Passells and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration)
[2016] AATA 1033
•15 December 2016
Passells and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (Migration) [2016] AATA 1033 (15 December 2016)
Division
GENERAL DIVISION
File Number
2016/1491
Re
Lahn Passells
APPLICANT
And
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal Senior Member CR Walsh
Date 15 December 2016 Place Perth The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
....(Sgd) ................................
Senior Member CR Walsh
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – mandatory cancellation of applicant’s visa – applicant has substantial criminal record and does not pass the character test – primary considerations and other relevant considerations considered – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 – s 501 - s 501(3A) – s 501(6) – s 501(7) - s 501CA(4)
Direction No 65 – Migration Act 1958 – Direction under section 499 Visa refusal and cancellation under s 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s 501CA – 6.2 - 6.3 – 7(1) – 8(1) – 13(2) – 13.1(1) - 13.1.2 – 13.3(1) – 14(1) – 14.2(1)- 14.3(1) – 14.5(1)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member CR Walsh
15 December 2016
INTRODUCTION
Mr Passells seeks review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (the Minister), dated 4 March 2016, refusing, pursuant to s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Migration Act), to revoke the mandatory cancellation of Mr Passells' Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa pursuant to s 501(3A) of the Migration Act because Mr Passells does not pass the character test in s 501(6) of the Migrations Act, as he has a “substantial criminal record”, and was serving a term of imprisonment, on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, for a crime against a law of the Commonwealth or a state.
FACTUAL & PRCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Mr Passells is a citizen of New Zealand, born on 28 September 1975, who travelled between Australia and New Zealand several times as a child before arriving in Australia permanently on 15 May 1995, aged 19.
On 20 June 1994, before moving to Australia, Mr Passells was convicted in the Auckland District Court, New Zealand, of cultivating cannabis and common assault.
Mr Passells has an extensive criminal history in Australia involving over 50 convictions between 2002 and 2012: refer to “Annexure A” to these Reasons for Decision.
On 9 March 2012, Mr Passells was sentenced to four and a half years of imprisonment for “Possess Prohibited Drug With Intent to Sell or Supply” and “Reckless Driving”.
On 13 February 2014, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (the Department) wrote to Mr Passells giving him “Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation of Your Visa” under s 501(2) of the Migration Act.
On 14 April 2014, Mr Passells was released from prison on parole.
On 15 July 2014, Mr Passells' parole was cancelled and he was returned to prison after he tested positive for cannabis, evidenced by a voluntary urine analysis conducted on 4 July 2014.
Mr Passells was returned to prison to serve the remainder of his term of imprisonment, which ended on 25 April 2016.
On 20 July 2015, Mr Passells' visa was cancelled by the Department under s 501(3A) of the Migration. This was a mandatory cancellation as Mr Passells was serving a sentence of imprisonment in excess of 12 months.
On 24 August 2015, Mr Passells made representations to the Department seeking revocation of the mandatory visa cancellation.
On 4 March 2016, a delegate of the Minister decided to not revoke cancellation of Mr Passells's visa (the Decision). Mr Passells was notified of the Decision by letter dated 9 March 2016 and a copy of the Decision was emailed to Mr Passells’s migration agent on the same day.
On 23 March 2016, Mr Passells applied to this Tribunal for a review of the Decision. His stated “Reasons for the application” are as follows:
The decision was wrong and that a different decision should be made for the reasons that, inter alia, the decision maker was wrongly given too much weight to the possibility of further offending by the Applicant when such finding was not supported by any evidence and failed to give sufficient weight to the Applicant’s representation made in accordance with the invitation.
ISSUES
The issues for determination by the Tribunal are:
(i)Whether Mr Passells passes the character test in s 501(6) of the Migration Act; and
(ii)If not, whether the discretion in s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act should be exercised in Mr Passells’s favour (i.e. whether the mandatory cancellation of Mr Passells’s visa should be revoked).
CONSIDERATION
(i) The character test
The Tribunal must first consider whether the applicant has satisfied the Tribunal that he passes the character test pursuant to s 501 of the Migration Act.
Section 501 of the Migration Act deals with refusals or cancellations of visas on character grounds. Section 501(3A) of the Migration Act provides that the Minister must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if:
(a)the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because of the operation of”
(i)paragraph (6)(a) (substantial criminal record), on the basis of paragraph (b) or (c); or
… and
(b)the person is serving a sentence of imprisonment, on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory.
Section 501(6) of the Migration Act provides that a person does not pass the character test if:
(a)the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by subsection (7)). (emphasis added)
Section 501(7) of the Migration Act relevantly provides;
(7)For the purposes of the character test, a person has a substantial criminal record if:
(c)the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more.(emphasis added)
It is common ground that:
· as a consequence of receiving a sentence of a term of imprisonment in excess of 12 months, namely, a 4 year term of imprisonment for possessing a prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply, Mr Passells has a “substantial criminal record” and does not pass the character test in s 501(6) of the Migration Act; and
· as Mr Passells was serving a sentence of imprisonment, on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, he was liable for mandatory cancellation of his visa pursuant to s 501(3A) of the Migration Act.
(ii) Revocation
Having determined that Mr Passells does not pass the character test and was liable for mandatory cancellation of his visa, the Tribunal must next consider whether the mandatory cancellation of Mr Passells’s visa should be revoked.
Section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act provides that the Minister (and, in his shoes, the Tribunal) may revoke the original decision if:
(a)the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation; and
(b)the Minister is satisfied:
(i)that the person passes the character test (as defined by section 501); or
(ii)that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked. (emphasis added)
In considering Mr Passells’s request for revocation of the mandatory cancellation of his visa, the Tribunal must comply with “Direction No. 65 – Migration Act 1958 – Direction Under Section 499 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s501CA” (Direction No 65): see s 499(2A) of the Migration Act. Direction No 65 was issued by the Minister on 22 December 2014 and is binding on all decision-makers (including the Tribunal, sitting in the shoes of the Minister) from that date.
