QKDV and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)
[2022] AATA 1324
•19 May 2022
QKDV and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Migration) [2022] AATA 1324 (19 May 2022)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2022/1538
Re:QKDV
APPLICANT
AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
RESPONDENT
DECISION
Tribunal:Mr S Evans, Member
Date:19 May 2022
Place:Sydney
The Tribunal decides that the decision under review, being the decision of a delegate of the Minister dated 24 February 2022 not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa is affirmed.
..............................[SGD]......................................
Mr S Evans, Member
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – sections 501 and 501CA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) – cancellation not revoked under subsection 501CA(4) – where the applicant has a substantial criminal record – where the applicant does not pass the character test – whether there is another reason why the visa cancellation should be revoked – Ministerial Direction No. 90 – primary and other considerations considered – Applicant’s criminal history and background considered – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
CASES
Apire and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] AATA 193
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185
Wang and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] AATA 89
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Direction No. 90 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA
REASONS FOR DECISION
19 May 2022
Mr S Evans, Member
The Applicant, QKDV, seeks review of a decision of a delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (the Minister) dated 24 February 2022 not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his visa.
The Applicant is a 34-year-old citizen of New Zealand who immigrated to Australia aged seven in March 1995. The Applicant, who has a lengthy criminal history, was convicted of a series of offences in the Liverpool Local Court on 5 November 2020 for which he received an aggregate term of imprisonment of 30 months with a non-parole period of 20 months. On appeal the New South Wales District Court reduced the Applicant’s sentence to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 24 months with a non-parole period of 12 months.
On 11 March 2021 the Applicant was given notice that his visa had been cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). Cancellation of the Applicant’s Class TY Subclass 444 Special Category (Temporary) visa (the visa) was mandatory as he had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than 12 months in respect to the offending for which he was sentenced on 5 November 2020. The Applicant was also serving a sentence of imprisonment on a full-time basis in a custodial institution.
On 26 March 2021 the Applicant requested revocation of the cancellation of the visa and made representations in support of his request. On 24 February 2022, a delegate of the Minister decided under s501CA(4) of the Act not to revoke the cancellation decision.
On 25 February 2022 the Applicant applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) for review of the delegate’s decision.
ISSUE TO BE DETERMINED
The issue for the Tribunal to consider is whether to revoke the original decision to cancel the Applicant’s visa pursuant to subsection 501CA(4) the Act.
The Tribunal may revoke the original decision if the Tribunal is satisfied:
(a)that the Applicant passes the character test as defined by paragraph 501(6)(a) and subsection 501(7) of the Act; or
(b)that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked: paragraph 501CA(4)(b).
It is agreed by both parties, and the Tribunal is satisfied, that the Applicant does not pass the character test as he has a ‘substantial criminal record’ as defined by the Act. Therefore, the only relevant issue is whether there is another reason to revoke the original cancellation decision.
RELEVANT LAW AND MINISTERIAL DIRECTION NO. 90
Section 501CA of the Act applies where the Minister makes a decision under subparagraph 501(3A)(a)(i) to cancel a visa that has been granted to a person.
Subsection 501(3A) of the Act requires the Minister to cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test due to the operation of subsections 501(6) and 501(7).
Paragraph 501(6)(a) of the Act provides that a person does not pass the ‘character test’ if the person has a ‘substantial criminal record’. Paragraph 501(7)(c) provides that a person has a substantial criminal record if the person has been sentenced to a term of 12 months imprisonment or more.
The Minister may revoke the original cancellation decision pursuant to subsection 501CA(4) of the Act which provides that:
(4) The Minister may revoke the original decision if:
(a) the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation; and
(b) the Minister is satisfied:
(i) that the person passes the character test (as defined by section 501); or
(ii) that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.
Paragraph 500(1)(ba) of the Act provides the Tribunal with the power to review decisions of a delegate of the Minister under subsection 501CA(4) not to revoke a decision to cancel a visa.
The Minister has made written directions under section 499 of the Act which apply to decision-makers in the exercise of power under subsection 501CA(4). The relevant direction is Direction no. 90 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (the Direction or Direction 90).
Paragraph 5.2 of Direction 90 provides principles which I have considered when reviewing the Applicant’s application. It relevantly provides:
(1) Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia's law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
(2) Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.
(3) The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
(4) Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other noncitizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time. However, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by noncitizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.
(5) Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation. In particular, the inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence and the other types of conduct or suspected conduct mentioned in paragraph 8.4(2) (Expectations of the Australian Community) is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient in some circumstances, even if the non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
Part 2 of the Direction identifies the considerations the Tribunal must have regard to when determining whether to exercise the discretion to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a visa. The primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations, and one or more considerations may outweigh other considerations. However, other considerations should not be considered secondary considerations as, in certain circumstances, other considerations may outweigh primary considerations.
The primary considerations in the Direction are:
(1) protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(2) family violence committed by the non-citizen;
(3) best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision; and
(4) expectations of the Australian Community.
The other considerations set out in Direction 90 which must be taken into account where relevant include but are not limited to:
a)international non-refoulement obligations;
b)extent of impediments if removed;
c)impact on victims; and
d)links to the Australian community.
EVIDENCE AND FACTS
The Applicant’s children and former partner
In October 2019[1] the Applicant met PA. They have two children together. Their daughter, TA, was born in June 2020. Their son, VA, was born in May 2021.
[1] G-Documents, G2 at 28.
PA did not provide evidence at the hearing, but she has previously submitted written references in support of the Applicant as part of his initial revocation request. On 19 March 2021, PA wrote that she was at that time 20 years of age and had instantly fallen in love with the Applicant when they met. She acknowledged that she and the Applicant had a ‘rocky’ start to their relationship as both were using drugs. Four weeks after meeting the Applicant, PA became pregnant with TA.
TA was born prematurely. PA writes that TA’s premature birth ‘took a toll’ on both her and the Applicant, but that the Applicant had been ‘an amazing father’ since the birth of their daughter. She writes that the Applicant’s removal would be ‘traumatic’ for her mental health and have a ‘severe emotional impact’ on her and the Applicant’s family.
