Sturmey and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 2227

Sturmey and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Migration) [2025] ARTA 2227 (21 October 2025)

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TRIBUNAL )

) No: 2025/4496

)
Re: Kingi Roy Sturmey
Applicant

And: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Respondent
CORRIGENDUM
TRIBUNAL:              Deputy President O’Donovan
DATE:   24 October 2025
PLACE:                    Brisbane
Pursuant to s 114(1) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth), the Tribunal alters the text of the decision published to the parties in this application on 21 October 2025 as follows:

at paragraph [11], delete ‘whether there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked’ and substitute ‘whether the original decision should be affirmed’.

Statement made on 24 October 2025 at 8:48am

Applicant/s:  Kingi Roy Sturmey
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number:                2025/4496

Tribunal:Deputy President O'Donovan
Place:Brisbane
Date of Decision: 21 October 2025

Decision: The decision under review is affirmed.

Statement made on 21 October 2025 at 11:57am
Disclaimer: The references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been removed from this decision so as not to identify involved individuals.
Catchwords
MIGRATION – citizen of New Zealand – whether to cancel the applicant’s visa – applicant fails the character test – substantial criminal record – manslaughter – assault – domestic violence – alcohol use – Direction no. 110 – primary and other considerations – protection of Australian community – nature and seriousness of criminal offending – risk to the Australian community should the Applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct – strength, nature and duration of ties to Australia – best interests of minor children in Australia – expectations of the Australian community – extent of impediments if removed – decision under review affirmed
Legislation
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 499, 500, 501
Cases
HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2019] FCAFC 202
Secretary to the Department of Justice and Regulation v LLG [2018] VSCA 155
Secondary Materials
Direction No. 110: Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA
Statement of Reasons