Paragraph 6.2 of Direction No 65 provides the following “General Guidance” to decision-makers on the application of the character test and the exercise of the discretion.
6.2 General Guidance
(1)The Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. The principles below are of critical importance in furthering that objective, and reflect community values and standards with respect to determining whether the risk of future harm from a non-citizen is unacceptable.
(2)In order to effectively protect the Australian community from harm, and to maintain integrity and public confidence in the character assessment process, decisions about whether a non-citizen’s visa should be refused or cancelled under section 501 should be made in a timely manner once a decision-maker is satisfied that a non-citizen does not pass the character test. Timely decisions are also beneficial to the client in providing certainty about their future.
(3)The principles provide a framework within which decision-makers should approach their task of deciding whether to refuse or cancel a non-citizen’s visa under section 501, or whether to revoke a mandatory cancellation under section 501 CA. The relevant factors that must be considered in making a decision under section 501 of the Act are identified in Part A and Part B, while factors that must be considered in making a revocation decision are identified in Part C of this Direction.
Paragraph 6.3 of Direction No 65 sets out a number of “Principles” to be applied, including the following:
6.3 Principles
(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)The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they commit serious crimes in Australia or elsewhere.
(3)A non-citizen who has committed a serious crime, including of a violent or sexual nature, and particularly against vulnerable members of the community such as minors, the elderly or disabled, should generally expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.
(4)In some circumstances, criminal offending or other conduct, and the harm that would be caused if it were to be repeated, may be so serious, that any risk of similar conduct in the future is unacceptable. In these circumstances, even other strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa.
(5)Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by people 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 in relation to a non-citizen who has lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.
…
(7) The length of time a non-citizen has been making a positive contribution to the Australian community, and the consequences of a visa refusal or cancellation for minor children and other immediate family members in Australia, are considerations in the context of determining whether that non-citizen’s visa should be cancelled, or their visa application refused.
Paragraph 7(1) of Direction No 65 provides guidance on “How to exercise the discretion”. Paragraph 7(1) states:
7. How to exercise the discretion
(1) Informed by the principles in paragraph 6.3 above, a decision-maker:
…
(b) must take into account the considerations in Part C, in order to determine whether the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen’s visa will be revoked.
Paragraph 8(1) of Direction No 65 states:
8. Taking the relevant considerations in account
(1)Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case...
(2)In applying the considerations (both primary and other), information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight.
(3)Both primary and other considerations may weigh in favour of, or against, refusal, cancellation of the visa, or whether or not to revoke a mandatory cancellation of the visa.
(4)Primary considerations should generally be given more weight than the other considerations.
(5)One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations. (emphasis added)
Part C of Direction No 65 sets out considerations that are relevant in exercising the discretion in s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act.
Primary considerations
Pursuant to paragraph 13(2) of Direction No 65, the following are “primary considerations” that the Tribunal must take into account in deciding whether to revoke the cancellation of an applicant’s visa:
(a)Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(b)The best interests of minor children in Australia;
(c)Expectations of the Australian community.
(i) Protection of the Australian Community
Paragraph 13.1(1) of Direction No 65 provides that decision-makers considering protection of the Australian community should have regard to the principle in paragraph 6.2(1) set out above, and paragraph 13.1(2) identifies the following two factors to which consideration should also be given:
(a) The nature and seriousness of the person’s conduct to date; and
(b) The risk of the Australian community should the person commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct. (emphasis added)
(a) Nature and seriousness of the conduct
Paragraph 13.1.1(1) of Direction No 65 gives a non-exhaustive list of factors to which decision-makers must have regard in considering the nature and seriousness of the person's criminal conduct. They include:
13.1.1 The nature and seriousness of the conduct
(1) In considering the nature and seriousness of the person's criminal offending or other conduct to date, decision-makers must have regard to factors including:
(a)The principle that, without limiting the range of offence that may be considered serious, violent and/or sexual crimes are viewed seriously;
(b)The principle that crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community (such as minors, the elderly and the disabled), or government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties, are serious;
(c) The sentence imposed by the courts for a crime or crimes;
(d)The frequency of the person’s offending and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;
(e) The cumulative effect of repeat offending;
(f)Whether the non-citizen has provided false or misleading information to the department, including not disclosing prior criminal offending;
(g)Whether the non-citizen has re-offended 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);
(h)Where the non-citizen is in Australia, that 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 is serious, as is an offence against section 197A of the Act;
Mr Passells’s offences include drug related offences, driving related offences, property related offences and various offences relating to breach of judicial order: refer to “Annexure A” to these Reasons for Decision.
Although many of Mr Passells’s convictions are for minor offences, some of his offences are certainly “serious”.
Mr Passells has one conviction for assault in New Zealand, which is a violent offence and therefore considered to be “serious” pursuant to paragraph 13.1.1(1)(a) of Direction No 65.
Mr Passells’s offences of possessing a prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply and reckless driving can also be considered to be quite serious.
The nature and seriousness of Mr Passells’s offending can also be seen in the sentencing remarks made by the courts.
In sentencing Mr Passells, on 9 March 2012, to 4 years’ imprisonment for possessing a prohibited drug with intent to sell or supply, Curthoys DCJ (as he then was) made the following comments in relation to the “nature and seriousness” of the offending:
... on 15 October 2011 at Como you had in your possession a prohibited drug namely methyl amphetamine with intent to sell or supply it to another and the seriousness of that offence is reflected in the statutory penalty which is a fine of $100,000 and 25 years’ imprisonment.
…
...You advise the person who prepared the pre-sentence report that you don’t sell the drugs for large amounts of money rather you’d sell the substances to feed your own habit and make ends meet and that you’d also shout friends and sell to associates.
…
I note that you did receive a diploma of wine studies and you worked there for approximately two and a half years at Glengowrie Wines. So obviously you’ve got the ability to complete studies. And you’ve had periods of sustained employment. And basically it would appear that you’ve wrecked your life with the use of illicit substances.
And I carefully read what’s been said about substance use. You’ve been using marijuana every day since the age of 13 and methyl amphetamine since you were 25.