PA gave birth to the Applicant’s second child, VA, in May 2021. In correspondence to the Minister dated 31 May 2021, PA outlines the medical needs of their son, who was diagnosed with haemophilia.
This has had a really bad impact and a lot of pressure on me to cope as a person and young mother. Knowing I’ll be in and out of hospital for the rest of my life for my son is stressful and concerning. If his father were to be deported we will not be able to relocate to a whole different country. We will not be entitled to the treatment and facilities for [VA] if he were to have an accident and bleed.
Being a mother to two babies has been complicated, I’m only able to give attention to 1 child at a time. My children need both parents, I know this because growing up I needed my mum and dad but I wasn’t unable to have both especially when I really needed them. [TA] has been having a really bad time adjusting, having no one to cater to her while I’m with her little brother is showing in behavior I’ve not seen before.
I’m very upset, hurt and struggling with my emotions. I never planned to have children with someone who would go to jail and then their visa be cancelled. It has put me in a serious situation to make hard decisions for myself and for my children. It also has left me lost, confused and life on pause. I need [the Applicant] to remain in Australia to support me and the children with all their needs.
[Errors in original]
In his evidence the Applicant acknowledged that he and PA are no longer in a relationship. In a statutory declaration dated 21 April 2022 the Applicant writes that following a period of stability he and PA started to disagree and argue in early 2022. The Applicant believes that being apart from PA has been difficult for her and she has struggled to cope, particularly following the birth of their son. These pressures, along with his continued drug use, have been detrimental to PA’s mental health.
At the time of the hearing VA was with PA’s mother and TA was with her mother in Queensland. The Applicant was told that PA had travelled to Queensland to do some work on herself and that she plans to return to Sydney. He did not know precisely when she would return but he expected it would be within a week.
Report of Dr Emily Kwok
Dr Emily Kwok is a clinical and forensic psychologist who has provided a report on the Applicant which is based on a review of the documentation regarding the Applicant’s appeal and a 90 minute interview which was conducted on 22 March 2022.
Dr Kwok writes that the Applicant became emotional when he spoke about his childhood experience of school bullying and about his children. She took a background history of the Applicant which included that he was born in Auckland, New Zealand and was the middle child of three children in his family. He reported that his mother was always supportive but used to be a heavy drinker, having stopped drinking about ten years ago. He says his mother was always sad and depressed due to financial hardship and being a single parent.
The Applicant told Dr Kwok that in 1995 his mother brought him and his younger brother to Australia for a fresh start following her separation from his stepfather. He said he was bullied at school and described his first year at school as being ‘pretty tough’.
The Applicant attended three different schools because he was suspended for fighting. Upon leaving school the Applicant commenced apprenticeships in mechanics and panel beating but completed neither. He worked at a factory with his uncle for about five years before working as a form worker with his uncles. He said he was functional at work and he reported consistent employment except when his employment was disrupted by his offending or being in prison.
The Applicant reported smoking marijuana at age 16 and using cocaine and ecstasy shortly after. He continued to use marijuana almost daily and cocaine on the weekends. At age 24, he reportedly swapped cocaine for crystal methamphetamine and has battled addiction to methamphetamine (ice) ever since.
For the first six months the Applicant used ice once a week, after which his use increased to multiple times each week. He claims his family did not know about his drug addiction because he smoked in his room or in his car. At around age 30 he was hospitalised because of his drug abuse. The Applicant reported that his most problematic period of drug use was in 2015 when he used ice and marijuana to numb his emotional pain following the breakup of a relationship.
Dr Kwok records that the Applicant was assessed by a psychologist for legal purposes in 2013 but not informed of the findings of this assessment. The Applicant says he has never attended psychological treatment nor was he aware of any diagnosis about his mental health. However, he acknowledged that he has difficulty managing anger which is exacerbated by drug use.
The Applicant indicated in his personal circumstances form that he has post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) which on occasion causes him to make rash decisions. He also reports being sexually assaulted when he was ten or eleven years old. There is very little information regarding his PTSD or the sexual assault before the Tribunal.
Further references
NS
NS is the Applicant’s mother. In a statement dated 18 April 2022 she writes that she has three children, with the Applicant being the middle child. She writes that the Applicant was born in New Zealand and after his father left her when the Applicant was four years, old she began another relationship and had another son. She and her children immigrated from New Zealand to Australia in 1995.
She is an Australian citizen and single mother who worked in aged care. She writes that the Applicant was a good boy as a child but after an incident where he ran away from home when he was 14-years-old she sent him to live with her brother in New Zealand for a month to ‘teach him a lesson’.
She writes that in relation to the Applicant’s children, they lived with her for about two weeks in February and had previously looked after the Applicant’s daughter, TA. She said that she occasionally looks after TA, but not VA owing to his medical needs.
She confirmed that PA had told her previously she missed the Applicant, but NS admits to not knowing PA well or being familiar with the status of their relationship. She writes that the Applicant loves his children very much and does not want his children to experience not having their father growing up. She believes he is a good father.
Regarding his offending, she writes that she understands the Applicant has used drugs and most of his offending was driving related. She knows that he is working hard to ‘fix himself’ and she wants to help.
Her brother, with whom the Applicant resided when he went to New Zealand aged 14, now lives in Australia. She still has a sister in New Zealand, who is ill and requires dialysis, who she does not know if the Applicant could live with.
NS confirms that the Applicant does not have a relationship with his father who now lives in Samoa. Her brothers and sisters are now in Australia and have their own families. She writes that the Applicant is a good uncle to their children.
NS is close to all her sons but states that the Applicant would visit her more than his brothers. She writes that he helped her with money and she would call him if she was sick because he would help her.
The Applicant had a 16 year relationship with his former partner when she became pregnant and aborted their child which upset him.
QL
QL is the Applicant’s aunt. She writes on 19 April 2022 that the Applicant has changed and she believes he will not reoffend.
