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

Pillay and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2023] AATA 2318 (14 July 2023)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number: 2023/2606
Re:Lesley Maburay Pillay
APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Member R Maguire
Date of Decision: 14 July 2023
Date of Written Reasons: 2 August 2023
Place:Brisbane

Pursuant to section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), the Tribunal affirms the decision made by the delegate of the Respondent dated 20 April 2023 not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
..................................[SGD]................................
Member R Maguire
Catchwords
MIGRATION – Non-revocation of mandatory cancellation of a Class BW Subclass 857 Regional Sponsored Migrant Scheme– where Applicant does not pass the character test – whether there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision – consideration of Ministerial Direction No. 99 – decision under review affirmed.
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Migration Regulation 1994 (Cth)
Cases
Afu v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1311
Chiagozie v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 139
DQM18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2020] FCAFC 110
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 500
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Viane [2021] HCA 41
Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17
Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594
Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 348
YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466
Secondary Materials
Ministerial Direction No. 99 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (3 March 2023)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member R Maguire
14 July 2023

By application made on 24 April 2023 the Applicant seeks the review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister (“the Respondent”) made on 20 April 2023 pursuant to s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”), not to revoke a decision under s 501(3A) of the Act to cancel the Applicant’s Class BW Subclass 857 Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa (“the visa”).
On 14 July 2023, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review. The Tribunal now publishes its reasons for that decision.
Section 501CA(4) of the Act provides that the decision-maker may revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa if the person made representations within the relevant time period provided for in the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (“the Regulation”) (28 days in accordance with reg 2.52), and the decision-maker determines that the Applicant passes the “character test”, or, as provided under s 501CA(4)(b), there is another reason why the mandatory cancellation should be revoked. The Minister accepted that the Applicant had made the necessary representations within the prescribed period.
Section 501(3A) of the Act is a mandatory cancellation power. It relevantly provides that the Minister (or his delegate) must cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if, under

s 501(6)(a) of the Act the person has a substantial criminal record as defined by s 501(7). Relevantly, s 501(7) states:
7For 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;...
The term “imprisonment” is defined to include any form of punitive detention in a facility or institution: s 501(12) of the Act.
The Applicant is a 37 year old citizen of South Africa. His Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission Check Results Report (CRR)[1] runs to six pages, and discloses he has been dealt with on many occasions in various Magistrates Courts over the period between 18 February 2013 and 8 July 2022. He has a very long list of offences of including offences of dishonesty, and contravention of domestic violence and other court orders. He also has a lengthy and poor history of traffic offences.
[1] Exhibit 3, p 34.
The CRR discloses that on 5 December 2018 in the Magistrates Court of Queensland at Richlands, the Applicant was convicted of Unlawful use of Motor vehicles aircraft or vessels and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment. The same day he was also sentenced to six months imprisonment on each of four charges of Fraud, four charges of Stealing, one charge of Receiving, one charge of Wilful damage, and one charge of Breach of domestic violence order. He was also sentenced to four months imprisonment on each of one charge of Possession of dangerous drugs and two charges of Disqualified driving, and two months imprisonment for each of one charge of Unlicensed driving and one of Breach of bail. This sentencing led to the cancellation of his visa, however such cancellation was revoked by the Minister, and a stern warning issued to the Applicant in relation to his future conduct. The Tribunal deals with this in greater detail below.
The CRR discloses that on 8 July 2022, the Applicant was sentenced in the Cleveland Magistrates Court to 17 months’ imprisonment for fraud which term included two months’ for Failure to appear.
On 15 August 2022 whilst the Applicant was in custody serving a term of imprisonment the Respondent, acted pursuant to s 501(3A) of the Act, acted to mandatorily cancel the Applicant’s visa because he did not pass the character test as he had a substantial criminal record as provided in s 501(7)(c) in consequence of being sentenced to 12 months or more imprisonment. Notice of this decision was given by hand to the Applicant on 15 August 2022.[2]
[2] Exhibit 3, p 100.
In accordance with reg 2.52(2)(b) of the Regulation the Applicant was invited in accordance with s 501CA(3)(b) of the Act to make representations to the Minister about revoking the cancellation decision within 28 days after he had received the notice. The Applicant made representations to the Minister within the period and in the manner specified.[3]
[3] Exhibit 3, pp 56-58.
On 20 April 2023, the Respondent, acting pursuant to s 501CA(4) of the Act, decided not to revoke the visa cancellation decision made under s 501(3A) of the Act.[4] The Applicant was notified of this decision by email on 21 April 2023, and the Applicant made the present application to this Tribunal for a review of that decision.[5] The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review this decision pursuant to s 500(1)(ba) of the Act.
[4] Ibid, pp 17-38.
[5] Ibid, 4-10.
By operation of s 500(6L) of the Act, when an application is made to the Tribunal for a review of a decision under s 501CA(4) of the Act not to revoke a decision to cancel a visa, and the decision relates to a person in the migration zone, if the Tribunal has not made a decision within the period of 84 days after the day on which the person was notified of the decision under review in accordance with 501G(1), the Tribunal is taken at the end of that period to have made a decision under s 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (“AAT Act”) to affirm the decision under review. At the hearing, it was agreed that for the purposes of this review, and s 500(6L)(c), the 84th day was 14 July 2023. It was therefore open to the Tribunal to make a decision prior to midnight, on that date.
ISSUES
Revocation of the mandatory cancellation of visas is governed by s 501CA(4) of the Act. Relevantly, this provides that:
4The Minister may revoke the original decision if:
(a)the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation; and
(b)the Minister is satisfied:
(i) that the person passes the character test (as defined by section 501); or
(ii) that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.
The Applicant has made the representations required by s 501CA(4)(a) of the Act. Section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) requires the Tribunal to examine the factors for and against revoking a mandatory cancellation decision to assess if there is another reason why the cancellation decision should be revoked. This assessment is made by reference to the representations made by the applicant which the Tribunal is required to read, identify, understand and evaluate.[6]
[6] Plaintiff M1/2021 v Minister for Home Affairs [2022] HCA 17 at [22] and [36].
If the Tribunal exercises the power conferred by s 501CA(4) and in giving reasons makes a finding of fact, the Tribunal must do so based on some evidence or other supporting material, rather than no evidence or no material, unless the finding is made in accordance with the Tribunal's personal or specialised knowledge or by reference to that which is commonly known. It is open to the Tribunal to adopt the accumulated knowledge of the Department.[7]
[7] Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v Viane [2021] HCA 41 at [17]-[20].
As provided in s 501CA(4)(b) of the Act, there are therefore two issues presently before the Tribunal:
·whether the Applicant passes the character test; and
·whether there is another reason why the decision to cancel the Applicant’s visa should be revoked.
If the Applicant succeeds on either ground, the weight of authority indicates that the Tribunal must find that the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa must be revoked.[8]
[8] Ibid.
DOES THE APPLICANT PASS THE CHARACTER TEST?
The character test is defined in s 501(6) of the Act. Under s 501(6)(a), a person will not pass the character test if they have “a substantial criminal record”. This phrase, in turn, is relevantly defined in s 501(7)(c), which provides that a person will have a substantial criminal record if they have “been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more”. In addition, and as an alternative, s 501(7)(d) provides that a person will have a substantial criminal record if the person “has been sentenced to two or more terms of imprisonment, where the total of those terms is 12 months or more.” Section 501(7A) provides that for the purposes of the character test, if a person has been sentenced to two or more terms of imprisonment to be served concurrently (whether in whole or in part) the whole of each term is to be counted in working out the total terms.
The evidence referred to above clearly establishes that the Applicant has a substantial criminal record within the meaning of s 501(6)(a) of Act having regard to s 501(7)(c) of the Act. and the Tribunal finds that he does not pass the character test[9], and therefore cannot rely on s 501CA(4)(b)(i) of the Act for the mandatory cancellation of his visa to be revoked.
[9] As was conceded by the Applicant: Exhibit 1, p 2, [9].
The remaining question therefore is found in s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act, namely whether there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.
Is there another reason for the revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa?
Ministerial Direction No. 99
In considering whether to exercise the discretion in s 501CA(4) of the Act, the Tribunal is bound by s 499(2A) to comply with any directions made under the Act. In this case, Direction No 99 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (“the Direction” or “Direction 99”) has application.[10] The Direction provides guidance for decision-makers on how to exercise the discretion in s 501CA(4) of the Act.
[10] On 3 March 2023, the former applicable direction, Direction No. 90 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s501CA, was revoked and was replaced by Direction 99.
Relevantly, the Direction states that:[11]
“Informed by the principles in paragraph 5.2, a decision maker must take into account the considerations identified in sections 8 and 9, where relevant to the decision.”
[11] Direction No 99 – Migration Act 1958 – Direction under section 499: Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (“the Direction/ Direction 99”), page 5, Part 2, 6 – Making a decision.
.
The principles that are found in paragraph 5.2 of the Direction are as follows:
1Australia 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.
2Non-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.
3The 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.
4Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non- citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time.
5With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia will generally afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age. The level of tolerance will rise with the length of time a non-citizen has spent in the Australian community, particularly in their formative years.
6Decision-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 8.55(2) (Expectations of the Australian Community) is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient in some circumstances, even if the non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
Paragraph 7(1) of the Direction provides that in applying the considerations (both primary and other), information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight. Paragraph 7(2) provides that primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations. Paragraph 7(3) provides that one or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.
Paragraph 8 of the Direction sets out five Primary Considerations that the Tribunal must take into account and they are:
(1)protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(2)whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;
(3)the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia;
(4)the best interests of minor children in Australia;
(5)expectations of the Australian community.
Paragraph 9(1) of the Direction sets out four Other Considerations which must be taken into account. These considerations are:
(a)legal consequences of the decision;
(b)extent of impediments if removed;
(c)impact on victims; and
(d)impact on Australian business interests.
In considering issues of family violence, regard must be had to both s 5G of the Act which broadly defines “Relationships and family members”, as well as para. 4(1) of the Direction which defines “member of the person’s family”, noting that both definitions are inclusive.
Section 5G of the Act is as follows:
5G Relationships and family members
1For the purposes of this Act, if one person is the child of another person because of the definition of child in section 5CA, relationships traced to or through that person are to be determined on the basis that the person is the child of the other person.
2For the purposes of this Act, the members of a person’s family and relatives of a person are taken to include the following:
(a)a de facto partner of the person;
(b)someone who is the child of the person, or of whom the person is the child, because of the definition of child in section 5CA;
(c)anyone else who would be a member of the person’s family or a relative of the person if someone mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) is taken to be a member of the person’s family or a relative of the person.
This does not limit who is a member of a person’s family or relative of a person.
Para. 4(1) of the Direction which defines “member of the person’s family” includes present and former intimate partners:
member of the person's family, for the purposes of the definition of the definition of family violence, includes a person who has, or has had, an intimate personal relationship with the relevant person.
The Tribunal notes the importance of these considerations being “other” considerations, as opposed to “secondary” considerations. As noted by Colvin J in Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection:[12]
“…Direction 65 [now Direction 99] makes clear that an evaluation is required in each case as to the weight to be given to the 'other considerations' (including non‑refoulement obligations). It requires both primary and other considerations to be given 'appropriate weight'. Direction 65 does provide that, generally, primary considerations should be given greater weight. They are primary in the sense that absent some factor that takes the case out of that which pertains 'generally' they are to be given greater weight. However, Direction 65 does not require that the other considerations be treated as secondary in all cases. Nor does it provide that primary considerations are 'normally' given greater weight. Rather, Direction 65 concerns the appropriate weight to be given to both 'primary' and 'other considerations'. In effect, it requires an inquiry as to whether one or more of the other considerations should be treated as being a primary consideration or the consideration to be afforded greatest weight in the particular circumstances of the case because it is outside the circumstances that generally apply”.
[12] [2018] FCA 594 at [23].
The Tribunal now turns to addressing these considerations.
The Applicant’s Movement Records[13], show that he first entered Australia at the age of 22 in November 2008, and departed some six weeks later, before returning again in January 2009 at which time he stayed for about seven months. He was then absent for a period of six months, before returning to Australia for about ten months. He departed in November for about one month, before returning in December 2012. He has remained in Australia since December 2012.
[13] Exhibit 3, p 99.
Applicant’s history of offending and other serious conduct
The Applicant’s criminal history and other serious conduct is informed by the following documents:
(a)
Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission Check Results Report dated

20 September 2022;[14]
(b)Transcript of proceedings of the Richlands Magistrates Court dated 5 December 2018;[15]
(c)Letter from the Department of Home Affairs dated 14 February 2020 notifying the Applicant of revocation of the prior mandatory cancellation of his visa, and warning him in regard to future conduct;[16]
(d)Department file notes dated 4 October 2022;[17]
(e)Transcript of proceedings of the Cleveland Magistrates Court dated 8 July 2022;[18]
(f)Integrated Offender Management Report dated 13 July 2022;[19]
(g)His traffic history[20]
[14] Exhibit 3, pp 34-39.
[15] Exhibit 3, pp 40-45.
[16] Exhibit 3, pp 96-97.
[17] Exhibit 1, pp 46-49
[18] Exhibit 1, pp 50-53.
[19] Exhibit 1, pp 54-55.
[20] Exhibit 10; pp 332-336.

