding
23/04/2019.
Indicative: (h66839904) 2018/00077919-003
(004) 11months and 7 days 2018/00077919- 002 (003) 11 months
and 7 days 2018/00077919-005
(006) 2 months and 7 days 2018/00077919- 001 (002) 5 months
and 7 days 2018/00077919-004
(005) 9 months
17 November 2017
15 June 2017
Resist officer in execution of duty-T2
(H 64584403)
Intensive correction order: 4 months commencing 17/11/2017, concluding 16/03/2018
17 November 2017
15 June 2017
Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic)
(H 64584403)
Intensive correction order: 12 months commencing 17/11/2017 concluding, 16/11/2018 to complete the 12 week course at the glen rehab and to make contact with community corrections within 24 hours of release
17 November 2017
21 May 2017 – 22
May 2017
Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic) (H 66081855)
Imprisonment: 5 months commencing 18/06/2017, concluding 17/11/2017
29 September 2017
20 November 2016
Common assault (DV)-T2
(H 63238950)
Imprisonment: 3 months commencing 30/06/2017, concluding 29/09/2017
29 September 2017
17 December 2016
Possess prohibited drug
(H 63238950)
Imprisonment: 2 months commencing 16/06/2017, concluding 15/08/2017
29 September 2017
19 December 2016
Fail to appear in accordance with bail acknowledgment (CONVICTIO N - 63421486)
(H 63238950)
Imprisonment: 2 months commencing 16/07/2017, concluding 15/09/2017
6 July 2016
26 March 2016
Drive motor vehicle during disqualification period - 1st off
(H 60677233)
Fine : $300 disqualification - driver: 12 months
21 June 2016
9 June 2016
Fail to appear in accordance with bail acknowledgment (CONVICTION - 63288030)
(H 60677233)
S10a conviction with no other penalty
26 May 2016
26 March 2016
Driver or rider state false name or home address
(H 60677233)
Fine: $500
3 February 2016
18 April 2015 – 19
April 2015
Take & drive conveyance w/o consent of owner-T2
(H 58591376)
Fine: $800
23 April 2014
24 January 2014
Destroy or damage
Imprisonment: 12
property <=$2000
months commencing
(DV)-T2
22/02/2014, concluding
(H: 213505695)
21/02/2015
Non-parole period with
conditions: 5 months
commencing
22/02/2014, concluding
21/07/2014 release
subject to supv
aggregate sentence to
engage in specific
programs to address
domestic abuse issues
and anger management.
Aggregate sentence
imposed: 12 months
with npp 5 months from
22/2/2014.
Indicative sentence
h53690224- 9 months:
h213505695 seq 1 -
indicative 5 months:
h213505695 seq 2 -
indicative 3 months
23 April 2014
21 December 2013
Stalk/intimidate
Imprisonment: 12
intend fear physical
months commencing
etc harm (domestic)-
22/02/2014 concluding
T2
21/02/2015
(H 213505695)
Non-parole period with
conditions: 5 months
commencing
22/02/2014, concluding
21/07/2014 release
subject to supv
aggregate sentence to
engage in specific
programs to address
domestic abuse issues
and anger management.
aggregate sentence
imposed 12 months with
npp 5 months from
22/2/2014.
Indicative sentence
h53690224 - 9 months:
h213505695 seq 1 -
indicative 5 months:
h213505695 seq 2 –
indicative 3 months
23 April 2014
22 February 2014
Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic)
(H 53690224)
Imprisonment: 12
months commencing 22/02/2014, concluding 21/02/2015
Non-parole period with conditions: 5 months commencing 22/02/2014, concluding 21/07/2014 release subject to supv aggregate sentence to engage in specific programs to address domestic abuse issues and anger management. aggregate sentence imposed 12 months with npp 5 months from 22/2/2014.
