Silva Rodriguez and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 1174

Silva Rodriguez and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) [2025] ARTA 1174 (31 July 2025)
Applicant:Cristian Adolfo Silva Rodriguez
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number: 2025/3976

Tribunal:Senior Member Hon J Rau SC
Place:Adelaide
Date:31 July 2025
Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution decides that cancellation of the Applicant’s visa is revoked.

..................[SGND]...................
Senior Member Hon J Rau SC
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – mandatory cancellation of Class BB Subclass 155 Five Year Resident Return visa under section 501(3A)- where Applicant does not pass the character test– Applicant has substantial criminal record – whether the original visa cancelation under section 501CA(4) should be revoked – consideration of Ministerial Direction No. 110 - decision under review is set aside and substituted.
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
CASES
Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 348
YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466
Afu v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1311
Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594
FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 50
SECONDARY MATERIAL
Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, and Multicultural Affairs (Cth), Direction No 110 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (21 June 2024).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Senior Member Hon J Rau SC
31 July 2025
INTRODUCTION

The Applicant seeks a review of the decision by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs (“the Respondent”) made under section 501CA(4) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”) on 2 June 2025,[1] not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of his Class BB Subclass 155 Five Year Resident Return visa (“the Visa”). The Visa was cancelled on 30 October 2024 under section 501(3A) on the basis that he did not pass the character test.[2]
[1] Exhibit 1: Hearing Bundle (‘HB’), 16-36.
[2] Ibid.
Sections 501(6)(a) and 501(7)(c) of the Act provide that a person does not pass the character test if they have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more. The Applicant fails the character test on account of his conviction on 18 October 2024 for various offences and sentence of 12 months imprisonment.[3]
[3] HB 38.
The Applicant concedes that he does not pass the character test. The issue before the Tribunal is whether there is ‘another reason’ to revoke the mandatory visa cancellation pursuant to section 501CA(4)(b)(ii) of the Act.
The hearing was held on 28 and 29 July 2025. The Applicant was represented by Mr Mark Northam of Northam Lawyers and the Respondent was represented by Mr Alvin Sharma of HWL Ebsworth Lawyers.
The Applicant gave evidence by Teams from Villawood Detention Centre. The Applicant presented in a very direct and open manner. He presented as a credible witness. He made appropriate concessions when cross-examined. I formed the impression that he is sincere in both his remorse for his past offending and his desire to return to our community without reoffending. I accept that he intends to obtain appropriate community-based treatment if he is released. At a very basic level, the prospect of him being able to achieve a successful return to our community, is a question about his capacity to totally and permanently abstain from alcohol.
The Applicant called psychologist Mr Watson-Munro. His reports dated 31 July 2024 and 22 July 2025 are in evidence.[4] He gave evidence by phone. His evidence was very helpful.
[4] HB 128-137; Exhibit 4: Report of Mr Watson-Munro dated 22 July 2025.
In summary, his view was that if the Applicant can remain sober, the prospect of him reoffending is low. To remain sober, he requires ongoing engagement with community-based supports such as AA and psychological support such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy.
If the Applicant were not to engage with appropriate community-based supports, his chances of remaining sober would be severely tested by the stresses of everyday life and he may relapse into alcohol abuse. If this were to happen, his risk of reoffending in any number of ways associated with anger and/or diminished impulse control, would be much greater.
The Applicant called his brother-in law, Mr SW. He has provided a statement.[5] He gave evidence by phone. His evidence was generally consistent with the Applicant’s evidence regarding his connections to his family, including particularly Mr SW’s 3 children (DW, Child A and Child B).
[5] HB 92.
The Applicant called his estranged wife, Ms NL. She provided a statement on 23 July 2025 at the request of the Applicant’s lawyer.[6] She has had no contact with the Applicant since April 2024. He is prohibited by a current AVO from contacting her, or her daughter, until April 2026. She does not wish to resume her relationship with the Applicant, or to have any contact with him, but she did not want him to be removed from Australia. She regarded him as a good person. This is significant in light of his claim that his wife at least would be “upset” if he were not to regain the Visa.[7] She identified alcohol abuse as a critical element in their relationship breakdown.
[6] Exhibit 5: Statement of Applicant’s wife dated 23 July 2025.
[7] HB 72.
The Applicant’s sister, Ms RW, gave evidence by phone. She has provided a statement.[8] She was very supportive of the Applicant. She said that he was close to her children. She was not really aware of the full nature and extent of the Applicant’s alcohol problem. She and her children would be very distressed if the Applicant were to be removed from Australia.
[8] HB 98.
The Applicant’s mother, Ms ER, gave evidence by phone, with the assistance of a Spanish interpreter. She has provided a statement in support.[9] She is aged 77 and has various health problems including diabetes, osteoporosis, pulmonary fibrosis and high blood pressure. She is an Australian citizen.[10] The Applicant would live with her and assist her in her daily life if he were to return to the community. She was understandably very distressed at the prospect of the Applicant being removed from Australia.
[9] HB 96.
[10] HB 97.
Background Facts
The Applicant was born in Chile on 22 April 1986. He is a Chilean citizen.[11]
[11] HB 57.
The Applicant came to Australia as a 10-month-old infant on 24 February 1987.[12] He came here with his parents and his older sister, Ms RW.[13]
[12] Ibid.
[13] HB 47, 71.
In 1995, when the Applicant was about 9 years old, his parents separated. He then had no contact with his father for about a decade after that. In about 2013, his father reconnected with him. They have had some relationship since then. The Applicant’s father moved back to Chile late last year. They are not close. The Applicant is currently unsure of his father’s exact whereabouts.
The Applicant attended school to the end of year 10. He worked for 4 years as an apprentice painter and decorator until August 2006, when he resigned due to the travel requirements of the job.[14] The Applicant has generally been employed as a Painter and Decorator for most of his life.
[14] HB 203.
On 4 January 2004, the Applicant’s nephew, DW, was born.[15]
[15] HB 75.
On 19 September 2006, the Applicant was convicted of a drink driving offence. He was fined $500 and disqualified from driving for 6 months until 19 March 2014.[16]
[16] HB 39, 200.
On 6 October 2006, the Applicant was involved in an altercation with police. The police fact sheet states:
“Approximately 10:25pm on the 6th of October 2006, Police attended the Canley Height Sporting and RSL Club in relation to an altercation between a group of patrons and security staff. On arrival Police observed a group of 4 males who appeared moderately intoxicated, they were in the carpark of the pub shouting and behaving in a general rowdy and disruptive manner.
Constable [redacted] has asked this group of male persons to leave the location on 4 seperate occasions. They refused to do so because they claimed they had been assaulted by security staff. All of these persons showed no signs of any visible injury. Senior Constable [redacted] informed these individuals that they had to leave the location due to their intoxication and behaviour. He informed them that if they wished to make a complaint of assault, they could do so at the Police Station when they were no longer under the effect of alcohol. Senior Constable [redacted] had to ask the group 3 times to leave before they slowly moved to the edge of the carpark, and once again stood their ground.
Senior Constable [redacted] has advised the group to leave the area. At this point the accused Christian RODRIGUEZ has raised his voice and said "How about you fuck off, you mother fuckers". This was said within hearing of patrons who would have been in the carpark of the club at the time. It was Friday night, and there were a large number of patrons exiting and entering their vehicles.
The accused was placed under arrest, cautioned and conveyed to Fairfield Police Station. The accused was apologetic for his actions and appeared genuinely remorseful. He was able to produce photo identification, in the form of a NSW driver's licence. He was issued Field Court Attendance Notice number 647471 for the matter now before the Court. All safeguards under LEPRA were complied with.”[17]
[17] HB 186.
On 6 November 2006, the Applicant was convicted of using offensive language in a public place. He was fined $300.[18]
[18] HB 39.
On 30 November 2006, the Applicant was convicted of driving disqualified. He was given a 120 hours of community service and disqualified from driving for 2 years.[19] He was declared to be a “Habitual Offender”.[20]
[19] Ibid, HB 200.
[20] HB 200.
On 21 January 2007, the Applicant apprehended driving with a PCA of 0.12.[21]
[21] HB 193, 196.
The police fact sheet states:
“The Accused Cristian SILVA RODRIGUEZ was the holder of a New South Wales provisional drivers licence, number [redacted]. The status of this licence is currently endorsed as disqualified. This disqualification period commenced on the 19th of September 2006 and is due to cease on the 19th of March 2014.
About 6:48am on Sunday the 21st of January 2007, Police were carrying out speed enforcement duties upon Parramatta Road Homebush, near the intersection of Derowie Avenue.