HN
HN is the Applicant’s older brother. He writes on 21 April 2022 that he and the Applicant’s children, bothers, aunties, uncles and their families are in Australia. He is prepared to support his brother should he be released in the community.
GZ
GZ is the director of a construction company and writes on 16 March 2022 that the Applicant worked at the company for three years and four months, during which he was a ‘fundamental part of the team’. GZ gave oral evidence at the hearing that should the Applicant be released back into the community he would be employed by GZ at the company.
LP
LP has not met the Applicant but has spoken to him by phone. LP writes on 19 April 2022 that he is regarded as one of the leaders of the Australian-Samoan community in New South Wales. Based on LP’s conversations with the Applicant he is convinced that the Applicant has ‘learnt a great lesson’ and is remorseful and committed to continuing to stay in touch with him should he be allowed to stay.
DISCUSSION
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 1 – PROTECTION OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY FROM CRIMINAL OR OTHER SERIOUS CONDUCT
The Tribunal must have regard to the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct. When considering the protection of the Australian community, Direction 90 requires decision-makers to have regard to:
a)the nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date; and
b)the risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
The nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s conduct to date
Criminal history
The Applicant’s lengthy criminal history is set out in detail in Annexure A. His criminal record, which includes 49 criminal convictions, begins with a conviction in May 2004 of Fail to display “L” on car as required and Learner not accompanied by driver/police officer/ tester for which he was fined. Thereafter, he was convicted of a large number of driving and motor vehicle related offences including convictions for Police pursuit – not stop – drive dangerously, Drive while disqualified from holding a licence, Drive on road etc while licence suspended, speeding and driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs.
The Applicant received his first custodial sentence on 22 September 2005. He was sentenced to eight months imprisonment with a non-parole period of six months which was suspended on entering a good behaviour bond for the two counts of drive whilst disqualified. In August 2006 he was sentenced to periodic detention for eight months for drive whilst disqualified.
The Applicant was convicted of Assault officer in execution of duty-T2 on 21 January 2009 for an incident that occurred on 13 December 2008. The police facts sheet[2] in relation to the incident records that on 13 December 2008 the Applicant was seen by the police picking up a metal pole which he threw into the middle of the road to block traffic. When confronted by a female constable he reached out with his left hand and hit the officer in the left eye. The police facts sheet records that the Applicant apologised to the officer for poking her in the eye.[3]
[2] Respondent’s Tender Bundle, R14 at 33.
[3] Respondent’s Tender Bundle, R14 at 35.
On 17 April 2018 the Applicant received an aggregate sentence of 16 months imprisonment having been convicted of offences including stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc intimidation, destruction of property, goods in custody, drive whilst disqualified (two counts), police pursuit and drive in a dangerous manner.
The details of the offending are set out in the police facts sheet.[4] On 4 April 2017 police were conducting random breath testing and indicated for the Applicant to pull over. The Applicant did not pull over but accelerated and drove away at speed and was pursued by police who abandoned the pursuit. Before abandoning the pursuit, the Applicant drove at 120km in a 60km zone.[5] He was convicted of those offences and imprisoned from 6 April to 27 October 2017.
[4] Respondent’s Tender Bundle, R36 at 125-128.
[5] Respondent’s Tender Bundle, R36 at 126.
In sentencing the Applicant in Fairfield Local Court, Magistrate Bugden set the term of imprisonment so that the Applicant would be released from custody that day and subject to a parole period of six months. Magistrate Bugden noted that the Applicant had breached good behaviour bonds in offending.
On 19 July 2017, the Applicant was ‘called up’ for breaching the orders imposed for the April 2017 offences.[6] He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 16 months imprisonment for drive with illicit drug present in blood. In March, May and August he was placed on community corrections orders for drive whilst disqualified, goods in possession and drive under the influence of drugs.
[6] Respondent’s Tender Bundle, R41 at 137.
On 5 November 2020 the Applicant appeared in Fairfield Local Court of New South Wales where he was sentenced to 30 months’ imprisonment (aggregate) for Assault occasioning actual bodily harm-T2, common assault-T2, larceny-T2, destroy or damage property, stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (personal)-T2 (two counts), and drive motor vehicle during disqualification period–2nd+off (two counts).
The convictions related to an incident of road rage which took place in November 2019.[7] The police facts sheet[8] records the details of the offending which the Applicant confirmed were correct. On 2 November 2019, the Applicant was driving a car that was beeped at by a driver of another vehicle. The Applicant and the other driver stopped and fought. In this altercation, the Applicant repeatedly punched the driver of the other vehicle in the head, face and neck.
[7] Respondent’s Tender Bundle, R61 at 195.
[8] Respondent’s Tender Bundle, R61 at 194-201.
In sentencing the Applicant, Magistrate Hawkins stated that the Applicant had a ‘less than impressive’ pre-sentencing report and described the Applicant as a person ‘who shifts blame to everyone but himself’. Magistrate Hawkins told the Applicant:
You started the violence. You were the main perpetrator and then you back it up two days later by issuing threats to these men which, in my view, are quite serious and fall well above the mid-range, because not only do you assault them on the street by punching them and pulling one of them out of the car but you back them up with threats two days later when you see them randomly on the street. This is not the behaviour of a civilised person. This is not the behaviour of a person who is nonviolent.
Your record does you no favours. You are a person who continually breaks the law. You are a person who has displayed a history in the past of disobeying the laws, especially in relation to driving. You have served sentences for the very same offences that you're before the Court for now. I don't know what you expect the Court to do but there are very limited options available to the Court at this point in time because you know what your record is and you know how you behaved on this day and you were on three community corrections orders, one of which had only been imposed three months prior.
You have been before the Court in August and here you are in November not only driving - I think, up to my count, it was six drive whilst disqualified, not to mention all the drive whilst suspended on your record. Fresh out of gaol as well and committing further violent offences for no good reason on the street against people who you had no good reason to get into an altercation with. Then you shift the blame when you go to community corrections onto your brother and onto everyone else. You have, in my estimation, no insight into this and I have to consider imposing a sentence.
