Quilty and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 1268

Quilty and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) [2025] ARTA 1268 (1 August 2025)
Applicant/s:  Shane Andrew QUILTY
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number:                2025/3514
Tribunal:Senior Member B de Villiers
Place:Perth
Date:1 August 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

..............................SGD...................................
Senior Member B de Villiers
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Non-revocation of mandatory cancellation of a Class BB Subclass 155 Five Year Resident Return visa – Applicant does not pass the character test – whether there is another reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision – consideration of Ministerial Direction No. 110 –– primary and other considerations – protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct –- the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia – best interests of minor children in Australia – expectations of the Australian community – other considerations –- decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)
CASES
AJL20 v Commonwealth of Australia [2020] FCA 1305
BHL19 v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2022] FCA 313
BSJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1181
Cowgill v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 704
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454; [2019] FCAFC 185
Gaspar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1166
Hambledon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 7
HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2019) 273 FCR 121
HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) FCR 1803
Lum and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] AATA 792
M1/2021 [2022] HCA 17
Main v Minister of Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 446
Marzano v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 66
Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo (1997) 191 CLR 559
QJYD v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] AATA 1
Re Harrison and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] AATA 47; (2009) 106 ALD 666
Reid v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 1076
Tanielu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 224 FCR 424; [2014] FCA 673
SECONDARY MATERIALS
Minister for Citizenship, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs, Direction No. 110 — Visa Refusal and Cancellation under Section 501 and Revocation of a Mandatory Cancellation of a Visa Under Section 501C (21 June 2024)
Statement of Reasons
BACKGROUND

The Applicant is a 49-year-old citizen of Ireland.[1] He first arrived to Australia on 24 August 1996 when he was 20 years of age. He has been resident in Australia for 29 years.
[1] HB pp 78, 108.
The immediate family of the Applicant in Australia consists of his two minor children, his mother, his stepfather, and his previous partner, the mother of their two minor children.[2] The Applicant has not maintained contact with his family that reside in Ireland, including his father, brother, or sister.[3] The Applicant has been on several overseas visits, but he has only once returned for a short visit to Ireland.[4]
[2] HB pp 78-80, 87.
[3] HB pp 281, 283.
[4] HB p 125.
On 17 April 2014, the Applicant was granted the Class BB Subclass 155 Five Year Resident Return visa, the subject of this proceeding (‘the Visa’).[5]
[5] HB p 125.
On 3 May 2024, the Applicant was convicted in the District Court of Western Australia of three counts of ‘attempt to possess prohibited drugs with intent to sell or supply’. Additionally, he was convicted of two counts of ‘not being licenced or permitted to possess a firearm’. The Applicant was sentenced to terms of imprisonment of 11 years imprisonment (cumulative), 5 years imprisonment (concurrent) and 7 years imprisonment (concurrent) on each count of the drug offences and 1 year cumulative in respect of the firearm offences (‘Index Offences’).[6] The total prison sentence is 12 years.
[6] HB pp 69-70.
The Applicant is currently serving the term of imprisonment at Bunbury Regional Prison in Western Australia. The earliest release date for the Applicant is 11 March 2034.[7]
[7] HB p 71.
On 25 July 2024, the Applicant’s Visa was cancelled under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act1958 (Cth) (the ‘Migration Act’) on the basis that he has a substantial criminal record as he had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than 12 months and was serving a sentence of imprisonment on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of a State (‘Cancellation Decision’).[8] The Applicant was notified of the Cancellation Decision by hand at Bunbury Regional prison on the same date, and he was invited to make representations to the Minister requesting revocation of the Cancellation Decision.[9] On 14 August 2024, the Applicant made a representation to the Minister to have the Cancellation Decision revoked under s 501CA of the Migration Act.[10]
[8] See ss 501(6)(a) and 501(7)(c) of the Act; HB74-79.
[9] HB p 160.
[10] HB pp 73-97.
On 9 May 2025, the delegate of the Minister decided not to revoke the Cancellation Decision.[11] This decision of the Delegate is reviewable by the Tribunal. (the ‘Reviewable Decision’) On 12 May 2025, the Applicant was notified of the decision of the Delegate.[12]
[11] HB p 34.
[12] HB pp 25, 160.
On 14 May 2025, the Applicant applied to the Tribunal for the Reviewable Decision to be revoked.[13] In the application for review of the Reviewable Decision, the Applicant says: ‘I do not believe my circumstances were fully considered and would like the decision to be reviewed’.[14] The Applicant has supplemented his reasons for seeking a review by way of written and oral evidence.
[13] HB pp 9-22.
[14] HB p 18.
The 84^th day calculated for a decision of the review sought by the Applicant pursuant to s 500(6L) of the Migration Act, is 4 August 2025.
In determining the application for review, the issues for consideration are:
(i)whether the Applicant passes the character test, as defined by s 501(6) of the Migration Act; and
(ii)if the Applicant does not pass the character test, whether I am satisfied that there is another reason why the Reviewable Decision should be revoked.[15]
[15] Migration Act s 501CA(4).
In respect of the character test, I find for the reasons outlined below that the Applicant does not pass the character test.
Having considered all the evidence and having weighed the relevant matters in Direction no. 110, I find for the reasons outlined below there is, on balance, not another reason why the Reviewable Decision should be revoked.
Accordingly, I have decided that the Reviewable Decision should not be revoked, and to affirm the Reviewable Decision.
VISA CANCELLATION ON CHARACTER GROUNDS
The Migration Act provides special powers for the Minister to refuse or cancel visas on character grounds. In some circumstances, such as where a visa is cancelled on character grounds, that cancellation decision can be revoked by the Minister or by the Tribunal on review.
These powers generally involve consideration of whether a person passes the statutory character test and, if they do not, consideration of whether there is another reason that the decision to cancel a visa should be revoked.
The character test is set out in s 501(6) of the Migration Act and provides that a person does not pass the character test if the circumstances listed in that subsection apply. Section 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act relevantly provides that:
1For the purposes of this section, a person does not pass the character test if:
(a)the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by
subsection (7)); …(Original emphasis.)
A ‘substantial criminal record’ is relevantly defined by s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act as follows:
2For the purposes of the character test, a person has a substantial criminal record if: …
the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of
12 months or more; …(Original emphasis).
Under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act, the Minister must cancel the visa of certain incarcerated persons if the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test because the person has a substantial criminal record as a result of being sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than 12 months. Additionally, under s 501(3A) of the Migration Act, the person must be serving a ‘sentence of imprisonment’, on a full-time basis in a custodial institution, for an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State, or a Territory.
If a visa is cancelled under s 501(3A), the Minister must give the person a written notice inviting them to make representations about revocation of the original decision.[16] If the person makes representations in accordance with the invitation, then under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, the Minister may revoke the original decision if satisfied that the person passes the character test, or that there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.[17]
[16] Migration Act s 501CA(3)(b).
[17] HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2019) 273 FCR 121, 136 [66].
Subsection 501CA(4) of the Migration Act provides that a mandatory cancellation may be revoked if:
(a)the Applicant makes representations in accordance with the invitation to do so given by the Minister under s 501CA(3) of the Migration Act; and
(b)the decision-maker is satisfied that:
(i)the Applicant passes the character test (as defined by section 501 of the Migration Act); or
(ii)there is another reason why the mandatory cancellation should be revoked.
In this proceeding the Applicant says there is another reason why the Reviewable Decision should be revoked, whilst the Respondent says that on balance of all considerations, the Reviewable Decision should be affirmed.
THE HEARING AND THE EVIDENCE
The hearing was conducted at the Tribunal’s Perth Registry on 17 July 2025. The Applicant appeared in person and was represented by Mr Hamish Willian Glennister of William Gerard Legal Pty Ltd, who also appeared in person. The Respondent was represented by Ms Alina Ali of Minter Ellison. Ms Ali appeared via video.
The following written materials were submitted by the parties:
(a)A hearing book jointly submitted by the parties marked ‘HB’ that included the G-documents (pages 1-287); and
(b)An Applicant Supplementary Statement dated 14 January 2025 marked ‘SS’.
The Applicant gave evidence and was cross-examined at the hearing.
The Tribunal also took evidence from the following witnesses:
·Samantha Jane Brook – previous partner of the Applicant;
·Sandra Hunt – mother of the Applicant;
·Bruce Albert Hunt – stepfather of the Applicant; and
·DA – minor daughter of the Applicant.
Several letters of reference were included in the hearing book in support of the Applicant.[18] The authors of those letters, other than family listed above in [25] as witnesses in this proceeding, did not give oral evidence.
[18] HB pp 114-124.
DOES THE APPLICANT PASS THE CHARACTER TEST?
The character test is defined in s 501(6) of the Migration Act. Section 501(6)(a) of the Migration Act provides that a person does not pass the character test if they have a ‘substantial criminal record’, as defined by s 501(7) of the Migration Act. Relevant to the Applicant’s case, a person has a substantial criminal record if they have been ‘sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more’.[19] Failure to pass the character test arises as a matter of law.[20]
[19] Migration Act s 501(7)(c).
[20] Re Harrison and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] AATA 47; (2009) 106 ALD 666,685 [63].