It was at this time that the Accused was driving motor vehicle [redacted] (NSW) in a Westerly direction upon Parramatta Road. The Accused was the sole occupant of this vehicle. Police estimated motor vehicle [redacted] to be travelling in excess of the prevailing 60km/h speed limit. Utilising lidar speed detection instrument LA297, police conducted a speed check of the motor vehicle [redacted] and a reading of 96km/h was displayed and locked.
Police stopped motor vehicle [redacted] upon Parramatta Road near the intersection of Courallie Avenue. Police asked the Accused to produce a drivers licence. It was at this time that the Accused produced a New South Wales "Proof of Age" card in the name of Cristian SILVA RODRIGUEZ, and a date of birth as the [redacted]. This card also had an photo on it that matched that of the Accused. Police again asked the Accused to produce a drivers licence at which time the Accused said "I don't have it with me". Upon further questioning the Accused made admissions to police stating that he was disqualified.
The Accused was submitted to a road-side breath test which returned a positive result, and as such the Accused was arrested for the purpose of a breath analysis.
The Accused was conveyed to Auburn Police Station where he was introduced to the Custody manager. At 7:46am on Sunday the 21st of January 2007 the Accused was submitted to a Breath analysis. This Analysis produced a reading of 0.120 grammes of Alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood, and certificate number 1033/439/210107 was issued.
The Accused was then charged with the matters now before the Court.
In relation to the Accused's drinking he stated that he consumed his first drink about 6:00pm on the 20/01/2007. The Accused stated that he had consumed an unknown number of Tooheys New schooners at Star City Casino. The Accused was unsure at what time he consumed his last drink. The Accused consumed a meal during the evening.
At the time of the alleged offences traffic was light, the roadway was dry sealed bitumen and daylight hours prevailed. Parramatta Road Homebush has three lanes of travel in each direction with a posted speed limit of 60km/h, and is a Road in the State of New South Wales as defined by the Act.
This incident was captured upon the Police In Car Video (ICV) system fitted to New South Wales Police vehicle serial number [redacted], ref no. [redacted].”[22]
[22] HB 198-199.
A report from a parole officer dated 2 April 2007, records the Applicant as saying that “once he had commenced drinking, he was unable to stop”.[23] The Applicant confirmed to the Tribunal that this was the case.
[23] HB 203.
On 17 April 2007, the Applicant entered a plea of guilty to speeding, a PCA offence and driving when disqualified. He was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment, suspended upon entry into a bond, and he was disqualified from driving for 3 years starting on 19 March 2014 and ending on 19 March 2017.[24]
[24] HB 39, 187-188, 190-192.
On 19 June 2008, the Applicant was convicted of driving when disqualified. He was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment and a further license disqualification of 2 years commencing on 19 March 2012.[25]
[25] HB 39.
On 30 November 2008, the Applicant’s niece, Child A, was born. She is now 16 years old.[26]
[26] HB 75.
On 14 January 2010, the Applicant (or his wife) completed an incoming passenger card on his return to Australia from Thailand, on which he declared that he had no criminal convictions.[27]
[27] HB 58.
On 30 October 2010, the Applicant departed Australia. He returned on 14 November 2010.[28]
[28] HB 57.
In 2010, the Applicant married his wife. She is 15 years older than the Applicant. She was a Thai national but is now an Australian citizen.[29] The Applicant was introduced to her by friends. He frankly disclosed to the Tribunal that she wanted to marry him so that she could get her daughter out of Thailand.
[29] HB 48, 72.
On 26 August 2011, the Applicant damaged a set of sliding doors.[30] The police fact sheet states:
“About 6:30pm on Friday the 26th of August 2011, the accused Cristian RODRIGUEZ returned to his dwelling at [redacted].
The accused was well affected by alcohol when he arrived. The accused attempted to gain entry into the building through the glass entry doors which are recorded by CCTV cameras. The accused had trouble opening the doors due to the affects of alcohol and was attempting to pull the doors open rather than pushing them open.
On the third attempt the accused managed to open the doors and gained entry into the building. The accused walked over to the elevators and depressed the button and waited for the elevator to arrive for a few seconds.
Still in the foyer the accused returned to the entry doors which were in a closed position at this time. He then approached the doors stepping sideways, lifted is left leg to the side and kicked the glass panel on the doors causing the glass to shatter in a spider web fashion.
The entire incident was recorded on CCTV cameras.
On the 17th of September 2011 the accused attended Redfern Police station and made admissions that he was responsible for the malicious damage allegations.
The victim Building Facilities Management Systems would like to be reimbursed $721.88, the cost to have the glass replaced.
The accused is now charged with the matter before the court.”[31]
[30] HB 207, 211-213.
[31] HB 212-213.
The Applicant was asked about this incident. He agreed that it happened. He said that he was angry with the building manager because he was being unfairly evicted from the property.
The Applicant acknowledges that there have been “challenges” in his marriage. In his statement of 24 February 2025, he said:
“Our marriage has not been without challenges. Over the years, my stepdaughter [redacted] struggled with her behavior, including stealing, substance abuse, and avoiding work or education. This caused significant strain in our home, leading to constant arguments between her and my wife. On one occasion, my wife was screaming at [redacted] and [redacted] laughed at her and told her to shut up. I was washing the dishes at the time and acted out of frustration and, while intoxicated, made a terrible mistake by holding a kitchen knife to try to scare her so she would stop disrespecting her mother. This was inexcusable, and I deeply regret it. My wife screamed at me, I went to my bedroom and went to straight to sleep. The next morning after speaking with my wife when we both woke up I apologised to her and explained to her that when I was young and misbehaving my father would belt me, threaten and scare me which in effect would terrify me to the point I never misbehaved again. She was not forgiving and rightfully so because I knew that next morning how wrong it was for me to have done that. I felt terrible. I went to [redacted]’s bedroom and apologised to her, hugged her and explained to her that I would never hurt her and was only trying to scare her to stop disrespecting her mother and to help her do something with her life. I explained to her that her mother and I only want the best for her and that's why we brought her here from Thailand to have a better life and future and not to be going down the bad path that she was on. When [redacted] was 15, she came home from school and my wife and I discovered that she had stolen money that my wife and I had been saving. I came home from a 12 hour work shift intoxicated and my wife told me what happened. I got so angry and walked into her room where she was laying in her bed, I questioned her why she had stolen money from us and she smugly talked back to me and was not remorseful. I lost my temper and as she was laying down in bed with a blanket over her I smacked her in the leg and arm a few times and left our apartment to go eat dinner at a restaurant by myself. A few hours later when I returned home sober I went straight to her room and apologised to her for what happened. I talked to her about how awful it was for me to have attacked her like that. I felt so bad and ashamed and begged her and my wife to forgive me for reacting like that.
My grandmother and mother did not raise me like that, and I would hate for someone to have done that to my mother, my sister or niece or for any man to ever lay his hands on a female, let alone a adult man on a child. I was a supposed to be a father figure to her and to attack her like that in her own bedroom is appalling. I'm disgusted and remorseful and take responsibility for my actions. There was another incident around the end of 2023 when again I was intoxicated and [redacted] called me an idiot while we were arguing, and I reacted badly by pulling her hair and before she went to her room I immediately said sorry to her. I have thought about these incidents every day since going to jail and it makes me feel so ashamed to have acted in that manner. Though I immediately apologised, I know how unacceptable my actions were. I know that no matter what, I should never have done those awful things.”[32]
[32] HB 85-86.
On 14 November 2011, the Applicant was convicted of destroying property. He was fined $600.[33] This offending occurred in the context of family violence.[34]
[33] HB 39.
[34] HB 48.
Between 15 March 2012 and 14 July 2012, a concealed camera recorded the Applicant committing acts of vandalism. A police fact sheet states:
“During February 2012 the corridor of [redacted] was damaged with graffitti and the body corporate of the unit block decided to place a hidden camera in the corridor.
About 9:10pm on Thursday the 15th of March 2012, the Accused is seen on the hidden camera to scratch the words FUZ ITS OVER 4U BITCH on the northern wall of the level 4 corridor. The Accused then walked about four metres to the front door of his unit and use a key to enter the unit.
On Thursday the 29th of March 2012 the Building Manager [redacted] has noticed the damage and reviewed the hidden camera footage. After looking at the footage [redacted] contacted police. Police arrived a short time later and obtained a statement from [redacted], took photographs of the damaged wall, and obtained a copy of the hidden camera footage.
About 8:15am on Saturday the 14th of July 2012, police attended the Accused address. Police informed the Accused of their name and station at which they worked before cautioning him. Police asked the Accused several questions regarding the offence to which the Accused replied "No" to each question.
Police created a Future Court Attendance Notice for the Accused.
The Accused is now charged with the matters before the court.”[35]
[35] HB 208.

