Okoh and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) - [2021] AATA 1662

Okoh and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2021] AATA 1662 (10 June 2021)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2020/3493
Re:Emmanuel Eghonghon Okoh
APPLICANT

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

DECISION
Tribunal:Senior Member A. Nikolic AM CSC
Date:10 June 2021
Place:Melbourne

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
......[sgd]..................................................................
Senior Member A. Nikolic AM CSC
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION
– Mandatory visa cancellation – citizen of Nigeria – Class SN Subclass 190 Skilled-Nominated (Permanent) Visa – failure to pass good character test – money laundering – three-year sentence of imprisonment – unexplained wealth and overseas transactions – intention to commit romance frauds – provision of false document at hearing – whether another reason why the mandatory visa cancellation should be revoked – Ministerial Direction No. 90 applied – decision affirmed
LEGISLATION
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)
Sentencing Act 1995 (NT)
Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT)
CASES
Ali v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 650
Ali v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] 380 ALR 393
Applicant A v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1997) 190 CLR 225
Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Splendido (2019) 271 FCR 595
Ayoub v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 231 FCR 513
AZAFQ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 105
Bale v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 646
CGX20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 69
Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408
Dzik v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 78
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] HCA 056
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454
GLD18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCAFC 2
Hughes v The Queen (2017) 263 CLR 338
HVLC v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 616
Ibrahim v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 270 FCR 12
Irving v Minister of State for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 139 ALR 84
Jagroop v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 241 FCR 461
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 144 ALR 567; 191 CLR 559
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Obele (2010) 119 ALD 358
Minister for Home Affairs v Omar (2019) 272 FCR 589
Murphy v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1924
MZAAJ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 478
Okoh and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] AATA 3313
Okoh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 84
Say v Administrative Appeals Tribunal [2020] FCA 1489
Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 74 AAR 545
Viane v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 162 ALD 13
Vu v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2020)
FCAFC 90
YKSB v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCAFC 224
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Direction No. 90 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhumane or Degrading treatment or Punishment, opened for signature 10 December 1984, 1465 UNTS 85 (entered into force 26 June 1987)
Convention on the Rights of a Child, opened for signature 20 November 1989, 1577 UNTS 3 (entered into force 2 September 1990)
Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, opened for signature 28 July 1951, 189 UNTS 150 (entered into force 22 April 1954)
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, opened for signature 19 December 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered into force 23 March 1976)
Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Aiming at the Abolition of the Death Penalty, opened for signature 15 December 1989, 1642 UNTS 414 (entered into force 11 July 1991)
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Report Nigeria (3 December 2020) DFAT < ‘torture house’: Kaduna school was ‘like hellfire’ (29 September 2019), BBC News < FOR DECISION
Senior Member A. Nikolic AM CSC
10 June 2021
INTRODUCTION

The Applicant has asked the Tribunal to review the decision by a delegate of the Minister not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Class SN Subclass 190 Skilled-Nominated (Permanent) Visa (the visa) under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The hearing was held between 31 May and 2 June 2021. Due to the announcement of a state-wide, COVID-19 lockdown commencing at midnight on 27 May 2021, the previous hearing arrangements were amended to enable appearances by audio visual means. The Applicant was represented by Mr Glenister, a solicitor from William Gerard Legal. The Minister was represented by Mr Chan, a solicitor from Sparke Helmore Lawyers.
For the following reasons the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
BACKGROUND
The Applicant is a 27-year old citizen of Nigeria and the second youngest of six siblings.[1] He and four of his siblings live in Australia, while his parents, another sibling, and extended family continue to live in Nigeria.
[1] Exhibit A1, 7; Exhibit R1, 107.
The Applicant has lived in Australia for approximately seven years, having arrived on a Student Visa in June 2014 to undertake tertiary study.[2] His eldest brother was already in Australia at that time and subsequently sponsored the visa cancelled in this matter.[3] The Applicant has returned to Nigeria on one occasion for a month-long holiday in early 2018.[4]
[2] Exhibit R1, 95.
[3] Ibid; Exhibit A1, 1 [9].
[4] Exhibit R1, 95.
The Applicant completed a Bachelor of Humanitarian and Community Studies in October 2017[5] and prior to his arrest worked predominantly in the welfare sector as a carer.[6] While studying he commenced a relationship with his current partner in December 2016 that continues to the present day.[7]
[5] Ibid, 144.
[6] Ibid, 73; 117.
[7] Ibid, 110; 125.
The Applicant came to the attention of police in late 2017 or early 2018 as part of their investigation into persons suspected of receiving funds obtained from online fraud.[8] He was arrested on 28 June 2018 and remanded in custody.[9]
[8] Ibid, 73.
[9] Ibid, 71; 98.
On 29 March 2019, the Applicant was convicted of Money laundering[10] in the Darwin Supreme Court. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment and ordered to pay financial restitution,[11] which remains unpaid.
[10] Ibid, 71.
[11] Ibid, 78.
On 7 October 2019, the Respondent advised the Applicant that his visa had been mandatorily cancelled (cancellation decision), because he had a ‘substantial criminal record’ within the meaning of s 501(6)(a) of the Act.[12] The Applicant acknowledged receipt of the cancellation decision and requested revocation.[13] Further correspondence passed between the Applicant and Respondent between November 2019 and May 2020.[14]
[12] Ibid, 9-29.
[13] Ibid, 33; 37; 100-168.
[14] Ibid, 38-47.
With time served prior to sentencing, the Applicant was released on parole on 6 January 2020.[15] He was immediately taken into immigration detention where he has since remained.[16]
[15] Ibid, 169.
[16] Exhibit A1, 1 [4].
On 4 June 2020, a delegate of the Minister advised the Applicant of the decision not to revoke the cancellation decision (non-revocation decision).[17] The Applicant acknowledged receipt of this on the same day.[18]
[17] Exhibit R1, 48-49
[18] Ibid, 237.
On 10 June 2020, the Applicant asked the Tribunal to review the non-revocation decision.[19] On 26 August 2020 the Tribunal, differently constituted, affirmed it.[20]
[19] Ibid, 3-8.
[20] Okoh and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] AATA 3313.
The Applicant sought judicial review in the Federal Court of Australia. On 10 February 2021, Derrington J upheld two grounds of the appeal, giving rise to this proceeding.[21]
[21] Okoh v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 84.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
Section 25(1)(a) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) and s 500(1)(ba) of the Act are the sources of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to review decisions under s 501CA of the Act.
Section 501(3A) of the Act, read in conjunction with ss 501(6) and 501(7), obliges the Minister to cancel a person’s visa if satisfied that the person does not pass the character test and is serving a full-time sentence of imprisonment.
The ‘character test’ is defined in s 501(6) of the Act:
(6) For the purposes of this section, a person does not pass the character test if:
(a)the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by subsection (7)); or …
Section 501(7) of the Act sets out six circumstances in which a person is taken to have a substantial criminal record, including if the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more: s 501(7)(c).
Under s 501CA(3) of the Act, the Minister is obliged, as soon as practicable after deciding to cancel a visa, to give notice of the decision to the person and invite them to make representations about revoking the original cancellation decision. Provisions relating to the form and process of those representations are found in reg. 2.52 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth).
Section 501CA(4) of the Act provides a discretion that the Minister may revoke the original decision, if the person whose visa has been cancelled makes representations in accordance with the invitation, and the Minister is satisfied that the person passes the character test, or there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.
Direction 90
The Minister is empowered by s 499(1) of the Act to give written directions to a person or body having functions or powers under the Act. Except for the Minister acting personally, the Direction must be applied by those who make decisions under the Act, such as the Minister’s delegates and the Tribunal.[22] On 8 March 2021, the Minister signed Direction no. 90 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (the Direction). The Direction commenced on 15 April 2021 and revoked the previous Direction 79 on the same date.[23] It is jointly commended by the parties that the Tribunal is bound to follow Direction 90.[24] The Tribunal finds it is bound to apply Direction 90 in these reasons, based on the material currently before it.[25]
[22] Section 499(2A) of the Act; CGX20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 69, [4] (Rares, O’Callaghan and Jackson JJ).
[23] Direction, cl 2-3.
[24] Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (ASFIC) dated 3 May 2021, 1 [4]; Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (RSFIC) dated 13 May 2021, 4 [18].
[25] Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408, 425 (Brennan J); Dzik v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 78, [10]-[11] (Logan, Perry and Beach JJ).
The following principles at cl 5.2 of the Direction provide a framework within which decision-makers should approach their task, including whether to revoke a mandatory cancellation:
(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 noncitizens 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 noncitizens 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 measureable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
Clause 6 of the Direction provides that, informed by the principles in cl 5.2, a decision-maker must take into account the considerations identified in clauses 8 and 9, where relevant to the decision.
Clause 8 of the Direction identifies the following as primary considerations:
(a)Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(b)Whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;
(c)The best interests of minor children in Australia;
(d)Expectations of the Australian community.
Clause 9 of the Direction identifies a non-exhaustive list of other considerations:
(a)International non-refoulement obligations;
(b)Extent of impediments if removed;
(c)Impact on victims;
(d)Links to the Australian community, including:
(i)Strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia;
(ii)Impact on Australian business interests.
Clause 7(1) provides that, when taking the relevant considerations into account, ‘Information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight.’
Clause 7(2) states that ‘Primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations.’ That does not preclude the Tribunal, however, based on the specific circumstances of each case, to give an ‘other’ consideration the equivalent of or greater weight than a primary consideration.[26]
[26] Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) 74 AAR 545, [23]; [28] (Colvin J).
Clause 7(3) states that ‘One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.’ However, as held in Jagroop[27] at [57]:
…the weighing process in each case is in substance left, as it must be, to the individual decision-maker exercising the power under s 501…
[27] Jagroop v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 241 FCR 461.
DOES THE APPLICANT PASS THE CHARACTER TEST?
The issues to be determined are whether the Applicant passes the character test and, if not, whether there is ‘another reason’ to revoke the cancellation decision. The Applicant concedes he does not pass the character test.[28] Because of his March 2019 conviction and imposition of a sentence exceeding the threshold statutory period of 12 months, the Tribunal is satisfied he has a substantial criminal record and does not pass the character test. Accordingly, s 501CA(4)(b)(i) of the Act does not provide a basis for revocation.
[28] ASFIC, 1 [2]; RSFIC, 4 [19].
ISSUE TO BE RESOLVED
It remains to be determined under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act if there is ‘another reason’ why the cancellation decision should be revoked. The task of identifying ‘another reason’ was elaborated upon by the Full Court of the Australian Federal Court (FCAFC) in Viane v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection:[29]
There is no statutory power to revoke under s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) unless the Minister is satisfied that there is a reason, other than a conclusion that the person concerned passes the character test, which means that the original decision ‘should be’ revoked. It is not enough that there is a matter that might be considered or may be said to be objectively relevant. It must be a reason that carries sufficient weight or significance to satisfy the Minister entrusted with the responsibility to consider whether to revoke the visa cancellation that the decision should be revoked. Only a reason of that character enlivens the statutory power to revoke. It is the absence of such a reason that will result in a decision not to revoke a visa cancellation.
EVIDENCE
[29] (2018) 162 ALD 13, [64] (Colvin J).
Documentary evidence and witnesses
Documents tendered into evidence were:
(a)G-documents collectively numbering 460 pages;[30]
[30] Exhibit R1.
(b)Tender Bundle of summonsed documents numbering 99 pages;[31]
[31] Exhibit R2.
(c)Transcript of the first Tribunal hearing;[32]
[32] Exhibit R3.
(d)Seven-page statement from the Applicant dated 10 May 2021;[33]
[33] Exhibit A1.
(e)One-page statement of the Applicant dated 20 May 2021 regarding overseas transactions, accompanied by 11 pages of financial transfers;[34]
[34] Exhibit A2.
(f)Applicant’s bundle of documents numbering 62 pages[35] comprising:
[35] Exhibit A3.
(i)Letter from the Northern Territory Department of Justice dated 11 November 2019;
(ii)Letter from psychologist Mr Uwe Schaub dated 17 March 2021;
(iii)Letter from Mr David Shaw and Mrs Lorraine Shaw dated 13 April 2021;
(iv)Letter of support from Mr Munyaradzi Chenjerai dated 24 April 2021;
(v)Letter of support from Ms Olamide Ekpu, Vice President of the Nigerian Association Northern Territory Australia (NANTA), dated 27 April 2021;
(vi)Applicant’s income Tax Returns for Financial Years 2014/15, 2015/16, 2016/17, and 2017/18;
(vii)Statements of Participation in courses provided by The Open University between February 2021 and April 2021;
(viii)Certificates of Participation regarding the Applicant’s involvement in a Men’s Group and Lifeskills discussions between August 2020 and March 2021; and
(ix)Completion of a MoneyMinded online financial program in March 2021.
(g)Two-page statement from Mr Festus Okoh dated 4 May 2021;[36]
[36] Exhibit A4.
(h)One-page letter purporting to be from Mr Shihnaz Majeed dated 11 April 2021;[37]
[37] Exhibit A5.
(i)Two-page statement from Ms Joan Okoh dated 4 May 2021;[38]
(j)Two-page statement from Ms Faith Okoh, dated 9 May 2021;[39]
(k)Two-page statement from Ms Olaremi Agbede dated 15 May 2021;[40]
(l)Two-page statement from Ms Blossom Okoh, dated 22 April 2021;[41]
(m)One-page letter from Ms Helen Brock dated 20 April 2021;[42]
(n)One-page letter from Onyinye Maduneme dated 19 April 2020;[43]
(o)One-page undated letter from Mr Matthew Wright;[44]
(p)One-page letter from Ngala dated 19 May 2021 referring to the Applicant’s completion of a Managing Your Anger Program between May and August 2020;[45] and
(q)Briefing email from Mr Adam Doumanis to Dr Phil Watts dated 1 July 2020.[46]
[38] Exhibit A6.
[39] Exhibit A7.
[40] Exhibit A8.
[41] Exhibit A9.
[42] Exhibit A10.
[43] Exhibit A11.
[44] Exhibit A12.
[45]Exhibit A13.
[46] Exhibit T1.