The applicant was born in New Zealand in 1964. He was adopted as an infant by an aunt and her husband, and from that point he was known as Kingi Sturmey. He emigrated to Australia with his father in January 1980. He completed Year 10 in Brisbane and then entered the workforce.
His first assault conviction was entered in 1984. Convictions resulting from violent behaviour followed at regular intervals over the next fifteen years. The applicant avoided incarceration until a number of domestic violence incidents in 1998 resulted in a short prison sentence.
In February 2004 the applicant, while drunk, severely bashed a friend of his. Following the bashing the friend died. The applicant was convicted of manslaughter and served five-and-a-half years of an eight-year sentence.
When the applicant was released, he avoided trouble for a period, but he was convicted of offences involving alcohol in 2015, 2017 and 2019. In 2024 the police were called to a domestic disturbance involving the applicant. A domestic violence order was taken out against him. This appears to have brought the applicant to the attention of the Department of Home Affairs (‘the Department’).
On 25 June 2025, a delegate of the Minister exercised a discretion to cancel the applicant’s visa.
Section 501(2) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (‘the Act’) provides that the Minister may cancel a visa that has been granted to a person if:
(a) the Minister reasonably suspects that the person does not pass the character test; and
(b) the person does not satisfy the Minister that the person passes the character test.
Section 500(6) provides that for the purposes of s 500 a person does not pass the character test if the person has a substantial criminal record (as defined by subsection (7)).
Subsection 500(7) provides that for the purposes of the character test a person has a substantial criminal record if the person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more. The applicant was sentenced to more than 12 months in prison in relation to his manslaughter conviction. The delegate was satisfied that he fails the character test and the discretion to cancel his visa was enlivened and should be exercised.
The applicant has sought merits review of that decision in the Administrative Review Tribunal (‘Tribunal’).
The Tribunal has jurisdiction under s 500(1)(b) of the Act to review the decision.
In considering whether to exercise the discretion to cancel, the Tribunal must comply with the ministerial direction issued under s 499 of the Act. The relevant direction is Direction No. 110: Visa refusal and cancellation under section 501 and revocation of a mandatory cancellation of a visa under section 501CA, which was executed on 7 June 2024 and commenced on 21 June 2024 (‘the Direction’). Informed by the principles identified in the Direction, I must take into account the considerations identified in sections 8 and 9 when I am considering the question of whether there is another reason why the original decision should be revoked.
The discussion below of the principles and considerations I must take into account under the Direction is drawn largely from one of my earlier decisions on this issue, but it has been revised to appropriately reflect the circumstances of this case.
The Direction is divided into 'primary' and 'other' considerations. In applying the considerations, information and evidence from independent and authoritative sources should be given appropriate weight. The protection of the Australian community consideration should generally be given greater weight than other primary considerations and primary considerations should generally be given greater weight than other considerations. There is however scope to give greater weight to other considerations in appropriate circumstances, and similar flexibility is available in the relative weighting of primary considerations.
The primary considerations 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.
The other considerations are:
(a) The legal consequences of the decision;
(b) The extent of impediments to the applicant establishing and maintaining basic living standards if removed from Australia; and
(c) The impact on Australian business interests.
I am also required to consider any other considerations raised by the applicant.
The Principles set out in paragraph 5.2 of the Direction make it clear that the safety of the Australian Community is the highest priority of the Australian Government. 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. The Australian community expects that the Australian Government can and should cancel non-citizen's visas if they engaged in conduct, in Australia, 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. 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. With respect to decisions to cancel 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. Decision-makers must take into account the primary and other considerations relevant to the individual case. In some circumstances, the nature of the non-citizen's conduct, or the harm that would be caused if the conduct were to be repeated, may be so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to result in a decision not to cancel the visa. 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 the visa, 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.
Having considered each of the considerations and weighed them appropriately, I have decided to affirm the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa.
My reasons for that decision are set out below.