Again, the Applicant conceded that this happened as alleged.
On 24 August 2012, the Applicant departed Australia. He returned on 24 August 2012.[36]
[36] HB 57.
On 21 September 2012, the Applicant was again convicted of damaging property. He was placed on a 12-month bond.[37]
[37] HB 39, 209.
In relation to these property offences, the Applicant said in his statement of 24 February 2025:
“In 2011 and 2012, I was convicted of property damage on two separate occasions. Both times, I was intoxicated and filled with anger after my wife and I were evicted from our property. The eviction stemmed from complaints made by the downstairs tenant about music I played while doing housework in the afternoons. The tenant had a close relationship with the building manager, and I felt unjustly targeted. In my frustration, I made the regrettable decision to damage property.”[38]
[38] HB 85.
On 1 November 2014, the Applicant’s nephew, Child B, was born. He is now 10 years old.[39]
[39] HB 75.
In October of 2018, the Applicant assaulted his stepdaughter in the family home. She was aged 15 at the time.[40]
[40] HB 45.
The Police records state that:
“The accused and victim have known each other for approximately thirteen (13) years as the accused as acted as a step-father. The accused and the witness are currently married where the witness is the victim's biological mother. All parties reside together at [redacted]. The accused and victim currently have no enforceable Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders (ADVO), nor do they have any previous. Sequence 1 - Common Assault (DV) Between August 2018 to August 2019, the victim who was fifteen (15) at the time came home to their family unit at [redacted] where the accused was visibly intoxicated by alcohol. The victim went to her room to which the accused followed. The accused pushed the victim onto her bed and began punching her face and body. The victim felt immediate pain to her body and face as a result of the connecting punches. The accused picked up a heater from the bedroom and threw it at the victim however, the victim moved quick enough to dodge the heater. The heater landed into the bedroom wall, causing a large hole. The victim was under the impression that the accused was assaulting her due to an argument between her mother and her.”[41]
[41] HB 269.
When asked about this the Applicant said that he did not recall it as the police reported it. He accepted that he was affected by alcohol and that his recall was not clear, but he denied punching his stepdaughter in the face and throwing a heater. His wife said that he did throw a heater but it was a very small one.
On 2 September 2023, the Applicant committed acts of family violence against his wife.[42] The police records state:
“The accused and victim have been married for fourteen (14) years. The accused, victim and the victim's daughter currently reside at [redacted]. The unit is owned by the victim and the accused pays rent weekly. Despite an overall amicable relationship, the accused's increasing use of alcohol has led to escalating confrontations, where he frequently directs emotional outbursts towards the victim and her daughter. .
Sequence one ( 1) - Intentionally choke etc person without consent (DV)-Tl On Saturday 2 September 2023 in the early morning, the accused and victim went to the city. The accused's intoxication in the city resulted in a physical altercation with security guards. The victim walked away out of embarrassment. Later on, the accused and victim were walking together on Pitt Street, Sydney NSW, when the accused grabbed the victim's neck with one hand, pushed her up against a wall and simultaneously squeezed his hand and lifted the accused slightly up the wall. The accused had his hand around the victim's neck for roughly ten (10) seconds before breaking free as a by stander Intervened. During this time, the victim struggled to breathe. The accused was angry because the victim walked away earlier ..
Sequence two (2) - Armed w/I commit indictable offence-Tl In the month of February or March 2024, the accused was expressing his disappointment in the victim's daughter's lack of contribution and assistance in the house. The accused was intoxicated and due to his behaviour, the victim told the accused that she would call the Police. The accused brandished two (2) large kitchen knives in each hand and held them up (levelled to his head) and stated "Call now! Call now!" The victim did not call Police on this incident as she was (at the time of incident) fearful of the accused due to his threats made in the past (dates are unknown) that he will kill her and her family if she ever calls Police . .
Sequence three (3) - Common assault (DV)-T2 On Friday 12 April 2024, around 11.30pm, another argument ensued between the accused and victim in relation to the victim's daughter. During this argument, he gripped onto both victim's upper arms and shook her. Despite the victim's daughter overhearing the altercation from her bedroom, she refrained from calling Police herself, fearing the accused's threats from the past. The victim's daughter messaged a friend to call Police to protect her own identity in fear that the accused will find out that she called herself . . On Saturday 13 April 2024, at 1.26am, Police attended [redacted]. Police spoke with the victim in the hallway of the unit complex (on the unit's level) who disclosed the incident that occurred on Friday 12 April 2024. At this time the victim did not disclose any offences from this incident. After further conversation/s with the victim, the victim did however disclose historical physical violence with the accused. The victim was softly spoken and told Police she was very fearful of the accused of what may happen if he knew Police were at the location. Police escorted her to the foyer of the unit complex to ensure her comfort, safety and privacy when speaking to Police. Police are of the belief that during the initial conversation, it appeared that the victim was trying to manage her own safety, frightened of disclosing the truth and expressing her profound fear of the accused's potential retaliation. . The victim expressed her deep fears that the accused will resort to violence, contemplating the possibility of her own demise at his hands. . The victim gave Police the keys to her unit and gave Police permission to enter her unit to arrest the accused. Police knocked on the door of the unit. Police made entry with the key and announced their office multiple times. Police went into the bedroom of the accused and observed the accused to be sleeping in bed. Police woke the accused up, Police introduced themselves pursuant to the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002. Police arrested and cautioned the accused. Police escorted the accused downstairs to the Police caged vehicle. As Police were walking the accused to the caged vehicle, the accused was advised that a non-contact Apprehended Domestic Violence Order (ADVO) would likely be put in place restricting him from seeing the victim and the victim's daughter. The accused replied to Police, "I don't need to go back there, I'll get my boys to, and we will kill them" .. Police conveyed the accused to Liverpool Police Station and introduced the accused to the Custody Manager. Police did not offer the accused an opportunity to participate in an electronically recorded interview due to his level of intoxication. Police asked the victim if she was willing to provide a statement however denied this as she wanted to sleep because she had work at 5.00am.”[43]
[42] HB 46.
[43] HB 267-268.
The Applicant told the Tribunal that in relation to sequence 1, he had let go of his wife before a bystander intervened. In relation to sequence 2, he does not recall what he said so that may be accurate, but he would have remembered the knives and that did not happen. In relation to sequence 3, he agreed that it was accurate except that he only threatened his wife. He was convicted of this.
In relation to sequence 1 the Applicant says in his statement of 24 February 2025:
“In September 2023, my wife and I went to a bar with some friends and a few hours into the night a stranger walked past and touched her friend's backside inappropriately. My intervention led to a physical altercation with him, and though my wife did not see the initial incident, she only saw me being thrown out by security. As we were walking along Pitt St waiting for the Uber driver to arrive to take us home I kept trying to explain what happened but she wouldn't listen. She kept lecturing me and as she was leaning towards me screaming in my face, I reacted badly. I grabbed her by the neck for a brief moment (not for 10 seconds and not at all lifting her up against a wall like in police facts) to push her away from me before realising what I did and immediately stopped and apologised to her. A bystander was walking by and he asked her if she was ok to which she replied yes and my wife and I got in the Uber which arrived 2 minutes later and went home.”[44]
[44] HB 86.
In March of 2024, the Applicant again committed acts of family violence against his stepdaughter, including threatening her with a knife.[45] The police record states:
“… Sequence 2 - Common Assault (DV) On an evening in the month of March 2024, the victim was located in their family unit at [redacted] with the accused. The accused was again highly intoxicated after consuming approximately seven (7) standard beers. The accused was of the belief that the victim was not respecting him. The accused began dragging the victim by her arms, and grabbing her body and moving her around forcefully.
Sequence 3 - Choking without consent (DV) The accused then pushed the victim against a wall where he placed both hands around the victims neck, applied hard pressure and choked the victim for about two-three seconds. The force used by the accused was enough to lift the victim up slightly where her feet were almost off the floor. The victim began to struggle with breathing. The victim did not sustain any injuries but immediately became speechless and was unable to react or tell the accused to stop.