Extracts of the sentencing remarks of Magistrate Shearer in the Richlands Magistrates Court on 5 December 2018 include the following: [21]
[21] Exhibit 3, pp 40-45.
‘This is a significant accumulation of criminal behaviour over a significant period of time. But in particular, in relation to the persons whose car you took and have never returned has involved a significant financial loss for that person, not only in the form of the money that you defrauded them of, but also the fact that you took their car, and when you were specifically told not to and it’s lead to have been – never been seen of course, again.…
And at the same time to defraud them of $600 for work you said you were going to do that was never done. The offending behaviour in this case spans roughly a two year period. A period over which not only were you repeatedly committing criminal offences, but repeatedly failing to appear in court as well stop over the same period of time, you’ve been dealt with since the beginning of 2017, on one to, three, four, five, six, seven, eight times before today. Ninth time and seven into – less than two years. In fact, nine times in 18 months and repeatedly failed to appear and, of course, you’ve been sentenced to imprisonment for that. A lot of this offending as well was committed while you were subject to a community service order for breaching a domestic violence order, that a significant aggravating feature and a portion of it was committed while you were unlawfully at large as well.
So all in all it’s a very serious accumulation of criminality over a long period of time and in aggravating circumstances. And the fact that this is your first time in custody, of itself, doesn’t mean much, because really all it means is that your own behaviors finally caught up to you and the community at last is being protected by your behavior because this stuff had gone on right up until your arrest. There’s probably not much to be gained from my canvassing the facts of each of the offences. I’ve already referred to the most serious of them and that’s going to be the offence that attracts the highest sentence. But in addition to that, of course, you’ve got not only a further charge of unlicensed driving, and having only been dealt with for unlicensed driving in January of this year and that was your third conviction for unlicensed – fourth for now disqualified driving whilst on bail on – in each case.
So each of these offences constitutes contempt of court orders because it indicates that you have no regard for the order of the court disqualifying you from driving and did it anyway which is a mark of disrespect and contempt for the court and it’s a serious offence having regard to that. On top of that of course, we got the additional breach of domestic violence order when you are subject community order [sic] for breaching a domestic violence order as well as each of the frauds, the stealings, the petrol drive offs which is an extremely prevalent offence and has to be dealt with seriously and the second of your – well the first of your disqualified driving offences in addition to being disqualified by the court and on bail, you were in an unregistered, uninsured motor vehicle so you could have an accident, and whoever the poor person was he might’ve come into collision with you would be unable to recover from third-party insurance and from you, in all likelihood.
The sum total of your offending has made this a lengthy exercise as you’ll find out when I get to finally delivering the sentence. It’s not a great surprise to me, of course that drugs are at the bottom of all of this. You’re not Robinson Crusoe, the people who appear in the dock in these circumstances every week, it’s the rare one that is not a drug addict, basically. And it’s the rare one that is not addicted to ice, so the fact that you make the decision to involve yourself with that drug is just mind-boggling. I don’t – cannot, for the life of me, fathom anybody’s mentality to think that getting yourself involved with ice is ever going to be a positive life choice, but where you are now is invariably where most people wind up who choose that for their lifestyle. At the end of the day you be a person of responsibility for your choices and for your own behavior and if you choose them ultimately you will find out the hard way what the consequences of those choices are going to be.
As I’ve said to the last person who was in here just before you, all the good intentions in the world when you’re in custody are all very well but the proof is in the pudding when you leave custody, when you are not under lock and key, when you are not under somebody’s supervision 24 hours a day and when you are going to be responsible for the way that you behave out in the community. And it’s not exactly unknown for prisoners to have all the good intentions in the world as to how they going to behave in the going to get a job in the game to do this that when they get out and then a week later they’re back hanging around with the same old idiots. Taking drugs again doing the same stupid things they were doing before they put them into custody and they come right back again. That is, in my experience probably about half the time that’s what happens.
So what happens with you will be entirely in your control. You either blow it and wind up back in jail, or if we don’t see you again ever, and the proof will have been reporting and will know that you’re serious….
You haven’t done one minute of the community service imposed….
[In relation to other charges of stealing as a servant which were adjourned]
I can tell you now your chances of me giving you bail are very low with 17 warrants having issued for your arrest in the last two years and – how many convictions for failing to appear? One, two, three, four, five convictions for failing to appear in the last 12 months. Your best bet is just not to make a bail application at this point in time….
But Mr Pillay, you’ve created a rod for your own back by your repeated failing to appear in court and breaching bail, but not even appearing when you were served with notices to appear. The fact that it warrants it had to be issued 17 times. I know it’s unheard of. I’ve never heard of anybody having that many warrants in that space of time before. You’re going to make it almost impossible to get bail on those charges.’
Following this sentencing, the Applicant’s visa was cancelled on 15 February 2019. He made representations seeking revocation of the decision, and that decision was in fact revoked. The revocation of the cancellation of his visa was conveyed to the Applicant in a letter dated 14 February 2020.[22] That letter (sent by email to his legal representatives) contained a very strong unambiguous warning in relation to the Applicant’s future conduct:
‘Warning: if you engage in further criminal or other serious conduct, this may again result in your visa being cancelled on character grounds.
WARNING FROM THE DECISION-MAKER:
“A stern warning should be issued to MR PILLAY on this occasion, that he must refrain from further offending and continue to rehabilitate, especially given his addiction to heroin. He should not expect to receive any further leniency. The protection and safety of the Australian community is of paramount importance and a salient consideration. The Government has a zero tolerance policy violence and this kind of behaviour will not be tolerated again nor will any further theft, property offences or breaches of judicial orders.’
[22] Exhibit 3, p 96.
The Applicant signed an acknowledgment of receipt of this letter on 14 February 2020.[23]
[23] Exhibit 3, p 98.
Subsequent to the reinstatement of his visa, the CRR discloses that the Applicant offended on the following dates[24]:
[24] Where offending is recorded as having been committed between dates, e.g. breach of bail the later date is shown.
(1) 20 September 2020;
(2) 9 October 2020;
(3) 20 October 2020;
(4) 25 October 2020;
(5) 10 January 2021;
(6) 25 January 2021;
(7) 10 February 2021;
(8) 11 February 2021;
(9) 14 February 2021
(10)    4 May 2021;
(11)    5 May 2021;
(12)    21 June 2021;
(13)    5 August 2021;
(14)    10 August 2021;
(15)    24 August 2021;
(16)    7 September 2021;
(17)    8 September 2021;
(18)    18 September 2021;
(19)    2 October 2020
(20)    4 January 2022;
(21)    1 February 2022;
(22)    27 March 2021;
(23)    29 April 2022.
The hearing took place in Brisbane on Tuesday 27, Wednesday 28, and Monday 3 July 2023. The applicant was unrepresented. Mr Chris West of Sparke Helmore appeared for the Respondent.
The complete suite of written material forming the exhibit record is further particularised in the Exhibit Register Annexure attached hereto and marked “A”.
It is convenient at this juncture to record that the evidence discloses allegations of domestic violence against two of the Applicant’s former partners, one of whom was his wife. In order to protect their privacy, they shall be referred to as Ms X and Ms Y. Ms X had three children from a prior relationship. Ms Y was the legal wife of the Applicant, and bore him a daughter who shall be referred to as Child E. The Applicant has a further child who shall be referred to as Child N, with his current partner who was a witness and shall be referred to as Ms Z. The first name of one of Ms Z’s children arose during evidence, and any such reference is replaced by Q.
The Tribunal received oral evidence from the Applicant, his mother, Mrs Yvonne Govender, his aunt, Ms Nancy Chetty, his fiancé Ms Z and Dr Gavan Palk, Forensic Psychologist.
Evidence of the Applicant
At the commencement of the hearing, in response to a question from the Tribunal, the Applicant confirmed that he did not pass the character test, and that his offending was accurately recorded in the G documents and the Respondent’s SFIC. He also confirmed that all communications made to the Department and the Tribunal (including the factual basis for Dr Palk’s opinions) by him or on his behalf were true and correct and authorised by him and remained true and correct[25].
[25] Transcript, p 8, lines 27- 44.
The Applicant said that he had provided Country Information to the Tribunal because he wanted it to have regard for the lasting effects that experiences of family violence can have on children.