The Applicant was sentenced by the District Court of Western Australia to serve concurrent terms of imprisonment of 11 years, 5 years, 7 and 1 year respectively for an effective period of imprisonment of 12 years.[21]
[21] HB pp 69-70.
The Applicant accepts that he does not pass the statutory character test.[22]
[22] HB p 268.
I find that the Applicant, having been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more, does not pass the character test by operation of s 501(7)(c) of the Migration Act. [23]
[23] Migration Act s 501CA(4)(b)(i).
CONSIDERATION OF REVOCATION
As I am not satisfied that the Applicant passes the character test, I must then determine whether there is another reason why the Reviewable Decision should be revoked. The statutory power to revoke will only be enlivened if there is ‘another reason’ why the Reviewable Decision should be revoked.[24] The task involves an assessment of the propriety of a revocation decision, balancing factors both in favour and against revocation.[25]
[24] Migration Act s 501CA(4)(b)(ii).
[25] Marzano v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCAFC 66, [32]; Gaspar v
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1166, [38]-[39].
I am required to form a state of satisfaction as to whether there is ‘another reason’ why the Reviewable Decision should be revoked, reasonably and on a correct understanding of the law.[26] In doing so I must comply with written directions about the performance of the Tribunal’s functions or the exercise of those powers which are given by the Minister pursuant to s 499(1) of the Migration Act.[27]
[26] FCFY v Minister for Home Affairs (No 2) [2019] FCA 1990, [63] (Thawley J); Deng v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCA 1456 (Halley J), [119].
[27] Migration Act s 499(2A).
Direction no. 110
On 7 June 2024, the Minister made ‘Direction no. 110 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA’ (‘Direction no. 110’) under s 499 of the Migration Act.
An objective of Direction no. 110 is to guide decision-makers in exercising powers under ss 501 or 501CA of the Migration Act.[28] In considering the exercise of the power under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, informed by the principles set out in para 5.2 of Direction no. 110, I must take account of the primary and other considerations set out in Direction no. 110 where relevant to the decision.[29]
[28] Direction no. 110 para 5.1(4).
[29] Direction no. 110 para 6 referring to paras 8 and 9. See also Reid v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 1076, [15].
In making a decision under s 501CA(4) of the Migration Act, the primary considerations that must be taken into account by the Tribunal are:[30]
(a)the protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(b)family violence engaged by the Applicant (if any);
(c)the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant’s ties to Australia;
(d)the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision; and
(e)the expectations of the Australian community.
[30] Direction no. 110 para 8.
The other considerations that the Tribunal must take into account, insofar as they are relevant to the application, include (but are not limited to):[31]
(a)the legal consequences of the decision;
(b)the extent of impediments if removed; and
(c)the impact on Australian business interests.
[31] Direction no. 110 para 9.
I must also consider any other considerations or representations the Applicant makes in support of the revocation of the Reviewable Decision.
The principles set out in para 5.2 of Direction no. 110 ‘provide the framework within which decision-makers should approach their task of deciding whether to … revoke a mandatory cancellation under section 501CA’. Those principles highlight that the safety of the Australian community is the government’s highest priority, and that Australia has a right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia.[32] The principles stress that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege conferred on those individuals in the expectation that they will be law-abiding, will respect Australia's law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to members of the community. The principles state that the community expects the government to cancel the visas of individuals whose conduct raises serious character concerns regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.[33]
[32] Direction no. 110 paras 5.2(1) – (8).
[33] Direction no. 110 cl 5.2(4).
Direction no. 110 provides that while the community has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by individuals holding a limited stay visa, or who have only been contributing to the community for a short period of time, the community may afford a higher level of tolerance of such conduct where the individual has lived in the community for most of their life, or from a very young age.
Noting that primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case must be taken into account, Direction no. 110 states that, in some circumstances, the nature of the 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 revoking a mandatory cancellation of a visa, including in circumstances where the information available at the time of consideration suggests that the non-citizen does not pose a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
Further guidance as to how a decision-maker is to apply the considerations in
Direction no. 110 can be found in para 7, which provides that:
(a)Information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight when applying the considerations;
(b)The primary consideration of the protection of the Australian community is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations and primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations; and
(c)One or more primary considerations may outweigh other primary considerations.
The Applicant submits that there are, on balance, several considerations why the Reviewable Decision should be revoked.[34] In summary, the Applicant accepts that protection of the Australian community and the expectations of the Australian community likely weigh against the revocation of the Reviewable Decision, but he contends that particularly the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia, the best interests of his minor children in Australia and the impediments if deported, ought to weigh very strongly in favour of revocation of the Reviewable Decision. The Applicant refers to the low likelihood of him reoffending, his regret and remorse for his wrongdoings, his ties to Australia in general and particularly to his minor children and to his mother and stepfather, the best interests of his children, the absence of ties with Ireland, and the hardship and deterioration of mental health he is likely to face when deported.[35] The Applicant also says that he does not have ‘any issues with substance abuse’, that the drug trafficking was motivated by ‘financial gain’ and ‘greed’, that he played a ‘minor role’ in the drug trafficking operation, that he had ‘no say’ in anything regarding the drug offence, and that he intends to participate in programs that will help him ‘understand, address and help prevent [it] from happening again’.[36] The Applicant also says by the time of his release he would be much older and a different person to whom he was at the time of the Index Offences.
[34] HB pp 93-93; 268-275, 278-279, SS, and oral evidence.
[35] HB pp 270-5.
[36] SS.

The Minister says that, on balance, considerations that weigh against revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant's Visa significantly outweigh the considerations in favour of revocation of the Reviewable Decision.[37] In summary, the Minister says that primary considerations concerning the protection of the Australian community, the conduct of the Applicant that constituted family violence, and the expectations of the Australian community ought to be given greater weight than the strengths, nature and duration of the Applicant’s ties to Australia, the best interests of minor children in Australia, or impediments faced if deported. The Minister contends that the Tribunal should on balance not be satisfied that there is another reason why the Reviewable Decision should be revoked, and, therefore, the Reviewable Decision should be affirmed.[38]
[37] HB pp 255-267.
[38] HB p 267.
I address the evidence and contentions relied on by the Applicant and Minister below.
In my examination of the primary and other considerations, I assess the evidence in respect of each consideration and then give weight to the consideration on a scale of the following categories: very low, low-moderate, moderate, moderate-serious, very serious, and neutral. My final decision is based on an overall assessment of all evidence and findings.
Primary Consideration 1: Protection of the Australian Community
The first primary consideration, paragraph 8.1(1), focuses on the protection of the Australian community. Direction no. 110 requires decision-makers to keep in mind that the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government and to that end the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm because of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. In this respect, the Tribunal is directed to have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, will respect important institutions, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.[39]
[39] See also Direction no. 110 para 8(1).
Direction no. 110 provides that the protection of the Australian community is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations.[40]
[40] Direction no. 110 para 7(2).
Paragraph 8.1(2) of Direction no. 110 provides that decision-makers should give consideration to the:
(a)nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date; and
(b)risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
Nature and seriousness of the conduct
I must consider the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s criminal offending and other conduct to date.[41] In doing so, para 8.1.1(1) of Direction no. 110 provides that I must have regard to specific types of crimes or conduct which are ‘viewed very seriously’ by the Australian Government and the Australian community. Direction no. 110 also provides that certain other offences or conduct are considered to be ‘serious’ by the Australian Government and the Australian community. I note that while Direction no. 110 expressly provides categories of conduct to be considered to be very serious or serious, it does not limit the range of conduct that may be so regarded.[42]
[41] Direction no. 110 para 8.1.1(1)(a) and 8.1.1(1)(b).
[42] Direction no. 110 para 8.1.1(1)(a) and 8.1.1(1)(b).
In considering the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s criminal offending or other conduct to date, I must have regard to para 8.1.1(1)(a)-(i) and para 8.1.1(1)(c) of Direction no. 110 relevantly:
(a)The frequency of the Applicant’s offending and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;
(b)The cumulative effect of repeated offending;
(c)whether the Applicant has provided false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending; and
(d)Whether the Applicant has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware, in writing, about the consequences of further offending in terms of the Applicant’s migration status (noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen's favour).
In addition, Direction no. 110 introduced a requirement under this paragraph that I consider the impact of the offending on any victims and their family, where information regarding this is available and the non-citizen whose visa is being considered for refusal or cancellation, or who has sought revocation of the mandatory cancellation of their visa, has been afforded procedural fairness as part of its consideration of the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s offending and other serious conduct.[43]
[43] Direction no. 110 para 8.1.1(1)(d).
I note that it is well established that the Tribunal cannot ‘go behind’ the conviction giving rise to the exercise of power which is the subject of the review.[44] Where that power arises in part due to the sentence imposed on the Applicant, this principle extends to the findings of fact on which the sentence is based. I consider that I am bound by the convictions which led to the mandatory cancellation of the Visa, and to the extent that I have any discretion to go behind the specific factual findings made on sentencing, I do not consider there is any basis to do so on the evidence before me.
[44] HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2018) FCR 1803, [78].
In the following paragraphs a brief overview is given of the Applicant’s conduct and offending.[45]
[45] HB p 269.