Sequence 4 - Intimidation (DV) Whilst holding the victims neck, the accused looked the victim in the eyes and said words to the effect of, "You don't know who the fuck I am, you don't know what I can do to you, I can kill you right now". The victim became concerned and feared the accused would harm her or potentially kill her, considering the length of his threat made.
Sequence 5 - Armed with intent to commit indictable offence (DV) Later that night, the accused requested to borrow money off the victim where a verbal argument ensued. In the presence of the witness, the accused took a large steak knife from the kitchen and placed the handle in his hand. Standing opposite but almost close enough to touch the victim chest to chest, the accused lifted the knife up to the victim's face where the tip of the knife was centimetres from her face. The accused verbally threatened the victim saying, "You don't know what I can do to you, I will kill you' . The victim again felt instantly fearful and concerned for her safety, even more so than before as the accused now had a weapon which he was using towards her.
Sequence 6 - Common Assault (DV) On a later day, still during the month of March 2024, the accused and victim were located at their family unit at [redacted]. The accused was again intoxicated from alcohol, having consumed approximately seven (7) beers. The accused asked the victim a question to which she answered and a verbal argument ensured. The victim told the accused that he was "stupid" which angered him. The accused used one hand to grab the victim's hair from her scalp with force and pull it slightly upwards, causing immediate pain. The victim felt the need to act as though nothing happened as she feared the accused may hurt her further if she made a big deal. About 12am on Saturday 13th April 2024, the accused started becoming verbally aggressive to the victim and witness, due to his intoxication levels. The victim subsequently contacted a friend to request them to call the police on her behalf as she did not feel safe doing so. The accused threatened both the victim and the witness that if the police were ever contacted, he would harm them. Police attended [redacted] about 1am where they were met with both parties. Police obtained a Body-Worn Video version from the victim where the above incidents were disclosed. The victim expressed to police that she was very concerned that the accused would hurt or kill her now that police were involved. The victim explained that the accused drinks alcohol daily and as a result of his intoxication, he becomes aggressive and physically abusive to the point where she fears for her life. The victim agreed to provide police with a written statement in relation to the incidents at a later date. Police arrested the accused with all safeguards adhered to. The accused was officially cautioned and conveyed to Liverpool Police Station custody room. The accused was introduced to the custody manager and read his Part 9 rights pursuant to the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002. The accused was not afforded the opportunity to be interviewed as his intoxication levels were too high. Whilst in custody, the accused was advised that a non-contact ADVO would likely be put in place restricting him from seeing the victim. The accused replied to police and said, "I don't need to go back there, I'll get my boys to, and we will kill them". The accused is now charged with the matter before the court. **"' Outstanding action: Police asked the victim if she was willing to provide a statement however denied this as she wanted to sleep because she had work at 5.00am. F/u to speak with victim in obtaining statement in coming days.”[46]
[45] G p 45
[46] HB 269-270.
In relation to sequences 2 and 3, the Applicant said that he had no recollection of them, and he did not plead guilty to them.
In relation to sequence 4, he said that he did not recall, but he possibly did say something like the words alleged. He was not convicted of this.
In relation to sequence 5, he was convicted on a plea of guilty. He said that he was washing dishes, and he had a knife in his hand. He said that he was about a meter away from the victim. He agreed that he said something like the words alleged.
In relation to sequence 6, he was convicted on a guilty plea. It was an accurate reflection of what happened. He accepted that he had threatened to harm his wife if she called the police but insisted that he did not also threaten his stepdaughter.
In relation to these events the Applicant said in his statement of 24 February 2025:
“The night of friday April 12th 2024, the night police were contacted. I had been drinking all afternoon and evening after work without consuming any food and do not completely recall everything that happened but recall arriving home around 11 pm, my wife came out to the kitchen and we got into a heated argument about how I embarrassed her in front of her mother and sister who had been visiting from Thailand and were in the bedroom with [redacted]. I kept telling her I was sorry but she kept screaming and advancing towards me each step I took back. I recall at one point I grabbed her from both shoulders because I felt she was about to slap my face and she started to try to shake out of it as I maintained grip to hold her arms from swinging and pushed her away towards the kitchen. I went straight to our bedroom and slammed the door shut in the hope she would not follow me in, which she didn't. I went to sleep as I had to wake up at 5am to go do a painting job at Dover Heights that Saturday. I was asleep around 1 am when I was awoken by 6 police officers in my bedroom who arrested me and took me to Liverpool police station and have been in custody since. While I do not fully recall all the details, I regret my actions that night. I now understand the damage alcohol has caused in my life and in my relationships.”[47]
[47] HB 86.
On 13 April 2024, the Applicant was arrested and taken into custody.[48] A custody management record of that date says, “POI is verbally aggressive, uncooperative and physical punchin walls of dock. POI has made requests to contact lawyer but due to threatening behaviour has been declined by police until POI calms”.[49]
[48] HB 43, 46.
[49] HB 244.
On 31 July 2024, psychologist, Mr Watson-Munro, provided a report to the Applicant’s then solicitors in relation to his then pending criminal matter. He expressed the opinion that the Applicant would benefit from “Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and supportive and motivational psychotherapy.”[50]
[50] HB 136.
I note the observation by Magistrate Miller in his sentencing remarks that “The report is lacking in any psychometric testing per se and relates to what would appear to be predominantly self-report of the offender.”[51]
[51] HB 47 at [25]-[30].
On 3 September 2024, a home-made knife or spike was found in a random search of a cell occupied by the Applicant and another prisoner.[52] The Applicant explained to the Tribunal that this was the property of a new cell mate, not his. He did not say this to gaol authorities for fear of reprisals.
[52] HB 227-228.
On 18 October 2024, the Applicant was sentenced, upon a plea of guilty, to 12 months imprisonment for various family violence offences. An AVO was made for a period of 2 years to protect his family.[53] The record of the Liverpool Local Court relevantly says:
“[F]: My client has pleaded guilty on the day of the hearing but prior to the commencement after amended facts were agreed upon and some charges withdrawn and a charge laid. My client accepts that these are serious charges. They’re domestic violence charges on his stepdaughter and his wife. His plea of guilty confirms he accepts what he’s done was wrong. He is sorry for committing these offences. He’s willing to accept AVOs as requested by the police. My client has no prior domestic violence offences and no prior violence related offences on people. His record is mostly in respect of driving matters and mostly in terms of intoxication of drink driving, one which occurred and the effect of that was six months’ imprisonment imposed by this Court for drink driving. The last offence was 12 years ago.”[54]
[53] HB 79, 216-218.
[54] HB 40-50.
In an intake assessment form dated 23 October 2024, the Applicant said in relation to his wife “I will not go back. There was no going back. I will always remember I am in gaol because of her. I will never contact her again. I wont answer her calls even if its revoked or changed or expired. I have a feeling she would like to talk to me and say sorry but I don’t want that contact. I don’t want to hear from her again. I deserved to be in gaol but I kind of despise her for making my Mum cry…”[55]
[55] HB 253.
He also referred to his ongoing problem with alcohol. He equated being angry with being drunk.[56]
[56] HB 256.
On 30 October 2024, the Visa was cancelled by the Respondent under section 501(3A) of the Act.[57]
[57] HB 59-64.
On 14 November 2024, the Applicant made a request for revocation of the mandatory cancellation of the Visa.[58]
[58] HB 65-82.
The Applicant gave the following reasons for seeking revocation:
“I would like to remain here in Australia as I’ve been here since I was 10 months old. I did my education and completed my year 10 school certificate. I left school in year 10 and got an apprenticeship in painting & decorating and completed Certificate III at [redacted] TAFE and became a fully qualified professional painter. I have been painting for over 20 years now. Aside from work, my family, my friends and my life is all here in Australia. My mum who raised me on her own and worked multiple jobs to provide a good education and upbringing for my sister and I has detierating health problems. She is 77 years old now with high blood pressure, diabetes and severe arthritis in both arms and both knee joints. To remain here I could live with her and continue to drive her to her medical appointments, help with heavy groceries, cooking and cleaning around the house and help care for my nephews and niece when they visit every Monday and Wednesday and continue to spend quality family time together.”[59]
[59] HB 67.