Evidence before the Tribunal
The material in the following schedule was taken into evidence:
Exhibit           Description
G                   G Documents (G1 to G7, pages 1 to 238)
SB                  Respondent’s Supplementary Bundle (SB1 to SB4, pages 1 to 189)
A1                  Affidavit of Nancy Capewell made 17 September 2025
A2                  Affidavit of Kylie Dodd made 29 September 2025
A3                  Affidavit of Anthony Gray made 6 October 2025
A4                  Report of Dr Laurel Morris dated 11 September 2025
A5Partially redacted summons material produced by the Queensland Police Service on 9 October 2025.
In addition to the supplementary bundle, I (and the parties) had access to a less redacted version of the material returned on summons reproduced in the supplementary bundle. This enabled easier identification of the victims of certain crimes and the subject of domestic violence orders.
I have also had regard to the written submissions of the applicant dated 18 September 2025 and 6 October 2025, and the written submissions of the respondent dated 30 September 2025.
The following witnesses gave oral evidence for the applicant:
(a) The applicant, Mr Kingi Sturmey;
(b) Ms Nancy Capewell;
(c) Ms Crystal Capewell;
(d) Ms Kylie Dodd;
(e) Dr Laurel Morris;
The respondent cross-examined each of the witnesses called by the applicant.
Fact finding principles
In reaching my findings on the primary facts I must apply the principle, clarified by the Full Court of the Federal Court in HZCP v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[1] (‘HZCP’) at [68], that '…relying on evidence contrary to the essential conviction or sentencing facts would in itself be an error'. The Full Court made clear that a person who makes representations in favour of revoking the cancellation of a visa cannot advance a factual position that undermines the relevant convictions and sentences as 'another reason' why the original decision to cancel should be revoked.
[1] [2019] FCAFC 202.
I do note however that the Applicant is entitled, subject to some qualifications, to seek different findings from the Tribunal in relation to any criminal convictions which did not form the basis of the decision to cancel his visa. The principles to be applied by the Tribunal when considering evidence of this nature were comprehensively summarised by Justice Bromberg in HZCP. The principles are stated concisely in the following passage from Secretary to the Department of Justice and Regulation v LLG, cited with approval by Bromberg J:
The authorities distinguish between cases where a previous conviction is the basis for a decision-maker or reviewing tribunal's jurisdiction and those where it is not. In the former case, the essential factual basis of the conviction (or sentence, as the case may be) is not able to be reviewed, but the circumstances of the conviction can be reviewed for a purpose other than impugning the conviction itself. In the latter case, the essential facts underlying the convictions are not immune from challenge and the conviction is conclusive only of the fact of the conviction itself, but there is a heavy onus on a person seeking to challenge the facts upon which the conviction is necessarily based.[2]
[2] [2018] VSCA 155, [42].
In this matter, I am therefore bound by the essential findings made in relation the convictions that led to his incarceration in 2004. In relation to the manslaughter charge, the applicant was sentenced to eight years imprisonment. It is on the basis of this charge that the applicant fails the character test and the discretion to cancel is triggered.
In relation to the applicant’s other criminal charges, I do have some freedom to depart from the findings made in relation to the crimes the applicant was convicted of, but it would be unusual to do so.
Facts
My findings of fact are set out below. Where a finding is controversial, I have referenced the evidence on which the finding is based.
The applicant was born in New Zealand in 1964. At the age of two he was adopted as an infant by an aunt and her husband and from that point he was known as Kingi Sturmey. He emigrated to Australia with his father and his brother, Douglas, in January 1980. He completed Year 10 in Brisbane and then entered the workforce.[3]
[3] Exhibit A4, 3-4.
His first conviction was in 1984. It was for wilful and unlawful destruction of property, assaulting police and resisting police. In 1985 he was convicted of possession of drug paraphernalia. In 1986 the applicant was convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm. In 1988 he was convicted on two counts of assaulting a female and two counts of assaulting police.[4]
[4] G-Documents, G2, 44-45.
By 1990 he had moved from Brisbane to Charleville. He met Nancy, his long term de facto and the mother of three of his children, in a pub around 1987 and commenced a relationship with her around 1989.
In March 1990 he was convicted of behaving in a disorderly manner. In 1991 he was convicted on two counts of using obscene language and two counts of resisting police.
In June 1993, in Brisbane, the applicant was convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm. Nancy was the victim.[5]
[5] Exhibit A5, 67.
All of these convictions were for relatively minor offences. The highest sentence imposed was a $550 fine.
In 1997 the level of violence perpetrated by the applicant increased significantly.
It appears that in around May 1997 the applicant discovered that Nancy was having an affair with another man. As a consequence of his reaction a domestic violence order was taken out against him although it seems that the relationship persisted. The applicant continued to be violent towards Nancy.[6]