The Applicant denied that Ms X was his de facto partner or girlfriend, and described their relationship as “a friend with benefits”, adding “it was never more than that to me.”[26]
[26] Transcript, p 9, lines 32-42.
The Tribunal invited the Applicant to address it, and emphasised the importance of his truthfulness[27].
[27] Transcript, p 5, lines 7-20; p 10, line 17; p 11, lines 15-17.
The Applicant recounted how he came to live in Australia, and described a troubled upbringing.[28] When he was a year old his father passed away in a car accident. His mother gave premature birth to his brother. His mother remarried and he suffered a deal of domestic and family violence at the hands of his step-father. Growing up was difficult for him, in consequence of violence from his step-father, and he could now see how he became like his abuser. He said that he was exposed to harsh beatings and punishment including being locked in bedrooms. He received corporal punishment at school and this all had effects on his life and his brother’s life. He would be beaten by his step father for any small thing, and his mother did not come to his aid. He lived with different relatives while going to high school. His step father would always drink at the weekends, and was a happy drunk. It was when he was sober he would be harsh. His step father also regularly beat his mother.
[28] Transcript, p 11, line 26.
The Applicant said that he came to Australia at the age of 22, and learned that the things he grew up with accepting as normal, would not be tolerated in Australia. He said he could see where he went wrong and did not have the ability to control his own brain. He now understands he will need treatment forever. He expressed concern that if he is forced to leave Australia it will have a knock on effect for his children. Immigration detention was where he managed to stabilise himself. He said he had been a victim all his life, and needed ongoing help. It would be bad for his children if he had to return to South Africa.
The Applicant expressed remorse for not figuring himself out sooner, and wished he had not hurt the people he has hurt.
CROSS EXAMINATION
The Applicant told Mr West[29] he had lived in Durban and went to school there. He worked as a locksmith and also at his Aunt’s funeral service. He learned to speak Zulu informally and retains a basic understanding of it. He also spoke some Afrikanns.
[29] Transcript , p 15, line 40.
His late father’s relatives are in South Africa but he has had very little contact with them. His mother’s family are all in Australia. His brother just went back to South Africa on Friday after his visa was cancelled[30]. He has returned to Durban, but he does not know how long his brother will stay there. If returned to South Africa he will contact his brother as they will both be facing the same difficulties[31]. His father has only one surviving brother who was in poor health the last he heard in 2020. His father’s brothers have children but he has had very little contact with them.
[30] Transcript, p 16 lines 44-47; p 17, lines 1-5.
[31] Transcript, p 17, lines 12-20.
The Applicant was referred to his Personal Circumstances Form (PCF)[32] which he delivered to the Department in support of his previous request for revocation of the initial mandatory cancellation of his visa. He had listed relatives in Australia, and he had listed 10 cousins in South Africa.[33] He said that he does not keep in touch with any friends or relatives in South Africa[34].
[32] Exhibit 4, pp 66-69.
[33] Exhibit 4, p 73.
[34] Transcript, p 19, lines 20-23.
The Applicant said that he arrived in Australia in 2008. He was referred to his movement records at G22 p 99. He returned to visit his ex-wife Ms Y in South Africa from 29 December 2008 until 23 January 2009. He returned to visit her again from 27 August 2010 until 27 February 2011. He returned to South Africa again from 16 November 2012 until 2 December 2012 for about a fortnight, and has remained in Australia since.
His mother and step-father are still together.
During his evidence, the Applicant was asked by the Tribunal about his relationship with Ms X[35]:
“MEMBER: Okay. Now, can you tell me, what was the nature of your relationship [Ms X] with around the time of the domestic violence issues arising? Was she a former de facto partner or girlfriend?
MR PILLAY: She wasn’t really de facto partner, she was more of a friend with benefits, you know, in the end. And, yes, she was not ‑ because I was with my ex-wife at the time as well, I sort of got closer to her as a friend, but it was never more than that to me. Yes, it was a friendship as well was toxic. It’s, you know ‑ I should’ve known. I should’ve had the ability then to end the friendship or walk away from it.”
[35] Transcript, p 9, lines 32-43.
The Applicant was later asked to clarify the meaning of his expression “friends with benefits”[36].
[36] Transcript, p 21, lines 27-46; p 22, line 1-25.
“MEMBER: Can I just interrupt there, sorry. I don’t understand the expression, ‘friends with benefits’. What’s that mean? It was a sexual relationship, was it?
APPLICANT: Not in the beginning. Not in the beginning, but it’s in between.
MEMBER: In between what?
APPLICANT: Just being friends, you know.
MEMBER: So there was intermittent sexual activity between the two of you?
APPLICANT: Yes.
MEMBER: Over what period of time?
APPLICANT: Months, a few months. Altogether I think six, eight months.
MEMBER: And were you living together at any part of that?
APPLICANT: No.
MEMBER: Did you sleep over at her place or she at yours?
APPLICANT: No. If it went overnight, it would be because we were, you know, just socialising, and other people were there.
MEMBER: Well, you either did or you didn’t stay over at each other’s places?
APPLICANT: Yes. I - I did.
MEMBER: And how many times did you stay over at her place?
APPLICANT: I’d say about 30.
MEMBER: And how many times did she stay at yours?
APPLICANT: She didn’t, because I was living with my brother for a while and then my ex-wife.”
X had three children who lived with her towards the end of their relationship. He said that he and Ms X did not share expenses.
The Applicant told Mr West that he met his ex-wife Ms Y in 2006, and began a relationship which continued until just before he was arrested in 2017. He had the relationship with Ms X while he was still in a relationship with his wife.
He has not spoken to his ex-wife since the middle of 2020[37]. She had been visiting him while he was in detention.
[37] Transcript, p 23, line 22-23.
The Applicant said that he first met his current partner Ms Z in 2020 through a friend in 2018 and began a relationship with her in March 2020. He was referred to Exhibit 3, p 62 (a document he had provided to the Department) wherein at item 7 he said that they had been together since February 2019. He agreed his statement at item 7 that they had been together since February 2019 was inaccurate[38]. They began living together in the middle of 2020.
[38] Transcript, p 24, lines 43-44.
The Applicant said that Ms Z knows everything about his offending and drug use, as does his mother. [39] The Applicant also said that his aunt Nancy knew anything his mother knew[40], but then lessened the scope of his aunt’s attributed knowledge saying she knew “the bulk of it” before lessening it again to “some of it”[41] before [42]finally saying his aunt knew “roughly” about it.
[39] Transcript, p 25, line 27 – 37.
[40] Transcript, p 26, lines 11-14.
[41] Transcript, p 26, line 19.
[42] Transcript, p 26, line 26.
He said that he started using drugs about 2016 at the age of 25.
The Applicant said that after his previous visa cancellation was revoked he went to live with his parents for a period of two months[43]. He was then referred to a report dated 12 June 2019 from Dr Palk Forensic Psychologist which had been provided to the Department in support of his previous request for revocation of his initial visa cancellation. The Applicant was referred to Exhibit 10, pp 52-53 paragraph [5.16] which included the following:
“Mr. Pillay’s mother says Lesley will reside with her and her husband if he is not deported and they will assist him financially to re-establish his mobile locksmith business.”
[43] Transcript, p 26, lines 34-37.
The Applicant then told the Tribunal that he never re-established his mobile lock smith business.
Regarding his future plans, the Applicant said that if he is released he wants to go to a six month live in rehabilitation program with Transformations and then live with Ms Z in Mackay. He does not have a job in Mackay yet.
Regarding his step-children, he said that Child P and Child XA are living with Ms Z, Child RI and Child R are living with their biological father’s parents on the Gold Coast. Child N lives with Ms Z. He has seen her fortnightly for periods of about one hour and a half whilst in detention. Child E lives with her mother Ms Y. He last spoke to Child E in late 2021. He last saw her physically face to face in late 2020[44]. His ex-wife Ms Y is not allowing him to see Child E, and he has no idea why. He saw Child N at the centre on Sunday night along with two step sons. He otherwise keeps in touch with her via video, and would continue to do so if he returned to South Africa.
[44] Transcript Day 2 p 28 lines 25-34.
The Applicant said he has not used drugs other than heroin[45], which he began using in 2015. Initially his use was at weekends. He smoked about $100 worth, i.e. about two points, a point at a time. The frequency of use increased until he finished up smoking it every day, using $200 worth or four points per day. His usage peaked straight after he separated from his wife and hit another peak at the end of 2020. He continued using at that rate until he was arrested and taken into custody. He had ceased using when he went to Transformations in-patient rehabilitation. He temporarily sought medical treatment and curbed his usage before his ex-wife left.
[45] This is inconsistent with the sentencing remarks of Magistrate Shearer, who specifically referred to the Applicant’s decision to involve himself with the drug “ice”: Exhibit 3, p 42 lines 10-15.