On 24 February 2025, the Applicant provided a further letter making submissions on his behalf.[60] In that statement he says:
“I have learned so much about myself during this time in detention. I have learned to take full responsibility for my actions and recognise how my behaviours, fuelled by alcohol and anger, harmed those I love. I have been working on changing my life. I now exercise regularly, eat healthily, and have never felt better both physically and mentally. I am committed to never drinking again, as I know that alcohol has been the root cause of many of my mistakes.
I am almost 39 years old now, and I realise that I have wasted many years. However, I am determined to turn my life around. I plan to start my own Painting & Decorating business, and I aspire to become a soccer coach, something I have always enjoyed doing with my nephews and niece. I also hope to start a family of my own, as I now feel mature enough to be a responsible and loving father.
I respectfully request your consideration in allowing me to remain in Australia. I have no ties to Chile, my country of birth, where my professional skills are not recognised. Deportation would undo all the progress I've made here. Australia is my home, and I promise that I will never reoffend. I am committed to maintaining my future plans and goals, working hard, and being a better person.
I have been in contact with my employer, [redacted], who has provided a work reference. He is aware of my situation and has assured me that there is a position waiting for me to return to work.
In closing, I respectfully ask for your consideration in allowing me to remain in Australia. I know I have done terrible things to which I've been punished and sent to jail for, but I have learnt my lesson. I know that breaking any law again would land me back in the courts and I would then be definitely deported. That is a thought I will always have in the back of my mind. I understand the gravity of my past mistakes, and I am committed to making amends and becoming a positive, law-abiding member of society. Thank you for your time.”[61]
[60] HB 84-89.
[61] HB 88-89.
On 2 June 2025, the Respondent decided not to revoke the cancellation of the Visa.[62]
[62] HB 16-19.
On 6 June 2025, the Applicant applied to the ART for review of the Respondent’s decision.[63]
[63] HB 1-18.
The Applicant has completed various courses including anger management, domestic violence awareness, understanding drug and alcohol abuse and understanding addictions.[64]
[64] HB 100-103, 138.
If the Applicant were to be released into the community, he plans to live with his mother. He says that he will not drink again, and that he will seek suitable ongoing community-based treatment for his alcoholism and associated underlying psychological issues.
The Applicant has an extensive adult criminal history, commencing in 2006. A copy of his record of convictions is annexed hereto and marked “B”.[65]
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
[65] HB 37-39.
Does the Applicant Pass the Character Test?
The Applicant was sentenced by the Liverpool Local Court to an aggregate term of 12 months imprisonment on 18 October 2024.[66]
[66] HB 38.
The Tribunal finds that the Applicant has a “substantial criminal record” and, therefore, he does not pass the character test. This is not disputed by the Applicant. The Tribunal must therefore consider whether “there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked”.
Is there another reason why the original decision should be revoked under section 501CA(4)?
In considering whether to the original decision should be revoked, the Tribunal is bound by s 499(2A) to comply with any directions made under the Act. In this case, Direction No 110 – Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA (“the Direction”) has application.[67]
[67] On 21 June 2024, the former applicable direction, Direction No. 99 – Visa refusal and cancellation under s501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under s501CA, was revoked and was replaced by Direction 110.
For the purposes of deciding whether to refuse or cancel a non-citizen’s visa or whether or not to revoke the mandatory cancellation of a non-citizen’s visa, paragraph 5.2 of the Direction contains several principles that must inform a decision maker’s application of the considerations identified in Part 2 where relevant to the decision.
The principles that are found in paragraph 5.2 of the Direction may be briefly stated as follows:
(1)Australia has a sovereign right to determine whether non-citizens who are of character concern are allowed to enter and/or remain in Australia. Being able to come to or remain in Australia is a privilege Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law-abiding, will respect important institutions, such as Australia’s law enforcement framework, and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
(2)The safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government.
(3)Non-citizens who engage or have engaged in criminal or other serious conduct should expect to be denied the privilege of coming to, or to forfeit the privilege of staying in, Australia.
(4)The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they engaged in conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, that raises serious character concerns. This expectation of the Australian community applies regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
(5)Australia has a low tolerance of any criminal or other serious conduct by visa applicants or those holding a limited stay visa, or by other non- citizens who have been participating in, and contributing to, the Australian community only for a short period of time. However, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non- citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.
(6)With respect to decisions to refuse, cancel, and revoke cancellation of a visa, Australia may afford a higher level of tolerance of criminal or other serious conduct by non-citizens who have lived in the Australian community for most of their life, or from a very young age.
(7)Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the noncitizen’s conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation.
(8)The inherent nature of certain conduct such as family violence is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling or refusing the visa, or revoking a mandatory cancellation, even if 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.
Paragraph 6 of the Direction provides that:
Informed by the principles in paragraph 5.2, a decision maker must take into account the considerations identified in sections 8 and 9, where relevant to the decision.
Paragraph 7(2) of the Direction requires that protection of the Australian community (Primary Consideration 8.1), is generally to be given greater weight than other primary considerations.
Paragraph 8 of the Direction sets out five Primary Considerations that the Tribunal must take into account and they are:
(1)protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(2)whether the conduct engaged in constituted family violence;
(3)the strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia:
(4)the best interests of minor children in Australia; and
(5)expectations of the Australian community.
Paragraph 9 of the Direction sets out three Other Considerations which must be taken into account. These considerations are:
a)Legal consequence of the decision;
b)extent of impediments if removed; and
c)impact on Australian business interests
I note the importance of the Other Considerations being “other” considerations, as opposed to “secondary” considerations. As noted by Colvin J in Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection:[68]
“…Direction 65 [now Direction 110] makes clear that an evaluation is required in each case as to the weight to be given to the 'other considerations' (including non‑refoulement obligations). It requires both primary and other considerations to be given 'appropriate weight'. Direction 65 does provide that, generally, primary considerations should be given greater weight. They are primary in the sense that absent some factor that takes the case out of that which pertains 'generally' they are to be given greater weight. However, Direction 65 does not require that the other considerations be treated as secondary in all cases. Nor does it provide that primary considerations are 'normally' given greater weight. Rather, Direction 65 concerns the appropriate weight to be given to both 'primary' and 'other considerations'. In effect, it requires an inquiry as to whether one or more of the other considerations should be treated as being a primary consideration or the consideration to be afforded greatest weight in the particular circumstances of the case because it is outside the circumstances that generally apply.”[69]
[68] Suleiman v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 594.
[69] Ibid at [23].
OFFENDING HISTORY
The Applicant’s criminal record as produced by the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission is outlined at Annexure B.
The Applicant’s adult offending commenced in 2006.[70] Out of an abundance of caution, I have had no regard to the Applicant’s juvenile offending. Even if I were to consider it, it would make no material difference in the context of the rest of the Applicant’s adult offending.
[70] HB 37-39.
Primary Consideration 1 – Protection of The Australian Community
In considering this Primary Consideration 1, paragraph 8.1 of the Direction requires decision-makers to keep in mind the safety of the Australian community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. To that end, the Government is committed to protecting the Australian community from harm as a result of criminal activity or other serious conduct by non-citizens. Decision-makers should have particular regard to the principle that entering or remaining in Australia is a privilege that this country confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are, and have been, law abiding, that they will respect important institutions and that they will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
In determining the weight applicable to Primary Consideration 1, paragraph 8.1(2) of the Direction requires decision-makers to give consideration to:
a)The nature and seriousness of the non-citizen’s conduct to date; and
b)The risk to the Australian community should the non-citizen commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
The Nature and Seriousness of the Applicant’s Conduct to Date
When assessing the nature and seriousness of a non-citizen’s criminal offending or other conduct to date, paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction specifies that decision-makers must have regard to a number of factors. I will now turn to addressing these considerations.
Sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction provides that without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered very serious, violent and/or sexual crimes; crimes of a violent and/or sexual nature against women or children (regardless of the sentence imposed); or acts of family violence (regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed) are viewed very seriously by the Australian Government and the Australian community.
The Applicant has committed acts of family violence as set out above. These are very serious.
The Applicant’s record for drink driving and driving when disqualified is also very serious.
Sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction provides that without limiting the range of conduct that may be considered serious, the types of crimes or conduct described below are considered by the Australian Government and the Australian community to be serious:
(i)causing a person to enter into or being party to a forced marriage (other than being a victim), regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed;
(ii)crimes committed against vulnerable members of the community (such as the elderly and the disabled), or government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties;
(iii)any conduct that forms the basis for a finding that a non-citizen does not pass an aspect of the character test that is dependent upon the decision-maker’s opinion (for example, section 501(6)(c));
(iv)where the non-citizen is in Australia, a crime committed while the non-citizen was in immigration detention, during an escape from immigration detention, or after the non-citizen escaped from immigration detention, but before the non-citizen was taken into immigration detention again, , or an offence against section 197A of the Act, which prohibits escape from immigration detention.
The Applicant does not pass the character test.
Sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker (with the exception of the crimes or conduct mentioned in sub-paragraphs (a)(ii), (a)(iii) or (b)(i) of paragraph 8.1.1(1)) to have regard to the sentence(s) imposed by the Courts for a crime or crimes of a non-citizen/applicant. The imposition of a custodial term is regarded as the last resort in any reasonably and correctly applied sentencing process. Custodial terms are viewed as a reflection of the objective seriousness of an applicant’s offending.
The Applicant has been sentenced to 3 periods of imprisonment for his criminal conduct.
The first was for a period of 6 months in 2007. This was suspended upon entering into a bond.[71]
[71] HB 39.
The second was for a period of 6 months, for yet again driving when disqualified.[72]
[72] Ibid.
The third was for family violence offences committed between 2018 and 2014. He was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment.[73]
[73] HB 38, 40-50.
The fact that the Applicant has been sentenced to terms of imprisonment is indicative of the gravity of his offending.
Sub-paragraph (d) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to have regard to the impact of the offending on any victims offending or other conduct and their family, where information in this regard 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;
It seems that the Applicant’s relationship with his wife and stepdaughter has ended. He has no desire to resume that relationship and neither do they.
The Applicant’s wife remains nevertheless supportive in as much as she does not want him to be deported and she believes that he is essentially a good person.
Sub-paragraph (e) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to have regard to the frequency of a non-citizen’s offending and whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness.
The Applicant’s offending falls into two phases.
The first phase involved a series of driving related offences between 2006 and 2008.[74]
[74] HB 39.
These offences were increasingly serious as the Applicant continued to offend even after being given a suspended sentence. He was declared to be a habitual offender.
The Applicant told the Tribunal that he resolved never to drink and drive after his period of imprisonment. He has not had any recorded drink driving offences since.
The second phase involves family violence and property damage offences over a period between 2011 and 2024.[75] The latest of these was so serious as to result in a complaint being made to police and the Applicant being arrested.
[75] Ibid.
Alcohol abuse is a common thread running through all of this offending.
There has been a trend of increasing seriousness in his offending.
Sub-paragraph (f) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to have regard to the cumulative effect of an Applicant’s repeated offending.
The cumulative effect of the Applicant’s offending has been very serious, especially for his wife and stepdaughter. Although they do not want him to be deported, they do not wish to have any contact with him. They are protected by an AVO until October 2026.
The community has had to waste resources on the Applicant through the criminal justice system.
Sub-paragraph (g) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to have regard to whether a non-citizen has provided false or misleading information to the Department, including by not disclosing prior criminal offending.
The Applicant incorrectly completed an incoming passenger card in 2010 as set out above.
His explanation is that it was filled out by his wife so that he could sleep on the plane journey home from Thailand.[76]
[76] HB 84.
The Respondent accepts that in 2012, the Applicant did correctly fill in an incoming passenger card.[77]
[77] HB 25.
In the circumstances of this case, I am inclined to accept the Applicant’s explanation and accordingly, I give this no weight.
Sub-paragraph (h) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to have regard to whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned about the consequences of further offending in terms of the non-citizen’s migration status ( noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen’s favour).
There is no evidence of this.
Sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to have regard, where the offence or conduct was committed in another country, to whether that offence or conduct is classified as an offence in Australia.
There is no evidence of this.
I do not consider factors (h) and (i) of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction apply to the Applicant’s offending or circumstances. The rest of the relevant sub-paragraphs of paragraph 8.1.1(1) of the Direction, in their totality, weigh heavily against revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
The Risk to the Australian Community Should the Applicant Commit Further Offences or Engage in Other Serious Conduct
Paragraph 8.1.2(1) provides that in considering the need to protect Australian community (including individuals, groups or institutions) from harm, decision-makers should have regard to the Government’s view that the Australian community’s tolerance for any risk of future harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused, if it were to be repeated, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable.
Paragraph 8.1.2(2) provides that in assessing the risk that may be posted by the non-citizen to the Australian community, decision-makers must have regard to, cumulatively:
a)the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the non-citizen engage in further criminal or other serious conduct;
b)the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct, taking into account:
(i)information and evidence on the risk of the non-citizen re-offending; and
(ii)evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since their most recent offence; and
c)where consideration is being given to whether to refuse to grant a visa to the non-citizen - whether the risk of harm may be affected by the duration and purpose of the non-citizen’s intended stay, the type of visa being applied for, and whether there are strong or compassionate reasons for granting a short stay visa.