The Applicant gave oral evidence at the hearing. Other witnesses were Mr Festus Okoh, Mrs Faith Okoh, Mr Ejiro Evro, Ms Joan Okoh, Ms Olaremi Agbede, and Dr Phil Watts.
National Criminal History and sentencing remarks
The Applicant does not dispute the accuracy of his criminal history or the transcript of proceedings from the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory dated 29 March 2019.[47]
[47] Exhibit R1, 72-78.
Applicant’s evidence
The Applicant adopted his statement dated 10 May 2021 as true and correct. He agreed that his evidence at the previous Tribunal hearing and in other statements[48] were true and correct to the best of his knowledge.
[48] Ibid, 72-78; 120-139; 154-163.
The Applicant’s evidence was in two parts. His initial evidence in chief occupied almost the first day of the hearing. The Tribunal recalled him on the second day of the hearing, without objection, to put adverse evidence regarding the authenticity of Exhibit A5. The Applicant was reminded on several occasions about his right to silence and privilege against self-incrimination. This included an adjournment to enable a private conversation with Mr Glenister. The circumstances resulting in the Applicant’s recall are as follows:
(a)The author of Exhibit A5 was called to give evidence, without objection of the parties, regarding a job offer made to the Applicant if he is released. The witness confirmed he had written a statement for the Applicant and after being affirmed, was asked his full name for the recording. The witness stated it is ‘Ejiro Evro,’ which is different to the name of the person on Exhibit A5, being ‘Shihnaz Majeed.’ When asked if he was a Manager of Starlight Cleaning Services in the Northern Territory as stated in the letter, the witness said he was not and instead lived in Brisbane. When asked if he knew of an organisation called Starlight Cleaning Services, the witness said he did not. When asked to again confirm he had written a reference for the Applicant, the witness claimed he may have got it mixed up with a reference he wrote for his ‘little sister.’ When asked to confirm he knew the Applicant, the witness said he did because they attended university together in Darwin. When asked if he had ever been an employer in Darwin, the witness stated: ‘I used to do a cleaning business before.’ He agreed that he provided Exhibit A5 dated 11 April 2021, which included an offer for the Applicant to undertake a ‘sub contract for…car detailing work.’ When asked the name of his business in Darwin that could offer the Applicant this work, the witness did not answer. The call was then abruptly terminated. Multiple efforts to resume telephone contact with the witness were unsuccessful.
(b)After being recalled, the Applicant was asked who Shihnaz Majeed was and claimed this was a friend of Ejiro Evro. The Applicant agreed he had never met Mr Majeed and never worked for a company called Starlight Cleaning Services. He claimed the cleaning work he did in the past ‘was more voluntary to get cleaning experience,’ but he could not recall the name of the company.
(c)When asked who Ejiro Evro was, the Applicant replied: ‘Ejiro is my friend.’ They previously worked and studied together in Darwin. When asked why he did not get Mr Evro to submit a statement instead of a purported letter from Mr Majid, the Applicant responded: ‘It was the way the letter came to me – he’s not the owner of the company.’ When asked to explain, the Applicant said Mr Evro sent the letter to him after the Applicant informed him about trying to secure a job offer ahead of the present hearing. When asked if he found it strange the letter from Mr Evro was in someone else’s name, the Applicant replied: ‘At the time I did not find it strange.’
(d)The Applicant agreed to the Tribunal’s proposition that Exhibit A5 was not a genuine document. He explained: ‘It was a document given to me because I was reaching out for help from members of my community.’ The Applicant conceded that at the time he provided Exhibit A5 to the Tribunal, he knew its contents were false. He stated: ‘I want to be honest from now on.’ The Tribunal asked the Applicant how it could be confident in his claims about truthfulness when he admitted being untruthful to police, the Court, to the first Tribunal hearing, and had now presented a false document. The Applicant responded: ‘I’m very sorry, I was desperate…I messed up.’ The Applicant asked the Tribunal to bear in mind the rehabilitation he had undertaken, stating: ‘this is the behaviour I’ve tried to let go of and it will never happen again. From now on it will never happen again.’
(e)The Tribunal expressed concern that the Applicant’s provision of Exhibit A5 may constitute an offence pursuant to s 62A of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).
Applicant’s life and family
In his earlier evidence in chief, the Applicant said he was raised and educated in Nigeria in a ‘close family environment.’ He completed an undergraduate degree before coming to Australia. His parents, a married sister, and extended family continue to live in Nigeria. He is close to his parents and sister but claimed to have no contact with extended family members. He also claimed to have severed contact with a negative social group in Nigeria: ‘At the moment I’ve deleted all my contacts – I only get calls from my parents.’
The Applicant explained that his closest relationships in Australia are to his siblings, partner, nieces, and nephews, as follows:
(a)The Applicant described Mr Festus Okoh, his eldest brother, as his ‘closest’ sibling. Mr Festus Okoh is married to Mrs Faith Okoh, and the Applicant said he has a very close relationship with both. The Applicant said he last saw Mr Festus Okoh prior to being imprisoned in 2018, but they speak by telephone two or three times each week. The Applicant referred to having a close avuncular relationship with Mr Festus Okoh’s four biological children. The three youngest are currently one, four and six years of age. The Applicant also referred to a seven-year-old biological child that Mr Festus Okoh has with a former partner, who now lives in Victoria. Details about the Applicant’s relationship with these children follows and they are referred to in descending order of age using the anonyms Child 1 (C1) to C4:
(i)C1: Is a seven-year-old child currently living in Victoria with his mother. The Applicant said he was ‘very much involved’ in C1’s life soon after birth but has had little to do with the child after Mr Festus Okoh ended his relationship with the child’s mother several years ago. He last spoke to C1’s mother over three years ago and only speaks with C1 when she visits Mr Festus Okoh once or twice a year;
(ii)C2: Is a six-year-old child currently living in Queensland. The Applicant said he lived in the same home as C2 for approximately a year in Darwin, until C2 relocated interstate with his parents in 2015. He claimed to be close to C2 and they talked on the telephone about twice a week. The Applicant said he visited C2 and his other siblings two or three times, between 2015 and 2017, when they were living in Alice Springs;
(iii)C3: Is a four-year-old child currently living in Queensland. The Applicant said C3 was born in Alice Springs after his parents left Darwin and the Applicant visited soon after C3’s birth. He claimed to be a ‘a supportive uncle’ to C3 and they spoke by telephone about twice a week; and
(iv)C4: Is a one-year-old child currently living in Queensland. The Applicant said C4 was born in Queensland after he was imprisoned, and they have never met. He nevertheless claimed his involvement with C4 is as a ‘big uncle’ and they spoke by telephone about twice a week.
(b)The Applicant said his second eldest brother in Australia is Mr Joseph Okoh, with whom he has a good relationship. Mr Joseph Okoh is currently in the same immigration detention centre as the Applicant, having had his visa cancelled by Departmental authorities. When asked what offence Mr Joseph Okoh was convicted of the Applicant responded: ‘I think it’s also fraud-related.’ The Applicant said he assisted Mr Joseph Okoh financially by ‘sharing cigarettes’ in detention. Mr Joseph Okoh is married to Mrs Blossom Okoh, who currently lives in Darwin with their two children as follows:
(i)C5: Is a five-year-old child. The Applicant said his relationship with C5 is as a ‘big uncle.’ Prior to his imprisonment, the Applicant said he visited C5 and took him for walks in the park and shopping. He said Mrs Blossom Okoh also brought C5 to visit him while imprisoned in Darwin. The Applicant continues to speak with C5 by telephone weekly; and
(ii)C6: Is a four-year-old child. The Applicant said his relationship with C6 is the same as with C5. In his documentary evidence the Applicant claimed that if he was unable to remain in Australia with C5 and C6, it ‘would mean no assistance’ for their mother and ‘no male figure in their lives except when they visit their dad in prison.’[49]
(c)The Applicant said a third elder brother, Mr Christian Okoh lives in regional Queensland after being ‘convicted of money laundering offences… or dealing with the proceeds of crime, or something to do with fraud,’ but had been given ‘home detention’ instead of imprisonment. When asked if Mr Christian Okoh’s visa was cancelled after this crime, the Applicant said he did not know because ‘we don’t talk much.’ He claimed they had not spoken since the Applicant entered immigration detention. The Applicant said Mr Christian Okoh has a wife and a two-year-old child in Nigeria; and
(d)The Applicant said his younger sister, Ms Joan Okoh, studies in Australia and lives with Mrs Faith Okoh in Queensland. He said they have a ‘very good relationship’ and he talks with his sister on the telephone twice weekly.
[49] Ibid, 128.
The Applicant said he has been in a committed relationship with his partner, Ms Olaremi Agbede, since 2016. Although his circumstances during the last three years had put a ‘big strain’ on their relationship, he said they stuck together ‘through tough and thin.’ The Applicant said he supported Ms Agbede by encouraging her studies and employment applications, telling her ‘it’ll be OK.’ If released in Australia, the Applicant planned to live with Ms Agbede and said they intended to marry. He would only consider living in Darwin because Ms Agbede has a good job and stable accommodation there. If he was repatriated to Nigeria, he felt this would end their relationship. He said Ms Agbede’s parents, who live in Nigeria, had expressed concerns that she was still in a relationship with the Applicant.
