Rekhi and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship)

[2022] AATA 69

Rekhi and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Citizenship) [2022] AATA 69 (25 January 2022)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION

File Number:          2019/4267

Re:Vineet Rekhi

APPLICANT

AndMinister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:Member R West

Date:25 January 2022

Place:Melbourne

The decision under review is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Respondent with the direction that the Applicant satisfies section 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth).

...[sgd].....................................................................

Member R West

Catchwords

CITIZENSHIP BY CONFERRAL – application for citizenship by conferral – refusal of citizenship – character test – past criminal conduct – enduring moral qualities – decision set aside and remitted

Legislation

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)

Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth)

Cases

BOY19 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[2019] FCA 574

Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634

Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 68 FCR 422

Minister for Home Affairs v G (2019) 266 FCR 569

Prasad and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1994] AATA 326

Secondary Materials

Citizenship Statement – CPI 15 Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act

REASONS FOR DECISION

Member R West

25 January 2022

INTRODUCTION

1. This matter concerns an application for the review of a decision of the Delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (Delegate) made on 22 June 2019 to refuse an application for citizenship by conferral, because the Delegate was not satisfied that the Applicant is of good character for the purpose of
   s 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007 (Cth) (the Act).

   BACKGROUND

2. On 29 September 2005, the Applicant arrived in Australia as the holder of a Temporary Skilled Regional (subclass 495) visa.

3. On 14 July 2016, he was granted a Permanent Resident Return (subclass 155) visa.

4. On 11 August 2017, the Applicant applied for Australian citizenship by conferral (Application).[1]

   [1] T3

5. On 3 August 2018, the Delegate refused the Application on the basis that the Applicant had failed to satisfy the general residence requirement in s 22(1)(b) of the Act. The Applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision and on 6 December 2018, the matter was remitted by consent to the Delegate for redetermination.[2]

   [2] T2

6. On 22 June 2019, a Delegate again refused the application on the basis that the Delegate was not satisfied that the Applicant met the good character requirement under s 21(2)(h) of the Act (Decision).[3]

   [3] T2

7. On 12 July 2019, the Applicant applied for review of the Decision in accordance with
   

   [4] T1

   s 52(1)(b) of the Act.[4]

   HEARING

8. A hearing of the review was conducted on 16 and 17 November 2021. The Applicant was represented by Mr Julian Murphy of counsel and the Respondent by Mr Christopher Orchard, a solicitor with Sparke Helmore.

9. In conducting the review, the Tribunal has had regard to:

   (a)the documents included in a Bundle of Documents prepared by the Respondent, including the documents produced to the Tribunal by the Applicant and by the Respondent pursuant to ss 37 and 38AA of the Administration Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (AAT Act) (T Documents)[5]; and

   (b)the oral evidence of:

   (i)the Applicant;

   (ii)Mr Patrick Newton, clinical psychologist;

   (iii)Ms Rachnaa Rekhi;

   (iv)Ms Rowena Sidhu;

   (v)Mr Abhumanya Singh; and

   (vi)Mr Hemant Sharma.

   [5] The documents are referred to in this decision by reference to the page number in the Bundle of Documents (BD).

   LEGISLATION

10. Section 21(1) of the Act provides that a person may make an application to the Minister to become an Australian citizen. Sections 21(2)–(8) set out the general eligibility criteria, including under s 21(2)(h) that the Minister must be satisfied that the person is of good character at the time of the Minister’s decision on the application.

11. Section 24(1A) of the Act provides that the Minister must not approve a person becoming an Australian citizen unless the person meets the eligibility requirements in s 21(2)–(8).

12. The term “good character” is not defined in the Act, but it is addressed in some detail in the Citizenship Statement – CPI 15 Assessing Good Character under the Citizenship Act as reissued by the Department on 26 February 2021 (CPI 15).

    EVIDENCE

13. In making the Decision, the Delegate had regard to a National Police Certificate dated
    27 June 2016,[6] setting out the Applicant’s criminal record. It documents the following criminal history:

    (a)10 October 2006 – contravention of conditions of learner’s permit, prescribed concentration of alcohol and drive without due care – fined $500 and licence disqualification for 6 months;

    (b)7 June 2010 – dishonest receipt of stolen goods – traffick cannabis – dishonest receipt of stolen goods (13 charges), dishonest disposal stolen goods and obtaining property by deception - aggregate one month imprisonment wholly suspended for 12 months;

    (c)15 June 2010 – unlawful assault and criminal damage – fined $650 in aggregate and ordered to pay $419.20 compensation;

    (d)28 November 2011 – drive with mid-range prescribed concentration of alcohol – fined $1,000 and licence disqualified for 12 months;

    (e)29 March 2012 – use unregistered vehicle – fined $150 – possess cannabis – fined $20 – drive while disqualified – 12 month bond, fined $500 and licence disqualified for 12 months;

    (f)14 November 2012 – fail to answer bail – fined $750; and

    (g)26 September 2013 – possess cannabis – fined an aggregate of $500.