Nature of harm should the Applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct
Assessing the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community that may occur if the Applicant were to engage in further criminal or other serious conduct, is informed by the nature of his offending to date, including any escalation in his offending. This assessment also notes that the Direction provides that the Australian community’s tolerance for harm becomes lower as the seriousness of the potential harm increases. Some conduct and the harm that would be caused, is so serious that any risk that it may be repeated may be unacceptable (Paragraph 8.1.2(1)).
The nature of the Applicant’s offending is very serious. His motor vehicle offences indicate a disregard for the law and a reckless indifference to the safety of other road users.
The Applicant’s family violence record is also very serious and the community’s tolerance of such conduct is very low.
According to Mr Watson-Munro, the range of harm that may result, should the Applicant engage in further criminal or serious conduct, can be framed more generally in the form of “diminished impulse control”. This conduct may not not necessarily limited to family violence.
Likelihood of engaging in further criminal or other serious conduct
In relation to the risk of reoffending, the Applicant says:
“Alcohol was always a problem for me from the age of 18 till previously. Talking with psychology Dr Tim Watson Munroe whilst in jail made me realise that my heavy drinking was due to my parents divorce when I was 9 years old and bullying I received in High School and soccer team mate that my father abandoned me and had two other kids with another woman after my mother kicked him out of the house. In the same manner that my father threatened me with a knife or his belt I did to stepdaughter. I helped raise her from when she was 8 years old and when she was 20 my wife and I found out she was taking drugs. I was washing the dishes whilst intoxicated and with a knife threatened that she needed to be good. I know how bad and wrong that is and I hate myself for it. I’m extremely remorseful to both my wife and stepdaughter for what I did.
…
I have completed Domestic Violence program and have the certificate of completion. Whilst in jail no alcohol counselling was provided for me but here at Villawood I’m commencing alcohol counselling that is available.
…
Drink driving and driving whilst disqualified, damage property and offensive language was all due to alcohol use when I was 18-25. I’ve been married 14 years and at times drinking heavy and arguments with my wife whilst heavily intoxicated led me to be charged with common assault and armed with intent to which I apologised to my stepdaughter moments after realising it had scared her. Being in jail for 7 months and now Villawood I never want to be away from my family ever again so I know I will never drink again and total abstinence is required for me to be a good person and the man my mother raised me to be
…
I am currently commencing alcohol counselling here at Villawood and will continue to do so for the rest of my life and hope to do someday use my experience to deter others from ruining their lives with alcohol or drugs. I’m aware of the seriousness of my offences and know that if I wasn’t intoxicated I would have never commited any of the offences. I never wanted to have kids because of my drunken lifestyle but I know now that I won’t drink again. I want to be a father, start a new life and make my mother proud. Please let me stay with my family and life here in Australia.”[78]
[78] HB 78, 81.
The Applicant has expressed remorse for his conduct. In his statement of 24 February 2025, he stated:
“I deeply regret all the mistakes I made, not only for the impact they have had on my visa but also on my relationship with my wife, [redacted], whom I have been married to for 14 years, and my stepdaughter, [redacted], whom I have helped raise for 12 years. I am sincerely sorry for the pain I have caused them. Due to an AVO in place, I understand that I am not permitted to contact them in any way and I will respect the law and AVO conditions.”[79]
[79] HB 85.
The Applicant has shown some insight into his conduct and its causes. In his statement of 24 February 2025, he stated:
“While I was detained in prison, I had the opportunity to see a psychologist, Tim Watson Munro, who helped me understand that my use of cannabis and alcohol was a way of blocking out the trauma I experienced as a child, my parents divorce, parental alienation syndrome, being bullied at school, and not speaking to my father for many years. While in jail, I completed a Domestic Violence program, but alcohol remained a significant problem in my life. Unfortunately, I was never able to access further programs due to waiting lists.
During my time in Villawood Detention Centre, I have been seeing a counsellor once a fortnight and will always continue do seek counselling. I now have access to the internet and took the initiative to complete four online courses in Understanding Alcohol and Drug Abuse, Anger Management, Understanding Addictions, and Domestic Violence Awareness.
Through these courses, I learned how alcohol abuse and anger management issues affect physical and mental health, relationships, and careers, all of which I experienced firsthand. I now understand the importance of managing anger, not through violent outbursts, but through healthy techniques such as expression, suppression, and calming exercises. I also learned how alcohol damaged my brain and body, and the lasting consequences it had on my family, particularly my wife, [redacted], and my stepdaughter, [redacted].
I deeply regret the way my anger and alcohol abuse have affected my relationships. The most painful part of my actions is how I failed to acknowledge the damage I caused my wife and stepdaughter. I hurt them both in ways that cannot be undone, and I am truly sorry for the arguments and abuse. I am not someone that can drink socially or have a glass of wine with dinner. I know I will never drink alcohol again.”[80]
[80] HB 86-87.
On the other hand, he appears to blame his wife for being imprisoned.[81] He was asked about this in cross-examination and he agreed that it was not her fault. He had said the wrong thing to the corrections officer making the record.
[81] HB 253.
The Applicant does not intend to resume any relationship with his wife or stepdaughter. According to his wife, that feeling is mutual. This probably means that the immediate and proximate risk of family violence is presently low. To the extent that it is protective, an AVO is also in place until October 2026.
The Applicant could of course form another relationship, which may generate similar stressors in the future.
The Applicant plans to live with his mother, return to work and seek community-based treatment, if he is returned to the community. All of this may act as a protective measure.
It is plain for the Applicant’s history, that his prospect of reoffending is inextricably linked to his abuse of alcohol.
If the Applicant can abstain from alcohol use, I accept that he presents a low risk of reoffending.
If on the other hand he continues to abuse alcohol, the risk of him reoffending may be at least moderate. It is likely that the Applicant cannot safely manage any consumption of alcohol, without the risk of abuse.
The Applicant has not used alcohol since he was arrested in April 2024. He has had access to clandestine alcohol supplies in detention, but he has thus far resisted the temptation.
He remains untested in an uncontrolled environment and this will present him with a real challenge.
I assess the Applicant’s likelihood of continuing to use alcohol, to borrow a phrase from Mr Watson-Munro, as a “work in progress”. That said, there are many promising signs of him having engaged with appropriate services and acknowledging his need to continue to do so if he is returned to the community.
I accept that the Applicant has now confronted the very real possibility of being deported. I accept that he is highly motivated to avoid this outcome.
Based on all of the above, I am inclined to give the Applicant the benefit of the doubt and to proceed on the basis that the risk of him reoffending is low-to moderate. It is implicit in so doing, that the Applicant’s assurance to the Tribunal that he will seek proper ongoing treatment, and that he will remain sober, has been accepted at face value.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 1
Primary Consideration 1 weighs against revocation of the Applicant’s visa cancellation. If I were to consider this question, based on him continuing to abuse alcohol, this Primary Consideration would weigh very heavily against him.
Primary Consideration 2: Family Violence
Paragraph 8.2 of the Direction provides:
(1)The Government has serious concerns about conferring on non-citizens who engage in family violence the privilege of entering or remaining in Australia. The Government’s concerns in this regard are proportionate to the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non-citizen (see paragraph (3) below).
(2)This consideration is relevant in circumstances where:
a)a non-citizen has been convicted of an offence, found guilty of an offence, or had charges proven howsoever described, that involve family violence; and/or
b)there is information or evidence from independent and authoritative sources indicating that the non-citizen is, or has been, involved in the perpetration of family violence, and the non-citizen being considered under section 501 or section 501CA has been afforded procedural fairness.
(3)In considering the seriousness of the family violence engaged in by the non- citizen, the following factors must be considered where relevant:
a)the frequency of the non-citizen’s conduct and/or whether there is any trend of increasing seriousness;
b)the cumulative effect of repeated acts of family violence;
c)rehabilitation achieved at time of decision since the person’s last known act of family violence, including:
i.the extent to which the person accepts responsibility for their family violence related conduct;
ii.the extent to which the non-citizen understands the impact of their behaviour on the abused and witness of that abuse (particularly children);
iii.efforts to address factors which contributed to their conduct; and
d)Whether the non-citizen has re-offended since being formally warned, or since otherwise being made aware by a Court, law enforcement or other authority, about the consequences of further acts of family violence, noting that the absence of a warning should not be considered to be in the non-citizen’s favour. This includes warnings about the non- citizen’s migration status, should the non-citizen engage in further acts of family violence.
The details of the Applicant’s history of family violence is set out above.
The Applicant has offended on multiple occasions, between 2011 and 2024, against his wife and his stepdaughter.[82]
[82] HB 38-39.
The Applicant’s prosecution for the earlier offences relating to property damage did not deter him from further offending.
The Applicant’s earliest offending against the stepdaughter occurred when she was still a minor.
Much of the offending occurred in the family home.
Alcohol abuse seems to be a common element in all this offending.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 2
Primary Consideration 2 weighs against revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
Primary Consideration 3: Ties to Australia
Paragraph 8.3 of the Direction provides:
(1)Decision-makers must consider any impact of the decision on the non-citizen’s immediate family members in Australia, where those family members are Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents, or people who have a right to remain in Australia indefinitely.
(2)Where consideration is being given to whether to cancel a non-citizen’s visa or whether to revoke the mandatory cancellation of their visa, the decision-maker must also consider the strength, nature and duration of any other ties that the non-citizen has to the Australian community. In doing so, decision-makers must have regard to:
a) how long the non-citizen has resided in Australia, including whether the non-citizen arrived as a young child, noting that:
i.less weight should be given where the non-citizen began offending soon after arriving in Australia; and
ii.more weight should be given to time the non-citizen has spent contributing positively to the Australian community
b) the strength, duration and nature of any family or social links with Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents and/or people who have an indefinite right to remain in Australia.
The Applicant has lived in Australia since he was an infant.
All his formative years have been spent here. He attended school here and he has worked here for many years.[83]
[83] HB 79-80, 99.
The Applicant has a lengthy history of gainful employment.
The Applicant has been involved in community activities associated with the [redacted] Soccer Club.[84]
[84] HB 80.
The Applicant’s mother, sister and her family live here. He also has an aunt, uncle, 1 niece, 2 nephews and 10 cousins here.[85] His niece (Child A) and one nephew (Child B) are minors. They are also discussed in the context of Primary Consideration 4. I refer to those comments also in this context.
[85] HB 77.
I note that the Applicant told the Tribunal that he is now only really close to his mother, his sister, her husband and their family.
The Applicant and his mother says that she has serious health issues:
“My mother, now 77 years old, has deteriorating health issues, including diabetes, arthritis, and high blood pressure. She recently retired at the age of 72, and I was planning to move in with her and care for her just before my incarceration. I promised her I would never send her to a nursing home, a fear she shares with my late grandmother. If allowed to remain in Australia, I would dedicate myself to supporting my mother with her daily needs, including helping her with groceries, medical appointments, and maintaining her home. My mother and I are very close. We have always talked everyday and I would always see her often. She came to visit me every week in jail and has been coming every week at Villawood. I love her with all of my heart and I hope to be by her side taking care of all her needs.”[86]
[86] HB 88; See also HB 95.
Members of his family have provided letters of support.[87]
[87] HB 92-94, 96, 98.
The Applicant’s adult offending began in 2006 and continued until 2024.[88]
[88] HB 37-39.
In all the circumstances however, the Applicant is, but for the happenstance of his foreign birth, entirely a product of this country.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 3
Primary Consideration 3 weighs heavily in favour of revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa
Primary Consideration 4: The best interests of minor children in Australia
Paragraph 8.4(1) of the Direction requires a decision-maker to make a determination about whether cancellation or refusal under section 501, or non-revocation under section 501CA is in the best interests of a child affected by the decision. Paragraphs 8.4(2) and 8.4(3) respectively contain further considerations. The former provides that for their interests to be considered, the relevant child (or children) must be under 18 years of age at the time when a decision about whether or not to refuse or cancel the visa or not to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision is being made. The latter provides that if there are two or more relevant children, the best interests of each child should be given individual consideration to the extent that their interests may differ.
Paragraph 8.4(4) of the Direction sets out a number of factors to take into consideration with respect to the best interests of minor children in Australia. Those include, relevantly:
a)the nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the non-citizen. Less weight should generally be given where the relationship is non-parental, and/or there is no existing relationship and/or there have been long periods of absence, or limited meaningful contact (including whether an existing Court order restricts contact);
b)the extent to which the non-citizen is likely to play a positive parental role in the future, taking into account the length of time until the child turns 18, and including any Court orders relating to parental access and care arrangements;
c)the impact of the non-citizen’s prior conduct, and any likely future conduct, and whether that conduct has, or will have a negative impact on the child;
d)the likely effect that any separation from the non-citizen would have on the child, taking into account the child’s or non-citizen’s ability to maintain contact in other ways;
e)whether there are other persons who already fulfil a parental role in relation to the child;
f)any known views of the child (with those views being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child);
g)evidence that the child has been, or is at risk of being, subject to, or exposed to, family violence perpetrated by the non-citizen, or has otherwise been abused or neglected by the non-citizen in any way, whether physically, sexually or mentally;
h)evidence that the child has suffered or experienced any physical or emotional trauma arising from the non-citizen’s conduct.
The relevant minor children in Australia are:
(a)Child A is the Applicant’s niece. She is 16 years old.[89]
(b)Child B is the Applicant’s nephew. He is 10 years old.[90]
[89] HB 75.
[90] Ibid.
In relation to these children, the Applicant says:
“I have a very close and loving relationship with both my nephews [DW] and [Child B] and especially my niece [Child A]. All three have been a major part of my life because we are a close family and are always together for birthday, whether it’s my mums birthday, my sister’s or brother in laws birthdays, any of the kids birthdays or my birthday. We are also together every Christmas. All three kids play soccer and I have gone to watch their games cheering them on. The kids are also at my mum’s every Monday and Wednesday and I visit my mum every weekend and most Wednesdays to eat dinner together and spend time together.
…
It has been 7 months now I have not seen my nephews and niece, and I miss them so much and my sister and mum tell me they miss me also. [DW] 21, [Child A] 16 are aware of jail and that I’m now at Villawood but [Child B] who is only 10 years old is told that I had to go away for work. It would impact them to lose their uncle, especially little [Child B] because we always kick the ball around and see each other so often. I’ve told them that I would always be there for all three of them so I believe it would impact them in a negative way. I know it would make them suffer to lose me forever.”[91]
“This past Christmas, for the first time, I was absent from my family's celebrations. My youngest nephew, [Child B], who is 10, asked why I wasn't there. It broke my heart to hear how my absence affected him and the rest of my family. I miss them all dearly, including my nephew [DW], 21, and my niece [Child A], 16, both of whom have played significant roles in my life.”[92]
[91] HB 76.
[92] HB 88.
Child A and Child B live with their parents. Their parents confirmed the existence of a close relationship with the Applicant.
The Applicant has never performed a parental role in relation to the children, but I accept that they are close to him and that they would be distressed if he were to be returned to Chile. He could maintain contact with them electronically from there, but this would be much less satisfactory than him being present in Australia.
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 4