The facts of the Applicant’s Index Offences are summarised as follows in the Statement of Issues, Facts and Contentions of the Minister:[46]
(a)The applicant and a co-offender (Mr Gibbs) packed and stored $2,800,000 in cash into Mr Gibbs' vehicle in April 2019. Mr Gibbs drove the car from Kalgoorlie to Sydney where he purchased 85 kg of drugs.
(b)On 29 April 2019, Mr Gibbs attempted to drive back to Kalgoorlie with the purchased drugs, however he was intercepted by police officers and arrested. Police searched the car and found the following drugs: methylamphetamine (67.7 kg; purity between 74% to 81%); heroin (10.523 kg; purity between 71% to 80%); and cocaine (2.490 kg; purity between 10% to 86%). Following his arrest, Mr Gibbs cooperated with the police in a covert operation against the applicant.
(c)In early May 2019, Mr Gibbs drove to the applicant's property in a different car under the guise that the original vehicle was involved in an incident in Kalgoorlie. Mr Gibbs and the applicant then drove that vehicle from the applicant's property in Perth to Kalgoorlie to collect the original vehicle, which the applicant believed to contain the hidden drugs, and brought them back to Perth. The police had removed the drugs from their packages, substituted them with 'inert materials' and placed the packages back in the original car.
(d)The applicant and Mr Gibbs then drove back to the applicant's property, where the applicant unloaded what he believed to be the drugs into three suitcases and packed them onto a trailer attached to a ride-on lawnmower. The applicant soon became aware of the presence of police around his property and attempted to run away but was apprehended. While at the applicant's property, the police found two firearms hidden in a plastic shopping bag in a cupboard in the kitchen, along with a black leather bag containing four grams of cocaine, five grams of MDMA and one gram of methylamphetamine, which the applicant admitted to possessing for personal use.[47]
[46] HB pp 254-5. The facts of the Applicant’s offending are not in dispute. The Applicant accepts in his submissions the summary of offending at set out by the Delegate. HB pp 269-270.
[47] HB pp 254-5.
In respect of the unlicensed firearms offences, according to the statement of material facts to which the Applicant entered a plea of guilty, the Applicant on 8 May 2019 was found to have an unlicensed calibre .22 firearm in a box within a kitchen cupboard of his residence. The Applicant was also found to be in possession of an unlicensed handgun of unknown calibre in a bag within a kitchen cupboard of the residence.[48]
[48] HB pp 169, 173.
In addition to the drug and unlicensed firearm Index Offences, the Applicant has also been convicted of other offences.[49] Those offences include driving under the influence of alcohol and possession of a prohibited drug.
[49] HB pp 163-15. The Statements of Material Facts contain the elements of these offences. HB pp 166-186.
The Minister submits that the Applicant’s offending should be regarded as very serious.[50] The Minister refers to the broader community impacts and the public costs of commercial drug distribution and the social impacts downstream. The Applicant's role as a courier and custodian of the drugs demonstrates a high level of intent, awareness, and involvement in the operation. The Minster says that where a court has sentenced an offender to a term of custodial imprisonment, and noting the significant length of the sentences in this case, this should be viewed as a reflection of the objective seriousness of the offending involved.[51] The Minster adds that the driving offences of the Applicant, one while he was on bail, should be viewed as serious and demonstrate a ‘complete disregard for the law and authority.’[52] The Minister also says the incident reports and restraining orders suggest threats of family violence even if no charges or convictions arose. The Minister contends that the conduct of the Applicant should weigh very heavily against revocation of the Reviewable Decision.
[50] HB p 257.
[51] HB pp 257-8.
[52] HB p 258.
The Applicant concedes the assessment of the Index Offences is likely to be regarded as ‘serious’.[53] The Applicant accepts that this consideration is likely to be weighted in favour of non-revocation of the Reviewable Decision. The Applicant says the Index Offences were out of character, that he had lived for a long period in Australia without any criminal record, that he was not a planner of the drug trafficking operation, that the trafficking was the result of ‘stupidity’ and motivated by ‘greed’, and that he needed the firearms for self-defence and killing of kangaroos.[54] The Applicant also says that he had never committed an act of family violence other than arguments and shouting that are likely to occur in the breakup of any relationship.
[53] HB p 270.
[54] HB p 279.
The Minister relies on several police incident reports as well as two restraining orders to contend that although the Applicant has not been charged or convicted of an act of family violence, the content of the reports and restraining orders is viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community.[55] The Applicant says in reply that these incidents arose from the time when he and his partner (Ms Samantha Brook) had separated, that it was a stressful time, that there was never any violence or threats of violence against Ms Brook or the children, and that their relationship soon returned to normality after those incidents. The Applicant also relies on the oral evidence of Ms Brook that they both had ‘issues’ they had to deal with respectively, that the break-up of their relationship was challenging, that the children were never threatened with violence, and that the Applicant remained throughout to this day a person on whom she can rely on to assist her personally and as a co-parent.
[55] HB pp 187-207.
Having been issued with warnings regarding the privilege against self-incrimination, the Applicant said that in respect of the unlicensed firearms he needed those for self-defence because he lived alone on a rural block, the police station was ‘a distance away’,[56] he sometimes had to kill kangaroos that got stuck in fences, that he had not considered applying for a licenced firearm, and that he had ‘acquired’ the unlicensed firearms. The Applicant did not expand on the circumstances in which he acquired the firearms or against what threat he needed self-defence.
[56] HB p 279.
Direction no. 110, requires the Tribunal to take into account a range of factors in assessing the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s conduct and offending, including certain conduct which is to be regarded as ‘very serious’ or ‘serious’.
I find that the nature and seriousness of the conduct of the Applicant should weigh very serious against the revocation of the Reviewable Decision. The reasons for this finding by reference to paragraphs 8.1.1(1)(a) to (i) of the Direction (as relevant) are:
(a)The Index Offences involved possession of a substantial volume of prohibited drugs (85kg) with the intent to sell for financial gain as well as unlicensed firearms.[57] In sentencing remarks Troy DCJ summarised the role the Applicant played to package, transport, and conceal the drugs. The Applicant was described by Troy DCJ as the ‘custodian’ of the drugs, for which he was to receive $20,000.[58]
(b)The Applicant knew about the quantity and potential value of the drugs. In respect of the knowledge of the Applicant concerning the transaction, Troy DCJ found as follows: ‘The compelling inference is that you understood the quantity and enormous value of these drugs if they had been sold in Western Australia, as they would have been if they had not been apprehended’.[59]
(c)The Applicant played a key role in the operation. Despite Troy DCJ saying that the Applicant’s offending was an ‘aberration’, his Honour goes on to describe the role of the Applicant as follows: ‘The role of a courier, indeed, in your case, a custodian, is an important element in the dissemination of drugs into the community. And you participation in the scheme as a custodian was for your own commercial gain’.[60]
(d)The role of the Applicant in the index offending was ‘not fleeting’.[61] Troy DCJ found that the Applicant ‘performed the important task of warehousing the drugs at your secluded rural property. Plainly, a high degree of trust had been placed in you by others within the syndicate at a higher level’.[62]
(e)The offending of the Applicant in respect of the other convictions are also very serious, particularly in respect of the possession of illicit drugs, driving under the influence, and possession of two unlicenced firearms.
(f)The incident reports and restraining reports that arose from a domestic setting did not give rise to formal criminal charges, but I am concerned that the Applicant in a stressful time of their lives, displayed behaviour that caused his partner or the friend of the partner to call the police for assistance or to seek protection via a protection order. Ms Brook speaks about how fearful she was when domestic incidents arose, particularly when the Applicant was intoxicated. In one such incident a friend of Ms Brook called the police to ask for assistance after she observed the conduct of the Applicant towards Ms Brook.[63] Ms Brook says in evidence that despite the conduct of the Applicant during the incidents the subject of the incident reports and restraining order, she never feared for the safety of their children. Ms Brooke also says the restraining order issued on 5 October 2027 had been revoked by her.[64] Whilst I accept the evidence of Mr Brook that the children were never threatened, I nevertheless view this conduct as very serious, particularity because the incident reports were contemporaneous, and there was adequate fear for police to be called.
(g)The Index Offences and the other convictions of the Applicant show an escalation in seriousness of conduct by the Applicant. Whilst I note that the Applicant had been conviction-free for a substantial period of time since arriving in Australia, it appears that after the breakdown of his relationship, the nature and seriousness of his criminal offending and other conduct increased in severity. The cumulative effects of the offending, especially in respect to offences involving drugs and possession of unlicenced firearms, highlight the increasing nature and seriousness of offences. The seriousness of the Index Offences is reflected in the substantial period of imprisonment imposed on the Applicant.
[57] HB p 279.
[58] HB p 57. Troy DCJ found: ‘Your intent in relation to the drugs that you attempted to possess was to supply them to unknown purposes [sic] who would have collected them from your remote rural property. In essence, you were a custodian. It is aid that you were to receive $20 000 for that task.’ HB p 57.
[59] HB p 58.
[60] HB p 59.
[61] HB p 65.
[62] HB p 65.
[63] HB p 189.
[64] HB p 206.