Contribution to Australia
Prior to his offending the Applicant referred to completion of an undergraduate degree in Darwin in 2017, and constant employment as a disability support worker, early childhood educator in a day care centre, and youth support worker. When asked about his mentoring claims, the Applicant said he mentored young people by telling them to ‘do the right thing, make the right choices, and obey their parents.’ He also served as Secretary of the NANTA, which involved helping organise cultural events and football matches. While imprisoned, the Applicant said he helped others with literacy and numeracy. He said that during his employment in Australia he had paid taxes. Superannuation contributions were made to him and he currently has approximately $30,000 in his account.
Offending and other conduct
The Applicant was asked about his offending during cross-examination. He claimed to have been initially asked for his account details by a friend on a social networking site, who he previously knew from their ‘neighbourhood’ in Nigeria. The friend told him he could ‘receive commissions.’ The Applicant claimed this friend ‘never mentioned criminal conduct,’ but he decided not to provide his account details after discovering the friend was also talking with two of his older brothers, who owed this friend money.
The Applicant said another friend, who he undertook national service with in 2013, also contacted him via social networking in ‘roughly 2016.’ Later in 2017 their conversation turned to a request for his account details, which was framed as a request ‘to do business – we’re going to make money.’ He recalled asking the friend what kind of business, but no response was given. He claimed the friend only told him money would be transferred to the Applicant’s account, from which he would keep his ‘cut’ and then send the rest to others. The Applicant claimed the friend never told him this would involve a ‘phishing business.’ When asked by Mr Chan if he thought it was strange that a friend in Nigeria would contact him in this way, the Applicant replied: ‘To be honest I did find it strange…but I was not thinking, I was just acting.’
The Applicant said he gave his account details to this Nigerian friend after seeking counsel from two friends in Australia called ‘Frank’ and ‘Joe’, about whether he could get into trouble because of this conduct. The Applicant claimed their ‘general response’ was that he would not get into trouble. When asked why he did not consult someone else, like his eldest brother, the Applicant responded: ‘I thought he’s going to look down on me…and…I didn’t want to be advised against doing it.’ When asked if the only reason he handed over his account details was because of Frank and Joe’s advice, the Applicant responded:
Not only that, I wanted to. I saw an opportunity. I did not think about the consequences and I acted.
The Applicant said he had seen two of his older brothers also ‘giving their account details’, but ‘didn’t see them as committing scams.’ When asked what he thought they were doing the Applicant replied: ‘I just thought they were making lots of money.’ When asked if his participation was a separate activity or part of a joint enterprise with his brothers, the Applicant said he thought his two elder brothers ‘were doing things together,’ but he did not know because he ‘did not ask them.’ He claimed not to ‘know what happened to Christian and Joseph.’ The Applicant said seeing his brothers making money in this way was ‘part of the reason’ for his own offending, but ‘the main one was greed.’ He said friends and family were constantly calling him asking for money and he thought the offending would enable him to provide them funds while still having enough for himself.
The Applicant was taken to explanations about his offending in his current statement.[50] He said that as soon as money was paid into his account there was pressure for him to release it to co-offenders overseas. He claimed that until being contacted by the bank he thought: ‘what I was doing was legal.’ When asked about references during sentencing to people overseas using the online identifiers ‘Rabbit Nig’ and ‘SA Guy,’[51] the Applicant claimed he did not know their identities. He thought Rabbit Nig was ‘someone in Nigeria’ and they communicated via Facebook or WhatsApp Messenger. Rabbit Nig initially pressed the Applicant to make ‘payments to them’ after money was deposited into his account. When the Applicant did not respond to these demands, SA Guy then contacted the Applicant in early 2018. SA Guy purportedly spoke to the Applicant about ‘trust,’ telling the Applicant he should meet his obligations by transferring the money.
[50] Exhibit A1, 2 [14].
[51] Exhibit R1, 74.
The Applicant was asked about six $1,000 withdrawals he made from Automatic Teller Machines (ATM) in Darwin, claiming this was at SA Guy’s instructions. When asked if cash was harder to transfer overseas than electronically, the Applicant said he could do so using Western Union and had also made money transfers to Rabbit Nig and SA Guy using an organisation called World Remit. When asked why he withdrew money from different ATMs in Darwin, the Applicant claimed there was a daily limit for each machine. When challenged that the daily limit applied to accounts and not each ATM, the Applicant accepted this, stating: ‘I was acting and not thinking – I just wanted to please everybody.’
The Applicant agreed that his arrangement with co-offenders overseas was that he would keep 50% of the deposited amount and transfer the rest,[52] but failed to do so and lied to his co-offenders. He explained: ‘I was thinking about what the money could do for me…a car, go for a holiday, buy different stuff.’ The Applicant accepted, consistent with the sentencing remarks,[53] that greed was his primary motivation. He had not thought about the victims but ‘only…the money.’ He also thought he was naïve and made poor decisions.
[52] Ibid, 77.
[53] Ibid.
The Applicant was asked about records he tendered referring to money transferred overseas.[54] He agreed that he generated these reports from his World Remit account and that the records only showed outgoing transactions. When asked about the absence of years adjacent to the dates provided, the Applicant claimed this was all he could print off, but said the ‘26 June’ transaction on the first page was in 2018 just prior to his arrest and the other transactions dated back to ‘2014 if my memory is correct.’ The Applicant said the reference to ‘NGN’ for most of the transactions meant Nigerian Naira – the currency used in Nigeria. The Applicant said two of the transactions on 30 March and 2 April[55] were to Rabbit Nig and SA Guy. He agreed that he had also transferred money to them via a Commonwealth Bank application, for which no records were provided. The Applicant could not recall if he had also used other transfer methods like Western Union or Cash Remit to transfer money to Rabbit Nig and SA Guy.
[54] Exhibit A2.
[55] Ibid, 2.
The Applicant agreed that in addition to transferring money to Nigeria, he also transferred money to South Africa and Singapore. When questioned about the latter, he claimed a friend from his old neighbourhood in Nigeria asked him for ‘financial aid,’ but told him to transfer the funds to ‘someone in Singapore,’ which the Applicant did. The Applicant could not recall who he sent the money to in Singapore or why the friend seeking financial aid in Nigeria asked for it in that way. The Applicant speculated that maybe the Nigerian friend wanted to purchase something in Singapore.
The Applicant claimed that most of the funds he transferred to Nigeria were for his ‘family and friends,’ but could not estimate how much this was. He said there was no regular pattern to these ad hoc transactions, and he did not keep track. When referred by Mr Chan to search warrant information stating the Applicant made 73 transactions from 1 June 2017 to 30 May 2018[56] totalling $131,000, the Applicant agreed this was ‘approximately correct.’ When asked about the reference to funds being sent to Nigeria, South Africa, Singapore and Luxembourg, the Applicant agreed this accorded with his recollection, but could not recall why he sent money to Luxembourg. He claimed at the time he was just given accounts to send money to rather than destinations.
[56] Exhibit R1, 309.
The Applicant was asked how it was possible to send $131,000 overseas in less than a 12-month period based on the salary he earned.[57] He claimed that the figure was somewhat reduced because it included proceeds of his offending. When challenged that $21,000 of these proceeds were recovered by police and about $20,000 sent to Rabbit Nig and SA Guy, the Applicant insisted he ‘kept about $6000.’ When further pressed that even on these figures he still sent well over $100,000 overseas, the Applicant did not respond directly to the questions asked.
[57] Exhibit A3.
The Applicant agreed he was making between $80,000 to $120,000 on average from employment in the years leading up to his offending, and acepts that his offending did not arise from financial necessity. He claimed to have a bank loan of $13,000 and a credit card debt of $6,000 at the time, both of which remain outstanding obligations. When challenged how he could fund living expenses, service his loans, and still send more than $100,000 overseas in less than twelve months, the Applicant responded: ‘Yes I sent a lot. My parents are suffering.’ He claimed not to be good at budgeting or managing money. When challenged that his ability to send so much money overseas while funding his own life in Australia meant he was good at budgeting, the Applicant disagreed. When further challenged about his evidence that the bank loan he had was a ‘tinker time bomb waiting to explode’ and therefore contextually relevant to his offending, the Applicant said he ‘was trying to make a figure of speech.’