Having regard to all of the above, Primary Consideration 4 weighs in favour of revocation of the Applicant’s visa cancellation
Primary Consideration 5 – The Expectations of The Australian Community
The relevant paragraphs in the Direction
In making the assessment for weight to be allocated to Primary Consideration 5, paragraph 8.5(1) of the Direction provides that the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. I should consider whether the Applicant has breached, or whether there is an unacceptable risk that he would breach, this expectation by engaging in serious conduct.
Paragraph 8.5(2) of the Direction directs that a visa cancellation or refusal, or non-revocation of the mandatory cancellation of a visa, may be appropriate simply because the nature of the character concerns or offences are such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not be granted or continue to hold a visa. In particular, the Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should refuse entry to non-citizens, or cancel their visas, if they raise serious character concerns through conduct, in Australia or elsewhere, of the following kind:
(a)acts of family violence; or
(b)causing a person to enter into, or being party to (other than being a victim of), a forced marriage;
(c)commission of serious crimes against women, children or other vulnerable members of the community such as the elderly or disabled; in this context, ‘serious crimes’ include crimes of a violent or sexual nature, as well as other serious crimes against the elderly or other vulnerable persons in the form of fraud, extortion, financial abuse/material exploitation or neglect;
(d)commission of crimes against government representatives or officials due to the position they hold, or in the performance of their duties; or
(e)involvement or reasonably suspected involvement in human trafficking or people smuggling, or in crimes that are of serious international concern including, but not limited to, war crimes, crimes against humanity and slavery; or
(f)worker exploitation.
Paragraph 8.5(3) of the Direction provides that the above expectations of the Australian community apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing physical harm to the Australian community.
Paragraph 8.5(4) of the Direction provides guidance on how the expectations of the Australian community are to be determined. This paragraph states:
This consideration is about the expectations of the Australian community as a whole, and in this respect, decision-makers should proceed on the basis of the Government’s views as articulated above, without independently assessing the community’s expectations in the particular case.
Paragraph 8.5(4) is consistent with the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 185 which affirmed the approach established in previous authorities that it is not for the Tribunal to determine for itself the expectations of the Australian community by reference to an Applicant’s circumstances or evidence about those expectations. The Tribunal is to be guided by the Government’s views as to the expectations of the Australian community, which are to be found in the Direction.[93]
[93] See Uelese v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 348; Afu v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] FCA 1311; YNQY v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 1466 and FYBR v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 500.
Paragraph 8.5 contains a statement of the Government’s views as to the expectations of the Australian community, which operates to ascribe to the whole of the Australian community an expectation aligning with that of the executive government which the decision maker must have regard to.
Analysis – Allocation of Weight to Primary Consideration 5
Accordingly, in assessing the weight attributable to Primary Consideration 5, it is necessary to have regard to the following matters:
a.the Applicant’s criminal record as set out in Annexure B
b.the other matters set out above
Conclusion: Primary Consideration 5
Primary Consideration 5 weighs against revocation of the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
It is necessary to look at the Other Considerations listed at paragraph 9 of the Direction.
(a) legal consequence of the decision:
I accept that if the Applicant is not successful in these proceedings, he will be liable for detention and removal from Australia. This would be an adverse outcome, but one common to all unsuccessful applicants in similar proceedings.
This Other Consideration (a) is neutral.
(b) Extent of Impediments if Removed
Paragraph 9.2 of the Direction directs a decision-maker to take into account the extent of any impediments that the non-citizen may face if removed from Australia to their home country, in establishing themselves and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of that country), taking into account:
(a) the non-citizen’s age and health;
(b)whether there are any substantial language or cultural barriers; and
(c)any social, medical and/or economic support available to that non-citizen in that country.
181.In relation to this, the Applicant says:
“From what I’ve learnt about Chile, it is drug and crime ridden. The city of Santiago, where I was born has a high unemployment rate and a lot of poverty. It’s a culture I know nothing of. Here in Australia I have hopes and aspirations of becoming successful in my trade and have too many employment opportunities.”[94]
[94] HB 81.
The Applicant has virtually no connection whatsoever to Chile. He does not speak fluent Spanish. The culture in Chile would be foreign to him. To all intents and purposes, Chile is a totally foreign country from the Applicant’s perspective.
The Applicant’s father and some other relatives live in Chile, but he is not close to them.
The Applicant is aged 39. He has not claimed any health issues, but he clearly has an alcohol abuse problem and possibly other mental health issues as well. Mr Watson-Munro recommended various therapies to assist him. It is unclear whether these would be available to him in Chile.
The Applicant has skills that should render him employable in Chile, but obtaining employment without adequate language skills and social supports would be very difficult.
I accept that although the Applicant would be entitled to the same levels of social, medical and economic support as any other citizen of Chile, these may well be inferior to those available to him in Australia
I accept that if he were to be removed to Chile, he would face very serious challenges in reestablishing himself. These challenges may adversely impact on his physical and mental health.
This Other Consideration (b) weighs heavily in favour of revocation.
(c) Impact on Australian business interests
There was no evidence on this topic, so this Other Consideration is neutral.
CONCLUSION
It is necessary to weigh up all of the primary and other considerations.
Primary Consideration 1 weighs against revocation.
Primary Consideration 2 weighs against revocation.
Primary Consideration 3 weighs heavily in favour of revocation.
Primary Consideration 4 weighs in favour of revocation.
Primary Consideration 5 weighs against revocation
Other Consideration (a) is neutral
Other Consideration (b) weighs heavily in favour of revocation.
Other Consideration (c) is neutral.
I note that paragraph 7(2) of the Direction requires that protection of the Australian community is generally to be given greater weight than other Primary Considerations, and that Primary Considerations should generally be given greater weight than the Other Considerations.
The Applicant has lived in Australia almost all his life. He has virtually no connection with Chile. He does not speak Spanish fluently.
The Applicant has extensive family connections in Australia.
The Applicant has a serious problem with alcohol. This has been a central feature of his offending history.
If the Applicant can stop drinking altogether, I accept that he would present a low risk to the community. He does not, however, have the option of moderating his drinking. He concedes that he lacks the self-control to do so. He must stop drinking entirely and get ongoing community-based support as discussed above.
This Tribunal cannot impose parole-like conditions on the Applicant, and it cannot grant him a conditional visa. He either gets the Visa back, or he does not.
The prospect of the Applicant permanently ceasing drinking is, as Mr Watson-Munro said, a “work in progress”.
If the Applicant cannot stop drinking, he is likely to continue to offend in some way, possibly with a future intimate partner.
The Applicant has now peered into a future where he is facing imminent deportation, and he does not like what he has seen. I accept that this is a powerful motivator for the Applicant to remain sober.
I accept that the Applicant is genuine in his desire to remain sober.
I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt and to accept that he is committed to engaging with ongoing community based treatment.
I am satisfied that the Applicant fully understands that if he were to reoffend, after having his visa returned in these proceedings, he would be inviting yet another visa cancellation. In such a case, he could expect little weight to be given to any assurance that he may then offer to the Respondent, or a member of this Tribunal, about his future good conduct.
In my view, on balance, the proper application of the Direction on this occasion, favours revoking the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa.
I find that there is “another reason” pursuant to section 501CA (4)(b)(ii) to revoke the original decision.
DECISION
The decision under review is set aside and substituted with a decision that the cancellation of the Applicant’s visa is revoked.