…
...The amount of drugs involved is a significant factor in determining an appropriate sentence, as is the degree of purity. In this case it’s just over 52 grams. What is of great concern is the degree of purity which is high, from the analyst report between 70 and 80 per cent. There are other matters which must also be taken into account including the nature and level of your participation in drug dealing and whether the offending was committed solely for commercial gain.
The purity suggests that you obtained those drugs very close to the source before the drugs had been cut to any significant degree which suggests that you were somewhere in the mid-level of the dealing tree. The offending wasn’t committed solely for commercial gain but obviously there was a very high element of commercial gain involved in it, $22,000 on what you’ve told the pre-sentence report people.
Mr Passells was also sentenced on the same occasion for other offences, including the reckless driving offence, for which he received a sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment, to be served cumulatively. The sentencing remarks of Curthoys DCJ also demonstrate the “seriousness” of Mr Passells’s reckless driving offence:
In terms of the driving offence, or the driving offences, you obviously proceeded at speeds that were very unsafe and your driving record is appalling. That’s the only way it can be described as. But on this instance you were travelling at speeds in excess of 140 kilometres per hour, you took evasive action, you actually hit one other vehicle, although the damage wasn’t serious. You were travelling at 140 in a 70-kilometre per hour zone.
And it’s not as if this was late at night or anything, this is 7.30 on a Saturday evening, so there must have been a lot of traffic around. You went through red lights, you were just - really you must have been driving something like a madman at the time. So the driving offence is extremely serious of itself.
The seriousness of some of Mr Passells’s offending is reflected in the sentences imposed by the courts. A term of imprisonment is a sentence of last resort and is usually only reserved for offending that is viewed as serious. Mr Passells has been sentenced to terms of imprisonment for at least 13 offences: refer to “Annexure A” to these Reasons for Decision.
Mr Passells’s offending has been frequent and his most recent convictions are for offences which are more serious than many of his earlier offences. This raises concerns, in the Tribunal’s mind, that Mr Passells’s offending may be escalating.
The cumulative effect of Mr Passells’s criminal record also needs to be considered. Although some of Mr Passells’s offences, considered in isolation, would not be considered to be serious, his offences are numerous, with Mr Passells having committed over 50 offences over an 11 year period, as well as having committed 2 earlier offences in New Zealand. The cumulative effect of Mr Passells’s offending raises significant concerns about the safety of the Australian community should the cancellation of Mr Passells’s visa be revoked: refer to paragraph 13.1.1(1)(e) of Direction No 65.
(b) The risk to the Australian community should further offences be committed
Paragraph 13.1.2(1) of Direction No 65 sets out principles and factors to which decision-makers should and must have regard in assessing whether the non-citizen represents an unacceptable risk of harm to members of the Australian community. It provides:
13.1.2 The risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct
(1)In considering whether the non-citizen represents an unacceptable risk of harm to individuals, groups or institutions in the Australian community, decision-makers should have regard to the principle 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.
(2)In considering the risk 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 available information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen re-offending (noting that decisions should not be delayed in order for rehabilitative courses to be undertaken).
The past offences committed by Mr Passells exhibit an attitude of recklessness toward the well-being of the Australian community and, in particular, offences such as possessing drugs with intent to sell or supply and reckless driving have the potential to endanger the lives of members of the Australian community. Other offences are anti-social in nature and some may cause financial loss to members of the Australian community.
In his sentencing remarks, Curthoys DCJ recognised some of the causes of Mr Passells’s offending as follows:
...You’re aware that your substance use is problematic and is the main contributing
factor underpinning your offending behaviour.
…
The pre-sentence report identifies your risk and need factors relating to negative peer associations, a lack of a positive role model during informative years, childhood issues, illicit substance use issues dating from a young age. Possible low range cognitive ability, impulsivity and thrill-seeking behaviour and alienation for those who are close to you due to your recklessness or overbearing behaviour. History and antisocial behaviour, poor emotional management and low level intellectual functioning.
In sentencing, Curthoys DCJ also said:
In terms of your record,…for drug use that really dates from 2007 and the number of offences are – and certainly the seriousness of them has been relatively low. So this represents a significant change in your conduct.
And I’ve read the references that have been provided to me which suggest to me that if you can get off the drugs then you have got capacity,…
…
…you have pleaded guilty ant that demonstrates remorse. It’s accepted by you counsel and the
Whilst in prison, Mr Passells undertook a number of courses, some of which are intended to address concerns such as those expressed in the pre-sentence report referred to by Curthoys DCJ. The courses completed by Mr Passells in prison include the following:
(i)A course on blood-borne viruses (23 March 2014);
(ii)Induction Program at Acacia Prison (10 May 2012);
(iii)Certificate III in Micro Business Operations, CY O’Connor Institute (16 September 2013);
(iv)Certificate IV in Small Business Management, CY O’Connor Institute (16 September 2013);
(v)Pre-training indicator for literacy, numeracy and career preferences (26 March 2012);
(vi)Work safely in the construction industry (6 June 2012);
(vii)Pathways 100 Hour Addictions Offending Program (4 February 2014);
(viii)One Star Food Safety and Hygiene Training (10 May 2012);
(ix)Co-Morbidity Services Drug and Alcohol Program (23 February 2012 and 12 April 2012);
(x)Motivation to Change and Pathways to Health alcohol and other drug treatment group (16 April 2012); and
(xi)Attendance at Narcotics Anonymous meetings (4 July 2013, 16 July 2015).
Mr Passells was released from prison on parole on 14 April 2014. His parole was then cancelled on 15 July 2014 as a result of a voluntary urine analysis test that tested positive for use of marijuana.
Although Mr Passells’s completion of various vocational and rehabilitation courses whilst in prison is a positive step, the Tribunal is entitled to have significant doubts about the effectiveness of the rehabilitation programs for Mr Passells in circumstances where he engaged in further drug use within months of his release from prison on parole.