    [6] BD p 64-65

    The Applicant

14. The Applicant provided two written statements[7] and gave oral evidence to the Tribunal.

    [7] T10 at BD p 70-74 and Statement at BD p 349-350

15. He stated that he migrated to Australia from India with his parents and younger sister in 2005 when he was 16 years old. The family originally settled in South Australia but moved to Geelong in 2007. He completed his high school education in Geelong and started work as a kitchen hand.

16. In 2009, he joined the Australian Army Reserve and served until 2010. When, in 2010, he faced charges of assault and criminal damage, he was advised by his Base Sergeant Major to “stop parading and take an honourable discharge for non-attendance” to avoid any repercussion from the pending convictions.[8] He stated that he had tried to re-enlist in the Army Reserve in 2018 and 2019 but was told that the rules had been changed and that it was now necessary for a recruit to be an Australian citizen. He stated that his intention is to apply for a position as an officer in the Army Reserve if granted citizenship.

    [8] Signed statement of the Applicant, dated 19 July 2021.

17. The Applicant said he worked as a chef until December 2020. He improved his skills as a cook and worked in a pizza shop and completed a Certificate III on Commercial Cookery. He also worked as a part-time Uber Assist driver. During this time, he lived with his parents in Geelong.

18. In January 2021, he left his family home and moved to Melbourne and took a position as a Sales Executive with the Brighton Motor Group. He also obtained a Real Estate Agents Representative certificate in December 2020 and partnered with his friend in a real estate company, Million Dollar Real Estate Victoria, selling land, premium houses and investment properties.

19. He said that since February 2021 he had been in a stable relationship with his partner, Rowena Sidhu, with whom he had lived since April 2021.

20. The Applicant responded to the Delegate’s concerns regarding his criminal record in his statutory declaration declared on 15 April 2019.[9]

    (a)In relation to the offences for which he was convicted on 10 October 2006 (contravention of conditions of learner’s permit, prescribed concentration of alcohol and drive without due care), he stated that the charges arose from an incident where he drove home from his birthday party in a friend’s car and crashed the car along a flyover. He said he was young and reckless and deeply regretted his behaviour.

    (b)In relation to the offences for which he was convicted on 7 June 2010 (traffick cannabis – dishonest receipt/disposal of stolen goods and obtaining property by deception), he stated that others had hidden stolen goods in his garage where he often “hung out” with his friends and that the people who came to the garage used cannabis. He said that the police attended the premises and charged him with offences.

    (c)In relation to the offences for which he was convicted on 15 June 2010 (unlawful assault and criminal damage), the Applicant stated that they related to an incident where he caught his girlfriend cheating on him with another man. He said he suspected that his girlfriend was cheating and went to the house where she was staying and caught her with another man. He said he lost all self-control and when he confronted the girl at the door to the house, he slapped her across the face and when she shut the door, he kicked the door. He said he was very angry and heartbroken.

    (d)In relation to the offences for which he was convicted on 28 November 2011 (drive with mid-range prescribed concentration of alcohol), he stated that he was working as a chef in Queanbeyan and had a few drinks after work and was pulled over for a breath test when he drove home.

    (e)In relation to the offences for which he was convicted on 29 March 2012 (use unregistered vehicle – possess cannabis – drive while disqualified), the Applicant stated that he agreed to drive a friend’s car home after work and was pulled over by the police. He was given a breath test and the police found cannabis in the glove box. His licence was suspended at the time.

    (f)In relation to the offences for which he was convicted on 14 November 2012 (fail to answer bail), the Applicant stated that he lost track of his commitments and forgot to attend court.

    (g)In relation to the offences for which he was convicted on 26 September 2013 (possess cannabis) the Applicant stated he was at the home of an acquaintance and “sharing a joint” with some people he did not know when an argument escalated into a “big fight resulting in the police being called” and he was charged with possession and use offences.