He said he has not used heroin whilst in custody or detention. He had to stop using heroin so that he tested clear prior to admission to Transformations, and it took about a week to get it out of his system.
The Applicant was referred to para 4.1 of Dr Palk’s report dated 19 June 2023 Exhibit 15, which stated:
“Mr. Pillay advised that he attended the Transformations Drug Rehabilitation Centre on the Gold Coast on three occasions prior to his imprisonment but kept relapsing. He stated that the first two admissions were voluntary and the 3rd admission was court ordered. He indicated that on the first occasion he stayed 2 weeks at the drug rehabilitation centre, on the 2nd occasion he stayed for one month and on the 3rd occasion he stayed for 2 weeks.”
The Applicant said that the first time he voluntarily admitted himself to Transformations was in 2018. The reason he said he left was because he had been talking to his daughter and his ex-wife did not bring his daughter to see him, and he reverted to using heroin about a month after he left Transformations.
He subsequently admitted himself again as he was using every second day spending $100. A month after resuming use he re-admitted himself to Transformations for two weeks. He left because he was not having any contact with his daughter. After he left he said that he really struggled and had been couch surfing with friends. He resumed heroin use straight away after his second stint at Transformations, and was spending $100 every second day. He was arrested about a week after his second stint completed.
He did a further court ordered session at Transformations as it was a bail ordered condition for him to live there. He stayed there about two weeks, and left because they moved from the Gold Coast to Burpengary. He claimed to have been concerned because his bail condition required him to live at the Gold Coast. He left Burpengary, but did not return to the Gold Coast facility. He discharged himself without having his bail terms varied. After he left he was living on the street and resumed using heroin straight away, every second or third day. He was referred to Exhibit 10 p 127 and denied having told police that he had moved back to the Gold Coast facility.
The Applicant told Mr West that he resumed using heroin six months after his last release from detention and was using it every two or three days about $100 per day[46].
[46] Transcript, p 37, lines 25-35.
The Applicant was again referred to Dr Palk’s report of 12 June 2019 at Exhibit 10 p. 50, and in particular paragraph [4.5] which stated:
“Mr. Pillay stated that, if allowed to remain in Australia, he will also return to Transformations Australia for ongoing drug rehabilitation support.”
The Applicant denied saying he would return to Transformations if released from immigration detention, but agreed that he did not do so[47].
[47] Transcript, p 38 line, 11-28.
The Applicant said his heroin use became a problem around 2016-2017. He maintained he had not used heroin in the home when he was living with Y, but admitted that he had used it in the garage of the property. After Child E was born he would use it wherever he bought it before he came home. He denied having used it in the house with Ms Z, but admitted that he had been in the company of her children under the influence of heroin.
He used heroin until he was arrested in April 2022.
The Applicant said that he knew what Suboxone is, and said that it is a medication used as a substitute for heroin to reduce withdrawal symptoms. He denied having used Suboxone whilst in detention, but said he had held a prescription for it in 2015. He said it made him sick in the mornings.
He was referred to his SFIC paragraphs 101 and 102. He accepted that his drug addiction required further treatment, but not medication.
He was referred to the warning he received from the Department at Exhibit 3, p 96, and it was read over to him by Mr West. He initially agreed that at the time he knew that it was his last chance but immediately retracted that comment, saying he did not think it was necessarily his last chance.
The Applicant was referred to Dr Palk’s report of 12 June 2019 at p 56 of Exhibit 3 para [8.2] which stated:
“Since imprisonment, Mr. Pillay appears to have learnt to cope with depression and he reports being far less depressed and anxious. He no longer experiences heroin withdrawal symptoms and says he has no desire to resume using heroin. He seems realistic about the challenges he faces in the future and seems genuine in his quest to prove to his family he is a changed person for the sake of his daughter.”
Mr West referred the Applicant to the passage which stated “No desire to resume taking heroin”, and the Applicant agreed that he had in fact returned to using heroin.
He was then referred to para [9.3] of the same report[48]:
“As noted Mr. Pillay has no established supports in South Africa and it seems clear to the writer that if Mr. Pillay were deported he would experience significant hardships and emotional stress from the loss of contact with his immediate family and extended family in Australia. Additionally, he would be prevented from being a part of his daughter’s developmental years. Overall, Mr. Pillay and his immediate family would be deprived of having a meaningful relationship with each other.”
[48] Transcript, p 43, lines 33-36.
It was put to him:
“MR WEST: at 9.3, because there you reported to him that you’re aware if you were deported you’d experience significant hardships and emotional stress from loss of contact with your immediate and extended family in Australia?
APPLICANT: Yes.”
The Applicant was referred to para 5.2 p 51 of Dr Palk’s report wherein it was stated:
“He appears to have been raised in a loving and supportive family environment by his mother and stepfather.”
He denied saying this to Dr Palk and said Dr Palk had gathered this from his mother, and he had not told him anything about this. He said Dr Palk did not ask him any questions about his upbringing.
The Applicant was referred to his letter to the Department[49] wherein he stated regarding his relationship with his Child E:
“During this time we became parents to a little girl.. [Child E]. My joy was short lived because I was basically denied from any paternal duties because my wife didn't want me anywhere near our child. I was an addict and in that time my wife also suffered Post- partum illness and continued to keep [Child E] away from me. I had little contact with our child”
[49] Exhibit 4, p 78
The Applicant agreed that there was no mention about his childhood trauma in his initial revocation request[50].
[50] Transcript, p 45, lines 5-10.
He was referred to Exhibit 4, p 78, his letter to the Department. At the top of p 79, quote:
“I was devastated knowing my wife, child and immediate family was all here. I suffer long , agonizing , periods of depression and am anxious about my future”
He agreed that he knew that he would be separated if he re-offended, and he would be returned to South Africa[51].
[51] Transcript, p 43, lines 38-46.
The Applicant said that he did undertake some rehabilitation programs when previously in immigration detention. He said he completed the Do-it Program. He said he also did some other little programs if presenters were available. He mentioned courses in anger management, violence, drug use, and domestic violence. He said he had also received some counselling from his mother’s youngest sister, whom he saw about five times in her capacity as a nurse Exhibit 4, page 122. He said she had just been speaking to him as his aunt, but later agreed that it was a bit of both. She did not identify herself as his aunt in the letter provided to the Department, but as a representative of Nursing training and Innovations. He agreed that it was misleading for her not to disclose that she was his aunt.
In relation to his offending, the Applicant was referred to para 21 Exhibit 5, being his statement dated 30 May 2023 and accepted he had stolen from, and defrauded people to fund his heroin addiction.
He confirmed[52] he has two charges of possessing dangerous drugs and supplying dangerous drugs arising from when he was in detention on 3 April this year which were listed for mention in the Brisbane Magistrates Court on Friday 30 June 2023, i.e. Friday of the week in which this evidence was given. He had not entered a plea as he has not been able to see a lawyer. At this point the Tribunal cautioned him against self-incrimination.
[52] Transcript, p 51, lines 1-3.
The Applicant was then He referred to his first domestic violence offence 19 January 2012 Exhibit 10 p 306 which involved Ms X, and recorded that he had grabbed her around the neck, pushed her against a wall causing her to hit her head, hit her resulting in a black eye, and put her in a headlock when she tried to dial 000.
The Applicant paused after being asked if he and Ms X had an argument about her cheating on him. He said that they had a few arguments about her cheating on him. He admitted saying the words attributed to him. He denied locking them both in the bedroom and putting his hands around her neck. He could not remember details but stopped short of denying what was recorded. He said he would not have lied to the police and what they had recorded would be more accurate than his recollection[53]. He acknowledged that at the time of this episode Ms X had a protection order at Exhibit 10 p 26. He agreed that it would have been Ms X’s children named on the order, and that he was convicted of breaching the order by soaking Ms X with a hose while washing the car. He admitted hitting her on the leg with the hose and said he apologised right away.
[53] Transcript, p 54, line 32-37.
The Applicant was referred to a domestic violence order breach regarding Ms X on 4 November 2012 at Exhibit 10 p. 284. He said he did not recall the facts recorded, but did not deny them.
He was then referred to a further domestic violence order breach regarding Ms X reported at Exhibit 10 pages 270-272 and which occurred to 10 February 2013, and involved his headbutting of the aggrieved while they were at a casino. He recalled the incident, and said that he had wanted to leave a party. Ms X was telling him to leave her alone, and he did not want to leave her with another male. He said he did not recall, but did not deny later hitting her in the face again[54].
[54] Transcript, p 56, lines 26; p 57, line 8.
The Applicant was questioned regarding a further domestic violence order breach regarding Ms X on 16 November 2014 Exhibit 10 page 263 regarding an order made on 30 October 2014. He said Ms X was the person protected. He was aware that he was not allowed to attend at her property under the terms of the order.
The Applicant was questioned regarding a further domestic violence order incident reported at Exhibit 10 page 297 and which occurred on 16 April 2017 in relation to his pregnant wife Ms Y with whom he was living at the time. Extracts of the cited police record include:
“The respondent and aggrieved have one unborn child together with the aggrieved being seven and a half months pregnant with the respondent’s child… The aggrieved stated to police that she was extremely scared and fearful of the respondent due to his history of unreported violence and abuse from within their relationship…. The aggrieved stated that she believes the respondent has lost his job and was now asking her for money to cover his drug debts. The aggrieved stated that the respondent has entered their house at about 5 pm and demanded the aggrieved take him to his mother (sic) house to get money from her. The aggrieved told the respondent no at which point he has slammed the front door, stormed to the bathroom, and smashed several items within the bathroom. The aggrieved has entered the bathroom and said “What the hell.” The aggrieved stated that throughout the last week, the respondent has become extremely aggressive towards her claiming that she had slept with his cousin and that the unborn baby really was his cousin’s and he would kill the child before letting it into the world claiming he would “pull it out”. The aggrieved has stated that due to the previous aggression shown buy (sic) the respondent she felt fearful for her safety and has then grabbed her car keys and ran out of the house to her vehicle. The respondent has attended her car and attempted to open the front door screaming at her “Get out Get out”. The aggrieved stated that the respondent was not able to get into the vehicle as she had locked the doors prior to him running after her. The aggrieved stated that she did not want the respondent in the car as he had previously, that week threatened to kick her out of the moving vehicle earlier in the week because she did not do as she was told.”
The applicant agreed that it was around this time that his business had failed and he had lost his job[55]. As happened more than once during his evidence responded to a question with saying one thing, followed by a contradictory elaboration[56]:
“MR WEST: And so during this period, were you asking [Ms Y] for money to help you?
APPLICANT: No. I never asked her for large sums of money. If I ever did, it would just be like $10 or $20 for some fuel, or you know. It was never large sums of money. Never.”
[55] Transcript, p 58, lines 5-6.
[56] Transcript, p 58, lines 8-11; See also p 55, lines 46-47.
He denied asking Ms Y for money to cover his drug debts as she had reported to Police. He denied smashing things in the bathroom but said he may have slammed the door. He had accused her of sleeping with his cousin, and claimed to have found her passed out with her pants down to her knees while his cousin was asleep on the couch beside her, but denied threatening to kill the unborn baby.
The Applicant was questioned regarding a further domestic violence order breach recorded at Exhibit 10 page 185 involving his wife Ms Y and their baby. Extracts of the police record include the following:
“The aggrieved provided a typewritten statement stating that between about 1pm and 2.20pm on 11th February 2018 she was asleep on her bed, with her baby and the respondent has barged into the room, demanding $20 for fuel. When denied the money, he became angry and said, "I’ll fucking show you". When he has left the room, the aggrieved heard a loud bang. The respondent returned into the room and demanded $10 for fuel. The aggrieved stated she did not have the money. The respondent then told her, "I'm going to fuck you up." The respondent then told the aggrieved to lend him her phone because he wanted to phone his mother. The aggrieved denied this request, fearing the respondent would damage the phone. The aggrieved then phoned the respondent's mother and spoke to her, stating that the respondent was threatening her for money, asking her to call him.
DAMAGE TO PHONE: At this time, the respondent has then tried to grab the phone out of the aggrieved's hand with his right hand with a large degree of force. The aggrieved has then discovered the phone screen was cracked on the right hand side. A further discussion took place in relation to the respondent trying to obtain money from his mother and the aggrieved at which time, the respondent said to his mother, "She's a fucking bitch, a dog and she's sitting with money and can't give me money for fuel." The respondent then asked his mother, "Are you going to give me the $20, you are taking the bitches side, I’m going to fuck her up and then come there and fuck you up."
Shortly after this, the respondent demanded the aggrieved phoned two other numbers, saying they were in relation to work, but there was no answer on either number. The aggrieved stated she heard the respondent having another conversation on the phone with his mother, at which time, the aggrieved heard him say, "Let her fucking go, she's a fucking bitch, I'll show her, I'll kill her." The respondent then stated, "Why did you come back from South Africa and the aggrieved replied, "I was forced back because of and said, "Yes I will go back". The respondent replied "This time you will fucking go back yourself, you are not taking the baby, I will murder you." The aggrieved left the lounge and went to the bedroom to feed the baby, observing the respondent to leave the unit block carpark towards the roadway on [redacted].
DAMAGE TO TELEVISION AND PLAQUE. The aggrieved stated she then came back into the lounge room to see what the noise was she heard earlier and saw the television was damaged with a dent in the right hand side of the screen. Upon police arriving, the aggrieved also observed a wall plaque which had been hanging on the wall near the kitchen was on top of the lounge chair and was broken in to pieces. On 12th February 2018 the defendant was interviewed in an electronically recorded ROI at Holland Park Police Station in relation to the matter. He denied the allegations made by the Aggrieved. On 19th March 2018 the defendant was located on [location redacted] and agreed to accompany Police to Holland Park Station where he agreed to take part in an electronically recorded record of interview regarding this matter. He again denied the allegations of the Aggrieved and stated the damage to the television was pre-existing and he was unaware of damage to the plaque. He stated he didn't grasp the phone at all and didn't damage it. The defendant has been convicted in the Brisbane Magistrates Court on 15/10/2013 for a Breach of Domestic Violence Order. Notice of Intention to Allege Previous Conviction has been served on defendant. CHARGE 2: (WILFUL DAMAGE) The Aggrieved is the owner of a Samsung S7 Edge mobile phoned she stated the Respondent grabbed tightly when arguing causing the screen to crack. The defendant denied damaging the mobile phone stating he didn't grasp it at all. The Applicant recalled that he could not drive and asked her to drive him to do a job as she had been complaining about his not contributing to the household costs. She did not want to help him and refused to give him a small amount of money for fuel. There was a discussion about [Ms Y] taking [Child E] back to South Africa and she had said she was moving out. He denied threatening to kill [Ms Y] if she tried to take [Child E] back to South Africa. He denied doing anything to damage the television, and. was not aware if he had broken the screen of her phone.”
The Applicant agreed that he had asked Ms Y for money for fuel. The Applicant said that they had argued about Ms Y taking Child E back to South Africa, and the incident at his cousin’s house. He denied threatening to kill Ms Y[57], and he denied damaging the television. Regarding Ms Y’s phone, the Applicant gave evidence which contradicted what he had told the police when he said[58]:
“I did grab a phone from her hand - the phone with my hand, and she said the screen cracked at the time.”
[57] Transcript, p 61, lines 41-42.
[58] Transcript, p 61, lines 45-47.
Notwithstanding his statement to the police that he was unaware of damage to the plaque, he told the Tribunal that he had broken it two days before, rather than on the date of the reported incident[59].
[59] Transcript, p 62, lines 11-29.
The Applicant was questioned regarding offences he had committed whilst employed by local locksmiths, which involved his soliciting of additional work and money from their customers.
The Applicant was questioned regarding Offence 23 January 2017 Exhibit 10 pages 270, 354, 374, 388, 389 stealing as a servant employed by local locksmiths. He pled not guilty to this offence. He said he was using drugs and having issues at home. He was spending money he had collected for work. He offered to do additional work outside the scope of services offered by his employer. One of his victims was a lady aged her 80s. He did work on a garage door and agreed he had obtained money from her and the figure of $600 would sound about right.
The Tribunal notes that the Applicant pled not guilty to this offence, and in defending the charge, self-represented actually cross-examined the lady in her 80s. The transcript of evidence given in the Applicant’s presence in relation to that proceeding discloses that the sum of $600 was only the Applicant’s initial request to cover the cost of materials, and his victim paid him a further sum of $1,000 to complete the work, which he did not do[60].
[60] SB 372 lines 30-40.