When asked about a $20,000 transfer made to a person called ‘Prince Joe Ogbeide’ on 6 June 2017,[58] the Applicant agreed this was the same ‘Joe’ who advised him that providing his account details to the Nigerian friend was ‘OK.’ The Applicant explained that Joe asked him to hold $20,000 in his account for ‘safekeeping,’ which the Applicant had done and then returned to Joe on a later occasion. When asked why Joe would not keep the money in his own account, the Applicant responded: ‘I think he did that because he thought I was trustworthy.’ When pressed to explain why someone would rely on him to look after their money rather than doing so themselves, the Applicant responded: ‘I don’t know.’ When asked if he knew whether Joe was involved in illegal activity, the Applicant thought he was, but at the time ‘didn’t ask any questions.’ He suspected Joe was acting illegally because of his ‘lifestyle and choices.’
[58] Exhibit R1, 310.
When asked about other explanations beyond greed that he gave to the Court, the Applicant accepted these other reasons were untrue and he had not experienced a ‘crisis of conscience’ or tried to withdraw from the criminal enterprise:
I think my lawyer must have tried to use those words…At that time I was still living in a bubble…I was still trying to minimise my offending…My lawyer made a response based on what I told her.
When asked about the reference in the sentencing remarks to his intention to continue offending through ‘romance frauds,’[59] the Applicant explained this meant ‘scamming your partner of money.’ He considered this was something comparatively less likely to ‘get [him] in trouble’ and the messages the Court referred to were with the Applicant’s brother’s friend, who lived in America. The Applicant said he had ‘an illusion of control’ at the time of his offending and a ‘wrong idea about what money could do.’
[59] Ibid, 77.
The Applicant accepted that if re-writing his statement today, he would not have relied on factors like pressure from bank loans, the death of a person he cared for in Australia, or the death of a friend in Nigeria as relevant to his offending. He said there was ‘no excuse for his actions’ and at the time he was ‘just acting on instinct…[and]…wanted to make money.’ He claimed to still be ‘making excuses…still minimising my culpability’ during court and tribunal appearances, because at those times his ‘emotional and psychological growth’ was ‘insufficient.’ At one point in his evidence the Applicant referred to getting help for ‘trauma [he] experienced in an uprising in the marketplace’ in Nigeria but agreed there was no evidence before the Tribunal about this and did not elaborate on when it occurred or why it was traumatic.
The Applicant accepted he had previously lied to the Court and Tribunal despite taking oaths to tell the truth. He said at those times he ‘needed help instead of minimising [his] culpability.’ He claimed to have since resolved to be truthful. After receiving a warning in relation to his right to silence and against self-incrimination, the Applicant was asked if he knew that being untruthful in a court or tribunal may constitute an offence. He responded: ‘I know that now, I did not know that before.’
It was put directly to the Applicant that given his estimated costs of living in Australia, which he claimed were around $750 per fortnight,[60] it was implausible that he could transfer the equivalent of approximately two years of after-tax earnings for 2016-17 and 2017-18, to people overseas in less than a 12-month period. It was also put to the Applicant that he was yet to provide a full and forthright account to explain these international money transfers. The Applicant insisted the only money he received was from his salary and the amount he retained from the criminal enterprise, which was not recovered by police or sent to Rabbit Nig and SA Guy.
[60] Which he said consisted of $330 fortnightly for rent and food, $70 per fortnight to operate his car, $55 a fortnight in entertainment expenses, and $300 per fortnight in loan repayment costs.
Remorse
The Applicant said he previously did not think about who was being hurt by the choices he made and was ‘in denial’ after his arrest because he ‘did not grasp fully what [he] was doing.’ He had since realised the harm caused to the victims of his offending and was extremely sorry for that. He claimed to now be truthful and wanted to live a law-abiding life in Australia with his partner if given a second chance.
Conduct in custodial environments and rehabilitation
The Applicant said he had no incidents recorded against him in custody and had taken every opportunity for ‘emotional and psychological growth’. When asked by Mr Glenister why the Tribunal should accept that he would not reoffend if released, the Applicant said he was ashamed of his past and the ‘wrong friends’ he kept. He claimed that custody had changed him by providing an opportunity to ‘self-reflect on the poor choices’ made. He would not make ‘naïve, stupid choices’ in future. The Applicant said he now knew how to do the ‘right thing’ and was better able to say ‘no to peer pressure.’ He claimed to have a closer relationship with God and ‘at the moment’ was an ‘unbaptised publisher’ in the Jehovah’s Witness religious organisation.
The Applicant said he completed several vocational courses while in custody, including a ‘white card’ to enable him to work in the ‘blue collar sector’ and several certificate-level qualifications, including in education support. He also become a literacy and numeracy instructor, and undertook an alternative to violence course, so he could ‘help and better inform’ people who were in custody for violent offences. He said that his interest in helping people arose from his experiences in Nigeria where he had seen people in poverty and suffering. He claimed that his self-development efforts were also directed to ‘trying to make amends for the wrong [he has] done.’
The Applicant said he attended a men’s group and life skill courses as part of his rehabilitation and had spoken to psychologists ‘on and off centre.’ The latter referred to telephone consultations undertaken with Mr Uwe Schaub,[61] who did not give evidence at the hearing. The Applicant said his engagement with mental health practitioners enabled him to ‘really open up’ and confront the ‘pain, shame, and loss of choice’ that his victims felt. The psychologists he talked to had advised him ‘to be truthful,’ which he was committed to do, stating: ‘it takes a load off your chest.’
[61] Exhibit A3.
Protective factors and future aspirations
The Applicant said if released he has stable accommodation available with his partner and realistic prospects of returning to work in Darwin. He would also be strongly supported by family members in Australia. When put to the Applicant that comparable protective factors in the past did not prevent his offending, he stated: ‘Now I know what is right and wrong.’
The Applicant said he intended returning to work immediately if released and aspired to do online post-graduate study. He wanted to marry Ms Agbede, resume a close avuncular role with his nieces and nephews, and travel to visit family members around Australia.
Consequences of repatriation
The Applicant said if repatriated to Nigeria he would live with his parents. His sister and her husband live nearby. When asked to elaborate on any fears he might have about repatriation, the Applicant responded that he was concerned about ‘my mental health, job, poverty, no adequate health care…no pensions from the Government.’ When put to the Applicant that his evidence did not disclose any current health conditions or medication, he agreed, stating that he was only currently taking sleeping pills. He said there was nothing for him in Nigeria, ‘no job, no opportunity to help people’. He would also lose his partner and family in Australia. He claimed that if allowed to remain in Australia he intended to repay the restitution ordered by the Court.
Evidence of Mr Festus Okoh
The witness adopted his statement as true and correct. He has a very close relationship with the Applicant, and they spent about a year living together in Darwin before the witness relocated interstate with his family in 2015. The family had relocated on several occasions since and the witness is currently working in Canberra as a taxi driver while his family lives in Queensland.
The witness said his children ‘look up to [the Applicant] as a father figure.’ When asked if any of his children have a closer relationship with the Applicant than others, the witness said his eldest child, C2, does. He said the Applicant kept in touch with the children via telephone, video calls, and other applications.
The witness said he could offer the Applicant a taxi driving job in Canberra or Mount Isa. He also said he could try and ‘reach out’ to a friend in Darwin who may be able to offer the Applicant work. If the Applicant was released in Australia, the witness said the family would continue to support him. The witness said he would assist the Applicant with restitution ordered by the Court ‘if there was a method of payment’ established. He made about $50,000 a year providing there were ‘no major repairs required’ for his taxi and would do what he could to assist the Applicant.
The witness said his parents live in Nigeria. His father was a bank manager and his mother a primary school headmistress. Both parents had decided to retire in or about 2012. If the Applicant was returned to Nigeria, the witness said it was ‘going to be hard’ on him. His children would also be sad and miss the Applicant. When asked if the children could communicate with the Applicant as they currently do, the witness said calls to Nigeria were expensive and there were ‘always problems with network issues.’
The witness said he and his siblings send money to their parents to assist them, after paying their own bills. He estimated that he sent an average of $600 a month. Other siblings sent money individually, but the witness said he had previously sent money to the Applicant to forward to their parents. This did not occur often, approximately every three to six months, and was ‘mostly small amounts of $100 to $200.’
Evidence of Ms Joan Okoh
The witness adopted her statement as true and correct. She is the Applicant’s younger sister and is studying in Australia. She had last spoken with the Applicant the previous weekend and they communicated via telephone a ‘few times a week.’ The witness feels particularly close to Applicant who is a continuing source of encouragement and support. If he was removed from Australia it would be particularly difficult for her and she felt their connection would be ‘almost lost’ because it was ‘expensive to call’ Nigeria. She stated, however, that she kept in touch with her family in Nigeria using WhatsApp, which had telephone, messaging, and video functions.
Evidence of Mrs Faith Okoh
The witness adopted her statement as true and correct. She is the Applicant’s sister-in-law and is married to Mr Festus Okoh. The witness said she has a ‘very good relationship’ with the Applicant, who ‘gives [her] advice on what to do’ and she was able to ‘open up to’ him. She described him as a ‘very nice person with a good heart.’ She said they spoke by telephone about twice each week. Although very close to the Applicant, she was unaware about his offending. She had not noticed any suspicious behaviour at the time of his offending in 2017 and 2018, because she was living interstate and they only talked on the telephone.
If the Applicant was repatriated, it would break her children’s hearts. They constantly ask when they can see him. The Applicant had never met her youngest child who was one year old, but has a closer relationship with her four and six-year-old children.
The witness said it was very expensive to call Nigeria and she could not afford to call the Applicant if he was returned. She feared he would lose contact with his nieces and nephews. She agreed that her parents live in Nigeria and she calls them by telephone and ‘Cuckoo.’
Evidence of Ms Olaremi Agbede
The witness adopted her statement as true and correct. She is a permanent resident of Australia and has a brother in Australia living interstate. Her parents and other family members live in Nigeria.
The witness said she has been the Applicant’s partner since 2015 and they have discussed marriage. She visited him on weekends after his imprisonment in Darwin and initially felt a sense of social isolation but ‘didn’t really ask for help.’ This was alleviated after she found some friends to discuss her issues with. Since the Applicant’s transfer to immigration detention interstate, they speak daily by telephone. She also speaks with the Applicant’s mother in Nigeria by telephone every few months.