    [9] T10 at BD p 71-74

21. The Applicant claimed in his statutory declaration that:

    I look back on my offences and feel a deep sense of remorse on the bad choices I made. I wish I could undo them all. I have changed my ways since then and become a law-abiding citizen of the community. I have paid all my fines and fulfilled my court obligations.[10]

    [10] T10 at BD p 76

22. The Applicant was cross-examined about his offending in the period from 2010 to 2013.

23. In relation to the convictions for receiving and disposal of stolen goods the Applicant had asserted in his statutory declaration[11] that the goods found in his garage had been hidden there by friends. Notwithstanding this claim, the Applicant admitted that he had pled guilty to the receiving and disposal charges and also the charge of trafficking cannabis. In relation to the trafficking charge, the Applicant was asked to comment on the statement attributed to him in the Police Summary of Charges[12] in which he allegedly admitted to trafficking cannabis. The Applicant claimed not to recall the statement and said he just signed it so that he could go home. He also denied that he had misrepresented the nature of his offending in his statutory declaration[13] by claiming that the stolen goods in his garage had been hidden by others and that others were responsible for the cannabis. The Applicant was also asked to comment on the statements attributed to him in the Police Summary of Charges[14] in which he allegedly admitted that the goods had been sold to him by children between 12 and 16 years old who had obtained them from either burglaries or theft. Again, the Applicant claimed not to recall the statement in the Police Summary and insisted that his statutory declaration was correct.

    [11] T10 at BD p 72

    [12] ST1 at BD p 207

    [13] T10 at BD p 75

    [14] ST1 at BD p 208-209

24. In relation to the unlawful assault and criminal damage conviction on 15 June 2010, the Applicant was asked to comment on the statement of the victim, dated 11 December 2009.[15] In the statement, the victim stated that her relationship with the Applicant ended in August 2009, some three months prior to the offending. The Applicant claimed the victim’s statement was false and that she was his girlfriend at the time of the offending.

    [15] ST1 at BD p 180-181

25. The Applicant attributed his offending during the period 2010 to 2013 to his cannabis use and associating with “the wrong crowd”.

26. The Applicant stated, in a written submission to the Tribunal,[16] that in 2013 he decided to turn his life around. As evidence of this change, he gave evidence that:

    (a)He has been in stable employment since 2013 and had developed his skills as a chef and improved his employment opportunities by securing positions as a sales representative with Brighton Motor Group and in his friend’s real estate business;

    (b)He has established a “stable and healthy relationship” with Ms Sidhu;

    (c)Since 2020, he had been an active volunteer at the Nelson Park School in Corio, where his mother is a teacher, and in this role he has assisted the teachers in relation to special needs children with intellectual disabilities and behavioural problems;

    (d)He became involved with the Hare Krishna movement in 2019 and since then he has attended their Temples at Winchelsea and later in Albert Park and has actively participated in preparing and delivering meals in their community-led initiative called Food for Life;

    (e)He stopped using cannabis in 2015 following a period of hospitalisation and he has abstained from the consumption of alcohol since October 2020 on the advice of the Hare Krishna monks; and

    (f)He has not been convicted of any criminal offences since September 2013.

    [16] Letter of 19 July 2021 at BD p 349-350

    Mr Patrick Newton

27. Mr Patrick Newton, a clinical and forensic psychologist, provided two reports dated 31 October 2019,[17] and 12 November 2021,[18] and gave oral evidence at the hearing.

    [17] BD p 299-309

    [18] BD p 361-364

28. Mr Newton was engaged by the Applicant’s solicitors to provide an assessment of the Applicant’s likelihood of re-offending.[19] His assessment was that the Applicant posed a low risk to the Australian community, a risk that was “commensurate with that posed by any community-dwelling male”.[20] In confirming his assessment in the second report, Mr Newton noted the Applicant’s recent career change from a chef to sales executive and the positive effect on the Applicant. He also noted the Applicant’s spiritual development resulting from his involvement with the Hare Krishna Temple and the positive impact of his relationship with Ms Sidhu. He concluded that as at November 2021 the Applicant’s “mental state is without impairment, his personality is prosocial and positive, his interpersonal adjustment is good, he does not manifest behavioural pathology and there is no repeat of the offending which brought him to the attention of authorities”.[21]

    [19] BD p 299 at [2]

    [20] BD p 363 at [13]