[6] Exhibit A5, 49-50
In October 1997 the applicant advised Nancy that he was breaking off the relationship and he was moving out. He arranged to collect his belongings. On 31 October 1997 the applicant drove with Nancy and his children to the dump. On their way back from the dump the following occurred:
During the drive the [applicant] held the aggrieved in a headlock preventing her from leaving the vehicle. When they arrived at the premises…the respondent dragged the aggrieved from the vehicle by the hair across the footpath. He then picked the aggrieved up by the hair and one leg and threw her over the fence. [He then] jumped the fence and dragged the aggrieved again by the hair to the front door. He then hit the aggrieved’ s head against the front door approximately 5 times whilst holding her hair. He then pushed the aggrieved to the ground. The aggrieved then left the scene with her children.[7]
[7] Exhibit A5, 47.
Following the assault, Nancy attended the Cunnamulla Hospital where she was treated for abrasions to her neck and head. These were photographed.
The applicant was convicted in Charleville Magistrates Court on one count of assault occasioning bodily harm and one count of a breach of a domestic violence order. He was convicted and sentenced to 3 months in prison. It was suspended for two years.
In the months that followed the applicant assaulted Nancy on a number of occasions.
On 26 July 1998 the applicant went to Nancy’s house and found her in bed with her boyfriend. The applicant assaulted both of them. Nancy was punched to the head and chest and after she fell to the floor, her boyfriend was punched several times to the head, on the left ear and the left side of the mouth.[8]
[8] Ibid, 73-74.
On 30 August 1998 the applicant and Nancy had been fishing together with their children. Upon returning to his house, he had an argument with Nancy. He then hit Nancy with a rubber boot. He then dragged her down the driveway about six to seven metres by the hair. He then went inside with Nancy and proceeded to hit her extremely hard around the back of the legs and hand with a piece of rope approximately one and a half feet long. When the applicant’s child took the rope from him, he went to the bedroom, and got a leather belt, and then started whipping the informant with the belt. One of the children called police and the applicant then left. Injuries included bruising, swelling and welts to the back of Nancy’s hands and legs.[9]
[9] Ibid, 36-38.
Nancy had no clear memory of this event. However, she accepted that she had blocked some traumatic events in her past. The applicant initially gave evidence that the event must be fabricated but when confronted with the police report accepted that it was probably true even though he had no memory of it.
On 31 August 1998 Nancy went to the applicant’s house. They had an argument, and the applicant slapped the complainant with both hands around the face and ears. He then punched her several times to the head and then kicked her to the stomach, buttocks and vaginal area. The applicant then belted her with a brown leather belt, hit her around the face, hands, legs and buttocks. Nancy sustained bruising to the buttocks, hands and legs.[10]
[10] Ibid, 61-63.
Nancy gave evidence that she could not remember this and thought that she would remember such a serious assault. The applicant also had no specific memory of the event however he accepted it probably happened as recorded. In light of the written evidence and the subsequent charges and convictions, I accept that these events happened as recorded in the police reports.
On 31 August 1998 the applicant was convicted of multiple offences in Charleville Magistrates Court including:
·     Assaults occasioning bodily harm (5 charges between 26 July 1998 and 30 August 1998);
·     Breaches of a domestic violence order (4 charges between 25 July 1998 and 30 August 1998);
·     Use threatening words (26 July 1998).
The applicant was convicted on each charge and sentenced to four months for each offence to be served concurrently. The sentence was to be served cumulatively with the three-month suspended sentence imposed in January 1998.
While in prison, the applicant undertook 16 sessions to develop his cognitive skills and reduce his impulsivity and increase empathy. The assessment found that although the applicant ‘acknowledged he has made poor choices in the past, he was unable to fully appreciate how these thinking errors have impacted negatively on his life.’[11] He received a certificate of successful completion.[12]
[11] Supplementary Bundle, SB4, 152.
[12] Ibid, 163.
He also undertook an anger management program.[13] It was not successfully completed initially,[14] but he received a certificate of successful completion on 5 March 1999.
[13] Ibid, 154.
[14] Ibid, 161.
It would appear that he was released into the community in January 1999 following recommendations by the Parole Board. The Parole Board concluded:
The applicant is a 34 year old man, serving a 12 months sentence for Breaches of Domestic violence Order and Assault. He has repeatedly assaulted his de facto as well as other people and it appears that he has little victim empathy nor insight into his wrong doing. It is the writer’s opinion that the applicant feels justified to respond with assault when he feels provoked. He stated that he was not intoxicated when offending.[15]
[15] Ibid, 170.