The witness said the Applicant had been a supportive partner, including by encouraging her completion of post-graduate studies. When asked what the effect would be on her if the Applicant was repatriated, the witness responded: ‘mentally it wouldn’t be great.’ She considered him not only her partner but a ‘best friend’. If he could not remain in Australia, she said it would end of their relationship. She loves it in Australia, has a good job, and has made her life here. Returning to Nigeria or resettling in a third country is not an option. If the Applicant stayed in Australia, he would live with her and they would: ‘finally get married and start our relationship together and a family.’
During cross examination, the witness agreed that prior to COVID-19 restrictions, she travelled to Nigeria most years for holidays. She continued to keep in touch with her family by telephone and video calls weekly; mostly to her mother.
PROTECTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL OR OTHER SERIOUS CONDUCT
Clause 8.1 of the Direction states:
(1) When considering protection of the Australian community, decision-makers should keep in mind that the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. Remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
(2) Decision-makers should also 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.
Tribunal consideration: The nature and seriousness of the conduct
Clause 8.1.1 of the Direction sets out factors to be considered in determining the nature and seriousness of a non-citizen’s criminal offending or other conduct to date. Decision-makers must have regard to the following:
(a)without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community:
(i) violent and/or sexual crimes;
(ii) crimes of a violent nature against women or children, regardless of the sentence imposed;
(iii) of family violence, regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed;
(b)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 197 A of the Act, which prohibits escape from immigration detention;
(c)with the exception of the crimes or conduct mentioned in subparagraph (a)(ii), (a)(iii) or (b)(i) above, the sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes;
(d)the frequency of the non-citizen's offending and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;
(e)the cumulative effect of repeated offending;
(f)whether the non-citizen has provided false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending;
(g)whether the non-citizen has reoffended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware, in writing, about the consequences of further offending in terms of the non-citizen's migration status (noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen's favour).
The Applicant was convicted of Money laundering under s 231B of the Criminal Code Act 1983 (NT), which provides that: ‘Any person who deals with proceeds of crime is guilty of an offence and is liable to imprisonment for 20 years.’ This is his only conviction. The Applicant pleaded guilty to having dealt with the proceeds of crime.[62] The sentencing remarks stated that the Applicant’s offending ‘was obviously serious.’ His role was described as ‘significant,’ driven by ‘greed,’ and arising from ‘deliberate and considered dishonesty.’ Riley AJ found the Applicant was a ‘vital part’ of the scheme and intended to continue offending through ‘romance frauds.’ His Honour’s reflections on the Applicant’s offending are respectfully adopted:[63]
[62] Ibid, 73.
[63] Ibid, 72-78.
…
In November 2017 police in the Northern Territory commenced an investigation into persons suspected of receiving funds obtained from online fraud. During the course of the investigation, police established that you had received funds that were the proceeds of an online fraud and that you had dealt with the funds; by sending them through direct bank transfers to a bank account in South Africa; by using international money remittance services; and through cash withdrawals.
The funds were obtained from what is described as a business email compromise fraud. This is a form of phishing attack where cyber criminals compromise a victim's email system to cause fund transfers to be diverted from legitimate payment accounts to accounts held by associates of the cyber criminals. In your case, the victims were based in Victoria.
…
The matter was referred to police in South Australia and Northern Territory Police became involved. Northern Territory Police executed a search warrant at your address and in the course of the search located $10,000, consisting of 200 $50 notes concealed in a bag in your room and also mobile phones and computers. Later that morning, you were arrested and you participated in a record of interview. In that interview you gave an account which was false in a number of circumstances in order to exculpate yourself. You were not then fully accepting responsibility for your conduct.
In that record of interview, you falsely said that you had been contacted by a person from Nigeria, who asked you to buy goods in Australia and then send the goods on. You were then contacted by a person who you only knew by the user name Able God through WhatsApp and he instructed you to send $16,000 to South Africa. You identified other names, being Faruk and Adescope, as people who were directing you. Those names by themselves did not assist police in their investigation.
When you transferred this money to South Africa, you withdrew $26,000 in cash and kept it, leaving $400 remaining in your account. When you were contacted by the Commonwealth Bank Fraud Team, you told them that you had spent the entire $26,000 and that none of the money was left. These statements were misleading. You admitted to police that $10,000 located in your bedroom was from the $26,000 you had withdrawn and that you had also given $11,000 to another man for safekeeping. This amount was subsequently surrendered to police.
After you received communication from the Commonwealth Bank in relation to your account, you communicated with Rabbit Nig, telling him not to transfer any further money into your account. At that point, you had already provided him with your login details and he had made two transfers out of the account.
In total, you received into your Commonwealth Bank account the sum of $42,591.18. Of that, you claim to have sent $11,999.98 to unidentified accounts in South Africa. There is some confusion about an amount of $5000, which I cannot resolve at this time.
You withdrew the rest of the money except for $473, which remained in your account. The total amount withdrawn by you was $35,118.20. Restitution is sought in the sum of $21,591.18, being the amount of $42,591.18 received into your bank account, less the money recovered, which was the $10,000 in your bedroom and the $11,000 you provided to another man for safekeeping.
I have a victim impact statement made on behalf of [company name redacted] in which it indicated that the company has suffered loss and the supplier, being [company name redacted], was placed under considerable financial pressure whilst matters were worked out. The employees of [company name redacted] felt considerable guilt for the loss of the owners' money. Much time and effort had to be wasted in taking action to report the offending and to subsequently update internal processes.
I later received a victim impact statement, provided orally by counsel, from the principal of [company name redacted]. He advised that the business is a small business and he was relying on receipt of the money in order to pay for his wedding and honeymoon. However, of course, the money did not arrive until some months later because of your offending. The principal of [company name redacted] said that the offending had a negative effect on his health and on his business.
…
I am informed that you do not have any criminal history in Australia or elsewhere. Initially, as I have mentioned, you provided a false explanation to police in an attempt to exculpate yourself, but the police were able to disprove your claims by communications recorded on your phone.
You subsequently pleaded guilty and you have taken responsibility for your actions to some extent. However, even during the plea in mitigation here before me, you continued to put forward an explanation that did not reflect the level of your culpability and your involvement in the offending.
As is your right and beyond giving those names to which I have already referred, you have provided no assistance to police beyond your admissions.
The offending was obviously serious. The maximum penalty prescribed is imprisonment for 20 years. This, of course, is a cybercrime. Such offending is prevalent in our community and is difficult to detect and to prevent. It impacts upon individuals and businesses by breaching security systems and wrongly using personal identification information. Of course, the financial consequences for victims of such crimes can be significant.
As is evidenced by this case, this type of offending can be carried out from any location in the world. The identity and location of the cybercriminal is hidden, which makes it a low risk criminal activity. The potential for a high return is significant, making such offending attractive to criminals.
Your role in the offending was significant. The agreement was that you were to receive 50 per cent of the amount deposited into your account. You were then to direct the balance to various bank accounts. Your dishonesty then went beyond that level of involvement, because you lied to your co-offenders about the status of your bank accounts and you transferred the money out into cash, as I have described.
You told your co-offenders that the bank account had been closed and you could not get access to the funds in order to transfer them overseas. You kept the money, and I find beyond reasonable doubt, not because you did not want to be involved, as was initially put to me, but because you believed that you should receive a greater amount than in fact you were receiving.
You thought you were subject to greater risk compared with your co-offenders, or there may have been some other reason for you acting as you did, but nevertheless, you kept the money for yourself. This is quite different from the original submission made on your behalf, that you kept the money because you did not want to be further involved, that you had some crisis of conscience.
You were in effect stealing from your co-offenders as well. You were motivated by greed, not by any sense of necessity. There was a deliberate and considered dishonesty on your part. You had time to think about your actions but you continued, notwithstanding. Indeed, the text messages, to which I have now been taken show that you intended to continue on with your offending conduct but only in relation to what I call romance frauds.
In this case, your role was different from so-called money mules, who have no direct connection with the fraudulent conduct. In this case, the invoices were for legitimate works completed by [company name redacted] and the money was redirected into your bank account, with you being fully aware of the communications that led to the deposits into your account.
The offending could not have occurred without your participation...
In addition, the offending was well thought-out and involved the use of sophisticated technology. As I have mentioned, you are an educated man and you were fully aware of what you were doing.
This was not opportunistic offending but rather arose from hacking an email system, the maintenance of the necessary bank account in your name and communication between yourself and your co-offenders in the fraudulent scheme. You may not have been the instigator of the offending, indeed, I cannot find that you were, but you were a vital part in carrying out that scheme.
Whilst the amount of money involved in this matter was significant, it was not of the order seen in some similar cases. Similarly, the number of transactions, which the Crown says were ten, whilst numerous, were not of the same order as some other offences of a similar kind.
It is readily apparent that general deterrence must play a significant part in determining an appropriate sentence. In addition, denunciation and punishment must be given emphasis. Those who may be inclined to offend in this way, if they be caught, must be aware that serious consequences will follow. Community protection is another sentencing consideration.
You will be convicted. But for your plea of guilty I would have sentenced you to imprisonment for 4 years. In light of the plea, I sentence you to imprisonment for 3 years. I set a non-parole period of 1 year and 6 months. The sentence will be deemed to have commenced on the day you were taken into custody, which is 28 June 2018. I make an order for restitution in the sum of $21,591.18.