    [21] BD p 363 at [12]

    Character Witnesses

29. The Applicant called four character witnesses: his mother, Rachnaa Rekhi; his partner, Rowena Sidhu; his business partner, Abhimanyu Singh; and his colleague at Brighton Motor Group, Hemant Sharma. Each witness also provided a letter of support for the Applicant. In addition, various written statements in support of the Applicant’s application were provided as part of the T Documents.[22]

    [22] T10

30. Ms Rekhi stated that the Applicant was very remorseful for his criminal offending and had taken her advice to change his ways and had stopped taking cannabis and focussed on his career. [23] She said he has “immersed himself in serving the community by volunteer work in different organisations”. She confirmed his volunteer work with special needs children at Nelson Park School where she works as a teacher.

    [23] Letter dated 19 July 2021 at BD p 354-355

31. Ms Sidhu confirmed that she was the partner of the Applicant and that they had first met in February 2021 and were now living together.[24] She described him as honest, caring, calm and patient. She added that he “has a strong work ethic which is built firmly on a foundation of integrity”.

    [24] Letter of 18 July 2021 at BD p 356-357

32. Mr Singh stated that he worked with the Applicant at the Brighton Motor Group and was the Applicant’s senior partner in the real estate business Million Dollar Real Estate Victoria and had known the Applicant since 2008.[25] He stated in relation to the Applicant that “over time he had witnessed a change and growth in his behaviour and outlook in life. He has transformed from pessimistic young adult to becoming a hardworking, goal-centric and humble man. He added I trust his ability, integrity and his capability”.

    [25] Letter dated 16 July 2021 at BD p 311

33. Mr Sharma, a colleague of the Applicant at the Brighton Motor Group, stated that he first met the Applicant in June 2020 when he was a volunteer at the Hare Krishna Temple.[26] He confirmed that the Applicant was active in his volunteer duties at the Temple as well as helping at a disability school in Geelong. He said the Applicant was a valuable asset to the Brighton Motor Group with excellent customer skills and an impressive sales record.

    [26] Letter dated 16 July 2021 at BD p 325

34. Each of the four witnesses appended a copy of the Applicant’s criminal record to their written statements and confirmed in their evidence that the Applicant had told them of his criminal offending. However, when cross-examined each witness confirmed that they had a less than complete knowledge of the Applicant’s criminal history and that the Applicant had not fully disclosed the nature and extent of his offending to them.

    RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSION

35. The Respondent’s assertion that the Applicant is not of good character essentially rests on two propositions.

36. First, his prior offending, involving multiple offences and spanning several years, is indicative of a person who is not of good character. In particular, the Respondent points to the dishonesty involved in the offences for which he was convicted on 7 June 2010, the serious nature of his conviction for assault against his former partner, and the irresponsibility involved with his several driving offences. The Respondent also notes that the number of offences indicate “an ongoing belligerence to Australian laws”.[27]

    [27] Respondent’s SFIC at [26]

37. Secondly, the Respondent contends that the Applicant has displayed a lack of candour and evasiveness in dealing with his past offending, both in his dealings with his friends and family and also in his evidence to the Tribunal which indicate that he continues to not be of good character.

    APPLICANT’S SUBMISSION

38. The Applicant accepted that his criminal offending was a relevant consideration in assessing whether he is of good character. However, he argued that his offending should be assessed in the context that:

    (a)He was a young man at the time of his offending (18 - 25 years);

    (b)His offending was connected to heavy cannabis use;

    (c)The offending was at a relatively low level with the most serious convictions having occurred in 2010 and having involved the receipt of stolen goods and trafficking in cannabis for which he was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment, wholly suspended. Otherwise, the Applicant has been convicted of driving offences, minor drug offences, and one count of unlawful assault;

    (d)He pled guilty to all charges; and

    (e)His most serious offence occurred over 10 years ago in 2010 and his most recent conviction, for a minor drug offence, was in 2013.

1. The Applicant stressed that his trajectory over the last ten years has been positive. After a concerning patch between 2010 and 2013, he has addressed a number of issues in his life which contributed to his offending. He ceased using cannabis in 2015 and has abstained from alcohol since October 2020. He has become involved in community work and has focussed on his career development. He has established a strong relationship with his partner and has stable employment.