In sentencing the Applicant to 30 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 months, Magistrate Hawkins acknowledged the sentence was relatively long, telling the Applicant:
… with your history and the behaviour that you display on the street, in my estimation it's entirely warranted because you're a person who has routinely broken the law over the course of your adult life and this behaviour is a just a continuation of the poor behaviour you have displayed over the course of time and the community has an expectation that the Court will deal with violent offenders and people who continually break the law as I am doing to you today.
On appeal the sentence was reduced by the District Court of New South Wales to an aggregate term of 24 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 months. Judge Hanley observed in his reasons that:
[The Applicant’s] offending appears to be underlined by the fact he has problems in relation to drugs in particular ice and cannabis. The Sentence Assessment Report indicates he has a lack of insight and no remorse. However he has the support of his mother and his partner who have written letters in is support. Also, he was employed and has a positive assessment from his previous employer… I am told that position may be still available to him. I noted when reading that particular letter, he had been given a position of some responsibility within the company in managing various facets of it and that he was regarded as a model employee. His employer said his attention to detail in carrying out his daily schedule is second to none.
That unfortunately sits in contrast to the rest of his behaviour which appears to have been one where he has repeatedly committed offences of violence and offences involving motor vehicles. However, there appears to be some positive note emerging from his most recent responses to rehabilitation and that is indicated by the letter from the Salvation Army … He is suitable to go into the long term residential Bridge Program run by that organization, which is one that has had, in my experience, very good results in relation to overcoming addictions. There appears to have been some positive steps taken by him in relation to not taking drugs during the period leading up to this sentence in that he produced negative responses to testing for any illegal substances.
Conclusion as to the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s offending:
The Applicant has a lengthy criminal history with 49 convictions listed on his criminal record. The Applicant notes that most of his offending is traffic and driving related and was dealt with through fines, disqualification, and bonds by the courts. Nonetheless, the Applicant’s offending also includes crimes of violence including Assault occasioning actual bodily harm-T2 and common assault-T2. Subparagraph 8.1.1(1)(a) of the Direction provides that violent crimes are conduct which is viewed very seriously.
Sub-paragraph 8.1.1.(1)(d) of the Direction states that the Tribunal must have regard to the frequency of an applicant’s offending and whether there is a trend of increasing seriousness. The Applicant’s offending began in 2004 with minor driving related offending. His offending has been consistent and of increasing seriousness since. The increasing seriousness of his offending is reflected in the sentences imposed upon him.
The Applicant’s driving related offending, which includes convictions for driving in a dangerous manner, driving whilst disqualified and driving under the influence of drugs, has also increased in seriousness over time. The consistency and frequency of the driving related offending demonstrates a lack of respect for the law and has potential to cause significant harm to the community[9].
[9] Apire and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] AATA 193 (4 April 2014), [15]-[16], (Webb, M); Wang and Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] AATA 89 (28 January 2014), [7]-[10] (Bell, SM).
The cumulative effect of the Applicant’s offending over 17 years indicates a disregard for the laws of Australia. Overall, the nature and frequency of the Applicant’s offending must be seen as very serious, which is reflected in the custodial sentences imposed upon him.
The risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct
Paragraph 8.1.2(1) of Direction 90 provides that in considering the protection of the Australian community, I should have regard to the Government’s view that the Australian community’s tolerance for any risk of future harm lessens as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. In assessing the risk posed by the non-citizen to the Australian community, I should consider, cumulatively:
a) the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct; and
b) the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account available information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen reoffending and evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of decision, with weight to be given to the time spent in the community since the non-citizen’s most recent offending.
The Applicant concedes that were he to commit further violent offences the nature of the harm caused would have serious consequences for the Australian community. Should the Applicant reoffend by committing further driving related offences there is potential for serious harm to other road users.
Turning to the risk of reoffending, the Applicant submits that the evidence before the Tribunal demonstrates the risk is low and it does not present an unacceptable risk in light of his insight into his offending, remorse and rehabilitation.
The Applicant acknowledges his criminal offending but submits that his time in prison and immigration detention has provided an opportunity to understand what it means to be law abiding, particularly given the difficult experience of being away from his family and not working. In retrospect, he is grateful that others were not injured due to his driving offences. The birth of his daughter made him take a look at his life. Since the birth of his two children, he has been incarcerated and has had time to think about his actions. He has sought to change not just for himself, but also his family and his children. He claims to have matured and recent experiences have been a ‘wake-up call’.
The Applicant is forthright about the role that drug use has played in his offending. He gave evidence that drugs have been a major factor in his life since he was a teenager. Whilst his drug use was a constant throughout his adult life - with the exception of using marijuana on one occasion whilst in prison - he gave evidence that he has not used drugs since being imprisoned in November 2020.
The Applicant has provided evidence of completing online courses aimed at addressing his offending, drug use and behavioural issues between November 2021 and the hearing. These include depression management, understanding addiction, universal anger management, traffic offender’s rehabilitation program, domestic violence positive parenting and he has participated in online drug and alcohol sessions. He claims the courses have given him insight into his offending and help him manage and regulate his emotions.
During the hearing the Applicant was asked about his plans should he be released back into the community. He told the Tribunal that should he be granted his visa he would speak to GZ about a job and he plans to commence full-time employment. He would live with his mother. He intends to contact PA with a view to settling a parenting plan together for their children.
Asked if he had any plans in respect to address his drug use, he said that at the moment he is doing okay following a long period of abstinence from drug use whilst in gaol and immigration detention. He gave evidence that the classes he is doing online with Odyssey House have assisted in managing his drug addiction and that he is aided by his willpower. Should he feel like he may relapse, he plans to attend drug and alcohol classes full-time.