Mr Passells has provided various letters and statements of support from family and friends, including from Mr William McIntosh (Mr Passells’s father), Ms Yetta Passells (Mr Passells’s mother), Ms Mara Staffieri (Mr Passells’s step mother), Ms Deborah Louise Wainman (Mr Passells’s friend of 10 years) and Mr Craig Becker (Mr Passells’s former co-worker and current business owner who has offered Mr Passells employment if he is released from detention). All of these people also gave evidence at the hearing of this application.
The letters, statements and oral evidence in support of Mr Passells show that Mr Passells has considerable support from family and friends in various cities within Australia and demonstrates that prison was a very positive experience for Mr Passells and that he has benefited from the courses he has undertaken in prison and has matured and grown as a person.
It is clear from all of the evidence provided by Mr Passells that he links his offending directly to his use of illicit substances. In an undated letter to the Department, Mr Passells expresses remorse and addresses his risk of reoffending as follows:
Since addressing my AOD (Alcohol Or Drug Use) my awareness of the damage caused by myself to the Australian community, myself and my family is undoubted and am sincerely apologetic for this. I own the full responsibility of these actions just like how I own the full responsibility of my drug rehabilitation which is ongoing through my own endeavours. Most of my rehabilitation has been voluntary as my desire to be pro-social is strong, my parents will and support is strong and paramount to my ongoing fight of this decapacitating disease called methamphetamine addiction. I am proud to day that I have never touched methamphetamine since my incarceration and know I never will again!!
The damage I am now aware of I did to myself, let alone the damage to anyone else helps strengthen my resolve to be pro-social and AOD free. My breach of parole for cannabis (marijuana) proves that I am only human, and I have no excuses for that lapse of abstinence. I accept my thought and cognitive process was clouded by my own choice of having 3 cans of alcohol, of which I now know I won’t drink upon release - even if returned to NZ as it is one more step in the choice of being a pro-social community member. I regret my previous choice whole heartedly and can only hope for the minister’s understanding, compassion and forgiveness in this matter, and all of the matters encompassing me and his decision of my future in Australia.
Through rehabilitation, remorse for my actions, empathy for others, understanding of my treatment gains, forgiveness of my family and shame for the consequences of my actions to the detriment of my community and which I am truly sorry for, I feel my risk of future offending is substantially reduced and can only hope I am given this one and only chance to prove to myself, my family, you the minister and the Australian community that rehabilitation works and that I am truly worthy of a place in Australian society.
In his oral evidence at the hearing, Mr Passells again expressed remorse for his conduct and claimed to be now “fully rehabilitated”. In summary, Mr Passells’s oral evidence at the hearing was as follows:
· When he was sentenced to 4 and a half years of imprisonment, on 9 March 2012, was in disbelief and realised that he would have to “man up” and make changes mentally, emotionally, spiritually and physically;
· Whilst in prison, he took a “self-inventory”. He said he looked at himself and confronted his own faults and flaws and the reasons for his drug addiction;
· Whilst in prison, he applied for every rehabilitation program available. He participated in the rehabilitation programs he undertook “openly and freely” and he listened and tried to apply what was taught to him;
· In relation to his relapse, by taking cannabis whilst on parole, he said that with the benefit of hindsight he was not ready for release and, at that time, thought himself to be healthier, happier and more rehabilitated than he really was;
· Mr Passells explained that his relapse occurred because he was finding it very difficult to find employment, which was a condition of his parole, and that this led to feelings of a lack of self-worth and, consequently, he succumbed to an old habit (i.e. cannabis). He described the relapse as the “biggest mistake of his life” and that he failed himself, his mother and his father;
· Following his relapse whilst on parole, he handed himself into the police and volunteered a urine sample as “his moral compass” told him that this was the “right thing to do”;
· Upon his return to prison, he worked 4-5 hours a day spray painting second hand trailers for resale to the public. He said that this taught him discipline and responsibility and gave him the confidence that he could learn and achieve;
· Following his return to jail, he “looked deep inside” himself and “confronted his demons”. He said that, upon his return to prison, he attended further Narcotics Anonymous meetings and applied for as many other rehabilitation courses that he could, but that there were huge waiting lists. Not wanting to wait to get into these courses, he applied for and obtained “one-on-one” counselling with a prison counsellor. In cross-examination, Mr Passells said that these “one-on-one” counselling sessions made all the difference to him and that, compared to 2014 (when he was released on parole and relapsed), he was now “fully rehabilitated”. Mr Passells said that he attended these “one-on-one” counselling sessions approximately every 2 weeks over an 8 month period, save for when the counsellor was on holidays;
· Mr Passells described his offending as being directly related to his heavy drug addiction to methylanphetamine, which is a very destructive drug and which has ruined his life and the lives of others. He described his addiction as “blinding” and that his “thinking was not there” when he was using. He said that he was unable to “see through the fog of his addiction”. He also said that he now understands the detrimental “ripple effect” that methylanphetamine has on individuals and the community more generally but that he did not appreciate that at the time of his offending as he was in a 10 year “revolving door” of drug addiction;
· Mr Passells said that if he was to be released from detention he would not take drugs and that he now “chooses life over drugs”. He explained that he was now 41 years old and that he had grown and matured whilst in prison and detention. He explained that he no longer needs, wants or has an urge for drugs and that drugs are “no longer a part of his life” and that he now “appreciates the simple things in life”, noting that he was 5 years into his rehabilitation with only one relapse. He said that he wanted a chance to make it up to his parents and himself; and
· Mr Passells stated that if he were allowed to remain in Australia, he would live with this mother as “I need her and she needs me” and that he had been offered a job as a sandblaster and spray painter by Mr Craig Becker (the owner of ACP Industries Pty Ltd, a sandblasting and spray painting company).