In May 1999 the applicant was convicted in Charleville Magistrates Court of consuming liquor on a road, failing to state name and obstructing a police officer. He was fined and returned briefly to prison.
On 15 October 2000 the applicant assaulted another person following a party. He was convicted and fined.
Around this time the applicant began a relationship with Kylie Dodd. The available evidence supports the conclusion that this relationship was never violent.
In 2005 the applicant was convicted of manslaughter after severely bashing a friend who he had been drinking with and who he wrongly believed had stolen his wallet. The sentencing judge accepted the following description of the circumstances:
…the prisoner and the deceased, a person called Thomas Gerard Cowan, were friends of some years, some years standing, were said by the prisoner to have been good friends and were on this day, the 13^th of February, drinking and had been drinking, it seems, over a very lengthy period of time. About nine hours has been estimated. Perhaps not all of that time was spent in the company of one another but certainly the offence that we're concerned with occurred when they were back in a bar together at the Charleville Hotel. Mr Cowan, the deceased, was aged 44 years at the time of his death.
The circumstances come to light, your Honour, principally from a witness called Geoff Speed, although some background is provided by other employees of the hotel. Mr Speed was the publican. One of the barmaids - sorry, one of the employees of the hotel, a Joshua Maris, who knew both the prisoner and the deceased says that he remembers finishing work during the early evening of the 13th when he was sitting at the bar with his girlfriend and he saw the prisoner and the deceased in the area. He knew the deceased from the deceased having taken a room in the hotel from that night. He'd booked in earlier that day. He saw and heard Mr Kingi coming past in the area at least saying, "My wallet had better be upstairs." Those comments were directed towards the deceased, Mr Cowan - or in relation to him, at least. Kingi then asked another barman, Bruce Lambeth, where Tom's room was. Kingi was told what room that was and then he and the deceased and eventually Mr Speed went upstairs. Mr Speed says that he rented this room to Mr Cowan who was a shearer from New Zealand. He was working in the local area.
Now, he says that at about 9.30 that night he saw Tom and Kingi standing on the footpath of Albert Street outside the hotel. He saw Kingi walk into the front bar of the hotel and said to Bruce Lambeth, the barman, who was standing next to Mr Speed, "What room's this cunt in?" Mr Lambeth said, "22 - no, 23." The prisoner then commenced to walk around the bar towards the accommodation area or to go to the stairs up to the accommodation area and the deceased was walking behind him. He heard Mr Sturmey saying something to a couple of patrons sitting at the end of the bar. He couldn't hear what was said. He then - Speed, that is - followed both of them up the stairs and challenged Sturmey, asked him what was going on. Sturmey said to him, "This cunt's knocked off my wallet with $300 and all my certificates. Where's his room?" He then started heading towards the ladies' toilet area. Speed said to him, "It's not down there. Come back here."
Now, by that stage the deceased had got to the top of the stairs and he was on the landing. Kingi said to him, "Where's my wallet, cunt? Where's your room?" The deceased said, "Down the corridor there." He then strode off down towards that room, room 23. Mr Speed argued with Kingi saying, "He's not been in the room." That is, Tom has not been in the room, there was no need for him to go in there. He was concerned - Speed was concerned that Sturmey not upset other patrons in the area.
During the course of that, however, he says this: "Kingi then spun around and strode down to where Tom was standing leaning against the wall. I saw him punch him with his left fist to Tom's face. Tom immediately fell to the ground and fell through an open door into an old bathroom which is located opposite room 11." Speed told Sturmey to cut it out. Mr Cowan was lying with part of his body in the bathroom but most of it out in the hallway. The deceased said, "What's going on, man?" Kingi said to him, "You stole my money and wallet, cunt. Where is it?" Speed says that Kingi then kicked Tom to the body and to the face. "I saw three quick kicks to the body and one to the face." Mr Cowan began to bleed from the facial area. Mr Speed then grabbed Sturmey by the shoulders and pulled him back saying, "He's had enough. Leave him alone."
Sturmey returned - or turned around, at least, and strode back to room 23. Speed followed him and Sturmey started to open the drawers in the dressing table. Again, Speed told him that the deceased had not been in his room as yet. Mr Speed describes the prisoner as having been in a rage, heavily intoxicated. "He was not rational and would not accept what I was saying." He tried to push the prisoner out of the door of that room. The argument continued about the wallet, wanting to retrieve that and papers that he was missing.
At that point Sturmey left room 23, started to walk back towards where the deceased was lying - he, of course, wasn't deceased by this stage - and at that point he proceeded to kick the deceased several times to the body. Mr Speed, in an attempt to stop Sturmey, jumped on to his back and tried to pull him away. He managed to do that to a slight extent but he says that, "As I did pull him away, I saw Kingi kick down on Tom's head with the heel of his right foot." Again, an argument - the argument about the wallet continued.