I find that the nature and seriousness of the Index Offences and other offences weigh very serious against revocation of the Reviewable Decision.
Risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct
I am required to assess the risk that may be posed by the Applicant to the Australian community by considering, cumulatively, the ‘nature of the harm’ to individuals or to the community should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct, and the ‘likelihood’ of the Applicant engaging in such conduct.[65] There is no statutory constraint on the way that risk is assessed by the decision-maker other than that there must be a rational and probative basis for the assessment.[66] The Tribunal must consider the ‘likelihood’ and consequences of further offending.[67]
[65] Direction no. 110 para 8.1.2(2)(a) and (b).
[66] BSJ16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 1181, [68] per Moshinsky J; Hambledon v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 7, [41] per Kenny J.
[67] Tanielu v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 224 FCR 424; [2014] FCA 673, [95].
Direction no. 110 refers the ‘risk to the Australian community’, ‘further offences’ or ‘engage in other serious conduct’ as distinct though related concepts. ‘Likelihood of reoffending’ is an element to be considered in determining the ‘risk’ to the community. The other is the nature of the harm which would be caused if the Applicant were to reoffend. The terms ‘risk’ and ‘likelihood’ are often used interchangeably in material relevant to assessing whether an Applicant may reoffend. This can blur the analysis of risk to the community which requires not only an assessment of the Applicant’s individual likelihood of reoffending, but also the nature of the harm associated with such offending. For example, a low individual likelihood of reoffending may still represent a significant risk to the community where the harm which would be caused is very serious. Care must be exercised when referring to risk or reoffending assessments which are more properly characterised, in the context of this consideration, as assessments of the likelihood of reoffending. Those assessments may or may not involve assessments of the nature of harm which would be caused if the Applicant would reoffend such as must be considered by the Tribunal.
The Minister says, in summary, the nature of the harm should be assessed as very high and the tolerance of the community towards such harm is very low. The Minster contends that it is open for me to conclude that even if the risk of reoffending by the Applicant is low, the gravity if the harm might eventuate is very serious.[68] This consideration ought to weigh according to the Minister very serious against revocation of the Reviewable Decision.
[68] Main v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 446, [30].
The Applicant, in summary, accepts that the harm that would be caused if he were to reoffend would be serious. However, he maintains that the likelihood of him doing so is nil or extremely low. Accordingly, the Applicant says that the risk to the community is, on balance, also low. The Applicant says that on balance there is ‘at most a very low likelihood’ of him reoffending in a serious manner. Therefore, this consideration ought to attract limited weight against revocation of the Reviewable Decision.[69] The Applicant repeatedly stressed during the hearing that the risk he poses is low to negligible, that his remorse is deep and sincere, and that his commitments to his family and to being a good citizen are first and foremost in his mind. Witnesses called by the Applicant support him in this respect.
[69] HB p 272.

In assessing the risk that may be posed by the Applicant to the Australian community, I now have regard, cumulatively, of the nature of the harm should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct, and the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct:
Nature of the harm
In order to determine the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, I must consider the nature of the harm to individuals, or the Australian community should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct.[70]
[70] Direction no. 110 para 8.1.2(2)(a).
The Applicant accepts that the harm which would be caused should he reoffend in respect to distributing of prohibited drugs, would be serious.[71] The Applicant says harm caused by driving under the influence may also cause significant harm. The Applicant says the incident reports and retraining orders were not reflective of his conduct in general and arose during a very unstable period in his life and his relationship with Ms Brook. The Applicant says there is no risk of harm arising from those incidents since they were of a domestic nature and never gave rise to violence or threats of violence. The Applicant accepts that this consideration, on balance, is likely to weigh seriously against revocation of the Reviewable Decision.
[71] HB p 271.
The Minister says I should consider the likelihood of and consequences of reoffending by the Applicant as very serious. The Minister contends that any future offending of a similar nature of the Index Offences would expose the Australian community to significant physical, psychological, and financial harm. The Minister also says that driving under the influence is a serious public safety concern. The Minister further contends that the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct is very serious that any risk that it may be repeated, is unacceptable.
I find that the nature of the Index Offences if the Applicant were to reoffend, would cause very serious harm to individuals or to the Australian community. It is well known what devastation illicit drugs cause to individuals and to the Australian community. The sentencing comments and the sentence imposed by Troy DCJ highlight the very seriousness of the Index Offences. The role of the Applicant as courier and custodian of the drugs shows that he played a significant role in the total process even if he was not a planner or coordinator. I reject the proposition by the Applicant that his role in the total operation was ‘minor’. I give very serious weight to this element of the consideration against the revocation of the Reviewable Decision.
I find that the nature of the firearm offences if the Applicant were to reoffend, would cause very serious harm to individuals or to the Australian community. The explanation by the Applicant as to why he was in possession of two unlicensed firearms, being self-defence and killing of kangaroos, is not plausible since he could not explain to me against who he needed self-defence. The Applicant also appeared to demonstrate little insight into the wrongfulness of these offences and to the danger unlicensed firearms pose to the community. The admissions by the Applicant that he had ‘acquired’ the two firearms and that he ‘never thought’ of applying for a firearm licence, are a very serious concern and displays a disregard for the law. I give very serious weight to this element of the consideration against the revocation of the Reviewable Decision.
I find that the nature of harm if the Applicant were to engage in other serious conduct such as family violence or related conduct, is very serious. The conduct of the Applicant had caused his previous partner as well as a friend of the partner to call police to seek their protection and intervention. Ms Brook also said the family threats often took place in the context of the Applicant being intoxicated.
In respect of the driving under the influence by the Applicant I give serious weight to the risk it poses within the context of this proceeding. In QJYD v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] AATA 1 (QJYD) at [51]–[54] Senior Member Evans-Bonner found the following:
Road traffic laws are in place to protect the community, including innocent road users, from harm. Additionally, repeated breaches of road traffic laws tend to indicate a disregard for laws and authority generally, an inability to distinguish right from wrong, and a selfish disregard for the safety of innocent members of the community who share the roads (at [51])… there is a potential to lose control of a motor vehicle whilst driving under the influence of alcohol, which can have catastrophic consequences to innocent members of the community. Therefore, the Tribunal agrees that these offences are serious (at [66]).
I consider, on balance, the harm which would be caused to individuals and to the Australian community were the Applicant to reoffend or engage in other serious conduct as very serious.
Likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or serious conduct
In order to determine the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct, the Tribunal must also consider the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or serious conduct if he were permitted to remain in the Australian community.[72]
[72] Direction no. 110 para 8.1.2(2)(b).
The Applicant maintains that there is a very low likelihood of him reoffending.[73] The Applicant contends he did not play an essential role in the planning or execution of the Index Offences;[74] that he committed those offences out of stupidity and greed; and that he has serious and deep remorse over his wrongdoings. The Applicant furthermore says he had been a law-abiding resident of Australia for many years prior to the offences; he deeply regrets the wrongs he did; while on parole he committed no other offences; he is deterred from offending again; he is committed to make different life choices; he would be much older and mature by the time he is released; the risk of being separated from his family is a major deterrent; and he is committed to the care of his children and his elderly mother and stepfather.[75]
[73] HB p 272.
[74] The Applicant says his involvement in the drug trafficking ‘was on a very low scale in that I followed orders and was by no means the mastermind of the operation’. HB, p279.
[75] HB p 271.
The Applicant says limited weight should be afforded to this consideration against revocation of the Reviewable Decision.[76]
[76] HB p 272.
The Minister adopts two approaches to the reasoning in respect of this consideration.
Firstly, the Minister disputes that there is a low likelihood of the Applicant reoffending. The Minister says the risk of offending is high given the past conduct and behaviour as well as lack of remorse and insight of the Applicant.
Secondly, the Minster contends that even if there is a low risk of offending, due to the seriousness of the conduct, the Australian community has low tolerance to bear such a risk. The Minster contends that the conduct of the Applicant must be viewed cumulatively and as increasing in its severity.
The Minister also contends that the Applicant had not shown deep remorse as is evidenced that he was convicted of driving under the influence during the period when he was on bail. The Minster questions the extent of rehabilitation of the Applicant since his purported rehabilitation has not after the conviction been demonstrated outside the confines of prison. The Minister expresses concern that as soon as the Applicant is again exposed to the pressures of life outside of prison, the risk of him engaging in further criminal or serious conduct is very likely.
I find, on balance, there is a low-moderate likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or serious conduct if he were permitted to remain in the Australian community. I find so for the following reasons.
The Applicant repeatedly expresses remorse for his wrongdoing. The remorse and insight of the Applicant are supported by those who gave oral evidence as well as the written letters of reference. Although there is no expert report of risk assessment before me about the likelihood of the Applicant reoffending, I rely on the written and oral evidence of the Applicant,[77] the assessments by the prison authorities that he is not required to attend any rehabilitation-related courses, the observations of those of his family who gave evidence, and the acknowledgement by Troy DCJ that his offending was an ‘aberration’.[78] I also take into account that the Applicant is described by the prison authorities as a ‘good worker’[79] and that he is housed in self-care accommodation.[80]
[77] HB pp 92-93, 278-9, SS.
[78] HB p 59.
[79] HB p 215.