In her report Dr Kwok observes that unless the Applicant addresses his substance use and antisocial behaviours, his risk of further criminal conduct is moderate to high. She writes in part [45]:
There are a number of criminogenic needs that has to be addressed to reduce [the Applicant’s] risk of further offending. The most important are his substance use, pattern of antisocial behaviours, antisocial associates, and mental health issues including anger, reactivity and impulsivity. His history of criminal offending suggests that there is also an underlying pattern of antisocial cognitions, or antisocial thought patterns, that reinforce his criminal activity. This includes a belief that aggression could be used when he perceives that he or his family may be threatened. Substance use, inevitably, further interferes with his ability to make decisions and engage in consequential thinking. Without addressing these risks, [the Applicant] presents as having a moderate to high risk of further criminal conduct.
In her report, Dr Kwok acknowledges that the Applicant is currently connected with Odyssey House through its online therapy groups and she recommends he complete the 12 month Odyssey House program which includes weekly therapy groups, access to a psychiatrist or psychologist and daily check-ins with other residents.
The Applicant has made previous attempts at rehabilitation. He gave evidence of participating in a program after release from prison in 2017 where he was housed and required to attend the rehabilitation facility every day for courses and counselling. Dr Kwok reports that he sought permission to leave the facility as he had found a job. His recovery was unsuccessful, and he relapsed.
The Applicant entered a second facility more recently which he claims was a better placement. He estimates he was in the facility for approximately two weeks before leaving to assist PA after she had an incident with her sister. He continued with telephone counselling but concedes he began using drugs soon after leaving the rehabilitation facility and his drug use continued until shortly before the birth of his daughter. The Applicant told the Tribunal he regrets leaving that facility as he could see himself changing for the better and the model was an effective fit for his needs.
The Applicant understands that to avoid relapsing he needs to abide by his relapse prevention plan. Upon release he also plans to see his general practitioner to obtain a mental health care plan and to seek services of either a psychologist or psychiatrist. The Applicant acknowledges that he has mental health issues which he needs to address and doing so will be a priority. He also intends to continue the online support with Odyssey House and work.
When it was put to the Applicant that he is not ready to be released back into the community unless he undertakes serious rehabilitation, such as the 12 month residential program recommended by Dr Kwok, the Applicant told the Tribunal that he intended to enter the Odyssey House program. He confirmed that he had not made firm plans to do so but explained that he was not able to join the Odyssey House waitlist until such time as he is released from immigration detention.
As stated above, the Applicant has been attending online meetings with Odyssey House for drug, alcohol and mental health treatment whilst in immigration detention. A letter from Odyssey House dated 8 December 2021 confirms that he attended the online group that day. The Applicant has also attended Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous meetings whist in gaol.
Conclusion as to the protection of the Australian community
Judge Hanley observed that the Applicant’s offending ‘appears to be underlined by the fact he has problems in relation to drugs in particular ice and cannabis’. The Applicant has demonstrated insight into the relationship between his drug use and offending. Whilst acknowledging the Applicant’s recent efforts in this regard, notably his online treatment and courses to address drug use and anger management in particular, I consider there remains a medium risk of the Applicant reoffending.
The Applicant has demonstrated a willingness to engage in drug rehabilitation should he be released back into the community. However, it is apparent based on the evidence that he had not considered how he might balance the reality of a 12 month residential rehabilitation program, as recommended by Dr Kwok, with his plans to care for his children and desire to start working again. Given his past experience of relapse after leaving rehabilitation early, this is of significant concern given Dr Kwok and Judge Hanley both identified the importance of the Applicant remaining drug free if he is to avoid reoffending.
I accept the Applicant’s intention to remain drug free. I consider his prospects of doing so are enhanced by his significant period of abstinence, punctuated by a single incident of marijuana used since his most recent term of imprisonment. I also accept that his current circumstances have proven a salutary experience. However, it appears that the Applicant has not given appropriate consideration as to how he will ensure he obtains the treatment and support he requires to sustain his sobriety. This is of some concern given his previous unsuccessful attempts at rehabilitation and the competing needs of his family and desire to begin working again, both of which were factors in his previous relapses.
In light of the Applicant’s lengthy criminal history and the harm that would be caused if his offending were to be repeated, I consider that the protection of the Australian community weighs heavily against revocation of the mandatory cancellation decision.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 2 - FAMILY VIOLENCE
The second primary consideration is whether the conduct engaged in by the Applicant constituted family violence. Direction 90 subparagraph 8.2(3)(a) to 8.2(3)(d) provides that in considering the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen, factors such as the frequency of the conduct, any trend of increasing seriousness, the cumulative effect of repeated acts of family violence, rehabilitation achieved and whether the non-citizen has reoffended since being formally warned are relevant factors.
Family violence is defined in Direction 90 to include violent, threatening, or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person’s family (the family member) or causes the family member to be fearful.
The Applicant has not been convicted of any offences involving family violence, but the Minister contends that the evidence supports a finding that the Applicant’s conduct has included family violence towards PA, which is conceded by the Applicant.
A New South Wales Police report from April 2020[10] records that an incident took place where PA and the Applicant ‘got into a heated argument’ and the Applicant threatened her with scissors. After police arrived and spoke to PA, she denied an assault occurred but a witness who observed the incident reported that the Applicant punched PA, who was pregnant at the time, in the face.
[10] G-Documents, G2 at 114.
During the hearing the Applicant confirmed that both he and PA have Apprehended Violence Orders (AVO) in place against each other. The Applicant conceded that heated arguments had on occasion resulted in the police being called. His claim not to have been physically violent towards PA is supported by a Department of Communities & Justice (DCJ) case file assessment, dated 13 January 2022, which records PA reporting the Applicant ‘has never been physically abusive, but they do shout and have been trying to work on their communication’. PA conceded to DCJ that they both have taken out AVOs and that she was caught on camera punching the Applicant.
It was submitted on behalf of the Applicant that his and PA’s relationship is very complex. Based on the evidence before the Tribunal I am satisfied that the relationship between the Applicant and PA is both complex and volatile, and that the Applicant was on occasion verbally aggressive towards PA.