The evidence discloses that police, in conjunction with the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (AUSTRAC), have determined that between 1 June 2017 and 30 May 2018, the Applicant ‘had 73 recorded outgoing overseas transactions totalling $131,000’ in the following circumstances:[64]
These transactions show a pattern of funds entering Emmanuel OKOH’s accounts and then being transferred…to locations in Nigeria, South Africa, Singapore and Luxembourg.
The quantity of funds transferred by Emmanuel OKOH and pattern of transfers (high volumes of transactions from multiple sources with outgoing transfers to international locations) is indicative of transfers associated with online scams. Persons performing these activities are referred to as ‘Money Mules’ and facilitate organised online criminal activity through enabling the movement of funds from domestic scam victims to international locations.
[64] Ibid, 309-310.
When asked about this during the first hearing, the Applicant claimed he had transferred virtually his entire annual earnings from Australia, while somehow being able to pay for his living and other expenses in Australia.[65] He maintained a similar position at the present hearing.
[65] Exhibit R3, 63 [26]-[47]; 64 [1]-[8].
It was submitted by Mr Glenister that the Applicant concedes ‘his conduct will be viewed by the Tribunal as serious’ and that this primary consideration weighs against revocation.[66] In closing submissions Mr Glenister submitted there is no evidence the Applicant’s transfer of over $100,000 overseas ‘was the subject of a criminal enterprise.’
[66] ASFIC, 3 [23]-[24].
The Respondent submitted that the Applicant’s offending ‘required a sophisticated level of planning and execution,’ and was reflective of involvement in ‘a larger criminal enterprise’ with actors in Australia, South Africa, and Nigeria. The Respondent further submitted that the Applicant had a vital part in carrying out that scheme, all of which attested to the objective seriousness of his conduct.
Tribunal findings: The nature and seriousness of the conduct
Clause 8.1.1(1) of the Direction provides for decision-makers to have regard both for criminal offending and ‘other conduct to date.’[67]
[67] Vu v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2020) 276 FCR 516, [64].
The Applicant has a single conviction for Money laundering. The Tribunal acknowledges the three-year sentence of imprisonment awarded was a reduced sentence encompassing consideration of his guilty plea and is well below the maximum 20 years available. However, imprisonment is the most severe sentencing order available to any court.
The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s evidence that he thought his conduct was legal. There is no evidence to corroborate the purported advice provided by ‘Frank’ or ‘Joe’. The Tribunal respectfully adopts the reasoning in the sentencing remarks that the Applicants dishonesty was not only considered and that he also intended to commit ‘romance frauds’. The Applicant explained at the first hearing that this involved pretending ‘to love someone just to get money from them,’ and he ‘thought doing romance fraud would be of lesser risk.’[68] He gave similar evidence at the present hearing that this conduct was comparatively less serious. The Tribunal considers this intended conduct to be serious, notwithstanding the Applicant being unable able to undertake it after his arrest.
[68] Exhibit R3, 55 [30]; 56 [10]-[18].
The Tribunal considers the Applicant’s evidence about more than $100,000 in international transfers to multiple overseas countries between June 2017 and May 2018, to be unpersuasive and incomplete. The Tribunal does not accept that Exhibit A2 has much probative value, given there are no years detailed in the transaction reports, and the Applicant concedes he also used other accounts and methods to transfer money overseas. It is noteworthy that he transferred close to his entire after-tax earnings in Australia for the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 Financial Years, while claiming he was able to pay for his living and other expenses estimated at $750 fortnightly. The Tribunal considers his explanations for this unexplained wealth implausible. No finding can be made on the available evidence, however, about the precise source of all of those funds.
The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s unpersuasive explanation for multiple withdrawals from ATMs in Darwin as arising from his belief that there was a $1,000 limit on each machine.
The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s implausible explanation for the transfer of funds to a friend in Nigeria via an unknown third party in Singapore, which lacks any corroboration.
The Tribunal does not accept the Applicant’s unpersuasive explanation about safekeeping $20,000 for a friend in Australia, which again lacks any corroboration.
Contrary to the Applicant’s claims about finally deciding to be completely truthful at the present hearing, he knowingly produced a false document in the form of Exhibit A5. This is not only a grave error of judgment and reflection of the his continuing dishonesty, but may constitute a breach of s 62A of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).
The sentencing remarks, length of the Applicant’s first custodial sentence, overseas transfer of unexplained wealth, intention to become involved in romance frauds, and submission of a false document at the present hearing, reflect the objective seriousness of his conduct. The Tribunal’s considers the Applicant’s evidence must be treated with caution.
Tribunal consideration: Risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct
Clause 8.1.2(1) of the Direction states:
In considering the need to protect the 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.
Clause 8.1.2(2) of the Direction relevantly provides that in assessing the risk posed 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; and
(b)the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account:
(i) information and evidence on the risk of the noncitizen re-offending; and
(ii) evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken).
…
This aspect of the Direction requires the Tribunal to assess the risk the Applicant poses to the Australian community in the event he reoffends, taking into consideration both the nature of any harm and its probability. In Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Obele (2010) 119 ALD 358, Katzmann J reasoned at [59] that the ‘risk of harm posed by the conduct in which the person has engaged in is obviously relevant to the risk…he might in the future engage in.’ In Murphy v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1924 at [37], Mortimer J explained:
That is, part of the Tribunal’s task was to decide not only whether the applicant might engage in further offending conduct if he were permitted to stay, but what level of risk any such conduct might pose to the Australian community… of how serious the risk was, or whether the risk should be “tolerated.”
In Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Splendido (2019) 271 FCR 595, Mortimer J reasoned at [78] that:
…[t]he nature and circumstances of past offending are integral to any assessment of the risk, or likelihood, of future offending. Also of relevance are a range of other factors about the present circumstances of an individual which may bear on a risk of whether past offending conduct might or might not be repeated. It is these matters, and not the mere specification of a criminal record, which provide the probative basis for an assessment about the nature and extent of any risk of further offending.
The High Court of Australia (the High Court) held in Guo that past actions can be legitimate predictors of future behaviour.[69] The majority observed, however, that past events ‘are not a certain guide’ and, depending on circumstances, the probability of an event occurring could be so low as to be ‘safely disregarded,’ or at the other extreme ‘may border on certainty.’ The majority also observed there are a number of factors arising in making such evaluations, and that it is ‘ordinarily an integral part of the process of making a determination concerning the chance of something occurring in the future that conclusions are formed concerning past events.’[70]
[69] Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 144 ALR 567 (Guo), 578-579.
[70] Guo at 574-575.
More recently in Hughes v The Queen (2017) 263 CLR 338, Nettle J observed that evidence of a past offence ‘is not, of itself, significantly probative’ of the committing of another offence:
Without more, it establishes only that the accused is the kind of person who has committed an offence. To make evidence of previous offending or misconduct significantly probative of a subsequent offence there needs to be something more about the nature of the offences or the circumstances of the offending in each case…[71]
[71] Hughes at 392.
When sentencing the Applicant, Riley AJ stated that the Applicant minimised his culpability throughout the proceedings and ‘continued to seek to deflect responsibility.’[72] A letter from the Applicant apologising to his victims was considered ‘self-serving’ and of ‘limited assistance’. His Honour considered the Applicant had ‘moderate prospects for rehabilitation,’ stating: ‘it remains a concern that you have continued to endeavour to minimise your culpability throughout these proceedings right up until just a short time ago.’[73]
[72] Exhibit R1, 78.
[73] Ibid.
Applicant’s submissions
It is submitted on the Applicant’s behalf that while conceding the nature of the harm caused by a repeat of his offending is serious, ‘it is not so serious that any risk of it reoccurring in the future is unacceptable.’[74] Several factors were highlighted by Mr Glenister in support of the contention that the Applicant’s risk of reoffending is ‘low’:[75]
(a)The salutary effect of the Applicant’s first sentence, during which he was a ‘model prisoner’[76] who received a ‘Low 1’ security rating[77] and was granted parole;
(b)The vocational and self-development courses undertaken by the Applicant in custodial settings;
(c)The Applicant’s developed insight and remorse;
(d)Improvement in the Applicant’s mental health following treatment from a psychologist;
(e)The absence of predisposing factors such as drug or alcohol abuse and ‘no obvious treatment needs’;[78]
(f)Protective factors if released including a supportive partner, elder brother, broader pro-social support group, consistent work history, ‘good employment contacts,’ and realistic prospects of employment; and
(g)His severing of contact with past negative influences and the fact he won’t be living with his two brothers who were also involved in fraudulent activities.
[74] ASFIC, 3 [25].
[75] Ibid, 5 [40].
[76] Ibid, 4 [34]; Exhibit R1, 178.
[77] Exhibit R1, 181.
[78] ASFIC, 5 [38].
Mr Chan submitted that a repeat of the Applicant’s offending would likely result in significant financial harm to members of the community, and highlighted the effects of the Applicant’s past crime on one victim’s mental and emotional health.[79] The Applicant’s intention to commit romance fraud was highlighted as evidence that his offending was not ‘one-off,’ but he intended to commit other frauds. This was despite the existence of comparable protective factors, including fulltime employment. The Respondent contends that with the amount owed in restitution and other bank debt still owed by the Applicant, ‘there is a significant financial incentive for him to reoffend.’[80]
[79] Exhibit R1, 83.
[80] RSFIC, 11 [46].
Contributory factors
The Applicant considers himself to be ‘a person of good moral character.’[81] He previously explained his offending in the following terms:
I saw this as an ‘opportunity to make quick easy cash (by just providing my account details)…Growing up in Nigeria…fraud is a common thing because of the government’s inability to provide for its citizens…I was fortunate not to engage in such acts because I had my education to focus on the parents that raised me. I was privileged to come to Australia and I thought that lifestyle was behind me, that I wouldn’t have to struggle or do things that are illegal in order to provide for my family. But little did I know because my past caught up with me in the disguise of a friend. So, it was easy for me to think I was helping out a friend.’ [82]
…
Another factor I believe would help explain my offending was the country I was raised in. In Nigeria, accessories to a crime are not given the full weight of the law, they are either seen as witnesses or suspects, while the main perpetrators are tracked and dealt with by the law. Knowing this and moving to Australia, it was easy for me to think I was helping out by just providing my account details, and if caught, I’d be advised to pay back and not necessarily a prison sentence.
The types of friends I kept also contributed to this, I felt minuscule in their presence and always wanted to prove myself without realising potential threats forward/danger. I want to be liked and needed by all, and never gave consideration to the friends I added and chatted with online (social media) even if I didn’t know them. So, it was easy to succumb instead of calling a ‘spade a spade.’[83]
[81] Exhibit R1, 123.
[82] Ibid, 120.
[83] Ibid, 130.
The Applicant referred to several other factors relevant to his crimes, including:[84]
(a)‘poor management of money’, stating that he spent everything he earned, had no savings, and a bank debt he owed ‘became a ticker time bomb waiting to explode;
(b)the death of an Australian friend he cared for in November 2017;
(c)a visit to Nigeria to see his family in February 2018 where he ‘saw so much poverty and death,’ following which he ‘struggled with his mortality’; and
(d)seeing two of his brothers ‘engaging in an act that was wrong,’ and because they were not prosecuted by police he joined them, because he had a ‘feeling it was [his] responsibility to care and provide for anyone who reached out and this led to [him] being dishonest.’
[84] Exhibit R1, 130-131.
In a statement dated 31 July 2020, the Applicant reflected on his participation as follows:[85]
[85] Ibid, 249-250.
…
15.1 provided my bank account for the proceeds of a phishing scam to be directed to. I was not in any way involved in instigating the scam; however, I now recognise the gravity of my actions and the significant part they contributed towards the overall scam.
16.1 became involved because I was approached by an old friend in Nigeria from the National Youth Service that I used to be a part of. He asked me if I would be willing to provide my bank account details to him so that he could then forward them onto some contacts.
17.1 did not ask too many questions about where the money would be coming from or give it much thought or consideration. I was not very good at saying ‘no’ and I wanted to keep everyone happy.
18. He said that money would be deposited into my account and that I would get to keep half the proceeds. After agreeing, I was contacted by individuals with whom I had no prior association. They contacted me through Whatsapp and gave me instructions.
19. It was a difficult time in my life; a childhood friend from Nigeria died in a car accident and one of my clients that I cared and shared a close relationship had just died at the young age of 36 years. As a result, I was deeply saddened and not in the best frame of mind to think things through carefully - I just saw it as a way for me to get quick and easy money.
20.I asked around generally if I could get in any trouble if unknown money was deposited in my account and the unanimous answer was that “no”, I would not. After hearing this, I didn’t consider things any further.
21. In saying this, I have full realisation that my actions were wrong. There is no excuse for my behaviour and I should have known better because, if I am being honest, it did not ‘feel right’. It did not occur to me that was I was engaging in would be considered “money laundering” but I did know that it seemed ‘dodgy’ and was probably unlawful.
22. Once I got caught, I was really scared and I initially lied to the police. I lied to try and get myself out of the mess. Sadly, l had not yet grasped the gravity of my actions and the wider implications on the victims and the community at large. I did not know what I had gotten myself into and was in denial.
23. After I realised the seriousness of my offending, I pleaded guilty and took responsibility for my actions. I remember that the judge did not find that I took full accountability for my actions. Having had the time to reflect on my behaviour and the judge’s comments, I accept that my role was significant and if it were not for people like me, then these scams would not be able to exist.
In his oral testimony at the present hearing, the Applicant repudiated aspects of this previous evidence to the Court and the first Tribunal hearing, agreeing he lied to minimise his culpability. He agreed that if re-writing his statement today, he would not rely on factors like pressure to repay bank loans or the death of friends.
Rehabilitation
The Applicant referred to his rehabilitative efforts since entering immigration detention in January 2020, including 12 claimed sessions with psychologists ‘on and off the centre.’[86] The Tribunal notes in this regard a two-page letter of support from a self-employed psychologist, Mr Uwe Schaub, who met the Applicant in mid-2020 during Mr Schaub’s employment with the International Health and Medical Services (IHMS).[87] Mr Schaub did not give oral evidence at the hearing and could not be cross-examined on the contents of his letter dated 17 March 2021, which stated in part:
I have met Mr OKOH sometime in mid-2020 during my employment with IHMS at the YHDC. To date Mr OKOH has had a total of 12 sessions with me, 5 of which were face to face at YHDC and 7 via video link since my relocation to QLD. He attended as regular as possible given his circumstances and evidently applied what he learnt.
Mr OKOH met the criteria for PTSD and was referred to me for treatment. He also complained about sleep disturbances and frequent nightmares, as well as periods of anxiety and depression. As an EMDR practitioner I am aware that EMDR is the best treatment choice for individuals suffering from PTSD, but I am also aware that providing EMDR in an environment like YHDC is not recommended. Hence, Mr OKOH’s intervention included only some aspects of EMDR (specifically the grounding component). He was also provided with psycho-education, CBT, Mindfulness, and various strategies to address his problems with sleep and nightmares. Furthermore, he was taught visualisation, breathing and relaxation exercises to manage distress.
Mr OKOH was very committed to his intervention as was indicated by his diligent engagement. As a result, he reported improvements in all areas and total absence of nightmares and the absence of sleep difficulties. Mr OKOH has demonstrated good attention and recall, good understanding and application of information, and impressed as calm and settled as well as emotionally resilient with a positive outlook. Despite his less than favourable environment, Mr OKOH nowadays presents as a calm and approachable individual who is goal directed. He also demonstrated insight, empathy, and remorse over the crime he committed. Mr OKOH stated to me that he has separated himself from negative peer influences and that he was now very selective of those individuals he voluntarily associates with.
I hope that my stated observations and experiences with Mr OKOH assist in formulating a clearer picture of his mental health and his character.
[86] Exhibit A1, 3 [27].
[87] Exhibit A3. The IHMS provides primary and mental health care services within the Australian immigration detention network.