[80] HB p 217.
The seriousness of the Index Offences is conceded by the Applicant, but I find that the likelihood of the Applicant again engaging in similar conduct to be low-moderate. I do not agree with the Applicant that the likelihood is nil or low because the Applicant’s previous offending in circumstances where he experienced various life stresses, elevates in my assessment the likelihood of him again reoffending. I also note that the needs of the Applicant’s children or parents did not dissuade him from committing the Index Offences or the driving offence while on bail.
I note the guilty plea entered by the Applicant in respect of the Index Offences, but I also put to the Applicant that the plea was only entered one day prior to the trial, some four years and seven months after the offences had been committed.[81] The Applicant says he had acted on the basis of legal advice.
[81] HB p 60.
Several letters in support of the Applicant were included into the Hearing Bundle.[82]
[82] HB pp 114-124.
Martyn Wickens, a previous employer of the Applicant, says the Applicant is trustworthy, reliable, and decent. He says the Applicant has often expressed remorse about his offending, love for his children, and regret for his error of judgment.[83]
[83] HB pp 116-7.
Ian Murphy, who knows the Applicant in an employment and friendship capacity, says the Applicant is known for his willingness to help others, his assistance to young people, his dedication to his family, and his genuine remorse.[84]
[84] HB pp 119-120.
John Gatrell, who has known the Applicant for around 5 years, speaks about the Applicant being respectful, close to his mother, available to help friends, and that he has made positive changes to his life.[85]
[85] HB pp 121-2.
Arnie Manning, who authored an article about the contribution the Applicant has made to the horse racing industry.[86]
[86] HB pp 123-4.
In addition to those references above, several family members of the Applicant also made written submissions and gave oral evidence.
Samantha Brook, previous partner of the Applicant, speaks about their complex relationship history, the breakdown of their relationship, his positive qualities as a father, the challenges they faced as a couple and how he is now a changed person, his reliability, his strong work ethic, and his deep remorse. She says she has seen significant growth in the mindset of the Applicant, his eagerness to be integrated again with the community, and his acknowledgement of the mistakes he made.[87]
[87] HB pp 114-5, 282-284.
Bruce Albert Hunt, stepfather of the Applicant, says he has known the Applicant for 35 years. He says he regards the Applicant as his son. He says there is not a day that goes by without the Applicant blaming himself for the wrongs he had done. Mr Hunt says there is ‘very little chance’ of the Applicant reoffending. He says when he heard about the arrest of the Applicant it was completely unexpected and out of character.[88]
[88] HB pp 280-1.
Sandra Hunt, mother of the Applicant, says the offences were completely out of character. She says the Applicant is deeply remorseful for what he had done. She speaks about him being a good son and father to his kids. Mrs Hunt says the Applicant is deeply remorseful, that he is ‘disgusted’ in himself for what he had done, and that the chance of him reoffend is ‘virtually nil’.[89]
[89] HB pp 276-7.
DA, the 16-years-old daughter of the Applicant, spoke about her love for her father, the supportive role he plays in their lives, how he is sorry for what he had done, how his offending has a had a profound impact on her and her brother, and how he is not likely to reoffend.[90]
[90] HB pp 285-287.
The Applicant says although he is willing to attend any course on offer by the prison authorities, the duration of his sentence means that he does not yet qualify for some pre-release courses, he has been found to not need other rehabilitation courses, and the courses identified for him are of an educational and vocational nature.[91] The Applicant says he intends to enrol in the Whitehaven Addition Treatment and Recovery Program, not because of an addiction, but rather to lean new life skills and coping strategies.[92]
[91] HB pp 217-222, 231.
[92] HB p 278, SS.
To the extent the Applicant relies on the love and support of Perth-based family members, particularly so his love for and responsibility to his two children, I put to the Applicant that those relationships and supports were not sufficient to prevent his previous offending. The Applicant replied that he is now a changed man and that he will not again reoffend.
The character references share a theme that the Applicant is unlikely to engage in further criminal or serious conduct. The referees speak about the insight that has been gained by the Applicant, his deep remorse, and his strong commitment to his family.
I find that although in my assessment the risk of reoffending is low-moderate, I am entitled to conclude that even such a low risk is unacceptable if the gravity of harm that might eventuate is sufficiently serious. (Main v Minister of Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs [2023] FCA 446 at [30].)
Overall, I find on balance there is a low-moderate likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or serious conduct if he were permitted to remain in the Australian community.
Conclusion on the protection of the Australian community
The Applicant’s conduct and offending are very serious. The Index Offences read with the rest of the criminal record of the Applicant and the incident reports and restraining orders, demonstrate the serious harm which could be caused to the Australian community were he to reoffend. I find that the nature of harm to individuals or the Australian community should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct, particularly in respect of the distribution of drugs and firearm offences, is very high.
I must take into account the totality of the conduct of the Applicant in the assessment of protection of the Australian community and the likelihood of the Applicant engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct.
I find there is a low-moderate likelihood that the Applicant may reoffend or engage in other criminal or serious conduct.
I find that the serious harm which would be caused by further criminal offending or serious conduct outweigh the low-moderate likelihood of reoffending. Considering the significant harm which could be caused to the Australian community if the Applicant were to reoffend, I consider the risk to the Australian community to be very serious.
Having regard to the nature and seriousness of the Applicant’s offending and conduct, and to the risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or other serious conduct, I find, on balance, that this primary consideration weighs very seriously against revocation of the Reviewable Decision.
Primary Consideration 2: Family violence committed by the Applicant
Paragraph 8.2 of Direction no. 110 provides that the Tribunal must have regard to family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen when deciding whether to revoke a visa cancellation decision. Par 4(1) of Direction no. 110 provides that 'family violence' means violent, threatening, or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family or causes the family member to be fearful. The definition also includes examples of behaviour that may constitute family violence. Paragraph 8.2(1) of Direction no. 110 provides that the government has 'serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of… remaining in Australia'. It further provides that the government's concerns in this regard are 'proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen' with reference to the factors outlined in paragraph 8.2(3) of Direction no. 110.
In Lum and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] AATA 792 at [139] it was said that the Tribunal has ‘consistently’ found that family violence is ‘abhorrent’. It has been described as a ‘corrosive blight’ on the Australian community, which 'warps and destroys the healthy bonds that should exist between partners and within families…’ While this is a decision of the Tribunal and I am not bound to follow it, I adopt it for purposes of these reasons.
The Applicant has not faced family violence charges, nor has he been convicted of an offence that constitutes family violence.
111.The conduct of the Applicant has, however, been mentioned in police incident reports and restraining orders:
(a)On 8 February 2006, a police incident report notes that Ms Brook, former partner of the Applicant, told a police officer at a public place that she was in fear of her partner, who she called Shane [the first name of the Applicant], becoming physically violent.[93]
(b)On 26 December 2012, a police incident report notes that the police were called to a domestic incident between the Applicant and Ms Brook at the time of them splitting up. There was no allegation of violence or threat of violence, but verbal arguments and them shouting abuse to each other.[94]
(c)On 10 February 2013, Ms Brook called the police to ask them to be on stand-by while she collected some of her possessions from the family home. No threats were made against her or the children, but the Applicant was yelling and swearing at her.[95]
(d)On 19 August 2017, a police incident report notes that Ms Brook called police because she had received a text message from the Applicant that made her concerned that he may self-harm. A 12-hour police order was issued to allow the Applicant to ‘sober up’.[96]
(e)On 12 February 2013, a restraining order with an expiry for 2 years was issued against the Applicant to protect his ex-partner, Ms Brook, and children.[97]
(f)On 5 October 2017, a restraining order with an expiry on 4 October 2019 was issued against the Applicant under the heading ‘family violence’ for protection of his ex-partner, Ms Brook, and their children.
[93] HB p 187.
[94] HB p 189.
[95] HB p 191.
[96] HB p 198.
[97] HB p 204.
The Minster says although the Applicant was not convicted of any offences arising from any of these incidents, the incidents indicate ‘his propensity to engage in violent or aggressive behaviour in a domestic setting, including towards women and in the vicinity of their children…’.[98]
[98] HB p 262.
The Minister also says the conduct of the Applicant over a prolonged period meets the definition of ‘family violence’.
The Minister contends that this consideration should weigh seriously against revocation of the Reviewable Decision.
The Applicant says that he has never threatened Ms Brook or their children with violence. He says that in the break-up of their relationship there were lots of shouting and verbal abuse, but it came from both sides. There was never any violence or threats of violence by him. He says that even at the time of the incident reports he continued to have access to the children, and during the period of the restraining orders all visitation and contact arrangements with the children continued. In any event, he says the situation has now become so normalised that before his incarceration he would visit Mr Brook and her new partner with the children.

Ms Brook says the Applicant never threatened their children and she never feared for their safety. She says one of the incident reports was only precautionary because she wanted to collect her belongings from their house, whilst another incident report arose when a friend of hers called the police when Mr Brook and the Applicant had an argument. She confirms that during the period of the restraining orders she and the Applicant continued contact and the Applicant had free contact with and access to the children.
The Applicant says limited weight against revocation of the Reviewable Decision should be afforded to this consideration.