This primary consideration weighs against revocation of the mandatory cancellation decision, but is afforded less weight in acknowledgement of the Applicant’s attempts to improve his interactions with PA and the online courses he has completed, particularly in relation to positive parenting and anger management.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 3 - BEST INTERESTS OF MINOR CHILDREN
Direction 90 sets out a number of factors to be considered in assessing the best interests of minor children. These include the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the person; the extent to which the person is likely to play a positive parental role in relation to the child; the likely effect that any separation from the person would have on the child, whether there are any other people who fulfil parental roles with the child, any known wishes of the child, and any evidence that the person abused or has neglected the child or that the child has otherwise suffered from trauma from the person’s actions including through exposure to family violence.
As stated above, the Applicant is a father to two children – a daughter, TA, and a son, VA. As the Applicant was incarcerated shortly after the birth of TA, and has remained in prison or detention since, his interaction and practical involvement with his children has been limited.
The Applicant plans to be the primary carer for his children with the support of his mother and family. He intends to share parental responsibility with the children’s mother, PA, and hopes to foster a relationship with PA where they have mutual respect for the benefit of their children. At the time of the hearing TA was with her mother visiting family in Queensland, whist VA was in Sydney with PA’s mother.
Records from the DCJ indicate that the children are vulnerable and in a precarious care arrangement. A DCJ risk assessment dated 7 February 2022[11] in relation to the children concludes they were at a high level of risk for both neglect and abuse. A record dated 15 February 2022[12] following a meeting between PA, the Applicant and DCJ officers records that PA wished to have the children placed into foster care.
[11] Respondent’s Tender Bundle, R95 at 796-797.
[12] Respondent’s Tender Bundle, R96 at 804-806.
Both the Applicant’s children were temporarily taken into care in February 2022 owing to PA’s inability to care for them. When DCJ officers asked the Applicant to nominate a person who could temporarily care for the children, the Applicant nominated his brother who did not respond to DCJ’s enquiries. The Applicant gave evidence that he also provided his mother’s contact details to DCJ for the purpose of providing temporary care for the children and disputes the account of DCJ.
Based on the evidence, the children are unquestionably in a vulnerable situation. Their mother is suffering from a severe mental illness and struggling with drug addiction. VA has intensive medical needs requiring regular, fortnightly treatment at hospital, and the support of extended family on both sides is conditional and complicated by the interpersonal relationships between family members.
DCJ records[13] indicate the Applicant has occasionally been aggressive - raising his voice and swearing - when dealing with DCJ staff in relation to the welfare of his children. Whilst unhelpful and inappropriate, I accept that it is borne of frustration combined with a genuine desire to see that the children are cared for appropriately. The children are in a difficult environment and the Applicant is in a position where he has some visibility of their circumstances and little direct control whilst in immigration detention.
[13] Respondent’s Tender Bundle, R93 at 782; R95, at 794, 800.
The Applicant grew up without a father and he is determined to be present for his children so that they will not have the same experience. I accept he loves each of the children and is genuinely committed to providing a good home and the best outcome for them.
Whilst PA is currently performing a parental role for the children, the evidence indicates that she struggles to do so. This conclusion is supported by her request for the children to be placed in care. Even with the support of her mother, and the Applicant’s mother, the children’s care is neither assured nor consistent.
In her statement of May 2021, PA reported being unable to cope with caring responsibilities, and the evidence suggests her mental health has deteriorated since then, further affecting her capacity to cope with her parental responsibilities.
Should the Applicant be released back into the community I do not accept that he will be in a position to provide full-time care of the children in the first instance given the need to negotiate such an arrangement with PA and attend to his rehabilitation. It is the case that both PA and the Applicant’s mothers have cared for the children at various times, though VA’s medical condition limits the capacity of the Applicant’s mother to care for his son. I consider also that the Applicant’s history of family violence provides further uncertainty and risk of being exposed to behaviour which may negatively impact the children.
On balance, I accept the best interests of the Applicant’s children is served by having the mandatory cancellation decision revoked. The Applicant cares for the children and would do his best for them, which is particularly important given the circumstances. As such, this primary consideration weighs heavily in favour of revocation.
PRIMARY CONSIDERATION 4 - EXPECTATIONS OF THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY
Paragraph 8.4 of the Direction requires me to consider the expectations of the Australian community. Subparagraph 8.4(1) relevantly states:
The Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, or where there is an unacceptable risk that they may do so, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government to not allow such a non-citizen to enter or remain in Australia.
In FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185[14] the Full Federal Court decided by majority that it is not for the decision-maker to assess what the expectations of the Australian community are for the purpose of applying this consideration. That is, it is not for the Tribunal to determine for itself the expectations of the Australian community by reference to an applicant’s circumstances or evidence about those expectations. Rather, the expectations of the community that decision makers are required to consider are those set out at paragraph 11.3 of Direction 65, the direction considered in that case which is analogous to paragraph 8.4 of Direction 90.
[14] FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185, (Flick, Charlesworth and Stewart JJ).
The Direction lists specific conduct which the Australian community as a whole expects would raise serious character concerns and an expectation that the person would not hold an Australian visa. Having regard to the provisions of Direction 90 and the Applicant’s criminal offending which include family violence and an act of violence against a government official whilst performing her duty, the Australian community would expect that the Applicant should not continue to hold a visa.
Observing the norm and the principles outlined in in paragraph 5.2 of Direction 90, I am satisfied that the expectations of the Australian community would normally weigh against revoking the visa cancellation on account of his criminal conduct.
This consideration weighs against revocation of the cancellation decision. However, I give this consideration moderate weight in recognition of the principle set out at subparagraph 5.2(4) of Direction 90, that Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who, like the Applicant, have lived in the Australian community for most of their lives.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
I now turn to considering the other relevant considerations set out in the Direction.
Extent of impediments if removed
I am required to consider the extent of any impediments that the Applicant may face if removed from Australia in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards in New Zealand.