At the time of the hearing, there was no evidence before the Tribunal from the prison counsellor regarding the “one-on-one” counselling sessions Mr Passells undertook upon his return to prison following his breach of parole in April 2014. Given that Mr Passells relies on these personalised prison counselling sessions in support of his contention that he is now “fully rehabilitated”, the Tribunal though it important to obtain information from the prison counsellor about these counselling sessions before making its decision. Mr Passells provided the relevant information to the Tribunal on 11 November 2016. This information was provided by Acacia Prison in response to Mr Passells’s freedom of information request for “records and documents pertaining to voluntary one on one psychological counselling sessions received by [him] between 1 January 2015 and 25 April 2016 when [he] was incarcerated in Acacia Prison”. On 28 November 2016, in accordance with the Tribunal’s direction dated 14 November 2016, the Minister filed and served a document titled “Submissions of the Respondent in relation to the Evidence of Counselling”, dated 28 November 2016,
A summary of the evidence of Mr Passells’s counselling in prison (the New Evidence) is summarised in the Minister’s submissions, dated 28 November 2016, as follows:
4. The new evidence shows that:
4.1The applicant attended an appointment with a counsellor for initial assessment on 1 October 2015. The referral comments show the following reason for referral:
Patient has been advised he is likely to be deported back to New Zealand at end of sentence which is highly stressful, starting to ruminate and having worsening sleep pattern.
He is on Mirtazpaine and Seroquel for anxiety/Depression.
4.2The applicant attended subsequent counselling sessions on 20 November 2015, 4 December 2015, 27 January 2016, and 21 April 2016. Based on this, it can be inferred that the applicant attended a total of 5 one on one counselling sessions.
4.3The referral notes in relation to the subsequent sessions referred to in paragraph 4.2 above suggest that the applicant requested ongoing counselling to address his current stress regarding possible removal to New Zealand.
4.4The counsellor recorded the following notes in relation to the session on 1 October 2015, which appear to be the issues raised by the applicant:
Mr Passells advised that he was doing his best to cope and take care of himself.
Consistent with referred notes, he advised that he is likely to be deported back to New Zealand.
He expressed that he and his family are desperate to have his mandatory cancellation of visa overturned, given that he has been an Australian resident for the majority of his life.
Mr Passells explained that he was born in New Zealand, but that his entire family, support network and life are in Australia.
He reported that this future possibility plays on his mind daily and he is finding this stressful.
Mr Passells expressed that this issues is often right in front of him. When asked what he sees, he expressed “horror, my worst fear, anticipation, uncertainty, intimidation, homelessness, a mess"
4.5The recommendations flowing from the initial assessment indicate that the applicant expressed a desire to engage in counselling to develop coping strategies toward acceptance of his situation. In the context of the session notes, ‘his situation' appears to refer to the possibility the applicant faces of being removed to New Zealand.
4.6The notes from the session on 20 November 2015 show that the focus of the session again related to possible removal to New Zealand, with the applicant quoting lengths of the Migration Act and conversations he had with officials and others; showing a range of emotions and using a loud voice ‘raised in moral outrage as to his situation’; stating that he is fighting his removal but finds it very stressful; and identifying that he wanted to use counselling sessions to process his thoughts and loss and grief related to his future.
4.7The notes from the session on 4 December 2015 suggest that interpersonal therapy was used for the applicant to explore his life. The impression formed by the counsellor was that the applicant was resilient and resourceful and can look at problems from all angles. The applicant used the session to ventilate about his circumstances and was encouraged to use his strengths to identify solutions he may not have thought of.
4.8The notes from the session on 27 January 2016 show that the applicant stated that he had come to a decision one morning that he had to find acceptance regarding his situation of facing removal to New Zealand. The applicant indicated that he was still unhappy regarding what he perceives as the injustice of the situation but that he is not consumed by this. He spoke of his options and was able to problem solve and undertake a costs/benefit analysis.
4.9The notes from the final session on 21 April 2016 suggest that the applicant presented in a good mood, spoke of his plans for the use he would make of his time in immigration detention. The applicant was positively reinforced for his coping and attitude to a difficult situation.
In a document titled “Responsive Submissions of the Applicant in Relation to Evidence of Counselling”, dated 12 December 2016, Mr Passells contends the following in relation to the New Evidence:
2. The applicant contends that the new evidence demonstrates the following:
a.the applicant had attended no less than 5 one on one counselling sessions (counselling sessions) during the relevant period which is largely consistent with the applicant’s oral evidence given at the hearing [footnote omitted];
b.as a result of the counselling sessions, the applicant had developed skills and acquired the tools to deal with difficult and stressful situations;
c.according to the applicant’s evidence, the main reason for his “relapse” in 2014 was because he did not know to deal with stressful situations surrounding him at the time and the applicant has now learnt to handle similar situations as a result of the counselling sessions.
…
Summary of evidence of counselling
4.Relevant parts of the new evidence that are not included or paraphrased in the respondent’s submissions include:
a.The notes from the session on 1 October 2015 stated “[the applicant] presented as motivated to engage in counselling and expressed appreciation for the PCS contact”.
b.The notes from the session on 20 November 2015 stated “[the applicant] stated his situation has engulfed him and is the first thing he thinks of upon waking and stays with him all day. He stated he does not sleep well”.
c.The notes from the session on 4 December 2015 stated “[the applicant] presents with strong values regarding loyalty”.
d.The recommendations from the session on 4 December 2015 stated “PCS will engage with [the applicant] fortnightly to develop a treatment plan”.
e.The notes dated 18 December 2015 indicated that the applicant could not attend counselling because his psychologist was on leave.
f. The notes from the session on 27 January 2016 stated:
i.“[the applicant] was observed to be much more settled and less angry than previous sessions”;
ii.“[the applicant] stated he was not able to problem solve when in an angry state”;
iii. “[the applicant’s] strengths and values were reinforced.
g.The recommendations from the session on 27 January 2016 indicated that the applicant would be seen monthly until his release.
h.The notes from the session on 21 April 2016, being his last session, stated “[the applicant] was positively reinforced for his coping and attitude to a difficult situation”.