Indicative sentence h53690224 - 9 months:
h213505695 seq 1 -
indicative 5 months: h213505695
21 February 2013
8 May 2012
Stalk/intimidate intend fear of physical/mental harm-T2
(H 47539152)
(Call up) Conviction confirmed: (agd/jl270213) (dcrt 71869) court case reference number: 2012/147248
21 February 2013
8 May 2012
Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic)
(H 47539152)
(Call up) Conviction
confirmed: (agd/jl270213) (dcrt 71869) court case reference number: 2012/147248
11 January 2013
8 May 2012
Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic) (H 47539152)
(Call up) Imprisonment : 12 months commencing
15/12/2012, concluding
14/12/2013
Non-parole period with
conditions: 4 months
Release subject to supv
(eeco 7885) severity
appeal lodged
11 January 2013
15 December 2012
Contravene prohibition/restriction in AVO (Domestic)
(H 50472868)
Imprisonment: 4 months commencing 15/02/2013, concluding 14/06/2013 severity appeal lodged
10 January 2011
29 September
2010 – 1 January
2011
Driver/rider state false name/address (H 43328919)
Fine: $400 costs - court: $79 (eeco 6456)
20 February 2009
6 January 2008
Drive while disqualified from holding a licence (H 33773855)
Imprisonment: 4 months commencing 04/02/2009
disqualification: 2 years
Cumulative (eeco 5118)
20 February 2009
17 January 2008
Stalk/intimidate intend fear of physical/ mental harm-T2 (H 32333024)
(Call up) imprisonment : 4 months commencing
04/02/2009 (eeco 5117)
(eeco/e 5162)
20 February 2009
11 May 2007
Never licensed person drive vehicle on road-2nd+ offence
(H 58910901)
(Callup) Imprisonment: 4 months commencing 04/02/2009 (eeco
5117)
22 January 2008
17 January 2008
Stalk/intimidate intend fear of physical/ mental harm-T2 (H 32333024)
Bond s9: 2 years to accept probation
service supervision for as long as
considered necessary to ensure he undertakes and satisfactorily completes
the pacific islander program and domestic violence perpetrators program, to obey all reasonable directions for counselling, educational development or drug
and alcohol
rehabilitation and report to the mt druitt probation office within 7 days. Not to assault, molest, harass or otherwise interfere with victim or in cite any third party to do so.
22 January 2008
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm-
T2
(H 32333024)
Periodic detention :6 months commencing 09/02/2008
1 June 2007
11 May 2007
Never licensed person drive vehicle on road-2nd+ offence
(H 28990214)
Bond s9 : 12 months disqualification: 3 years commencing 01/06/2007
disqualification (habitual offender): Quashed
1 June 2007
11 May 2007
Use unregistered registrable Class A motor vehicle
(H 58910901)
Fine: $200 costs - court: $67
1 June 2007
11 May 2007
Never licensed person drive vehicle on road-2nd+ offence
(H 58910901)
Bond s9 : 12 months disqualification : 3 years commencing 01/06/2007
disqualification (habitual offender): Quashed
10 July 2003
10 June 2003
Never licensed person drive vehicle on road
(H 89880592)
Fine: $300 costs - court: $61 disqualification : 6 months commencing 10/07/2003 (eeco 1054)
12 December 2001
28 October 2001
Never licensed person drive vehicle on road
(H 13155562)
Fine: $300 Costs - Court: $58
12 July 1995
unknown
Steal MV
(H 999992806049)
1 & 2. On each
charge probation 12 mths s33(1)(e)
12 July 1995
unknown
Unlic Driver
(H 999992806049)
1 & 2. On each
charge probation 12 mths s33(1)(e
12 July 1995
unknown
Malic damage to property
(H 999992806049)
1 & 2. On each
charge probation 12 mths s33(1)(e
12 July 1995
unknown
Possn article with intent to commit (H 999992806049)
1 & 2. On each
charge probation 12 mths s33(1)(e
6 January 1995
unknown
Steal MV
(H 999992806049)
1 Prob 12 mths GB Pay Comp $250 s33(1)(e)
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Natural Justice
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
-
Standing
1
5
0