I find that, on balance, moderate weight should be afforded to this consideration against revocation of the Reviewable Decision.
I find so for the following reasons:
(a)I find the evidence of Ms Brook credible that the disagreements she and the Applicant had should be seen against the complexity of their personal circumstances and background, the lack of violence or threat of violence, the role of alcohol in the conduct of the Applicant, and the absence of any threats to their children;
(b)I find that the explanation given by Ms Brook about the police incident reports and the restraining orders credible, namely that one incident report was based on a precautionary request to the police, another incident report was based on a friend having witnessed an argument between the Applicant and Ms Brook, and that contact between them continued regardless of the restraining orders;
(c)I find the evidence of Mr Brooke credible that before the incarceration of the Applicant, the relationship between her and the Applicant, as well as the relationship with the new partner of Ms Brook, had normalised to the extent that they had joint get-togethers between the three adults and the children; and
(d)I find the evidence of DA credible that her father is loving, supportive, there when they as children need him, and encouraging of them as children.
I find that on balance the conduct of the Applicant meets the test of family violence since the respective incidents that gave rise to the police reports and restraining orders were of such nature that a person – be it Ms Brook or her friend – had adequate fear to call the police for their intervention and protection. Although there was no actual violence or threat of violence against Ms Brook or the children, the conduct and behaviour of the Applicant, fuelled in some cases by his use of alcohol, caused Ms Brook to fear the Applicant. These reports are independent, contemporaneous, and provide a succinct summary of the respective concerns.
I also find that the incidents should be seen cumulatively since they were not limited to a certain event or circumstance but arose over a period stretching from 2006 to 2017.
I find that although paragraph 4.1 of Direction No. 110 contains examples of what may constitute family violence, those examples are not exhaustive. Although the conduct of the Applicant does not fall within any of those examples, the conduct of the Applicant caused a ‘family member to be fearful’.[99]
[99] Cowgill v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2025] FCA 704, [55].
Although I find that the conduct of the Applicant constituted family violence as defined in paragraph 4.1 of Direction No. 110, the weight I give to it on balance is moderate against revocation of the Reviewable Decision.
Primary Consideration 3: The strength, nature, and duration of ties to Australia
I am required to consider any impact of the Reviewable Decision on the Applicant’s immediate family members in Australia.[100] I must also consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the Applicant has to the Australian community, having regard to how long he has lived in Australia and the strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with citizens, permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.[101]
[100] Direction no. 110 para 8.3(1).
[101] Direction no. 110 para 8.3(2).
I note that the parties agree that this consideration weighs in favour of the revocation of the Reviewable Decision, but they disagree on the weight to be afforded. The Applicant says it ought to be weighted very strongly in support of revocation, whilst the Minister says it ought to be weighted moderately in support of revocation of the Reviewable Decision.
The Applicant has lived in Australia for 29 years since the age of 20. The immediate family members of the Applicant in Australia are his mother, stepfather, two minor children, DA (aged 16) and DB (aged 13), and his previous partner. The Applicant does not currently have a partner. I regard Ms Brook as ‘immediate family’ since for purposes of Direction No 110 the term ‘immediate family member’ is not defined, and in the context of their relationship and co-parenting it is reasonable to regard Ms Brook as ‘immediate family’.
The Applicant’s children, his mother and stepfather are Australian citizens, and his previous partner, Ms Brook, has permanent residence of Australia.
The Applicant said in oral evidence that he does not own any real estate in Australia, that he had lived on his own at a rural block at the time of the Index Offences, and since his arrest until his incarceration he had lived with his mother and stepfather.
The Applicant says he has a close network of friends. He no longer maintains contact with those that had a wrong influence on him. The Applicant did not mention any friends specifically in this proceeding, but I note that in the District Court proceeding as well as part of the review proceeding letters of reference were submitted by friends and colleagues. I will also consider those, albeit that the persons did not give oral evidence.
The Applicant says the impact of his removal would have a ‘devasting’ impact on his immediate family in Perth. The Applicant says:
(a)by the time of his release his mother and stepfather would be elderly and likely in need of his support and care;
(b)his mother suffers rheumatoid arthritis and other health conditions which are likely to have a greater impact on her mobility and self-care as she ages;
(c)he is the only child with whom his mother has close contact;
(d)he and his mother are very close, they have always done things together, he lived with her and his stepfather while he was on bail, and they both need his support and care;
(e)he has severed all ties with Ireland, he has only been back to Ireland on one occasion, and he does not maintain contact with friends or family in Ireland,
(f)if deported, his mother and stepfather would be unlikely to visit him in Ireland due to their age;
(g)he has a close relationship with Ms Brook, their children, and her new partner;
(h)he has worked in Australia for many years and is keen to return to the cabinetmaking and carpentry profession; and
(i)he regards himself totally and, in all respects, as Australian.
Ms Brook says that she and the Applicant are close - he is a reliable and dependable friend. He cares for the children and has been a loving co-parent since their separation, and that although he made poor choices he continues to be needed by his family, particularly the children; and the children would also need the personal support and love of their father into their adulthood.
Mrs Hunt and Mr Hunt say they would need the support of the Applicant as they grow older; that he has always supported them, that Mr Hunt regards him as his own son; that they would accommodate him if he needed housing upon release; that he regards himself totally as Australian; and that he has severed his links to his family in Ireland. They also say it is unlikely they would be able to visit him in Ireland after his release because of their age. Mrs Hunt says it would be ‘devastating’ and would ‘tear out her heart’ if the Applicant were deported.
DA says that she and her brother would need their father in his personal attendance when they become adults. They would want to share with him all their living moments and milestones. She says this cannot be done effectively over telephone or video. She says she cannot even imagine him not being there for her and her brother when he is discharged.
The letters of reference speak of the Applicant as being a trustworthy worker,[102] a reliable and close friend and colleague,[103] willing to help other people;[104] counsellor to young people;[105] having a strong support network;[106] being a friend who can be called in hours of need;[107] having an impressive journey in horse racing in Australia;[108] and a person who should be able to remain in Australia.[109]
[102] HB p 117.
[103] HB p 117.
[104] HB p 119.
[105] HB p 119.
[106] HB p 119.
[107] HB p 121.
[108] HB p 123
[109] HB p 122.
The Applicant has a positive employment record in Australia, having worked as a jockey (1996-2003); a horse trainer (2003-2016); a mining machinery tradesman (2016-2019); and in construction and carpentry (2019-2024).[110]
[110] HB p 88.
The Applicant says this consideration should weigh ‘heavily in favour’ of revocation of the Reviewable Decision.[111]
[111] HB p 272.
The Minister accepts that the Applicant’s removal from Australia may prevent his mother, stepfather, and then adult children from having a direct physical relationship with him in the future and that they may experience some emotional, practical, and financial hardship as a result. However, the Minister says their willingness to relocate and/or visit the Applicant remains unclear, particularly in relation to his children who would be adults upon his release from prison.
The Minister accepts that the Applicant has been ordinarily resident in Australia since he was 20 years old, his closest family reside in Australia, and he has contributed positively to the Australian community through his employment.
The Minister says this consideration should weigh moderately in favour of revocation of the Reviewable Decision.
I have had regard to the various submissions, letters of reference, and oral evidence and find that due to the nature, strength, and duration of the Applicant’s ties to Australia, a non-revocation of the Reviewable Decision would have a serious adverse effect on them.
I find that the Applicant has very close ties with his immediate family in Perth, particularly his mother, stepfather, and children. These weigh on balance, very serious in favour of revocation of the Reviewable Decision.
My reasons for this finding are:
(a)The relationship between the Applicant and his mother is very close. He is the only of her 3 children with whom she has close contact. He supports her and that is likely to continue to do so when he is released. Her health needs are likely to increase, and it is reasonable to expect the Applicant would have to assist her as she ages;
(b)The children of the Applicant will be mature by the time he is released from prison. Although his role as a parent will change as the children mature, it is reasonable to expect them to continue to be reliant on their father for assistance, advice, love, support, and guidance. Although some level of contact may be maintained at a distance, it is unlikely to substitute the value of close and personal contact;
(c)The relationship between the Applicant and his stepfather is very close. The Applicant is like a son to M. Hunt. Mr Hunt will be over the age of 90 by the time the Applicant is released from prison. It is reasonable to expect that the Applicant would assist Mr Hunt as he ages; and
(d)The relationship between the Applicant and Ms Brook is as co-parents and friends. It is likely that Ms Brook’s reliance on the Applicant would weaken by the time he is released because she has a partner to whom she will soon be married later in 2025, and the children will mature which means their co-parenting role will be less important.
Overall, I find that the strength, nature, and duration of the Applicant’s ties to Australia weigh in favour of revoking the Reviewable Decision. Having regard to the Applicant’s circumstances I afford, on balance, very serious weight to this consideration.
Primary Consideration 4: Best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision
Paragraph 8.4 of Direction no. 110 requires the Tribunal to consider the best interests of minor children in Australia affected by the decision. Under paragraph 8.4, the Tribunal must make a determination whether cancellation or refusal under s 501CA of the Migration Act, is or is not, in the best interests of children who are under 18 at the time the decision is expected to be made. Where there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests might differ.