The Applicant was then referred to an offence committed on 11 February 2018 when he was called out to cut a key Exhibit 10 page 190. He obtained $200 as an upfront payment and departed, and did not do the work. Agreed he had used his employment as a lock smith to defraud people “once or twice.[61]”
[61] Transcript, p 65, line 34.
The applicant was referred to an instance unlawful use of a motor vehicle on 18 June 2018 recorded at Exhibit 10 pages 162-163[62]. He had been asked to repair a head gasket on a Toyota Camry. The complainant had advanced him $600 to purchase necessary parts. The Applicant subsequently was told not to take possession of, nor test drive the vehicle by the complainant. The Applicant drove off in the vehicle, and it was never recovered notwithstanding repeated calls and texts from the owner. The Applicant recalled the incident and said he was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment for that. He said the car broke down and there was an argument about towing it back to the house. He was not paid for that day and was angry. The man’s wife gave him the keys. He denied he had been asked for a week to return the vehicle.
[62] Transcript, p 65, line 38-44, p 66, lines 1-47, p 67, line 1-34.
The Applicant was referred to a similar episode on 7 July 2018 recorded at Exhibit 10 page 146. The Applicant accepted a job on AirTasker to repair a vehicle. He took to pay $200 or parts and agreed with Mr West that he “walked away never to be seen again.”[63]
[63] Transcript, p 68, line 26.
The Applicant was referred to a large number of offences referred to in a sentencing schedule at pages 836 and 863 of Exhibit 10. These offences occurred after his first stint in prison.
The Applicant rejected a suggestion by Mr West that Ms Z had been involved in his offending, asserting that he had acted alone[64]. He was then referred to the sentencing schedule Exhibit 10 page 837 where she was named as being his co-offender in relation to a large number of frauds against Bunnings. He then agreed she was his co-offender on the Bunnings frauds[65]. Their practice was to find abandoned receipts for items purchased from Bunnings, enter the store, select the corresponding items, and present them at the counter to obtain a refund. He said he had not previously seen the sentencing schedule at Exhibit 10 pages 839-840.
[64] Transcript, p 68, lines 38-44, p 69, lines 1-11.
[65] Transcript, p 69, lines 8-11.
It was put to the Applicant that the owner of the receiving account for proceeds of AirTasker frauds was Ms Z. He said he “might have used” her number, but she would not have known about it.
The Applicant was referred to Exhibit 10, p 850, which involved a fraud by a person who had identified himself to the victim as “Q” and provided an account for the receipt of funds in the name “Q” The Applicant said he had no idea how the fake name “Q” came to be used. He could offer no explanation for this. He did not know why he had used that name. He said he was not thinking straight. He agreed that he used the false name, but could not explain why. He agreed that he had sent Ms Z to drop off a part to a victim at Exhibit 10 p 850.
The Applicant admitted using the false names Q, Dane, and Sean to carry out AirTasker frauds.
Evidence of Nancy Chetty – Applicant’s aunt[66]
[66] Exhibit 5, pp 104-105.
The witness gave evidence under affirmation, and verified her statement.
The witness was provided with a copy of her statement and verified its contents.
The witness was asked by Mr West to detail her awareness of the Applicant’s offending. She said the Applicant had breached parole conditions, and he could not go home as his stepfather did not want him there, and would not even let him sleep on the patio. She did not know about why he was on parole. She was not familiar with the type of drugs he used, but ventured that it could be ice. She said she had been trying to help him get into Transformation around 2018-2019. She understood that he was arrested on the way to Transformation.
She has no relatives living in South Africa. She has friends there. If he had to go back, she did not know if anyone would want a stranger in their house.
His ex-wife would not attend any function at their home if the Applicant was present, and they opted to invite his ex-wife and child instead of him.
Re-examination
There was no re-examination of the witness.
Evidence of Ms Z – Applicant’s partner
The witness gave evidence under affirmation. She was provided with copies of her statements and verified those statements at Exhibit 3 pages 91 and 92 and Exhibit 11.
The witness said she first met the Applicant in about 2018, and began a relationship around the end of February or beginning of March in 2020. It was not possible for her to return to South Africa with him should he have to go.
The witness confirmed that she had previously stated that she was aware of his convictions[67]. When asked to elaborate about his convictions, the witness said that he had an unlawful driving event, a domestic violence one, and this one which was fraud.
[67] Transcript, p 85, line 42-45; p 86, lines 1-4.
Regarding the domestic violence offence she said that he had told her he had an argument with his then wife. He had never spoken to her about other violence while he had been in a relationship.
The witness said that she was aware that the Applicant had had a problem with heroin, but she did not know the year. They began a relationship not long after he was released from detention. She became aware of his drug use when they had to stay with a friend who was a drug user. This was in January or February 2022 that he again started using heroin. She said she was aware of his ongoing heroin use for a period of about two months leading up to his arrest[68].
[68] Transcript, p 90 line 39.
Her children could not stay there. She found out she was pregnant around then. There have been periods of time when her children have stayed with them. He was never affected by drugs when the children were around.
Her two older children aged 16 and 13 are back living with her as they were acting up living with their grandparents, who retain the younger two who are presently with her for holidays. N lives with her in Moorooka in a rental property. She is not presently employed.
She admitted being involved in some of his offences at Bunnings. They returned goods for money because they were in a hard spot. She was arrested and told the police that they had met at the Star casino.
She was referred to the Exhibit 10 page 838 et seq. where police spoke to her about the Bunnings offences. She was referred to the last paragraph and was shown footage before showing police the clothes she wore. She did not remember saying how they met to the police, but did not deny saying it.
The witness was asked about the AirTasker frauds, and if in October 2020, she was aware that her number was linked to the account he had set up. She said they were sharing a phone at the time as he had lost his.
By January 2021 he was using her Pay Id because he could not access his bank account. At the time of receipt of transfers she said she was not aware that he was defrauding people, and claimed he was doing the jobs requested.
The witness was referred to, but could not recall an incident at page 103 of Exhibit 10 on 1 February 2021 she took a motor bike part to someone’s home.
She said she had never used heroin. She completed community service after the Bunnings charges. She had no other criminal record. When she found out he was using heroin again they spoke about his getting help, but nothing came of that.
Re-examination
There was no re-examination.
Evidence of Mrs Yvonne Govender – Applicant’s mother[69]The witness gave evidence under affirmation and confirmed the veracity of her statements.
[69] Exhibit 4, pp 80-81; Exhibit 5, p 97.
The witness said that the Applicant told her he got into trouble over AirTasker fraud. She was not aware of his domestic violence order breaches. She was aware that he had used heroin since he was with his first wife. This was approximately six years ago, some time in 2017.
She first became aware that he was using drugs when he lost his business and things started going wrong at home, i.e. he and Ms Y were having problems.
The first time he got his visa back, her husband was not happy and it was hard for her to have the Applicant back at home. Her husband was not working together with her. She is still with her husband[70].
[70] Transcript, p 94, lines 15-23.
The witness expressly denied that she had family members in South Africa[71] and only one friend with whom she keeps in touch. She has not seen her friend in a long time. She could not ask her friend to assist as she had problems of her own.
[71] Transcript Day 2 p 94 line 27.
The witness was currently struggling with her health and cannot walk unassisted, and is facing a long recovery. Her husband is at home to help her. The Applicant will not be living with them if he is allowed to stay in Australia. After his previous release he did not stay very long. She thought it was a couple of weeks.
It was put to the witness that she did in fact have a relative in South Africa, namely another son who has been sent back to South Africa on Thursday 22 June 2023. She departed from her earlier evidence and agreed that she did in fact have another relation in the form of her son who is living in South Africa. She said that the Applicant does not get on with him[72].
[72] Transcript Day 2 p 95 lines 25-40.
If the Applicant is allowed to remain in Australia he will not be living with her and her husband.
Evidence of Dr Gavan Palk – Forensic Psychologist and barrister
Dr Palk verified his credentials and reports.
Dr Palk gave evidence that his practice was to take a history from his patients, and that would include a history of their childhood. When referred to paras 5.1-5.4 of his most recent report, he said this report was taken from the Applicant and his mother. Most of the information came from the applicant with clarification from the mother as necessary. In the initial report, lawyers were instructing him and he had all the relevant information.
He was aware from the Applicant of the facts that underpinned his DVOs but not detailed police facts. He was not made aware that the Applicant’s current partner had been a co-offender in relation to his recent offending. He spoke to the current partner and she made no mention of that[73].
[73] Transcript Day 2 p 99 lines 19-21.
Dr Palk was questioned in relation to the Applicant’s possible involvement with suboxone, and the following exchange occurred[74]:
“MR WEST: So if it was the case that the applicant had been involved in the movement of Suboxone around a detention centre, how might that impact your opinion on his risk of reoffending?
DR PALK: Is that a hypothetical or actually has he been?
MR WEST: Well, I’m just posing the situation to you, Doctor?
DR PALK: Well, I can’t really answer a hypothetical. I mean, obviously if he’s still involved actively in dealing in drugs of any kind, it’s going to increase his risk. I think I’ve already indicated that his risk is fairly high if he returns to use; he’s got quite a solid addiction.”
[Tribunal’s emphasis]
[74] Transcript Day 3 p 99 lines 39-47.
Dr Palk was questioned in relation to the Applicant’s risk of reoffending, and the following exchange occurred[75]:
“MR WEST: And, Doctor, just in terms of risk. I think your ultimate conclusion in your most recent report is that the applicant’s a low risk of reoffending, is that right?
DR PALK: Not in my most recent report. I think in my earlier report, in my 2018 or 2019 report, I was convinced that his offending was related to a strong heroin addiction, he was returning to his parents, he didn’t seem to have any other offending that wasn’t related to his addiction. He’d been in gaol and a detention centre for a while. He had made a number of attempts at rehab, but they weren’t really solid, in my view. I was confident back then, but in my second report I think – again, I’d have to let you control it and take me to my risk section on that – I think it was medium, I’d have to clarify that. And I said that I really sort of felt that he had a long term addiction problem, and he struggled with relapses.And he’s never had any lengthy term in a proper rehabilitation centre. I acknowledge he has been in gaol for a considerable time and in the detention centre. Not in any – yes, sorry, go on.
MR WEST: No, that’s fine, Dr Palk, just finish off what you were saying there?
DR PALK: Well, look, I was saying that my own belief that, for someone like him, that if he has any stress at all, he won’t cope very well unless he’s got strong protective factors.And I’m of the belief now, he would need to do a lengthy period in a reputable rehabilitation centre for at least, to me, a minimum of 12 months, even up to two years.”
[Tribunal’s emphasis]
[75] Transcript Day 3 p 100 lines 1-22.
Dr Palk was further questioned in relation to the Applicant’s prospects of remaining law abiding, and the following exchange occurred[76]:
[76] Transcript, p 100, lines 24 -41.
“MR WEST: So, Doctor, I might just take you to paragraph 7.2 of your most recent report, which is what I, sort of, took as your conclusion on the applicant’s risk of reoffending – 7.3, rather. And then ‑ ‑ ‑?
DR PALK Yes, I can see that.
MR WEST: Yes. And so there you say that in your view his prospects of remaining law abiding have again improved with reimprisonment and (indistinct) in detention and learning to live without heroin. And then you say:
If Mr Pillay can remain free of heroin, he is highly likely to become hard working again and refrain from illegal activities and hence, presents a low risk of re-offending.
?
DR PALK: Yes, I (indistinct) – yes, that is (indistinct), I (indistinct).
MR WEST: Yes, so ‑ ‑ ‑?
DR PALK: It’s qualified with no access to other drug uses and qualified – he’s got a proven history of hard working without drugs, I’m confident of that. But any temptation or contact with heroin, he becomes a high risk. He’ll relapse.”
[Tribunal’s emphasis]
He attributed his anti-social behaviour to his heroin use. There might be some underlying factor not related to drugs regarding his offending prior to his drug use.
The Tribunal questioned Dr Palk, and the following exchanges occurred[77]:
[77] Transcript, p 102, line 12-47, p 103, lines 1-13.
“MEMBER: Doctor, the applicant’s current partner was a co‑offender in relation to his most recent offending, which was very frequent over a short period of time. And she was aware that he was using heroin during that period of time. Now, if I understand your evidence correctly, you weren’t aware of either of those factors?
DR PALK: No. I wasn’t aware that she was an offender. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘an offender’, or do you mean she was aware that she was using, or that she was somehow using herself, or involved in using?
MEMBER: No, she was a co-offender in relation to his frauds and offences of dishonesty?
DR PALK: No, I wasn’t aware, no. No, (indistinct).
MEMBER: So she would have a – residing with her would have a diminished status as a protective factor then, wouldn’t it?
DR PALK: Yes. And I haven’t recommended that in the first instance. My own view from a clinical point of view is he needs to go into a long-term rehabilitation centre as a - as a protective factor. Look, I even made comments to him in relation to the fact that she’s got four children, she’s got some difficulties with the ex-partner, although having spoken to the mother - his mother, she regards her as a very kind and decent lady, but she may not be aware of his involvement in the co‑offending as well.
MEMBER: Yes. Very well. Just bear with me a moment, please. So, you say that - if I’ve recorded what you said correctly, you’ve said if he has any stress at all he will not cope very well unless he has strong protective factors in place, is that right?
DR PALK: Yes, yes. So, in my understanding, and he can correct me if I’m wrong, but when he was successful in his appeal against the revocation last time, he initially lived with his mother and stepfather, things were going well for a while, there was some - he was working, difficulties with tools, and he was borrowing tools from his father, his stepfather wasn’t happy about that. He’s then formed a relationship with his partner, the new partner, and then clarified from his former partner that it was over from her point of view. And then he’s moved in with her. Once his former partner became aware he’s formed another relationship she’d stopped him seeing his daughter and he’s become quite stressed. At some point there were homelessness difficulties, and they moved in with a - somebody who knew - who is a druggie, and he has then somehow come back into connection with the heroin and started using again. So, he had depression and stress from not seeing his daughter. And obviously, not having a licence, he wasn’t able to resume his locksmith work, and was using this other person to drive him to business, and his partner was also driving him at times.
MEMBER: So, doctor, that ongoing stress from an enforced separation from his daughter, that is a significant risk factor in your opinion?
APPLICANT: Yes, absolutely. I think any - I don’t think he copes with - I don’t think he’s got good resilience skills. I think his mum has tried to be as supportive as she possibly can, but she is now ill and has had to move to Mackay and is not able to survive - to provide the support that she would usually be able to.”
[Tribunal’s emphasis]
When asked by the Tribunal if he had anything else to say, Dr Palk replied[78]:
“No, I think I’ve already commented on it, but I had strongly recommended he needs long term rehabilitation in a reputable rehabilitation centre, and I have talked to him about that.”
[78] Transcript, p 103, lines 37-40.
Following Dr Palk’s evidence, the Tribunal questioned the Applicant in relation to his inconsistent statements and the following exchange occurred:
“MEMBER: Now, in prior submissions to the - to the department, you told the department that you were raised in a good and loving home, and you are now saying something different. Were you lying then or are you lying now?
APPLICANT: Sir, the first time when this was done, it was done through a lawyer, I had very, very minimal involvement with all this. This time I am actually fully involved in it, like ‑ ‑ ‑
MEMBER: You’re avoiding my question, were you lying then or are you lying now?
APPLICANT: Sir, I am definitely not lying now.
MEMBER: You were lying then, were you?
APPLICANT: Sir, I wasn’t even lying then. I didn’t talk to them about this.
MEMBER: So, you’ve made two contradictory positions to the department, and you weren’t lying on either occasion, is that correct?
APPLICANT: Sir, this is ‑ ‑ ‑
MEMBER: Is that correct?
APPLICANT: Sir, I should have been more involved in my case the first time as well. My family paid for a lawyer, and I had nothing to do with it, pretty much. I honestly had nothing to do with it, unlike this time.
MEMBER: So, you’re disowning what you said first time around to the department, is that correct?
APPLICANT: I am not disowning sir, I am just ‑ ‑ ‑
MEMBER: Well, you told me at the start of the hearing that everything submitted to the department on your behalf was true and correct?
APPLICANT: Sir, I should have been involved, I know my mistake, and I am sorry, I’m sorry I should have been involved in it. You know, I didn’t understand at that time, because I had that lawyer, I didn’t understand what was going on. And I just - everything was - they were doing everything for me, and I was literally not doing anything besides (indistinct words) in the centre. And this time I am actually involved in it, my rehabilitation, I am doing everything I can myself.
MEMBER: Is it fair to say that in recent years you’ve essentially been making a living out of being a credible liar?
APPLICANT: I made mistakes, I know.
MEMBER: Well, can you answer my question? Is it fair to say that in recent years you have essentially been making a living out of being a credible liar?
APPLICANT: Yes sir.”
Closing addresses

