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

This matter concerned an application for judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs to not revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa. The Applicant did not pass the character test, and his visa had previously been cancelled and subsequently revoked. The core of the dispute was whether there was "another reason" to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision, as required by Ministerial Direction No. 99. The Applicant's criminal offending history spanned a decade, and the Tribunal found that his level of rehabilitation could not be ascertained, leading to a finding that his recidivist risk remained unchanged.

The court was required to determine whether the Tribunal had erred in finding that there was no other reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation of the Applicant's visa. This involved considering the Applicant's criminal history, the risk of reoffending, and the application of Ministerial Direction No. 99, particularly Primary Consideration 1 concerning the protection of the Australian community. The court had to assess the nature and seriousness of the Applicant's conduct to date and the risk to the Australian community should he commit further offences.

The court reasoned that the Applicant's criminal offending history, which ran from August 2013 to June 2022, comprised 62 offences across 13 sentencing episodes, resulting in fines totalling approximately $4,050 and a cumulative custodial sentence of three years and 42 days. This history was characterised as "very serious" under the Direction. Furthermore, the Applicant's own evidence regarding his recidivist risk assessment, which indicated a moderate-high risk of reoffending, was not convincingly rebutted. The Applicant conceded that his offending had harmed others, consumed policing and judicial resources, and presented a risk to other road users. Consequently, the factors against revocation, particularly the protection of the Australian community and the Applicant's significant recidivist risk, outweighed any factors favouring revocation.

The Tribunal's finding that there was no other reason to revoke the mandatory cancellation decision was affirmed.