Paragraph 8.4(4) of Direction no. 110 goes on to outline the factors that a decision-maker must consider when determining the best interests of a child affected by the decision where relevant. Those factors which include, in summary:[112]
(a)the nature and duration of the relationship;
(b)the extent to which the Applicant is likely to play a positive parental role in the future;
(c)the impact of the Applicant’s prior conduct, and any likely future conduct, on the child;
(d)the likely effect that any separation from the Applicant would have on the child;
(e)whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child;
(f)any known views of the child;
(g)evidence that the child has been, or is at risk of being exposed to family violence by the Applicant or has otherwise been abused or neglected by the Applicant; and
(h)evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the Applicant’s conduct.
[112] Direction no. 110 para 8.4(4)(a)-(h).
The Applicant identified the following children whose best interest is that the Reviewable Decision is revoked:[113] his daughter, DA, who is 16 years of age, and his son DB, who is 13 years of age. Both live in Perth with their mother. The Applicant has had co-parenting obligations since 2013 when the relationship between him and Ms Brook ended. Ms Brook has primary caring responsibilities, but she and the children often revert to the Applicant for assistance, advice, inputs, and involvement in the lives of the children.[114]
[113] HB pp 82, 273-4.
[114] HB p 83.
The Applicant has since separation from Ms Brook, maintained close connection with both children. Prior to his incarceration, they spent every second weekend with him; he could access them at any other time; he accompanied them to sport and social events; they spent holidays together; and they have a close relationship with their grandparents, Mr, and Mrs Hunt. Mrs Hunt and Ms Brook spoke about them having a close family network.
The children have regular contact by phone with the Applicant while he is in prison. They also visit him as regularly as practicable. The impact of the imprisonment of the Applicant on his children, particularly on his young son DB, has been severe.[115] It is said, and I accept it, that DB in particular has suffered trauma, that he received counselling, that he has been at risk of self-harm, and that until shortly prior to the hearing his mother did not want to tell him about the potential of his father being deported out of concerns for his mental health.
[115] HB p 286.
Ms Brook, Mrs Hunt and Mr Hunt say the impact on the children if the Applicant were deported would be devastating and heartbreaking.
DA speaks in her statement[116] of her and her brother’s love of their father, their reliance on him, the care he provides to them, his love and support for them. She speaks about the remorse of the Applicant and how distraught she would be if he is deported.[117] She says they visit him regularly, and they speak often over the phone. She says there has been a ‘considerable change’ in his attitude.[118] She says she ‘fears’ how her brother DB would cope if he were to learn that their dad is to be deported after his release from prison.[119] She says having the Applicant deported will be like a ‘second punishment’ for him and for them.[120] She says she need her dad to be in person there for her and her brother when he is released.
[116] HB pp 285-7.
[117] HB p 285.
[118] HB p 286.
[119] HB p 286.
[120] HB p 287.
The Applicant submits, in summary, that the best interests of the identified children are that the Reviewable Decision be revoked, and that ‘heavy weight’ should be given to this consideration having regard to their best interests both now and after his release from prison.[121]
[121] HB p 274.
The Minister says that the relationship between the Applicant and his children is close and that they would be adversely affected by his desperation. The Minister submits that both children would be adult by the time the Applicant is released, with DA turning 18 in two years and BD turning 18 in 5 years.[122] The Minister contends that, as adults, the children may visit him in Ireland, there would have been a long absence from him in their daily lives in person; and that contact can be maintained from Ireland.
[122] HB p 263-4.
The Minister contends that this primary consideration should be afforded limited weight in favour of revocation of the Reviewable Decision.
I find that on balance moderate-serious weight should be afforded to this consideration in support of the revocation of the Reviewable Decision.
My reasons are:
(a)It is in the best interests of DA and DB for the Applicant to be released into the Australian community to be with them as parent albeit that they would be adult;
(b)Although the children will be adult by the time the Applicant is released, the emotional impact on them as minors to know at this stage of their lives that their father would be deported at release, can be expected to be severe and depressing. In this respect the impact may be worse on DB because he is younger, whilst DA is more mature, resilient, and already looking at study opportunities interstate;
(c)The deportation of the Applicant, if it were to occur, will not have an immediate impact on the practical relationship between the Applicant and his children because of his imprisonment;
(d)the nature and duration of the relationship between the Applicant and the children are parental and close;
(e)the parental role of the Applicant will inevitably be restricted by him being in prison, but the hope of him being reunited with his children upon release from prison is a very serious consideration for the best interest of the children;
(f)it is unlikely that the conduct of the Applicant after release from prison would negatively impact on the children;
(g)Ms Brook as well as her partner and Mr and Mrs Hunt fulfill parental and supportive roles for the children;
(h)DA has expressed her strong wish for the Applicant not to be deported; and
(i)There is no evidence that the children had suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the Applicant’s conduct.
On balance, I find that the weight given to the best interests of both minor children in Australia weighs in favour of revocation of the Reviewable Decision.
For the above reasons, I consider, on balance, that in respect of this consideration moderate-serious weight is afforded in favour of revocation of the Reviewable Decision.
Primary Consideration 5: Expectations of the Australian Community
The fifth primary consideration requires the Tribunal to weigh the expectations of the Australian community. Paragraph 8.5(1) of Direction no. 110 provides that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. The Direction goes on to state that 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 would not allow them to enter or remain in Australia.

Paragraph 8.5(2) directs that 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 is such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa.
Direction no. 110 notes that 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 particular kinds. The paragraph directs that, in particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government should cancel a non-citizen’s visa if they raise serious character concerns through specific conduct listed in sub-paras 8.5(2)(a)–(f). Those particularised types of harm generally reflect the types of conduct identified in para 8.1.1 as conduct which is considered ‘very seriously’ or ‘serious’. I must have due regard to the deemed community expectation that all persons who have committed serious criminal offences giving rise to character concerns should have their visa applications refused.[123]
[123] FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs (2019) 272 FCR 454; [2019] FCAFC 185, [75].
Paragraph 8.5(3) of Direction no. 110 further confirms that the stated expectations apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community. In doing so, para 8.5(3) arguably further qualifies the ‘norm’ expressed in para 8.5(1), which refers to the ‘unacceptable risk’ of conduct being engaged in. This makes it clear that a ‘measureable [sic] risk’ of physical harm to the community is not required for the community expectation that the non-citizen not hold a visa to be engaged, where serious character concerns are raised through the person’s conduct or offending.
This consideration will, in most cases, weigh against revocation of a cancellation decision if that expectation has been breached or if there is an unacceptable risk that it may be breached in the future.
The list of the types of conduct identified in paragraphs 8.5(2)(a)-(f) is not exhaustive.
The Applicant says that this consideration should weigh against revocation of the Reviewable decision.[124] The Minister says the consideration should weigh heavily against revocation of the Reviewable Decision.[125]
[124] HB p 273.
[125] HB p 265.
I have found that the Applicant’s Index Offences are very serious for the reasons outlined above. I have also found that the Applicant says he is committed to rehabilitation and there is a low-moderate likelihood of the Applicant reoffending.
I accept the submission of the Minister that the expectation of the Australian community is that a non-citizen who engages in serious conduct in breach of the expectations of the community that they ought to obey Australian law, ought not to be allowed to remain in Australia.[126]
[126] HB p 265.
In weighing this consideration, I am also guided by the principles in para 5.2 of Direction no. 110. Paragraph 5.2(2) states that the safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. Paragraph 5.2(3) directs that the Applicant, having engaged in criminal conduct, should expect to forfeit the privilege of staying in Australia. Paragraph 5.2(4) expresses a principle similar to para 8.5(3) with respect to serious character concerns and makes it clear that those concerns are not restricted to circumstances where there is a measurable risk of physical harm to the Australian community.
Although the principles note the increased tolerance afforded to non-citizens who have been in the community from a very young age or for most of their lives, the Applicant arrived at the age of 20 after he spent his childhood and teens in Ireland.
The nature of the character concerns and offences for which the Applicant has been convicted and the other serious conduct of the Applicant are such that the Australian community would not expect the Reviewable Decision to be revoked. Accordingly, the expectation of the Australian community weighs heavily against revocation.
Overall, I find that this primary consideration weighs very seriously against revocation of the Reviewable Decision.
Other considerations
Paragraph 9 of Direction no. 110 states:
1In making a decision under section 501(1), 501(2) or 501CA(4), the considerations below must also be taken into account, where relevant, in accordance with the following provisions. These considerations include (but are not limited to):
(a)legal consequences of the decision;
(b)extent of impediments if removed;
(c)impact on Australian business interests
Other Consideration 1: Legal consequences of decision under section 501 or 501CA
The Tribunal is required to consider the legal consequences of a decision on a non-citizen, including having regard to Australia’s non-refoulement obligations in respect of unlawful non-citizens.[127]
[127] Direction no. 110 para 9.1.
While this consideration in Direction no. 110 refers to non-refoulment obligations, it also makes reference to detention and removal, highlighting that there are a range of legal consequences of a decision not to revoke the cancellation of the Applicant’s Visa. The consequences of a visa refusal or cancellation under s 501 or related provisions include:
(a)Unlawful status;
(b)The likelihood of becoming subject to detention and/or removal;[128]
(c)Refusal of other visa applications and cancellation of other visas;[129]
(d)A prohibition on applying for other visas;[130] and
(e)Periods of exclusion and special return criteria may apply.[131]
[128] Migration Act ss 189, 196, 197C, 198.