Applicant’s contentions
5.The applicant does not dispute that the counselling sessions were attended by the applicant to primarily address his stress and were not specifically done for the purpose of addressing substance use, however the applicant contends that the importance of these counselling sessions to the applicant’s rehabilitation from a drug addiction should not be undermined because:
a.at the time the applicant sought counselling the applicant had undertaken 10 additional sessions in Narcotics Anonymous and was assessed as a prisoner who was not required to participate in programs about “substance use” because of “low risk/need” [footnote omitted];
b.in his evidence given at the hearing, the applicant admitted that the main reasons for his “relapse” in 2014 was because of his inability to cope with stressful situations which then lead to his use of marijuana;
c.the counselling sessions which focused on stress management and handling difficult situations are therefore important to the applicant’s rehabilitation process.
6.It is contended the notes from the counselling sessions demonstrate the applicant had, as a result of the counselling, acquired the requisite skills and developed coping strategies concerning how to manage difficult and stressful situations. The relevant parts of the notes from the counselling sessions which show the applicant’s progress include:
a.at the beginning of the counselling sessions, the applicant “displayed a wide range of emotions in the session and had a loud voice”;
b.as a result of the interpersonal therapy, the applicant “presents as an individual who is resilient and resourceful and can look at problems from all angles”;
c.at the end of the counselling sessions, the applicant “was positively reinforced for his coping and attitude to a difficult situation.
7.It is submitted the counselling sessions, and the fact that it was sought voluntarily by the applicant, shows the applicant’s growth, maturity and his willingness to recognise the need to seek assistance which are relevant factors when considering whether the applicant is likely to use drugs again in the future.
8.In his oral evidence given at the hearing the applicant said that the counselling sessions made a significant difference. It is submitted that this was not an overstatement made by the applicant because at the time the applicant used marijuana in 2014, although he had completed other rehabilitation programs concerning drug addictions, he did not have the skills to deal with difficult or stressful situations which was the main reasons for his “relapse”. As a result of the counselling sessions, the applicant now has those skills which made him confidant that he is now “fully rehabilitated”.
Summary
9.In summary, the applicant contends that the new evidence demonstrates that the applicant has now completed his rehabilitation by acquiring the requisite skills to deal with stressful and difficult situations, a skill that was lacking in 2014.
Having reviewed the New Evidence, the Tribunal finds, as submitted by the Minister, that it does not confirm Mr Passells’s evidence in relation to the progress he made in the “one-on-one” prison counselling sessions and, in particular, that he is now “fully rehabilitated”, partly as a result of those sessions.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal views Mr Passells’s evidence regarding the benefits of his “one-on-one” prison counselling sessions in prison (upon his return to prison following his breach of parole in 2014) with caution:
· the New Evidence shows that Mr Passells:
(i)did not seek counselling for the purpose of further addressing his drug addiction issues;
(ii)did not receive one on one counselling in relation to his drug addiction issues; and
(iii)did not mention his drug addiction issues in the counselling sessions or, alternatively, Mr Passells may have mentioned his drug addiction issues in the counselling sessions, but not in any context that was sufficiently significant for the counsellor to record it.
· the absence of any reference to drug related issues in the counselling notes seriously undermines Mr Passells’s evidence that the “one-on-one” counselling sessions have made “all the difference” for him, making him confident that he is now “fully rehabilitated”, where he was not in the past; and
· as contended by the Minister, at best, the New Evidence shows that Mr Passells identified strengths, received positive reinforcement, and developed some coping strategies in relation to stress he was facing in relation to possible removal from Australia. However, there is nothing in the New Evidence from which it can inferred that the prison counselling was used for the purpose of rehabilitation from a drug addiction or in relation to criminal offending.
As contended by the Minister, in his submissions dated 28 November 2016, if anything, the counselling records indicate that the one-on-one prison counselling has increased Mr Passells’s ability to readjust if he is returned to New Zealand, and thereby decreased the extent of the impediments he would face if removed from Australia. Indeed, as submitted by the Minister, this is a far more readily apparent outcome that can be inferred from the New Evidence than any suggestion that the one-on-one prison counselling has aided Mr Passells’s drug rehabilitation and thereby further reduced the likelihood of reoffending.
In his oral evidence at the hearing Mr McIntosh, Mr Passells’s father, a former (rehabilitated) heroin addict, described how devastated he was when he was told that Mr Passells had relapsed (by smoking a joint of marijuana) whilst on parole. Mr McIntosh said that, in his opinion (as a former drug addict) at the time Mr Passells was released on parole he had “ticked all the (rehabilitation) boxes” but had not had what he refers to as the “night of the dark soul” and that it was only after his relapse that Mr Passells experienced that place, understanding that he had no choices left for him.
Mr McIntosh also said that if Mr Passells is released from detention he has the option open to him of coming to live and work with him and his wife at their yoga retreat in Daintree, Queensland. Mr McIntosh explained that, as his only child, Mr Passells will eventually inherit his retreat to do with it as he chooses.
Mr Passells has been tested in the community when he was released from prison on parole in 2014 and he proceeded to use cannabis. The evidence shows that Mr Passells had the same support from family and friends in 2014, when he was released from prison on parole and relapsed, as he claims that he would have upon release now from detention.
Although Mr Passells has taken some positive steps towards rehabilitation, the Tribunal considers that it cannot yet be concluded that Mr Passells’s risk of re-offending in the future is low. The present risk to the Australian community, if Mr Passells engages in further criminal conduct, is unacceptable.
Given the nature and seriousness of Mr Passells’s offending, including the sheer quantum of offences committed by him over an extended period, and the risks that Mr Passells may commit further offences in the future, the Tribunal finds that the protection of the Australian community is a consideration that weighs heavily in favour of refusing to revoke the mandatory cancellation of Mr Passells’s visa.
(ii) Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision
The second primary consideration listed in Direction No 65 is the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the Decision.
It is common ground that this consideration is not relevant in Mr Passells’s case.
(iii) Expectations of the Australian community
The third primary consideration listed in Direction No 65 is the expectations of the Australian Community. In this regard, paragraph 13.3(1) of Direction No 65 states:
The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has breached, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they will breach this trust or where the non-citizen has been convicted of offences in Australia or elsewhere, it may be appropriate to cancel the visa held by such a person. Visa cancellation may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences are such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not continue to hold a visa. Decision-makers should have due regard to the Government’s views in this respect.