Once again, the Tribunal must consider the threshold question as to whether Ms Y was “a member of the person’s family” within the definition provided in the Direction.
Ms Y was the long term wife of the Applicant, and is the mother of his daughter Child E.
The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that she is a member of the Applicant’s family for the purposes of the definition of family violence provided in the Direction.
The Applicant was referred to a domestic violence incident involving what his wife Ms Y described as “extreme aggression” towards her on 16 April 2017.[128] There is evidence of this episode from an authoritative source, namely the Queensland Police Service[129] and the Applicant has been afforded procedural fairness in relation to this matter. He denied asking her for money, but said if he had it would only have been a small sum such as $10 or $20. He accused her of infidelity with his cousin, and claimed her unborn baby was his cousin’s and he had threatened to kill it. He was also reported as having said to his mother in respect of Ms Y while on the phone “I’ll finisher her.”[130] He denied storming into a bathroom, and smashing things in there, but conceded he may have slammed the door. He acknowledged he had accused her of sleeping with his cousin, and described the circumstances which led him to that suspicion. He denied having made a threat against their unborn child.
[128] Transcript, p 57, line 41; Exhibit 10, p 298.
[129] Exhibit 10, p 297
[130] Exhibit 10, p 298.
This incident clearly involved extreme aggression by the Applicant which threatened the health and wellbeing of both Ms Y and her unborn child. These threats, would have been bound to cause the seven and a half months pregnant Ms Y to be gravely fearful, and are within the definition of “family violence” provided in the Direction.
The Applicant was referred to a further domestic violence breach on 22 May 2016 when he attended at Ms Y’s residence, argued with her and pushed her, whereupon she called the police. He was convicted of a charge of contravention of a domestic violence order on 19 July 2018, and ordered to perform 100 hours of community service. Notwithstanding this conviction, before the Tribunal, the Applicant denied breaching the order, claiming the order had been varied, notwithstanding that no variation was entered in the police record.[131] There is clear evidence of assault in the form of a push in the police record, and the Tribunal infers from the fact that Ms Y saw fit to call police that she was fearful for her safety following the assault. The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that this episode constitutes family violence within the definition provided by the Direction.
[131] Transcript, p 60, lines 3-20.
The Applicant was referred to a further incident on 11 February 2018 which occurred whilst he and Ms Y were living together. He was convicted and sentenced to six months imprisonment on 5 December 2018.[132] He denied having threatened to kill her when told she was going back to South Africa.[133] He also denied damaging her chattels. Police records reported him as having said “you are not taking the baby, I will murder you.”[134] Such a threat would undoubtedly caused Ms Y to be terrified and fearful for her safety. The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that this episode constitutes family violence within the meaning of the definition provided by the Direction.
[132] Exhibit 3, p 37.
[133] Transcript Day 2 p 61 lines 5-42.
[134] Exhibit 10, p 186,
The Applicant had been the subject of domestic violence orders protecting two women. He has breached each of those orders on multiple occasions, committing six offences in three years.[135]
[135] Exhibit 3, p 38-39.
Having regard to para 8.2(3)(a) of the Direction, the Tribunal finds that the Applicant’s history of offending and perpetration of family violence was frequent.
Having regard to para 8.2(3)(b) of the Direction, the cumulative effect of the Applicant’s repeated acts of family violence is that those who had been granted the protection of the law were repeatedly and frequently deprived of it by his conduct, and subjected to violent and or threatening episodes which should never have occurred. The Tribunal infers that these episodes would have given rise to fear and trauma, in addition to any physical harm suffered.
Having regard to para 8.2(3)(b) of the Direction, the Tribunal finds that cumulative effect of the Applicant’s acts of violence caused physical pain and suffering, fear and trauma over a period of years for each of his victims.
Having regard to para 8.2(3)(c)(i) of the Direction, the Tribunal, up until the hearing, the Applicant denied that Ms X was a member of his family for the purposes of the Direction. He seemed to be in denial about the true nature of the relationship, asserting that she was never more than a friend, and had led him on. He denied conduct attributed to him in police reports, and his overall evidence does not persuade the Tribunal that he genuinely accepts responsibility for his conduct towards Ms X.
Having regard to para 8.2(3)(c)(ii) of the Direction, as noted above, the Applicant denied conduct attributed to him in police reports, and his overall evidence did not demonstrate to the Tribunal that he genuinely understands the impact of his behaviour on Ms X or her children.
Again with regard to para 8.2(3)(c)(i) of the Direction, the Applicant seemed to blame Ms Y’s drinking and suspected infidelity for the family violence between them, and denied much of the conduct alleged against him. The evidence before the Tribunal does not satisfy it that he genuinely accepts responsibility for his conduct towards Ms Y.
Having regard to para 8.2(3) (c)(ii) of the Direction, the evidence before the Tribunal does not satisfy it that he genuinely understands the impact of his behaviour on Ms Y.
Having regard to para 8.2(3) (c)(iii) The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has taken steps to rehabilitate himself in respect of his family violence issues, and it is true that he has been in his current relationship for about three and a half years, and there have been no reported episodes of family violence, which is a positive sign. There is however no expert evidence before the Tribunal so as to allow it to gauge the extent to which he has successfully rehabilitated himself in this regard.
A consideration of paras 8.2(3)(c)(i) and (ii) of the Direction weigh heavily against revocation. A consideration of para 8.2(3)(c) of the Direction weigh moderately in favour of revocation.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal so as to enliven consideration of para 8.2(3)(d) of the Direction.
The Tribunal concludes that overall consideration of Primary Consideration 8.2 should weigh heavily against revocation of the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 2
Primary Consideration 2 weighs heavily against revocation of the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 3 THE STRENGTH, NATURE AND DURATION OF TIES TO AUSTRALIA.
Paragraph 8.3(1) of the Direction requires consideration of 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.
Paragraph 8.3(2) of the Direction requires consideration of a non-citizen’s ties to Australia. More weight should be given to a non-citizen’s ties to his or her child and/or children who are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
Paragraph 8.3(3) requires consideration of the non-citizen’s strength duration and nature of any family or social links generally with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
Paragraph 8.3(4) requires consideration of the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the non-citizen has to the Australian community. In doing so, decision makers must have regard to:
(a)The length of time the non-citizen has resided in the Australian community, noting that:
(i)     considerable weight should be given to the fact that a non-citizen has been ordinarily resident in Australia during and since their formative years, regardless of then their offending commenced and the level of that offending; and
(ii)    more weight should be given to the time the non-citizen has resided in Australia where the non-citizen has contributed positively to the Australian community during that time; and
(iii)   less weight should be given to the length of time spent in the Australian community where the non-resident was not ordinarily in Australia during their formative years and the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia.
Consideration of paragraph 8.3 Strength, nature and duration of ties
The Applicant first came to Australia at the age of 22 in 2008. He returned to his ex-wife in South Africa from 29 December 2008 until 23 January 2009. He returned to visit her again from 27 August 2010 until 27 February 2011. He returned to South Africa again from 16 November 2012 until 2 December 2012 for about a fortnight, and has remained in Australia since.
The Tribunal accepts that apart from his brother who recently returned to South Africa following the cancellation of his visa, all of his close relatives reside in Australia as citizens. He has two biological children, four step-children, his mother, step-father, sister and partner, Ms Z as well as aunties and cousins. They will all face emotional hardship to varying degrees if the Applicant is forced to return to South Africa.
The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant’s deportation will impact heavily on his mother, who has recently suffered the grief of seeing her other son depart following his visa cancellation. She is not in good health, and his deportation will undoubtedly add to her woes.
The Applicant’s deportation will place a heavy ongoing burden on Ms Z, as she will be deprived of emotional, co-parental and possibly financial support to raise her own children as well as the Applicant’s daughter N.. The Tribunal also accepts that Ms Z struggles with mental health issues of her own. She presently depends on her four children’s grandparents to help shoulder the load of raising them.
The Tribunal accepts that the Applicant has played some positive role in relation to his step-children, when he has been at liberty, and the Tribunal accepts that this may well impact adversely on them in some way, however the evidence is not sufficient to go beyond this general observation.
The Applicant has played no meaningful role in the life of his daughter Child E for a number of years, and appears to be reconciled to that circumstance. The Tribunal has very little evidence before it regarding her present circumstances other than that she is residing with her mother, and remains in touch with the Applicant’s mother and aunties. The Applicant’s deportation will render it difficult for her to re-establish contact with him later in life should she wish to do so, but not necessarily impossible, as she may be able to do so via the Applicant’s mother or aunts.
The Applicant’s child N will be heavily impacted by his deportation. Nevertheless it must be accepted that she has had very limited meaningful with the Applicant during her short life. Physical contact with him will most likely cease, and she will be deprived of the emotional and possibly financial support ordinarily provided by a father. It can be anticipated that Ms Z will not obstruct video link contact between Child N and the Applicant.
Both of the Applicant’s daughters may suffer psychological harm through their enforced separation from their father, and it may be that Child E has already done so.
Conclusion Paragraph 8.3(1)
The Tribunal accepts that a decision adverse to the Applicant will have an enduring adverse effect on his family members who are citizens of, or have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely, and this weighs heavily in favour of revocation.
Conclusion Paragraph 8.3(2)
The Tribunal is mindful of the requirement in paragraph 8.3(2) that it should give more weight to the Applicant’s ties to his children in considering his ties to Australia, and does so.
The Applicant’s drug related offending and consequent incarceration and detention have resulted in his having no meaningful role in the lives of his own biological children, and limited the role he has played in that of his step-children.
However general life experience is that generally speaking no child wishes for an enforced separation from a father figure.
Consideration of para 8.3(2) of the Direction therefore weighs heavily in favour of revocation.
Conclusion Paragraph 8.3(3) Family Or Social Links
The Tribunal accepts that after more than ten years living in Australia, apart from his brother, the entirety of the Applicant’s family and social links are in Australia and with those entitled to remain here indefinitely. Having said that, it must be observed that there is little evidence of impact in relation to the Applicant’s broader family and social links.
Consideration of para 8.3(3) of the Direction Nevertheless, the Applicant’s family or social links to Australia weigh in favour of revocation.
Consideration Of Paragraph 8.3(4)
The Tribunal considers that para 8.3(4)(a)(i) of the Direction does not apply in this case as the Applicant did not spend his formative years in Australia, and commenced offending in 2012, which the Tribunal regards as relatively soon after his arrival.
The Tribunal considers in terms of para 8.3(4)(a)(ii) of the Direction that the Applicant has contributed positively to the Australian community to some degree through his work as a locksmith, although evidence on this is sparse. However, the weight which might otherwise be attributed to this consideration is diminished by reason of the heavy burden he has placed on the Australian community through the costs of policing and judicial administration which he has caused.
Having regard to para 8.3(4)(a)(iii) of the Direction, less weight is given to the length of time the Applicant has spent in Australia because he was not ordinarily resident in Australia during his formative years, and began offending soon after his arrival.
Conclusion Primary Consideration 3
In making its assessment of the strength nature and duration of the Applicant’s ties to Australia, in accordance with paragraph 8.3(2) of the Direction, the Tribunal gives very strong weight to the impact that the Applicant’s removal from Australia would have on his two children and his step-children.
The Tribunal considers that Primary Consideration 3 weighs heavily in favour of the revocation of the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 4: THE BEST INTERESTS OF MINOR CHILDREN IN AUSTRALIA
Paragraph 8.4(1) of the Direction compels a decision-maker to make a determination about whether cancellation or refusal under s 501, or non-revocation under s 501CA, is in the best interests of a child affected by the decision. Paragraphs 8.4(2) and 8.4(3) respectively contain further stipulations. The former provides that for their interests to be considered, the relevant child (or children) must be under 18 years of age at the time when a decision about whether or not to refuse or cancel the visa or not to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision is being made. The latter provides that if there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests may differ.
Paragraph 8.4(4) of the Direction provides a list of factors to be considered in determining the best interests of the minor children. Those factors relevantly comprise for present purposes:
(a)the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the non-citizen. Less weight should generally be given where the relationship is non-parental, and/or there is no existing relationship and/or there have been long periods of absence, or limited meaningful contact (including whether an existing Court order restricts contact);
(b)the extent to which the non-citizen is likely to play a positive parental role in the future, taking into account the length of time until the child turns 18, and including any Court orders relating to parental access and care arrangements;
(c)the impact of the non-citizen’s prior conduct, and any likely future conduct, and whether that conduct has, or will have a negative impact on the child;
(d)the likely effect that any separation from the non-citizen would have on the child, taking into account the child’s or non-citizen’s ability to maintain contact in other ways;
(e)whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child;
(f)any known views of the child (with those views being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child);
(g)evidence that the child has been, or is at risk of being, subject to, or exposed to, family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen, or has otherwise been abused or neglected by the non-citizen in any way, whether physically, sexually or mentally;
(h)evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen’s conduct.
There are six children who will be under 18 years of age at the time of this decision. Two are the biological children of the Applicant by different mothers, and four are his step-children. Of great concern to the Tribunal in relation to all of the children is that the Applicant has admitted to having been in the presence of children whilst under the influence of heroin, and the Tribunal is fearful that should he relapse, he may do so in the future.
The circumstances of the Applicant’s biological children requires that they be considered separately.
The Tribunal deals firstly with the Child E.
Having regard to para 8.4(4)(a) of the Direction, the Child E was born in 2017. She resides with, and is cared for by her mother, whose role as a parent was not the subject of criticism before the Tribunal. There does not appear to be any meaningful existing relationship between Child E and the Applicant, and it is years since he has seen or spoken to her.
Having regard to para 8.4(4)(b) of the Direction, it is clear that Child E’s mother is preventing contact between her and the Applicant, and the Applicant appears to be reconciled to this. Given this circumstance, the prospect of the Applicant playing a positive parental role, (or indeed any role) over the next 12 years presently seems minimal.
Having regard to para 8.4(4)(c) of the Direction, there is no clear evidence that the Applicant’s past conduct has impacted specifically on Child E other than that it has resulted in her being isolated from him by her mother. Any negative impact of the Applicant’s future conduct on her is an unknown owing to this circumstance and the uncertainty of his abstinence from heroin.
Having regard to para 8.4(4)(d) of the Direction, there is presently no contact between Child E and the Applicant, and she has been separated from him for some years. Separation from her father may well lead to psychological or emotional issues later in life.
Having regard to para 8.4(4)(e) of the Direction, as best as the Tribunal can ascertain, Child E’s mother is fulfilling the parental role for her.
Having regard to para 8.4(4)(f) of the Direction, the views of the child are not known.
Having regard to para 8.4(4)(g) of the Direction, whilst there is evidence of a threat against the child’s life having been made by the Applicant before she was born, there is no clear evidence so as to attract further consideration of this subparagraph.
Having regard to para 8.4(4)(h) of the Direction, there is no clear evidence that Child E has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the Applicant’s conduct.