[129] Migration Act s 501F.
[130] Migration Act s 501E.
[131] Migration Act s 503, Special Return Criteria (‘SRC’) 5001.
Generally, if a visa is cancelled its former holder becomes an unlawful non-citizen immediately after cancellation.[132] Under s 189 of the Migration Act, the Applicant must be detained and removed as soon as reasonably practicable under s 198.[133]
[132] Migration Act s 15.
[133] The Court in BHL19 v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) [2022] FCA 313 followed AJL20 v Commonwealth of Australia [2020] FCA 1305 to find the applicant’s detention had at all times been lawful at [112]-[122].
Nevertheless, the obligation to remove an unlawful non-citizen under s 198 does not arise if a ‘protection finding’ has been made in respect of a finally determined protection visa application.[134] In this case there is not a protection finding.
[134] Migration Act s 197C(3).
In M1/2021,[135] the High Court considered the following question:
In deciding whether there was another reason to revoke the Cancellation Decision pursuant to s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), was the Delegate required to consider the plaintiff’s representations made in response to the invitation issued to him pursuant to s 501CA(3)(b) of the Migration Act, which raised a potential breach of Australia’s international non-refoulement obligations, where the plaintiff remained free to apply for a protection visa under the Migration Act?
[135] M1/2021 [2022] HCA 17 (Keifel CJ, Keane, Gordon and Steward JJ (with whom Gageler J agreed)).
The High Court found that in deciding whether there was ‘another reason’ to revoke the Reviewable Decision pursuant to s 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Migration Act, where the plaintiff remained free to apply for a protection visa under the Migration Act:[136]
1the Delegate was required to read, identify, understand and evaluate the plaintiff's representations made in response to the invitation issued to him under s 501CA(3)(b) that raised a potential breach of Australia's international non‑refoulement obligations;
2Australia's international non‑refoulement obligations unenacted in Australia were not a mandatory relevant consideration; and
3to the extent Australia's international non‑refoulement obligations are given effect in the Migration Act, one available outcome for the Delegate was to defer assessment of whether the plaintiff was owed those non-refoulement obligations on the basis that it was open to the plaintiff to apply for a protection visa under the Migration Act.
[136] M1/2021 [2022] HCA 17, [9].
The Applicant’s request for revocation of the Reviewable Decision, his personal circumstances, or any other information provided to me did not raise any claims he would have harm in return to Ireland such that would give rise to a non-refoulment obligation arising from his return.
The parties agree that this consideration should be afforded neutral weight.
In conclusion, I find that this consideration weighs neutrally in respect of the revocation of the Reviewable Decision.
Other Consideration 2: Extent of impediments if removed
Paragraph 9.2 of Direction no. 110 provides that taking into account the matters identified in sub-paragraphs 9.2(1)(a), (b) and (c) of Direction no. 110, the Tribunal must consider the extent to which the Applicant would face an impediment or impediments in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country. The matters identified under sub-paragraphs 9.2(1)(a), (b) and (c) are:
(a)The Applicant’s age and health;
(b)Whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and
(c)Any social, medical and/or economic support available to the Applicant in their country.
The Applicant says this consideration should weigh strongly in favour of revocation of the Reviewable Decision,[137] whilst the Minister says it weighs no more than neutral in respect of revocation of the Reviewable Decision.[138]
[137] HB p 274.
[138] HB p 266-7.
The Applicant says although he was born in and spent around 20 years in Ireland, he has severed all family and practical links to the country.[139] He has visited Ireland once about 10 years ago but only for a short period. He saw his father and sister during the visit which lasted about a week. He does not have any friends in Ireland. He also does not maintain contact with his father, sister or brother, or their families. The Applicant says his health is good[140] and he does have superannuation, but he does not know the balance. The Applicant says if he were to return to Ireland at the age of around 61, he would be at high risk of being unemployed, homeless, and socially isolated. Added thereto, the mother and stepfather of the Applicant will be at an advanced aged and most unlikely to be able to travel to Ireland.[141]
[139] HB p 90.
[140] HB p 213.
[141] HB p 277.
The Minister says the Applicant will not experience substantial language or cultural barriers when he returns to Ireland. The Applicant would have access to similar standards of health care and social support as in Australia. Although the Minister accepts that there may be challenges at a practical, social, and emotional level for the Applicant to reestablish himself in Ireland, those are not insurmountable particularly because he only left at the age of 20. The Minister also says the skills acquired by the Applicant can be transferred.
On the evidence before me I am not satisfied that the Applicant would be impeded in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards in Ireland, in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country, taking into account the Applicant’s particular circumstances, including mature age, work experience, and lack of language or cultural barriers in Ireland. There is inadequate evidence the Applicant would suffer any significant cultural barriers on return to Ireland, albeit that I do not diminish the practical, social, and personal challenges of resettlement.
I find that the Applicant is likely to face significant emotional hardship with respect to his separation from family members in general and his two children in particular if returned to Ireland.
I find that impact on children, who will be adult by the time of his release, would be less than if they were minors.
I find that the Applicant has comparable prospects for employment in Ireland given his skills and employment history.
Overall, I find that the Applicant may encounter some difficulty establishing himself were he to return to Ireland given his age and time spent outside of Ireland, but I do not regard those difficulties as significant impediments if removed.
On balance, I find that this consideration weighs moderate-serious in favour of revocation of the Reviewable Decision.
Other Consideration 3: Impact on Australian business interests
Paragraph 9.3 of Direction no. 110 states:
1Decision-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.
The parties agree that this consideration should be afforded neutral weight.
I find that the impact of deportation would have a negligible influence on Australian business. The Applicant is no longer in the horse racing industry and the contribution he is hoping to make as a cabinet maker is limited.
I find that this consideration weighs neutrally concerning the proposed revocation of the Reviewable Decision.
CONCLUSION
The Applicant does not pass the character test under s 501 of the Migration Act.
I have considered whether there is ‘another reason’ why the Reviewable Decision should be revoked, having regard to the primary and relevant other considerations in Direction no. 110.
Paragraph 7 of Direction no. 110 sets out the way in which the relevant considerations are to be considered and weighed.
I must weigh the various primary and other relevant considerations outlined in Direction no. 110 against each other and undertake an evaluation of whether there was ‘another reason’ why the Reviewable Decision should be revoked.
In determining the weight to be applied to each consideration, I have considered all the primary and other relevant considerations and weighed them considering the evidence and findings and according to the guidance provided by Direction no. 110. I have gone on to compare and balance all the considerations to determine whether the Reviewable Decision should be revoked.
In my examination of the primary considerations and other considerations, I have assessed the evidence in respect of each consideration and then weight the consideration on a scale of the following categories: very low, low-moderate, moderate, moderate-serious, very serious, and neutral.
I have considered all the primary considerations and find as follows:
(a)the protection of the Australian community weighs against revocation and I afford the consideration very serious weight against the revocation of the Reviewable Decision;
(b)the consideration of family violence weighs moderate against revocation of the Reviewable Decision;
(c)the strength, nature and duration of the Applicant’s ties to Australia weigh very serious in favour of revoking the Reviewable Decision;
(d)the best interests of the children identified as being impacted by the decision weigh moderately serious in favour of revocation of the Reviewable Decision; and
(e)the expectations of the Australian community weigh very seriously against revocation of the Reviewable Decision.
I have considered all the other considerations identified in Direction no. 110, and find as follows:
(a)the legal consequences of the decision is afforded neutral weight;
(b)the extent of impediments if removed is afforded moderate-serious weight in favour of revocation of the Reviewable Decision; and
(c)the impact on Australian business interests is afforded neutral weight.
Paragraph 7(2) of Direction no. 110 states that primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than the other considerations. Further it states that primary consideration 8.1 (protection of the Australian community) is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations. Nothing before the Tribunal would cause me to find that this general principle should not apply in the Applicant’s case.
Having weighed the considerations in favour of the revocation of the Reviewable Decision and the considerations against revocation, I find that the considerations weighing against revocation being the primary considerations of the protection of the Australian community, family violence, and the expectations of the Australian community outweigh those considerations weighing in favour of revocation being the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia, the best interests of minor children, and the extent of impediment if removed to Ireland. The considerations legal impediments and impact on Australian business are given neutral weight.
In summary, having regard to all the primary considerations, and the relevant other considerations in Direction no. 110, I am satisfied that there is not ‘another reason’ why the Reviewable Decision should be revoked.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

207. I certify that the preceding 206 (two hundred and six) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member B de Villiers

..........................[SGD].........................
Associate
Dated: 1 August 2025

Date of hearing: 17 and 18 July 2025

Applicant: Mr William Glennister, William Gerard Legal Pty Ltd

Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms Alina Ali, MinterEllison

Date of hearing:	17 and 18 July 2025
Applicant:	Mr William Glennister, William Gerard Legal Pty Ltd
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Ms Alina Ali, MinterEllison