The Tribunal again refers to the stated principles in paragraph 6.3 of Direction No 65 (refer to paragraph 24 above) and, in particular, the principles that: (i) the Australian community expects the Australian Government to cancel the visas of non-citizens who commit serious crimes; and (ii) non-citizens who commit serious crimes should generally expect to forfeit the privilege of staying in Australia.
The Tribunal considers that the expectations of the Australian community are that a non-citizen, such as Mr Passells, who has engaged in extensive criminal offending over a lengthy period, and who has engaged in serious offences including possession of drugs with intent to sell or supply and reckless driving, as well as various other drug and property related offences, should expect to forfeit the privilege of remaining in Australia.
(iv) Other considerations
Paragraph 14(1) of Direction No 65 provides:
14. Other considerations - revocation requests
(1)In deciding whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa, other considerations must be taken into account where relevant. These considerations include (but are not limited to):
(a) International non-refoulement obligations;
(b) Strength, nature and duration of ties;
(c) Impact on Australian business interests;
(d) Impact on victims;
(e) Extent of impediments if removed. (emphasis added)
Only paragraphs (b) to (e) of paragraph 14(1) of Direction No 65 are relevant to Mr Passells’s case.
Strength, nature and duration of ties
Paragraph 14.2(1) of Direction No 65 states:
14.2 Strength, nature and duration of ties
(1)The strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia. Reflecting the principles at 6.3, 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, including the effect of non-revocation on the non-citizen’s immediate family in Australia (where those family members are Australian citizens, permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely).
Mr Passells spent some time in Australia as a child, including attaining part of his primary school education in Australia, before moving to Australia permanently in 1995, at the age of 19. Mr Passells’s first conviction in Australia was in 2002, some 7 years after his arrival, although he then committed over 50 offences in the course of the following 11 years and, since October 2011, has spent all but a few months in prison, prior to being detained in immigration detention: refer to “Annexure A” to these Reasons for Decision.
The Tribunal acknowledges that:
· Mr Passells has significant ties with Australia, given the length of time he has spent here and the associations he has developed with his family and friends in Australia;
· Mr Passells has spent some time in employment in Australia and contributing positively to the Australian community; and
· Mr Passells’s immediate family members may suffer detriment if he is removed from Australia. In particular, Mr Passells’s mother, Ms Yetta Passells, is likely to suffer considerable detriment if Mr Passells is unable to remain in Australia. Mr Passells is Mrs Passells’s only child. Mrs Passells has some health problems, is getting older and relies on Mr Passells for support.
However, on balance, the Tribunal finds that the nature and strength of Mr Passells’s ties to Australia do not outweigh the primary considerations referred to above.
Impact on Australian business interests
Paragraph 14.3(1) of Direction No 65 states:
14.3 Impact on Australian business interests
(1)Impact on Australian business interest if the non-citizen’s visa cancellation is not revoked, noting that an employment link would generally only be given weight where non-revocation would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.
Mr Passells contends that this factor should be considered on the basis that he is going to inherit his father and stepmother’s yoga retreat business in Daintree, Queensland.
However, there is no evidence to suggest that this is anything more than an option which is available to Mr Passells should he remain in Australia or a desire by Mr Passells’s family (and, in particular, his father) that Mr Passells will one day assume the management of the yoga retreat business. As such, the Tribunal affords this evidence little weight.
Extent of impediments if removed
Paragraph 14.5(1) of Direction No 65 states:
14.5 Extent of impediments if removed
(1)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.
In his “Personal Details Form”, dated 9 August 2015, as provided to the Department, Mr Passells expressed the following concerns that he has about returning to New Zealand:
I would be homeless, destitute, alone, afraid of what will happen to me. The thought of this is already affecting me negatively. I also worry about who will look after my mother who has heart problems. I will have no support in NZ. I have not been back to NZ in 20 yrs for these reasons and more.
Mr Passells oral evidence before the Tribunal was that if were required to return to New Zealand he would be homeless within days of being “booted out” of the accommodation provided to him by immigration and that he would have no family and friends to help him. He said he would not have a job to go to straight away (as he does in Australia), the employment rate and wages are worse in New Zealand than in Australia, and that he would be “at the mercy” of the New Zealand welfare system. Mr Passells explained that he had no “foundation or base” in New Zealand. He said that in Australia he had a place to stay and was guaranteed of a job, despite his criminal history. In contrast, in New Zealand, he had no permanent address and no guarantee of employment (particularly given his criminal history) and that the thought of returning to New Zealand “terrifies” him and it will be “an uphill battle”.
The Tribunal acknowledges that the various letters, statements and oral evidence provided in support of Mr Passells suggest that Mr Passells does not have any support network of family and friends, or an immediate job to go to, in New Zealand as he does in Australia.
However, the Tribunal notes that, as a person in his early 40s, Mr Passells is not vulnerable due to youth or to old age and there is no evidence that he has any health concerns that would be an impediment to his removal. Therefore, there is no reason to expect that Mr Passells will have any significant difficulties in establishing himself in New Zealand and finding employment in time. Mr Passells will not face any substantial language or cultural barriers if he is removed to New Zealand and, as a citizen of New Zealand, he will have access to social security and medical systems that are comparable to those available in Australia.
Although the Tribunal accepts that Mr Passells will face some difficulties if he is returned to New Zealand, primarily due to the absence of an existing support network of family and friends in New Zealand and immediate employment opportunities, the extent of the impediments that he will face if removed does not weigh heavily in favour of revocation of the cancellation of his visa and, importantly, does not outweigh the primary considerations discussed above. Further, the Tribunal notes that based in Mt Eden, Auckland, New Zealand, is an organisation called “PARS Incorporated” (formerly known as Prisoners’ Aid and Rehabilitation Society of the Auckland District Inc.) which is a charitable organisation which assists prisoners and ex-prisoners (including deportees), enabling them to access essential services in New Zealand. If deported to New Zealand, Mr Passells will have access to such organisations to help him to re-establish himself there.