   ASSESSMENT

2. The only issue for determination by the Tribunal is whether the Applicant is a person of good character for the purposes of s 21(2)(h) of the Act. This requires an assessment of whether the Applicant “is of good character, at the time of the Minister’s decision on the application”. As the Tribunal now stands in the shoes of the Minister for the purpose of these proceedings, the assessment as to the Applicant’s character is to be made at the time of the Tribunal’s decision.

3. The term good character is not defined in the Act.

4. The Tribunal has, in many decisions, adopted the observations of Justice Lee in Irving v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs:[28]

   ...the words ‘good character’ should be taken to be used in their ordinary sense, namely, a reference to the enduring moral qualities of a person, and not to the good standing, fame or repute of that person in the community. The former is an objective assessment apt to be proved as a fact whilst the latter is a review of subjective public opinion...A person who has been convicted of a serious crime and thereafter held in contempt in the community, nonetheless may show that he or she has reformed and is of good character...Conversely, a person of good repute may be shown by objective assessment to be a person of bad character.

   [28] (1996) 68 FCR 422 at 431-432 (Irving)

5. The term enduring moral qualities encompasses characteristics which have endured over a long period of time, the ability to distinguish right from wrong and behaviour which is ethical and conforms to the rules and values of Australian society.

6. The assessment of character is to be viewed in a holistic way and may have regard to a broad range of matters relevant to the Applicant.[29] It requires consideration of an aggregate of qualities although those qualities can be outweighed by a single adverse incident if it is sufficiently serious.[30]

   [29] BOY19 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCA 574 at [46] (BOY19)

   [30] Prasad and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1994] AATA 326 at [7]

7. Subparagraph 21(2)(h) requires a decision maker to be satisfied that an applicant is of good character. The word satisfied in that context is not amenable to the application of an evidentiary burden of proof, such as balance of probabilities. Satisfaction requires the decision maker, acting reasonably, to reach an affirmative belief that the applicant is a person of good character.[31]

   [31] Justice O’Bryan in BOY19 at [54]–[55]:

8. While the Tribunal is not bound to apply the guidelines for assessment of good character set out in CPI 15,[32] it will generally do so unless there is a cogent reason not to do so.[33] In this case, the Tribunal is satisfied that the following characteristics of a person who is of good character set out in Clause 4 of CPI 15 are relevant:

   [32] Minister for Home Affairs v G (2019) 266 FCR 569 at [18]

   [33] Re Drake and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (No 2) (1979) 2 ALD 634 at 645 per Justice Brennan.

   ·respect and abide by the law in Australia and other countries

   ·be honest and financially responsible (for example, pay tax, not be in dishonest receipt of public funds pay debts to the Commonwealth)

   ·not practise deception or fraud in dealings with the Australian Government, or other organisations, for example:

   ointentionally providing false personal information (such as fraudulent work experience or qualification documents) or other material deception during visa and citizenship applications;...

   oconcealing criminal convictions...

   ·not be violent, involved in illegal drugs or unlawful sexual activity, and not cause harm to others through their conduct...

   ·not associate with persons who are involved in anti-social or criminal behaviour”

9. The Applicant’s conduct during the period from 2006 and 2013 was marked by a series of criminal convictions. The earliest offence in 2006 was for a relatively minor driving offence when the Applicant was 18 years old. He did not re-offend again until 2010 when he was convicted of two separate sets of serious offences. The first involved dishonesty (receipt and disposal of stolen property and obtaining property by deception) and anti-social behaviour in the form of drug trafficking. The second involved a violent attack on his former partner. After 2010, he had further convictions in 2011, 2012 and 2013 for relatively minor drug possession and driving offences. If the Applicant’s character were to be assessed during this time, say by the end of 2013, it seems reasonable to draw the conclusion that he was not of good character.

10. However, the task of the Tribunal is to make an assessment of the Applicant’s character at the time of its decision. It is now over eight years from the date of his last conviction and around 11 years since his most serious offending in 2010. The Applicant was a relatively young man at the time of his offending and the Tribunal accepts that his cannabis use at the time played a part in his criminal behaviour. The Tribunal accepts the Applicant’s evidence that he ceased using cannabis in 2015 and that he has abstained from alcohol since October 2020.

11. The Applicant has expressed remorse for his past offending, but his evidence to the Tribunal regarding his more serious offences in 2010 lacked a clear and forthright admission of wrongdoing. The Tribunal notes that the Applicant pled guilty to all of the charges but, in responding to questions about the circumstances of each of the 2010 offences, the Applicant sought to downplay the extent of his culpability. While the Tribunal is not in a position to make any specific findings of fact in relation to the events in 2010, it is satisfied from the answers the Applicant gave to questions about his conduct in both matters that he was not prepared to own up to the full extent of his involvement in the criminal conduct. This is consistent with the evidence of the four character witnesses he called, each of whom confirmed that the Applicant had not given full and frank disclosure of his past offending.