The Applicant is relatively young at 34 years of age and would not face any cultural or language barriers, though he last visited New Zealand when he was a schoolboy. Should he be removed to New Zealand, the Applicant is confident he would be able to find work.
It is likely, however, that the Applicant would face emotional hardship upon his return as he does not have an existing network of family or friends in New Zealand.
Should he wish to continue treatment for drug addiction or his mental health, the Applicant can expect to have access to comparable treatment in New Zealand.
I am satisfied that the Applicant would face some challenges re-establishing himself in New Zealand, but they would not be insurmountable.
For these reasons, this consideration weighs in favour of revocation, but is afforded less weight.
Links to the Australian community
I am required to consider the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant’s ties to Australia. The Applicant has been residing in Australia since he was just eight years of age. I accept that given the period of time the Applicant has spent in Australia he is entitled to some weight under paragraph 9.4.1 of the Direction.
The Applicant’s Australian citizen mother and his brothers reside in Australia, as do his children and their mother. He has strong ties to the community through them, his brother’s partners, his cousins and their families. He has a close relationship with his nieces and nephews, some of whom now have families of their own. Though he does not have a caring responsibility for his 25 identified nieces and nephews, he is always available for and offers himself as someone to talk to when they are uncomfortable talking to their parents.
The Applicant has spent most of his adult life contributing to the Australian community through paid employment and he submits he has made close friendships in the course of his employment, which I accept.
The Applicant’s mother is aged in her mid-60s and has medical conditions including lower back pain. The Applicant is supportive of her and has assisted her with shopping and household tasks. The Applicant is no longer in a relationship with PA, but it is expected she would be impacted by his removal regardless.
I am satisfied that the Applicant has extensive ties to the Australian community and his extended family, including his mother, brothers, uncles, aunts, nieces and nephews, would be negatively impacted by his removal.
For these reasons, the Applicant’s links to the Australian community weigh in favour of revocation.
CONCLUSION
In considering all the factors discussed above, I find the balance of factors weighs in favour of not revoking the delegate’s decision.
The Applicant’s offending has been frequent and his recent offending very serious. Despite being afforded numerous opportunities by the courts, the Applicant has persisted in his criminal offending over a period of 17 years. His risk of reoffending is reduced only if he can maintain his sobriety. His plans in that regard are uncertain and his resolve remains untested in the community. Consequently, the protection of the Australian community weighs against revocation. Primary consideration 2 – family violence – also weighs against revocation, as do the expectations of the Australian community.
The Applicant’s children are in a vulnerable situation and their interests weigh heavily in favour of revocation. However, whilst the children would each benefit from having another caregiver, the Applicant’s capacity to provide practical care for the children is far from certain given his own difficulties and the fraught relationship he has with the children’s mother. I also take into account the history of family violence in reducing the weight afforded to this consideration.
The Applicant’s ties to the community are strong and he has a large extended family – he has lived in Australia since he was 7-years-old – and some additional tolerance is afforded in such circumstances. While the Applicant may find it challenging re-establishing himself in New Zealand, the impediments he will face upon removal will not be insurmountable.
On balance, I find that the totality of the evidence and the considerations outlined in Direction 90 weigh in favour of affirming the reviewable decision.
DECISION
For the reasons outlined above, the Tribunal decides that the decision under review, being the decision of a delegate of the Minister dated 24 February 2022 not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant’s visa is affirmed.
I certify that the preceding 124 (one hundred and twenty-four) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr S Evans, Member
.................................[SGD]....................................
Associate
Dated: 19 May 2022
Dates of hearing: 27 and 28 April 2022 Solicitor for the Applicant: Ms M Mamarot, South West Migration & Legal Services Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr E Taylor, Mills Oakley Lawyers ANNEXURE A
APPLICANT: QKDV’s CRIMINAL RECORD
Disclosable History
Source
Court
Date
Offence
NSW
PARRAMATTA
DISTRICT COURT
02/02/2021
Drive motor vehicle during
disqualification period - 2nd+off
NSW
PARRAMATTA
DISTRICT COURT
02/02/2021
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm T-2
NSW
PARRAMATTA
DISTRICT COURT
02/02/2021
Drive motor vehicle during disqualification period - 2nd+off
NSW
PARRAMATTA
DISTRICT COURT
02/02/2021
Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (personal)-T2
NSW
PARRAMATTA
DISTRICT COURT
02/02/2021
Destroy or damage property
NSW
PARRAMATTA
DISTRICT COURT