CONCLUSION
Mr Passells has a lengthy criminal record over an extensive period and there remains an unacceptable risk that he may engage in further criminal conduct if he remains in Australia. In such circumstances, the Australian community would expect that Mr Passells would forfeit the privilege of remaining in Australia, notwithstanding the considerable amount of time he has lived in Australia and the ties that he has to Australia, with all of his family and friends residing in Australia. Although there are some considerations that weigh in favour of Mr Passells, the Tribunal finds that these are, on balance, outweighed by the primary considerations, which should generally be given more weight: refer to paragraph 26 above.
The Tribunal finds that having regard to all of the primary considerations and other relevant considerations required to be taken into account by the Tribunal under Direction No 65, and the evidence before the Tribunal, the correct and preferable decision is to refuse to revoke the mandatory cancellation of Mr Passells’s visa.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Tribunal affirms the Decision.
I certify that the preceding 85 (eighty -five) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member CR Walsh ...(Sgd)..........................................
Administrative Assistant
Dated 15 December 2016
Dates of hearing
Date final submissions received
25-26 October 2016
12 December 2016
Counsel for the Applicant
Mr A Lai
Solicitors for the Applicant
Tang Law
Representative for the
RespondentMs A Ladhams
Solicitors for the Respondent
Australian Government Solicitor
Annexure A
Court Court Date Offence Court Result Perth District Court of Western Australia 09 Mar 2012 Possess Prohibited Drug with Intent to Sell or Supply
Reckless Driving
Possess Prohibited Drug
Drive While Suspended (2 Charges)
Drive Fail to Stop
Fail to Stop When Called Upon
Imprisonment for 4 years.
Imprisonment for 6 months cumulative.
Licence disqualified for 2 years.Imprisonment for 4 concurrent.
On each charge: Imprisonment for 1 month concurrent.
Licence disqualified for 12 months.Convicted. Fined $1,500.
Licence disqualified for 12 months.Convicted. Fined $600.
Perth Magistrates Court 14 Dec 2009 Drive While Disqualified (2 Charges)
Possess Stolen Or Unlawfully Obtained Property
Possess Prohibited Drug
On each charge: Imprisonment for 7 months.
Sentence Suspended for 12 months.
Licence disqualified for 12 months.On each charge: Convicted. Fined $750.
Perth Magistrates Court 16 Jun 2009 Drive While Disqualified Convicted. Fined $1,500.
Licence disqualified for 9 months.Midland Magistrates Court 16 Jan 2009 Steal Vehicle and Drive Recklessly
Drive While Disqualified
Reckless Driving
Possess Prohibited Drug (2 Charges)
Possess Prohibited Drug with Intent to Sell or Supply
Possess Smoking Utensil
Fail To Stop
Convicted. Fined $1,500.
Licence disqualified for 12 months.
Convicted. Fined $1,400.
Licence disqualified for 14 months.Convicted. Fined $1,200.
Licence disqualified for 12 months.On each charge: Convicted. Fined $1,200.
Convicted. Fined $500.
Licence disqualified for 3 months.Perth Magistrates Court 10 Sep 2008 No Driver’s Licence
Unlicensed Driving
Convicted. Fined $400.
Licence disqualified for 3 months.Convicted. Fined $100.
Perth Magistrates Court 27 Aug 2008 Drive While Suspended
Possess Smoking Utensil.
Unlicensed Vehicle.
Convicted. Fined $400.
Licence disqualified for 9 months.Convicted. Fined $250.
Convicted. Fined $100.
Perth Magistrates Court 26 Aug 2008 No Driver’s Licence Convicted. Fined $150.
Licence disqualified for 3 months.Perth Magistrates Court 25 July 2008 No Driver’s Licence Convicted. Fined $100.
Licence disqualified for 3 months.Perth Magistrates Court 12 May 2008 Possess Prohibited Drug
Give False Personal Detail to Police
Possess A Smoking Implement
On each charge: Convicted. Fined $300.
Convicted. Fined $150.
Perth Magistrates Court 20 Jul 2007 Possess A Prohibited Drug Convicted. Fined $600. Cairns Magistrates Court 25 Feb 2004 Unlawful Use of A Motor Vehicle
Dangerous Operation of A Vehicle
Possess Dangerous Drugs
(2 Charges)Breach of Probation Order Imposed 29 Jan 2003
Possess Dangerous Drugs
Possess Utensils or Pipes
Receive Stolen Property
On each charge: Imprisonment of 4 months.
Licence disqualified for 12 months.On each charge: Imprisonment for 2 months.
Breach proven. Probation Order revoked. Re-sentenced on original offences. On each charge: Imprisonment for 2 months.
On both charges: Imprisonment for 2 months.
Imprisonment for 1 month.
Cairns Magistrates Court 25 Feb 2004 Contravene Direction or Requirement
Breach of Bail Conditions
On each charge: Convicted. No penalty imposed. Cairns Magistrates Court 12 Nov 2003 Breach of Bail Undertaking Convicted. Fined $400. Cairns Magistrates Court 24 Mar 2003 Contravene Direction or Requirement Convicted. Fined $150. Cairns Magistrates Court 30 Jan 2003 Contravene Direction or Requirement Convicted. Fined $400. Cairns Magistrates Court 29 Jan 2003 Possess Property Suspected Stolen or Unlawfully obtained
Possess Dangerous Drug (3 Charges)
Fail to Properly Dispose of Needle and Syringe
Contravene Direction Or Requirement (2 Charges)
On all charges: Convicted. Probation Order for 2 years.
On both charges: Convicted. Fined $400.
Innisfail Magistrates Court 15 Apr 2002 Possess Dangerous Drugs (2 Charges)
Unlawful Use of Motor Vehicle
Contravene Direction or Requirement (2 Charges)
On each charge: Convicted. Fined $500.
Convicted. Fined $300. Licence disqualified for 6 months.
On each charge. Convicted. Fined $200.
6
0
0