At that point - or at about that point Mr Lambeth, the other barman, arrived on the floor. He was told by Speed to go and call an ambulance. He left to do that. Speed said to Kingi, "I've got an ambulance coming and I'm going to have to call the police. Just get away from him." Sturmey said, "I don't give a fuck. Call who you want." At that point Sturmey noticed the deceased's wallet on the floor. He picked up the wallet and said, "If this cunt's got money in here, then it's my money he stole." There was then further argument about how much money the deceased would have had on him because Speed says that he cashed a cheque for him, a wage cheque for him, that morning. In any event, Mr Sturmey went through the wallet, went through the clothing of the deceased and took, it seems, two $50 notes from the wallet. After further argument, Mr Sturmey left the area.
Now, Mr Speed then tended to the deceased. He says he rolled Tom over on to his side. There was a lot of blood coming from his face. He was breathing in short, raspy breaths. Mr Speed stayed with the deceased until the ambulance arrived. During that time he monitored his breathing which varied from raspy to inconsistent, he says.
The ambulance arrived and it seems from the variety of – or various witnesses who provided statements that a period of some 36 minutes was spent on CPR on the deceased with a couple of police officers being enlisted to assist because it was such hard work and it was very hot in the hotel that night.
…
So for a period of about 36 minutes from the arrival of the ambulance until his arrival at the hospital, at that point - at the time of his arrival at hospital, or soon afterwards perhaps, he was pronounced dead by the attending doctor there.[16]
[16] G-Documents, G2, 62-64.
The applicant was given a head sentence of eight years. He was eligible for parole after five-and-a-half years and given credit for time served from the date of arrest on 13 February 2004.
The applicant’s relationship with Kylie Dodd persisted for a while after he entered prison. In 2006 his son Tristan was born. The relationship with Kylie however did not last until the applicant got out of prison.
While incarcerated the applicant participated in the peer support network ‘buddies’ and the ATSI Ending Offending Program.
In 2008 the applicant completed the Getting SMART program. At that time he was assessed as a medium risk of reoffending.
It is not clear when the applicant was released from prison. The Parole Board received a negative assessment in relation to his first application on 18 February 2008 in the following terms:
It is respectfully recommended that offender Sturmey’s application for Parole be declined.
Whilst it is noted that he was not required to complete intervention programs to address all of his criminogenic needs, he did undertake the Getting Smart program. However, he documented a poor relapse prevention plan and has not made additional efforts to address his alcohol abuse issues whilst in custody, for example by attending Alcoholics Anonymous.
It is recommended that offender Sturmey spend a period of time in a less secure environment and develop a viable relapse prevention plan prior to placing another application before the board.[17]
[17] Supplementary Tender Bundle, SB4, 184.
The applicant engaged with DRUG ARM, an agency that provides support programs for alcohol and drug users. The applicant undertook sessions with DRUG ARM from November 2009 to 2010 and remained abstinent in that period.
The applicant was released around this time and lived in Brisbane. Initially in a prisoner release hostel and then in his own accommodation. He worked as a labourer using employment agencies to find work.
The applicant describes himself as single in this period following release.
I was not able to get a clear picture of his involvement with his family from release until 2015. From the time of his release, the applicant was living around Brisbane. He told the Tribunal the last time he lived with Nancy was 2004. He described himself as having been single after getting out of prison. The evidence indicates that Nancy and the rest of her children lived in Central Queensland, in Charleville or Cunnamulla. The applicant certainly kept in touch with his family and at some point his daughter Crystal came to live with him in Brisbane.
In October 2015 the applicant was involved in incidents that led to further criminal charges – one of unlicensed driving, one of drink driving, and one of obstructing police. He pleaded guilty. The incident was described in the following terms to the sentencing court:
The [applicant] was intercepted due to the manner of his driving. He was advised to stop – he was advised he was stopped due to the manner of his driving. The defendant stated, “Scum motherfuckers. Go and catch some paedophiles”. The defendant exited the vehicle; displayed an aggressive stance, taking a step forward towards police, after repeatedly being directed to remain in the vehicle. The defendant appeared to be under the effect of intoxication – liquor. He had blood shot eyes. His – the smell of alcohol emanated from his breath. He was required to provide a specimen of breath for the purpose of a breath test. He was using a mobile phone at the tie and ignored the direction, stating, “Just wait. I’m on my phone. I’ve waited for you. You can wait for me for a change.” The defendant did submit to a breath test. It returned a positive indication. He was detained.