I certify that the preceding two hundred and thirteen (213) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member Hon J Rau SC.

...........................[SGND]............................
Associate

Dated: 31 July 2025

Date of hearing: 28 and 29 July 2025

Advocate for the Applicant:

Mr Mark Northam, Northam Lawyers

Advocate for the Respondent:
Mr Alvin Sharma, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers

ANNEXURE A – LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit no.

Lodged by

Document

1

Respondent

Hearing Bundle (‘HB’)

2

Applicant

Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions

(p 175-182 of HB)

3

Respondent

G-Documents

(p 1-182 of HB)

4

Applicant

Report of Mr Watson-Munro dated 22 July 2025

5

Respondent

Statement of Applicant’s Wife dated 23 July 2025

6

Applicant

Statement of Applicant dated 23 July 2025

7

Respondent

Respondent’s Tender Bundle

(p 183-260 of HB)

8

Respondent

Respondent’s Supplementary Tender Bundle

(p 261-288 of HB)

ANNEXURE B – APPLICANT’S OFFENDING HISTORY

Court

Court Date

Offence

Court Result

LIVERPOOL LOCAL COURT

18/10/2024

Common assault (DV)-T2

IMPRISONMENT (AGGREGATE): 12 MONTHS

LIVERPOOL LOCAL COURT

18/10/2024

Common assault (DV)-T2

IMPRISONMENT (AGGREGATE): 12 MONTHS

LIVERPOOL LOCAL COURT

18/10/2024

Armed w/i commit indictable offence-T1

IMPRISONMENT (AGGREGATE): 12 MONTHS

LIVERPOOL LOCAL COURT

18/10/2024

Common assault (DV)-T2

IMPRISONMENT (AGGREGATE): 12 MONTHS

LIVERPOOL LOCAL COURT

18/10/2024

Common assault (DV)-T2

IMPRISONMENT (AGGREGATE): 12 MONTHS

DOWNING CENTRE LOCAL COURT

21/09/2012

Destroy or damage property <=$2000- T2

BOND S9: 12 MONTHS

SUPV NSW PROB SERVICE COSTS - COURT: $83

DOWNING CENTRE LOCAL COURT

14/11/2011

Destroy or damage property <=$2000- T2

FINE: $600

LIVERPOOL LOCAL COURT

19/06/2008

Drive while disqualified from holding a licence

IMPRISONMENT: 6 MONTHS

DISQUALIFICATION: 2 YEARS

BURWOOD LOCAL COURT

17/04/2007

Class A m/v exceed speed > 30 km/h and <= 45 km/h

S10A CONVICTION WITH NO OTHER PENALTY:

DISQUALIFICATION: 3 MONTHS

BURWOOD LOCAL COURT

17/04/2007

Drive with middle range PCA

IMPRISONMENT: 6 MONTHS SUSPENDED ON
ENTER BOND S12: 6 MONTHS

DISQUALIFICATION: 3 YEARS

BURWOOD LOCAL COURT

17/04/2007

Drive while disqualified from holding a licence

IMPRISONMENT: 6 MONTHS SUSPENDED ON ENTER BOND S12: 6 MONTHS
DISQUALIFICATION: 3 MONTHS

LIVERPOOL LOCAL COURT

30/11/2006

Drive while disqualified from holding a licence

COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDER: 120 HOURS

DISQUALIFICATION: 2 YEARS

BANKSTOWN LOCAL COURT

06/11/2006

Use offensive language in/near public place/school

FINE: $300 COSTS - COURT: $67

FAIRFIELD LOCAL COURT

19/09/2006

Special category driver drive with special range PCA

FINE: $500 COSTS - COURT: $67 DISQUALIFICATION: 6 MONTHS

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

[redacted]

Date of hearing:	28 and 29 July 2025
Advocate for the Applicant:	Mr Mark Northam, Northam Lawyers
Advocate for the Respondent:	Mr Alvin Sharma, HWL Ebsworth Lawyers

Exhibit no.	Lodged by	Document
1	Respondent	Hearing Bundle (‘HB’)
2	Applicant	Applicant’s Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions (p 175-182 of HB)
3	Respondent	G-Documents (p 1-182 of HB)
4	Applicant	Report of Mr Watson-Munro dated 22 July 2025
5	Respondent	Statement of Applicant’s Wife dated 23 July 2025
6	Applicant	Statement of Applicant dated 23 July 2025
7	Respondent	Respondent’s Tender Bundle (p 183-260 of HB)
8	Respondent	Respondent’s Supplementary Tender Bundle (p 261-288 of HB)

Court	Court Date	Offence	Court Result
LIVERPOOL LOCAL COURT	18/10/2024	Common assault (DV)-T2	IMPRISONMENT (AGGREGATE): 12 MONTHS
LIVERPOOL LOCAL COURT	18/10/2024	Common assault (DV)-T2	IMPRISONMENT (AGGREGATE): 12 MONTHS
LIVERPOOL LOCAL COURT	18/10/2024	Armed w/i commit indictable offence-T1	IMPRISONMENT (AGGREGATE): 12 MONTHS
LIVERPOOL LOCAL COURT	18/10/2024	Common assault (DV)-T2	IMPRISONMENT (AGGREGATE): 12 MONTHS
LIVERPOOL LOCAL COURT	18/10/2024	Common assault (DV)-T2	IMPRISONMENT (AGGREGATE): 12 MONTHS
DOWNING CENTRE LOCAL COURT	21/09/2012	Destroy or damage property <=$2000- T2	BOND S9: 12 MONTHS SUPV NSW PROB SERVICE COSTS - COURT: $83
DOWNING CENTRE LOCAL COURT	14/11/2011	Destroy or damage property <=$2000- T2	FINE: $600
LIVERPOOL LOCAL COURT	19/06/2008	Drive while disqualified from holding a licence	IMPRISONMENT: 6 MONTHS DISQUALIFICATION: 2 YEARS
BURWOOD LOCAL COURT	17/04/2007	Class A m/v exceed speed > 30 km/h and <= 45 km/h	S10A CONVICTION WITH NO OTHER PENALTY: DISQUALIFICATION: 3 MONTHS
BURWOOD LOCAL COURT	17/04/2007	Drive with middle range PCA	IMPRISONMENT: 6 MONTHS SUSPENDED ON ENTER BOND S12: 6 MONTHS DISQUALIFICATION: 3 YEARS
BURWOOD LOCAL COURT	17/04/2007	Drive while disqualified from holding a licence	IMPRISONMENT: 6 MONTHS SUSPENDED ON ENTER BOND S12: 6 MONTHS DISQUALIFICATION: 3 MONTHS
LIVERPOOL LOCAL COURT	30/11/2006	Drive while disqualified from holding a licence	COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDER: 120 HOURS DISQUALIFICATION: 2 YEARS
BANKSTOWN LOCAL COURT	06/11/2006	Use offensive language in/near public place/school	FINE: $300 COSTS - COURT: $67
FAIRFIELD LOCAL COURT	19/09/2006	Special category driver drive with special range PCA	FINE: $500 COSTS - COURT: $67 DISQUALIFICATION: 6 MONTHS
[redacted]	[redacted]	[redacted]	[redacted]