02/02/2021
Larceny-T2
NSW
PARRAMATTA
DISTRICT COURT
02/02/2021
Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (personal)-T2
NSW
PARRAMATTA
DISTRICT COURT
02/02/2021
Common assault-T2
NSW
PARRAMATTA
DISTRICT COURT
02/02/2021
Drive vehicle under influence of drugs – 1st off
NSW
PARRAMATTA
DISTRICT COURT
02/02/2021
Drive motor vehicle during disqualification period - 2nd+off
NSW
LIVERPOOL
LOCAL COURT
05/11/2020
Drive motor vehicle during disqualification period - 2nd+off
NSW
LIVERPOOL
LOCAL COURT
05/11/2020
Assault occasioning actual bodily harm -T2
NSW
LIVERPOOL
LOCAL COURT
05/11/2020
Common assault-T2
NSW
LIVERPOOL
LOCAL COURT
05/11/2020
Larceny-T2
NSW
LIVERPOOL
LOCAL COURT
05/11/2020
Destroy or damage property
NSW
LIVERPOOL
LOCAL COURT
05/11/2020
Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (personal)-T2
NSW
LIVERPOOL
LOCAL COURT
05/11/2020
Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (personal)-T2
NSW
LIVERPOOL
LOCAL COURT
05/11/2020
Drive motor vehicle during disqualification period - 2nd+off
NSW
LIVERPOOL
LOCAL COURT
05/11/2020
Drive vehicle under influence of drugs -1st off
NSW
LIVERPOOL
LOCAL COURT
05/11/2020
Drive motor vehicle during disqualification period - 2nd+off
NSW
LIVERPOOL
LOCAL COURT
07/08/2019
Drive vehicle under influence of drugs -1st off
NSW
BANKSTOWN
LOCAL COURT
21/05/2019
Goods in personal custody suspected being stolen (not m/v)
NSW
LIVERPOOL
LOCAL COURT
11/03/2019
Drive motor vehicle during disqualification period - 2nd+off
NSW
FAIRFIELD
LOCAL COURT
17/07/2018
Goods in personal custody suspected being stolen (not m/v)
NSW
FAIRFIELD
LOCAL COURT
17/07/2018
Drive motor vehicle during disqualification period - 2nd+off
NSW
FAIRFIELD
LOCAL COURT
17/07/2018
Drive recklessly/furiously or speed/manner dangerous-2nd+off
NSW
FAIRFIELD
LOCAL COURT
17/07/2018
Police pursuit- not stop – drive dangerously- 1st off-T2
NSW
FAIRFIELD
LOCAL COURT
17/07/2018
Drive motor vehicle while licence suspended - 2nd+off
NSW
FAIRFIELD
LOCAL COURT
17/07/2018
Drive motor vehicle while licence suspended - 2nd+off
NSW
FAIRFIELD
LOCAL COURT
17/07/2018
Goods in personal custody suspected being stolen (not m/v)
NSW
FAIRFIELD
LOCAL COURT
17/07/2018
Destroy or damage property <=$2000-T2
NSW
FAIRFIELD
LOCAL COURT
17/07/2018
Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (personal)-T2
NSW
FAIRFIELD
LOCAL COURT
17/07/2018
Drive vehicle, illicit drug present in blood etc - 1st off
NSW
FAIRFIELD
LOCAL COURT
17/04/2018
Goods in personal custody suspected being stolen {not m/v)
NSW
FAIRFIELD
LOCAL COURT
17/04/2018
Drive recklessly/furiously or speed/manner dangerous-2nd+off
NSW
FAIRFIELD
LOCAL COURT
17/04/2018
Drive motor vehicle during disqualification period - 2nd+off
NSW
FAIRFIELD
LOCAL COURT
17/04/2018
Not give particulars to other drive
NSW
FAIRFIELD
LOCAL COURT
17/04/2018
Fail to comply with request or signal to stop vehicle
NSW
FAIRFIELD
LOCAL COURT
17/04/2018
Police pursuit - not stop – drive dangerously - 1st off-T2
NSW
FAIRFIELD
LOCAL COURT
17/04/2018
Drive motor vehicle while licence suspended - 2nd+off
NSW
FAIRFIELD
LOCAL COURT
17/04/2018
Drive motor vehicle while licence suspended - 2nd+off
NSW
FAIRFIELD
LOCAL COURT
17/04/2018
Goods in personal custody suspected being stolen (not m/v)
NSW
FAIRFIELD
LOCAL COURT
17/04/2018
Destroy or damage property <=$2000-T2
NSW
FAIRFIELD
LOCAL COURT
17/04/2018
Stalk/intimidate intend fear physical etc harm (personal)-T2
NSW
FAIRFIELD
LOCAL COURT
17/04/2018
Drive vehicle, illicit drug present in blood etc - 1st off
NSW
FAIRFIELD
LOCAL COURT
17/04/2018
Drive motor vehicle during disqualification period - 1st off
NSW
LIVERPOOL
LOCAL COURT
20/03/2017
Goods in personal custody suspected being stolen (not m/v)
NSW
LIVERPOOL
LOCAL COURT
20/03/2017
Enter inclosed land not presc premises w/o lawful excuse
NSW
CAMPBELLTOWN
LOCAL COURT
15/02/2016
Drive vehicle, illicit drug present in blood etc - 2nd+off
NSW
CAMPBELLTOWN
LOCAL COURT
09/11/2015
Drive motor vehicle while licence
suspended - 2nd+off
NSW
CAMPBELLTOWN
LOCAL COURT
09/11/2015
Drive motor vehicle while licence
suspended - 2nd+off
NSW
LIVERPOOL
LOCAL COURT
15/07/2014
Class A m/v exceed speed> 10 km/h -Lidar
NSW
LIVERPOOL
LOCAL COURT
15/07/2014
Drive while licence application refused - 1st off
NSW
BURWOOD LOCAL
COURT
10/11/2011
Drive on road etc while licence
Suspended
NSW
BALMAIN LOCAL
COURT
21/09/2011
Drive on road etc while licence
suspended
NSW
BANKSTOWN
LOCAL COURT
21/01/2009
Assault officer in execution of duty-T2
NSW
PARRAMATTA
DISTRICT COURT
16/11/2006
Drive while disqualified from holding a
licence
NSW
PARRAMATTA
DISTRICT COURT
16/11/2006
Drive while disqualified from holding a
licence
NSW
BURWOOD
LOCAL COURT
29/08/2006
Drive while disqualified from holding a licence
NSW
BURWOOD
LOCAL COURT
29/08/2006
Drive while disqualified from holding a licence
NSW
BURWOOD
LOCAL COURT
29/08/2006
Driver/rider state false name/address
NSW
SUTHERLAND
LOCAL COURT
22/09/2005
Drive while disqualified from holding a licence
NSW
SUTHERLAND
LOCAL COURT
22/09/2005
Drive while disqualified from holding a licence
NSW
BURWOOD
LOCAL COURT
24/05/2005
Use unregistered vehicle on road area (not a trailer)
NSW
BURWOOD
LOCAL COURT
24/05/2005
Drive on road etc while licence suspended
NSW
BURWOOD
LOCAL COURT
24/05/2005
Drive on road etc while licence suspended
NSW
BURWOOD
LOCAL COURT
02/05/2005
Not provide information of identity of driver
NSW
BURWOOD
LOCAL COURT
04/05/2004
Learner not accompanied by driver/ police officer/tester
NSW
BURWOOD
LOCAL COURT
04/05/2004
Fail to display "L" on car as required
0
3
0