Having regard to the foregoing factors, and the Applicant’s very high risk of relapsing and re-offending, the Tribunal finds that revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa is not in the best interest of Child E.
The Tribunal now turns to the Child N.
Having regard to para 8.4(4)(a) of the Direction, the Child N was born in 2022 while the Applicant was incarcerated. She resides with, and is cared for by her mother, Ms Z. Contact between the Applicant and this child has been very limited, and they have never resided under the same roof.
Having regard to para 8.4(4)(b) of the Direction, the extent to which the Applicant is likely to play a positive parental role appears to hinge entirely on his capacity to abstain from drugs. The Tribunal considers that there is little prospect of this, and the Tribunal does not consider that there is little prospect of the Applicant playing a positive parental role over the next seventeen years.
Having regard to para 8.4(4)(c) of the Direction, there is no evidence of any past conduct of the Applicant impacting on Child N other than that it has isolated her from him in consequence of his incarceration and detention. Any impact of the Applicant’s future conduct on Child N once again would hinge entirely on his capacity to abstain from drugs. The Tribunal considers that there is a real risk that the Applicant’s future conduct may include being with Child N while under the influence of drugs.
Having regard to para 8.4(4)(d) of the Direction, Child N’s future contact with the Applicant would almost certainly be confined to video-link if he is to be deported. Enforced physical separation from her father may well lead to psychological or emotional issues later in life.
Having regard to para 8.4(4)(e) of the Direction, it is accepted that the Applicant’s partner Z is fulfilling the parental role for the child.
Having regard to para 8.4(4)(f) of the Direction, the views of the child are not known.
Having regard to para 8.4(4)(g) of the Direction, there is no evidence of relevant conduct by the Applicant.
Having regard to para 8.4(4)(h) of the Direction, there is no evidence of relevant conduct by the Applicant.
Having regard to the foregoing factors, and the Applicant’s very high risk of relapsing and re-offending, the Tribunal finds that revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa is not in the best interest of Child N.
The Tribunal now turns to consider the Applicant’s step children, who are aged 16, 13, 11, and 7.
Having regard to para 8.4(4)(a) of the Direction, the Applicant has been in the role of step-father to the children since about March 2020, a period of about 37 months during which he has been substantially absent from their lives for about fourteen months owing to his incarceration and detention.
Having regard to para 8.4(4)(b) of the Direction, the extent to which the Applicant is likely to play a positive parental role in their lives appears to hinge entirely on his capacity to abstain from drugs. The Tribunal has already noted that it considers that there is little prospect of this.
Having regard to para 8.4(4)(c) of the Direction, the Applicant said in evidence that he had been in the presence of the children whilst under the influence of heroin, and the Tribunal is very concerned that this conduct may be repeated in the future. There is no evidence as to what impact if any such conduct has had or may have on the children.
Having regard to para 8.4(4)(d) of the Direction, the Tribunal accepts that separation from the Applicant will deprive the children of physical contact and such financial, practical and emotional support as he may have given them. It will nevertheless be open to them to maintain contact via use of video link should they so choose.
Having regard to para 8.4(4)(e) of the Direction, it is accepted that the Applicant’s partner Ms Z is fulfilling the parental role for the children, with some assistance from their grandparents.
Having regard to para 8.4(4)(f) of the Direction, the views of the children are not known.
Having regard to para 8.4(4)(g) of the Direction, there is no relevant evidence before the Tribunal.
Having regard to para 8.4(4)(h) of the Direction, there is no relevant evidence before the Tribunal.
Having regard to the foregoing factors, and the Applicant’s very high risk of relapsing and re-offending, the Tribunal finds that revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa is not in the best interest of his step-children.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 4
For the purposes of Primary Consideration 4, the best interests of the relevant minor children weighs heavily against revocation.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 5: THE EXPECTATIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY
The relevant paragraphs in the Direction
In making the assessment for weight to be allocated to Primary Consideration 5, paragraph 8.5(1) of the Direction provides that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that he may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia.
Paragraph 8.5(2) of the Direction directs that a visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences are such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa. In particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, of the following kind:
(a)acts of family violence; or
(b)causing a person to enter into, or being party to (other than being a victim of), a forced marriage;
(c)commission of serious crimes against women, children or other vulnerable members of the community such as the elderly or disabled; in this context, ‘serious crimes’ include crimes of a violent or sexual nature, as well as other serious crimes against the elderly or other vulnerable persons in the form of fraud, extortion, financial abuse/material exploitation or neglect;
(d)commission of crimes against government representatives or officials due to the possession they hold, or in the performance of their duties; or
(e)involvement or reasonably suspected involvement in human trafficking or people smuggling, or in crimes that are of serious international concern including, but not limited to, war crimes, crimes against humanity and slavery; or
(f)worker exploitation.
Paragraph 8.5(3) of the Direction provides that the above expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
Paragraph 8.5(4) of the Direction provides guidance on how the expectations of the Australian community are to be determined. This paragraph states:
This consideration is about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole, and in this respect, decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government’s views as articulated above, without independently assessing the community’s expectations in the particular case.
Paragraph 8.5(4) is consistent with the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185 at [68] (“FYBR”) which affirmed the approach established in previous authorities that it is not for the Tribunal to determine for itself the expectations of the Australian community by reference to an Applicant’s circumstances or evidence about those expectations. The Tribunal is to be guided by the Government’s views as to the expectations of the Australian community, which are to be found in the Direction.[136]
[136] See Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 348; Afu v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1311; YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466 and FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 500.
Analysis – Allocation of Weight to this Primary Consideration 5
This Applicant has committed numerous acts of family violence. He has also committed serious crimes against women, including a significant fraud against a very elderly woman.
The Applicant has clearly failed to meet the expectations of the Australian community, and the Tribunal is satisfied that there is a high risk that he will offend again.
The Tribunal considers that this case does not attract the higher level of tolerance offered by para 5.2(5) of the Direction.
Having regard to paragraphs 8.5(2), (3) and (4) of the Direction, the Tribunal considers that the nature of the Applicant’s offending is such that the Australian community would expect that his visa remain cancelled.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 5
Accordingly, Primary Consideration 5 weighs very heavily against revocation of the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
PARAGRAPH 9: OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Under the heading Other Considerations paragraph 9(1) of the Direction provides a non-exhaustive list of considerations as follows:
(a)Legal consequences of the decision;
(b)Extent of impediments if removed;
(c)Impact on victims;
(d)Impact on Australian business interests.
(a) Legal consequences of the decision
The Applicant does not make any claims with respect to Australia’s non-refoulement obligations, and none arise on the evidence.
The Applicant has contended that this consideration weighs in favour of revocation because the Applicant will not be able to apply for another visa[137]. Whilst this submission is factually correct, it is in essence a complaint about the operation and effect of the Act as provided by the Parliament, and the Applicant has neither asserted nor demonstrated that the Act will impact on him in any way differently from others in a similar position.
[137] Exhibit 1, p 31, [98].
In addition, the Applicant submitted that a consequence of this decision is that he will remain an unlawful non-citizen and must be removed from Australia and that he would be held in immigration detention.[138] Beyond this submission, there is no further evidence before the Tribunal suggestive of the Applicant being subject to prolonged or indefinite detention as a result of an adverse decision.
[138] Exhibit 1, p 31, [95].
This Other Consideration 9(1)(a) is given neutral weight.
(b) Extent of Impediments if Removed
Paragraph 9.2(1) of the Direction directs a decision-maker to take into account the extent of any impediments that the non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account:
(a)the non-citizen’s age and health;
(b)whether there are any substantial language or cultural barriers; and
(c)any social, medical and/or economic support available to that non-citizen in that country.
Paragraph 9.2(1)(a) - Age and health
The Applicant is a 37 year old drug addicted man. He is young enough to work, and has no diagnosed medical or psychological conditions, which should impair his capacity for gainful employment.
He says he takes mirtazapine, an anti-depressant for a “serious anxiety disorder.” There is no reason to believe that this medication is not available in South Africa. The Tribunal accepts that the relocation process will be accompanied by significant emotional strain for him which may lead him to relapse, and it would be wise for him to seek appropriate medical advice immediately upon his return to minimise his risks of relapsing into drug use.
The Applicant has a strong work history, and is a locksmith by trade. He has previously worked as such in South Africa, and there does not appear to be any reason why he should not be able to resume doing so, if he abstains from drugs, as it appears that he has no police record there.
Whilst the Applicant’s age does not weigh against revocation, his state of addiction does weigh moderately in favour of revocation.
For the purposes of para 9.2(1)(a) the Tribunal finds that the impediments to the Applicant’s return to South Africa weigh slightly in favour of revocation of the mandatory cancellation of his visa.
Paragraph 9.2 (1)(b) Substantial language or cultural barriers
The Applicant speaks Zulu and Afrikaans, and has spent a large part of his life in South Africa, and there is no evidence that he suffered language or cultural barriers when there previously.
For the purposes of para 9.2(1)(b) the Tribunal does not consider that he will encounter any substantial or cultural barriers should he be returned there and this consideration is therefore given neutral weight.
Paragraph 9.2(1)(c) - any social, medical and/or economic support available to that non-citizen in that country
In South Africa, the Applicant will have the same access to social medical and economic support as any other citizen.
Accordingly, this consideration is given neutral weight.
Conclusion Paragraph 9.2 Extent Of Impediments If Removed
Having regard to the factors in Paragraph 9.2(1) of the Direction, the Tribunal finds that overall this consideration weighs slightly in favour of revocation of the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
(c) Impact on victims
Paragraph 9.3(1) states that decision-makers must consider the impact of the s 501 or 501CA decision on members of the Australian community, including victims of the non-citizen’s criminal behaviour, and the family members of the victim or victims, where information in this regard is available and the non-citizen being considered for visa refusal or cancellation, or who has sought revocation of the mandatory cancellation of their visa, has been afforded procedural fairness.
The only evidence before the Tribunal from any of his victims is a four year old unsigned statement neither sworn nor declared which purports to be from his ex-wife Ms Y. There appears to have been a substantial shift in the relationship between Ms Y and the Applicant since the date of the statement, and the Tribunal is not satisfied that the statement reflects her current views, if indeed it ever did.
In the circumstances, the Tribunal gives this Other Consideration 9.3 neutral weight.
(d) Impact on Australian Business interests
Paragraph 9.4(1) of the Direction requires that decision makers, must consider any impact on Australian business interests if the non-citizen is not allowed to enter or remain in Australia, noting that an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision under section 501 or 501CA would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the Applicant’s deportation will, by itself, impact on Australian business interests in the manner contemplated by Direction 99, i.e. that the decision would “significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.”
This Other Consideration 9.4 is therefore given neutral weight.
Conclusion As To Paragraph 9: Other Considerations
An overall consideration of Paragraph 9: Other considerations, as well as the additional other consideration raised by the Applicant weighs slightly in favour of revocation of the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
CONCLUSION
The Tribunal is now required to weigh all of the Considerations in accordance with the Direction.
In considering whether there is another reason to exercise the discretion afforded by s501CA(4) of the Act to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation decision, The Tribunal finds as follows:
·Primary Consideration 1 weighs very heavily against revocation;
·Primary Consideration 2 weighs heavily against revocation.
·Primary Consideration 3 weighs heavily in favour of revocation;
·Primary Consideration 4 weighs heavily against revocation;
·Primary Consideration 5 weighs very heavily against revocation;
·The totality of other considerations weigh slightly in favour of revocation.
Application of the Direction therefore weighs against revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
The Tribunal is therefore not prepared to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
DECISION
Pursuant to section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), the Tribunal affirms the decision made by the delegate of the Respondent dated 20 April 2023 not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.