12. The Applicant’s failure to give a clear and forthright admission of wrongdoing in his evidence does reflect adversely on his character. However, it must be put in the context of his conduct since 2013. The evidence supports the Applicant’s claim that he has turned his life around since 2013. First, he has not been convicted of any offences since 2013. Secondly, he has ceased the use of cannabis and more recently alcohol. He has established a stable and supportive relationship with Ms Sidhu and retains a supportive relationship with his parents. He has advanced in his career. He has been and continues to be involved in volunteer work in the community. The professional assessment of Mr Newton was that “his personality is prosocial and positive, his interpersonal adjustment is good, he does not manifest behavioural pathology”.[34]

    [34] BD p 363 at [12]

13. The Respondent argued that Mr Newton’s assessment has no material relevance to the assessment of the Applicant’s character because it did not address moral qualities but only the risk of recidivism. The Tribunal accepts that Mr Newton was not tasked with assessing the Applicant’s enduring moral qualities but his assessment of the Applicant’s psychological makeup provides some independent corroboration of the positive views expressed by the Applicant’s character witnesses.

14. Consistent with the observation of Justice Lee in Irving the Tribunal accepts that a “person who has been convicted of a serious crime and thereafter held in contempt in the community, nonetheless may show that he or she has reformed and is of good character”.[35]

    [35] Irving

15. In making an objective assessment at the current time, having regard to Clause 4 of CPI 15, the Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence before it that:

    (a)The Applicant is now a person who respects and will abide by the law in Australia;

    (b)There is no evidence that he has acted dishonestly or been financially irresponsible over the last 10 years;

    (c)There is no evidence that the Applicant has been involved in any violent behaviour since the incident in 2010, or that he has been involved with illegal drugs since 2015 at the latest;

    (d)While the Applicant has claimed that he associated with the wrong crowd during the period from 2010-2013, there is no actual evidence that the people he associated with were involved in anti-social or criminal behaviour or that this association continued after 2013; and

    (e)He has not practised deception or fraud in dealings with the Australian Government.

16. The Respondent argued that the Applicant’s evidence regarding the offences in 2010 was inconsistent with the Police Charge Statement and the statement of the victim, and this constituted an attempt by the Applicant to deceive the Respondent and the Tribunal. While the Tribunal is satisfied that the Applicant’s evidence fell short of a clear and forthright admission of his wrongdoing it cannot, on the basis of that evidence, draw any conclusions regarding the true facts. The Police Charge Statement is an untested summary of the prosecution’s assertions. The victim’s statement is unsworn and untested. The Tribunal makes no finding as to the Respondent’s allegation.

17. The Tribunal accepts that there are considerations weighing in favour of a conclusion that the Applicant is not of good character. Principally, the offences the Applicant committed in 2010 were serious offences involving dishonestly and violence. His overall pattern of offending over the period from 2006 to 2013 indicates a disregard for the laws and values of the Australian community.

18. On the other hand, the Applicant has demonstrated by his conduct since 2013 that he has reformed. He has not offended since 2013. He has ceased using cannabis and given up alcohol. He has established a stable relationship with his partner and obtained meaningful employment. He has become involved in charitable works. He has expressed remorse for his past conduct although this is diminished by his failure to give a clear and forthright admission of wrongdoing in his evidence.

19. Weighing up all of these considerations and taking into account that the Applicant’s criminal conduct which occurred when he was relatively young and influenced by his cannabis use, the Tribunal is satisfied that the correct and preferrable decision is to determine that the Applicant is of good character at the time of this decision.

    DECISION

20. The decision under review is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Respondent with the direction that the Applicant satisfies s 21(2)(h) of the Australian Citizenship Act 2007.

I certify that the preceding 58 (fifty-eight) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Member R. West

.....[sgd]...................................................................

Associate

Dated: 25 January 2022

Dates of hearing:	16 & 17 November 2021
Counsel for the Applicant:	Julian Murphy
Solicitors for the Applicant:	AR LAW Services
Advocate for the Respondent:	Christopher Orchard
Solicitors for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore Lawyers