The Tribunal must give active intellectual consideration to the Applicant’s clearly articulated representations about risk of harm, regardless of characterisation.[126] This cannot be deferred because the Applicant is able to apply for a Protection Visa.[127] The Tribunal’s engagement with such claims, however, relates to whether there is ‘another reason’ for revocation pursuant to s 501CA of the Act, rather than the more expansive analysis routinely undertaken for Protection Visa applications.[128]
[126] YKSB v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCAFC 224, 5; Minister for Home Affairs v Omar (2019) 272 FCR 589, [34]-[44].
[127] Ali v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] 380 ALR 393.
[128] Ayoub v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) 231 FCR 513, [27]-[28]; Ali v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 650 at [28].
As held in GLD18 v Minister for Home Affairs:[129]
The predictive exercise involved in forming a state of satisfaction as to the well-foundedness of a visa applicant’s expressed fear of returning to her or his country of nationality was described by the Full Court in Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v MZYTS [2013] FCAFC 114; 230 FCR 431 at [32]–[38]. Included in that exercise is, as the Court said at [37], an assessment and determination of what might happen to a visa applicant if she or he were returned to her or his country of nationality at the point in time the review decision is made, and what might happen in the near future thereafter…
[129] [2020] FCAFC 2 at [77] (Allsop CJ, Mortimer and Snaden JJ.
The ASFIC contained no claims about this consideration, nor were non-refoulement claims advanced by the Applicant or Mr Glenister during the hearing. When asked about this during closing submissions, Mr Glenister confirmed that during their association the Applicant ‘hasn’t said to me he has any such fears.’ Mr Glenister acknowledged the Applicant was not precluded from making a Protection Visa Application but had not yet done so. Given the Applicant’s past submissions about harm if returned to Nigeria, however, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to engage with these claims.
At the present hearing the Applicant confirmed he was born in a major city in Southern Nigeria and English is the official language. He does not identify with a particular ethnic group. When asked to elaborate on any fears he might have about return to Nigeria, he referred to: ‘my mental health, job, poverty, no adequate health care…no pensions from the Government.’ When put to the Applicant that his evidence did not disclose any current health conditions or medication, he agreed, stating that he was currently only taking medication to help him sleep.
In his 2019 Personal Circumstances Form (PCF), however, the Applicant stated:
if I were to return to my country, the pattern of the road before me would be chaos. I would continuously live in fear, given that I received threat messages to send the balance funds that was transferred to my account before I was arrested and convicted. Nigerian is almost a lawless state where the government cares only for itself. There are corrupt government officials and no adequate policing. I might end up being kidnapped/captured, tortured and used as scape-goat to also send a warning. On 29 September 2019, the ABC News 24 broadcasted that almost 500 captives were rescued from a “house of torture” in… Nigeria. These places still exist in the country and it brings fear to the heart just hearing about it.[130]
(Errors in original.)
[130] Exhibit R1, 136.
The Tribunal noted from open source information a BBC News article dated 29 September 2019, which referred to Nigerian authorities rescuing nearly 500 men and boys from an ‘Islamic school and correctional facility’ in Northern Nigeria, where some victims had been tortured and sexually abused.[131] The BBC report noted that circumstances ‘in this mainly Muslim part of the country’ were such that some families could only afford to send their children to schools and ‘poorly regulated institutions like this one.’ The Applicant did not advance claims about why his circumstances linked to this type of harm. He did not provide evidence to corroborate his claims that Nigeria is ‘almost a lawless state’ without ‘adequate policing,’ or how such deficiencies persuasively link to an inability to prevent the Applicant being harmed.
[131] Nigerian ‘torture house’: Kaduna school was ‘like hellfire’ (29 September 2019), BBC News <
A declaration purporting to be from the Applicant’s father dated 24 July 2020 stated that a person called ‘Farouk and three others who are involved in cyber crime,’[132] had personally approached him claiming that his three sons, including the Applicant, had ‘given information about their cyber criminal organisation to the Australia Federal Police in Darwin on getting to “Nigeria” they would go after their lives.’[133] The further stated:
…In view of the serious threats to my children lives, and the inability of the “Nigeria” police to protect lives and property effectively, I strongly believe that my children lives would be at risk on getting to ‘Nigeria.’ Farouk and his corhorts say they have no issue with me and my wife and that I should warn my children, to watch their back.
(Errors in original.)
[132] Exhibit R3, 59.
[133] Exhibit R1, 451 [125].
The Applicant’s father was not called to give evidence at the hearing. No reference is made in the declaration about when these threats were purportedly made, whether they were reported to the authorities and investigated, or whether there has been any subsequent threat. At the last hearing, the Applicant stated his father received these threats in 2018, did not report them to police, and had first made these claims in his July 2020 declaration.[134]
[134] Ibid, 59 [5]-[25].
During the previous hearing, the Applicant was questioned extensively about his relationship with people in Nigeria who he said initiated his involvement in the criminal venture. The Applicant said he was no longer on good terms with Farouk, because one of his other brothers failed to pay monies to Farouk as promised.[135] The Applicant claimed to have received multiple threats in the past, but none since his imprisonment in 2018.[136]
[135] Exhibit R3, 35 [11]-[35].
[136] Ibid, 58 [8].
There is no reference in the statements of the Applicant’s siblings, to any risk of harm in a non-refoulement sense, arising from the Applicant’s return to Nigeria. The Tribunal notes he voluntarily returned there for a month-long holiday in 2018. The Applicant advanced no claims in his written or oral evidence at the present hearing about ‘reprisal’ fears from a purported ‘Muslim rebellion against Christian families’ during his childhood, which are contained in Dr Watts’ 2020 report.
Tribunal findings: International non-refoulement obligations
The Applicant is a Nigerian citizen who resided in that country until arriving in Australia seven years ago. His parents, a sibling and other relatives continue to reside in Nigeria, and it is not contested this would be the receiving country for the purposes of s 5(1) of the Act.
In terms of the legal implications of an adverse decision in this matter, the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa meant he became an unlawful non-citizen within the meaning of s 14 of the Act and liable to immigration detention. If the non-revocation decision is affirmed, the Applicant must be removed as soon as reasonably practicable, irrespective of Australia’s non-refoulement obligations: ss 197C and 198 of the Act.
Although the Applicant’s evidence is that he has not applied for a Protection Visa, he is eligible to do so.[137] If he did, he must not be removed until the application is finally determined.[138] The Applicant did not advance any claims about continuing or indefinite detention, but the Tribunal observes that the immediate legal and factual consequence of affirming the non-revocation decision in this matter does not necessarily include removal from Australia or indefinite detention.[139] As held in DQM18 v Minister for Home Affairs,[140] however, that would be a ‘temporary delay to removal,’ which turns on whether any Protection Visa application is ultimately successful. It remains unclear in this case, given the circumstances of the Applicant’s offending, whether he would remain in detention or be released into the community on a Bridging Visa while a Protection Visa application is processed. But if the Applicant did apply for a Protection Visa, the Minister’s Department is compelled to assess any non-refoulement claims in compliance with Direction No 75 – Refusal of Protection visas Relying on Section 36(1C) and Section 36(2C)(b) (Direction 75). Direction 75 requires that an assessment must first be made about whether refugee and complementary protection criteria are met before considering ineligibility criteria.
[137] Sections 48A and 501E(2) of the Act.
[138] Section 198(5) of the Act.
[139] AZAFQ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCAFC 105, [70].
[140] [2020] FCAFC 110, [107].
There are no substantial grounds for believing, on the evidence provided, that there is a real risk the Applicant might be arbitrarily deprived of his life or suffer other harm as a ‘necessary and foreseeable consequence’ of repatriation. His evidence about potential reprisal arising from a purported ‘Muslim rebellion against Christian families’ during his childhood, or the purported international reach of unidentified people involved in his criminal enterprise, or from an inability or unwillingness of Nigerian authorities to protect him, is general, speculative, and uncorroborated. On his own evidence, neither he nor his family have received any further threats since 2018. The purported threats were not reported to police, and his father’s written reference to these threats was made two years after the threats were purportedly made.
The Applicant’s claimed fears of harm appear remote at best and, on the evidence currently before the Tribunal, he does not have a well-founded fear of persecution. There is no evidence he would be discriminated against or treated differently to any other Nigerian citizen if returned. The generalised violence and security concerns he describes confront all Nigerian citizens and not the Applicant personally.[141] The Tribunal noted from open source material after the hearing that the ethnic violence inferred from the Applicant’s evidence, appears contained in the Muslim northeast of Nigeria,[142] whereas he lives in the South. Ethnic violence is also a risk that faces the Nigerian population generally, rather than the Applicant personally. It is also noteworthy that any fears the Applicant may hold were insufficient to stop him returning to Nigeria for a month-long holiday in 2018.
[141] Section 36(2B)(c) of the Act; MZAAJ v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2015] FCA 478.
[142] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, DFAT Country Information Reoprt Nigeria (3 December 2020) DFAT<
For completeness, there is no evidence the Applicant would be exposed to the risk of kidnap or torture as he claimed, or ‘cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment,’ or that any pain or suffering he may experience would be ‘intentionally inflicted,’ or that he would be subjected to ‘degrading treatment or punishment,’ as the result of any act or omission by authorities in Nigeria. The evidence in this matter does not give rise to a Convention-related reason that enlivens Australia’s non-refoulement obligations, or a complementary protection claim under the Act.
In terms of a fear of harm falling below the thresholds above, the Tribunal does not accept the Applicant would be subjected to any generalised harm in Nigeria that is not confronted by the broader community. Given he was born and raised in Nigeria until the age of 20, and has spent only seven years in Australia, coupled with the additional work experience and qualifications he has gained, the Tribunal does not consider he would be impecunious, unable to re-establish himself, or denied economic rights in Nigeria. On his own evidence, he has approximately AUD$30,000 in an Australian superannuation account, which may be available to him if he satisfies a condition of release. There was no evidence during the hearing that the Applicant could not access this superannuation or rely on the support of his family in Nigeria, as he has in the past. His claims about not being able to earn as much through work in Nigeria as he could in Australia, or that he may experience practical impediments in re-establishing himself, or that he may be limited in his future ability to support his parents, do not give rise to non-refoulement obligations.[143]
[143] Jane McAdam, Complementary Protection in International Refugee Law, Oxford University Press, 2007, 164.
The Tribunal is not satisfied the Applicant is at risk of harm if returned to Nigeria or that he is owed non-refoulement obligations. This consideration is not enlivened and carries neutral weight.
Tribunal consideration: Extent of impediments if removed
Clause 9.2(1) of the Direction states that:
(1) Decision-makers must consider 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 substantial language or cultural barriers; and
c)Any social, medical and/or economic support available to them in that country.
The Applicant is 27 years of age, reports no diagnosed medical or psychological conditions,[144] claims to be in the best physical shape of his life,[145] and aspires to an immediate resumption of work if released. He conceded there is no impediment to re-establishing himself in Nigeria presented by his age, health, language, or culture.[146] The Applicant’s parents and a sister still live in Nigeria[147] and he most recently travelled there for a holiday in 2018.
[144] Exhibit R1, 118.
[145] ASFIC, 5 [47].
[146] ASFIC, 7 [58].
[147] Exhibit R1, 115.
The Applicant referred to potential unemployment if returned to Nigeria due to ‘loss of skills’, poverty, police brutality and corruption. He claimed there is ‘no social, medical and / or economic support unless one is wealthy.’[148] The evidence shows, however, that he has a consistent work history in Australia prior to his arrest, two undergraduate degrees, and some vocational training courses completed while in custody to draw on. The Applicant submitted in his written evidence he is appreciative of the fact that he is educated and has ‘skills to work in a field that is really rewarding and helps people in need.’[149]
[148] Ibid, 137.
[149] ASFIC, 4 [35].
It is submitted on the Applicant’s behalf that the principal impediments confronting him if removed are separation from his partner and other family members in Australia, and the ‘additional financial burden he will be for his parents,’ which will cause stress[150] and ‘may impede his ability to establish himself and maintain a basic standard of living.’ The Applicant submitted that his ‘shot at redemption in the future was being able to provide for his parents’ as they age, which would be best achieved by him living and working in Australia.[151]
[150] Exhibit R1, 129.
[151] Ibid.
Tribunal findings: Extent of impediments if removed
The Applicant has spent most of his life in Nigeria. He completed an undergraduate degree there as an adult and then completed another undergraduate degree in Australia.[152] He is a relatively young man in his 20s, in good health, and reports a consistent history of work.[153] There are no age, health, linguistic, or cultural barriers to his repatriation. There is also no evidence he would be treated differently to any other Nigerian citizen. Given the available evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied he has the capacity to establish himself and maintain basic living standards, in the context of what is generally available to other Nigerian citizens.
[152] Ibid, 121.
[153] Ibid, 122.
The Tribunal has considered issues relating to the Applicant’s separation from family members under ‘Links to the Australian community.’
The Tribunal found the Applicant’s claims that he will be a financial burden to his family, which ‘may’ impede his ability to re-establish himself in Nigeria, to be general and speculative. His existing tertiary qualifications, strong work history, and the additional vocational training and self-development courses he has undertaken in custody, can only have enhanced his employability. This is yet to be tested in Nigeria. There is no evidence he is unable to rely on practical and emotional support from his parents, sister and perhaps past friendship networks if required to re-establish himself in Nigeria. Moreover, he has approximately $30,000 in an Australian superannuation fund to assist him.
On balance, this consideration weighs slightly, at best, in favour of revocation.
Tribunal consideration: Impact on victims
Clause 9.3(1) of the Direction provides that the Tribunal must consider the impact of a non-revocation 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 this information is available.
The Applicant submitted that his victims ‘are unlikely to know that [he has] remained in the country.’[154] He claimed this consideration weighs in favour of revocation because the Court-ordered restitution will ‘more likely…remain unpaid’ if he is repatriated.[155] The Applicant said he intends to repay this, and could be coerced in the event that he fails to do so, if he is allowed to remain in the Australian community.
[154] Ibid, 124.
[155] ASFIC, 7 [55]-[56].
The Respondent submitted there is no evidence to support the Applicant’s claims that the amount he owes in restitution is more likely to be repaid if he remains in Australia.
Tribunal findings: Impact on victims
The Federal Court has previously held this consideration ‘requires a particular focus upon the consequences of the exercise of discretion to grant a visa with the result that the applicant will remain in Australia,’ where that information is available.[156] More recently in CGX20,[157] their Honours stated at [23] that this consideration referred to the ‘impact on the community, including victims, if the non-citizen were to hold a visa.’
[156] HVLC v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 616, [13] (Colvin J). Perram J has also recently dealt with this issue in Bale v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2020] FCA 646.
[157] CGX20 v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCAFC 69.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal about the impact of a non-revocation decision on victims of the Applicant’s offending, or their family members. The Tribunal therefore finds this consideration is not enlivened and it carries neutral weight.
Tribunal consideration: Links to the Australian community
Clause 9.4 of the Direction provides that decision-makers must, reflecting on the principles at clause 5.2, have regard to cl 9.4.1 relating to the ‘Strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia,’ and cl 9.4.2 relating to ‘Impact on Australian business interests.’ There is no evidence that a decision in this matter risks compromising the delivery of a major project or an important service in Australia. The presumption in the Direction is therefore not displaced and cl 9.4.2 of the Direction carries neutral weight.
Tribunal consideration: Strength, nature and duration of ties