I certify that the preceding 419 (four hundred and nineteen) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member R Maguire

....................................[SGD]...............................
Associate
Dated: 2 August 2023

Dates of hearing: 27, 28 June and 3 July 2023

Applicant: Self-represented

Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr Chris West (Solicitor)

Sparke Helmore
ANNEXURE A

EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE PARTY DATE OF DOCUMENT DATE RECEIVED

1 Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions
(paged 1-36) A Undated 31 May 2023

2 Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions
(paged 1-22) R 14 Jun 2023 16 June 2023

3 Section 501 G-Documents
(G1-G24, paged 1-130) R Various 5 May 2023

4 Supplementary G-Documents
(SG1-SG21, paged 1-129) R Various 16 Jun 2023

5 Applicant’s Bundle of Evidence
(paged 1-134) A Various 30 May 2023

6 Country Information
(335 pages) A Various 30 May 2023

7 Impact of Domestic Violence and Maltreatment of Children
(paged 1-171) A Undated 30 May 2023

8 Statement of the Applicant
(21 pages) A 30 May 2023 30 May 2023

9 Statutory Declaration of Slavica Budulica
(paged 1-4) A 19 May 2023 30 May 2023

10 Summons Bundle
(paged 1-862) R Various 19 Jun 2023

11 Statutory Declaration of Ms Z
(4 pages) A Various 16 Jun 2023

12 Video of [Child E]
(7 seconds in length) A Undated 19 Jun 2023

13 Video of [Child E]
(10 seconds in length) A Undated 19 Jun 2023

14 Further Evidence of Course completion
(paged 1-45) A Various 19 Jun 2023

15 Report of Dr Gavan Palk
(paged 1-19) A Various 19 Jun 2023

16 Combined Additional Material
(20 pages) A Various 22 Jun 2023

[2023] AATA 2318

14 July 2023

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction

Natural Justice

Dates of hearing:	27, 28 June and 3 July 2023
Applicant:	Self-represented
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Mr Chris West (Solicitor)
Sparke Helmore

EXHIBIT	DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE	PARTY	DATE OF DOCUMENT	DATE RECEIVED
1	Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (paged 1-36)	A	Undated	31 May 2023
2	Respondent’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (paged 1-22)	R	14 Jun 2023	16 June 2023
3	Section 501 G-Documents (G1-G24, paged 1-130)	R	Various	5 May 2023
4	Supplementary G-Documents (SG1-SG21, paged 1-129)	R	Various	16 Jun 2023
5	Applicant’s Bundle of Evidence (paged 1-134)	A	Various	30 May 2023
6	Country Information (335 pages)	A	Various	30 May 2023
7	Impact of Domestic Violence and Maltreatment of Children (paged 1-171)	A	Undated	30 May 2023
8	Statement of the Applicant (21 pages)	A	30 May 2023	30 May 2023
9	Statutory Declaration of Slavica Budulica (paged 1-4)	A	19 May 2023	30 May 2023
10	Summons Bundle (paged 1-862)	R	Various	19 Jun 2023
11	Statutory Declaration of Ms Z (4 pages)	A	Various	16 Jun 2023
12	Video of [Child E] (7 seconds in length)	A	Undated	19 Jun 2023
13	Video of [Child E] (10 seconds in length)	A	Undated	19 Jun 2023
14	Further Evidence of Course completion (paged 1-45)	A	Various	19 Jun 2023
15	Report of Dr Gavan Palk (paged 1-19)	A	Various	19 Jun 2023
16	Combined Additional Material (20 pages)	A	Various	22 Jun 2023