Clause 9.4.1 of the Direction states:
(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)Where consideration is being given to whether to cancel a non-citizen's visa or whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of their visa, the decision-maker must also consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the noncitizen has to the Australian community. In doing so, decision-makers must have regard to:
(a) how long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child, noting that:
(i) less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and
(ii) more weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community.
(b) The strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.
The Applicant has lived in Australia for seven years, three of which have been in custodial settings. He referred to positive contributions made through consistent employment in the welfare sector, claiming to have ‘contributed immensely in the welfare sector,’ and that these contributions were ‘invaluable to the Australian community’. He also claimed to have undertaken volunteering[158] as Secretary of the NANTA between 2016 and 2018.[159] He further claimed to have assisted African migrants settle in the Darwin community, and attended church ‘once in a while’ with his faith community.[160]
[158] Ibid, 117; 122; 134; 143.
[159] Ibid, 122; 134; 142.
[160] Ibid, 122; Exhibit R3, 41 [20]-[26].
The Applicant stated that Ms Agbede and several family members would experience ‘emotional scaring (sic)’ if he was repatriated.[161] His claimed ties to the community can be summarised as follows:
[161] Ibid, 135.
(a)Four siblings.
(i)Mr Festus Okoh has written several letters of support for the Applicant,[162] in which he refers to positive changes in the Applicant and a willingness to support him if released. The Tribunal has also considered Mr Festus Okoh’s oral evidence at the hearing about the type of support he could offer the Applicant;
(ii)The Tribunal has considered Ms Joan Okoh’s letters of support for the Applicant[163] and her oral evidence at the hearing;
(iii)Mr Joseph Okoh is in immigration detention in Perth, while his wife and two children live in Darwin. There is no evidence from Mr Joseph Okoh in this matter; and
(iv)Mr Christian Okoh lives in regional Queensland. There is no evidence from him in this matter.
(b)Ms Agbede. The Applicant’s close relationship with Ms Agbede was detailed earlier. She has written several letters of support,[164] which the Tribunal has considered, in addition to her oral evidence at the hearing. The Applicant and Ms Agbede’s evidence is that their relationship will end if he is returned to Nigeria,[165] because Ms Agbede is now ‘well-settled with a good support structure in Darwin’, and ‘has applied for a permanent resident Visa;’
(c)Two sisters-in law. Mrs Faith Okoh and Mrs Blossom Okoh, the Applicant’s sisters-in-law in Australia, have drafted letters of support, which the Tribunal has considered, in addition to the oral evidence of Mrs Faith Okoh; and
(d)Six nephews and nieces. These ties were previously referred to earlier.
[162] Exhibit R1, 141.
[163] Ibid, 165-166; Exhibit A6.
[164] Ibid, 164; 255.
[165] ASFIC, 6 [58]; Exhibit A8, 1 [para 5].
The Tribunal has also considered other supportive materials in evidence, including from the Applicant’s friends, a former work colleague, office holders of his ethnic community, people involved with Bible studies, and a fellow detainee. In considering such references, however, the Tribunal is mindful they can often provide the best possible perspectives about an Applicant’s crimes, which other members of Australian society might consider unacceptable. Care must therefore be taken about the weight placed on references from family members and friends, particularly those with only a limited understanding of the Applicant’s past and intended crimes, and other serious conduct.
Tribunal findings: Strength, nature and duration of ties
The Applicant’s offending and other serious conduct commenced approximately three years after his arrival in Australia as an adult. Consequently, he has now spent three of his seven years here in custody. It is accepted, however, that in the years prior to his criminal and other serious conduct, the Applicant made positive contributions through tertiary study, consistent employment in the welfare sector, paid taxes, spent some time mentoring young people, and volunteered, including as the Secretary of the NANTA. This weighs in his favour. Since being imprisoned, the Applicant has also undertaken some tutoring and course facilitation work with fellow prisoners and detainees.
In addition to the Applicant’s ties to his family members and Ms Agbede, the evidence discloses other friendship ties in Australia. If the Applicant is repatriated to Nigeria, the Tribunal accepts this would have an adverse emotional impact on his partner, those family members who provided supportive evidence, and other friends he has through work and other interests. Although it would be open to Ms Agbede to accompany the Applicant to Nigeria or re-settle with him in a third country, it is accepted she would not do so. That is because she has established herself in Australia with a good education and good job. This is ultimately a personal choice for the Applicant and Ms Agbede. Consequently, both would suffer a sense of loss and emotional turmoil because of the likely end of their relationship and not being able to implement their plans for a life together in Australia.. The Applicant’s brother, Festus, sister Joan, and sisters-in-law Faith and Blossom, would similarly be affected, emotionally. Although the family is geographically separated from each other, the Tribunal accepts there is a strong bond between them, which would be adversely impacted by the Applicant’s return to Nigeria.
On balance, this consideration weighs at least moderately in favour of revocation.
Additional considerations
No additional considerations were advanced by the parties and I have not identified any ‘other considerations’ relevant to the specific circumstances of this application, as provided for at cl 9(1) of the Direction.
CONCLUSION
Because of the combined effects of ss 501(6)(a) and 501(7)(c) of the Act, the Applicant does not pass the character test. In determining if there is ‘another reason’ why the mandatory cancellation of his visa should be revoked, the Tribunal has applied the Direction to the specific circumstances of his case. Having regard for the available evidence, the Tribunal does not consider it necessary to depart from the guidance that greater weight ‘should generally be given’ to the primary considerations than other considerations.
The sentencing remarks, overseas transactions involving unexplained wealth, intention to engage in romance frauds, untruthful past evidence, and submission of a false document at the present hearing, reflect the objective seriousness of the Applicant’s conduct. He demonstrates a concerning impulse towards dishonesty, which reflects adversely on his moral qualities. His risk of reoffending is real and unacceptable.
The Applicant has no biological children and invoked the interests of C1 to C6. Given the children he had most contact with (C2 to C6) are between one and six years of age, he has been in some form of custody for most of their young lives. All the children are in the fulltime care of at least one biological parent and the Applicant has not previously played a direct parental role. It is accepted he has a closer avuncular role with C2 and C3 than the other children. If he were returned to Nigeria, his relationship with his nieces and nephews would predominantly be maintained as it has been since his imprisonment three years ago, by telephone and perhaps occasional visits. On balance, however, the Tribunal accepts that revocation is in the best interests of the Applicant’s nieces and nephews.
Of the seven years he has spent in Australia, the Applicant has been in some form of custody for the last three. He failed to obey Australian laws, has seriously breached community expectations, and caused harm to others. His overall conduct, including during the recent hearing, is such that the community would expect he should not hold a visa.
The Applicant did not advance non-refoulement claims at the present hearing. His previous claims are unpersuasive at best. The Tribunal is not satisfied he is at risk of harm if repatriated.
The Applicant has spent most of his life in Nigeria. He has completed undergraduate degrees in Nigeria and Australia. He is a healthy young man in his 20s who reports a consistent history of work with no age, health, linguistic or cultural barriers. There is no evidence he would be treated differently to other Nigerian citizens if returned or that he does not have the resources or capacity to re-establish himself and provide for his basic living standards, in the context of what is generally available to other Nigerian citizens. There is no evidence he will be a financial burden on his family, or that he cannot rely on their practical and emotional support as in the past. Furthermore, the Applicant has approximately $30,000 in superannuation funds to assist him.
The strongest countervailing consideration for revocation is the Applicant’s ties to his partner and family members in Australia. The Tribunal accepts his relationship with Ms Agbede would likely end for the reasons adduced earlier, although that is a personal choice for the couple to make.
Having weighed all relevant considerations individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal finds there is not another reason why the decision to cancel the Applicant’s visa should be revoked. That is because two primary considerations, ‘Protection of the Australian community’ and ‘Expectations of the Australian community,’ considerably outweigh the combined weight to be given to the primary consideration ‘Best interests of minor children in Australia,’ and the relevant other considerations in this matter.
DECISION
It follows that the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

I certify that the preceding 199 (One hundred and ninety-nine ) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member A. Nikolic AM CSC

……[sgd]…………………………….
Associate
Dated: 10 June 2021

Date of hearing: 31 May and 1-2 June 2021

Advocate for Applicant:
Mr Hamish Glenister

Solicitors for Applicant William Gerard Legal

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr Alex Chan

Solicitors for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore Lawyers

Date of hearing:	31 May and 1-2 June 2021
Advocate for Applicant:	Mr Hamish Glenister
Solicitors for Applicant	William Gerard Legal
Advocate for the Respondent:	Mr Alex Chan
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore Lawyers