He was placed in – police attempted to place the defendant in handcuffs due to his aggressive behaviour and constant refusal to comply with police directions. Police applied a single handcuff on the right wrist of the defendant. The defendant immediately pulled his hands away from police. He attempted to – police attempted to remove the defendant from the vehicle; were initially unable to do so. The defendant was forcibly removed from the vehicle, resisting the police at all times by attempting to break free. Police unsuccessfully attempted to transition him to the ground. He was directed to cease resisting police and get on the ground. Believing there was an imminent risk of injury, police removed capsicum spray and warned the defendant that he’d be sprayed unless he stopped resisting police. The defendant continued to resist. A single burst of spray was deployed in the eyes of the defendant. It appeared to have no immediate effect. Police transitioned the defendant to the ground, effecting a number of closed-hand strikes to overcome the defendant’s continued physical resistance. The defendant was restrained with handcuffs.[18]
[18] G-Documents, G2, 57.
The applicant’s blood alcohol reading at the station was 0.102. His licence was immediately suspended.
On 21 October 2015 whilst the applicant’s licence was suspended, he was intercepted driving a vehicle.
The applicant was fined $700 and disqualified from driving for three months.
The applicant’s next offence arose from an incident in 2017. At this stage the applicant was living with his daughter Crystal, her partner and their three children.
The police that attended the scene gave an account of what was occurring when they arrived in Police Information reports which indicated that the applicant was violent towards his daughter Crystal and failed to follow police instructions. Following the attendance by police a domestic violence order was taken in favour of the applicant’s daughter Crystal. It also protected her three children.
Crystal gave evidence to the Tribunal about the incident which differed significantly from the information recorded by the police. I am satisfied that what is recorded in the police reports should be accepted over the evidence given by Crystal.
The content of the police report was read out in open court without demur when the applicant was charged with obstructing police. On that basis I am satisfied that what was recorded was an accurate account of what the police observed. To the extent that Crystal claims that there was no violence towards her that evening, or if there was it was not from her father, I do not accept that evidence. The police took out a domestic violence order to protect Crystal from her father following the incident. I am satisfied that there was physical violence directed towards Crystal that night and that it was her father who was responsible. To the extent that Crystal gave evidence that that was not the case I do not accept that evidence.[19]
[19] The unredacted police report at SB3, 77 is unambiguous in this regard.
The applicant gave no account of the evening, electing, as is his right, to take the privilege against self-incrimination.
The account of the incident read out in court is as follows:
Twenty-seventh of August 2017, just before midnight., it would appear, police were tasked to attend an address in Lawnton in relation to a noisy party. They’ve attended a short time later. They’ve heard a loud argument occurring within the front room of the address. Police have approached the front door, and at this time, they heard a loud slapping sound. Police unlocked the front door, immediately observed a woman on the floor. There was a man of islander appearance. He appeared to be aggressive.
Police approached the male. They told him he was being detained. He’s refused to stop packing his belongings and continued to walk around the room, collecting his belongings. Senior constable at the time attempted to stop the defendant from doing that. He’s attempted to push past Senior Constable Hodge, who’s then attempted to restrain him. A short struggle has followed. Police have managed to handcuff the defendant. He was then arrested for obstructing them. He was transported to the Pine River Watch-house and was released then on bail.[20]
[20] G-Documents, G2, 53.
The applicant was described by his counsel at the time in the following terms:
Mr Sturmey’s 53 years of age. He works full time as a plant operator and supports himself. He’s a single man. The address subject of the offence was his daughter and son-in-law’s house. He left the address and hasn’t returned after that incident.[21]
[21] Ibid.
When questioned by the judge the applicant conceded that he had been drinking that night.[22]
[22] Ibid, 54.
The applicant was warned by the judge in the following terms:
You got to be careful. With your history now, you’re placing yourself in a position that anything you do is going to get yourself into serious trouble.[23]
[23] Ibid.
The police documents also noted the following:
Police observed three children…All children were at the rear bedroom and appeared distressed and crying. All were clothed upon police arriving however unable to determine their proximity to the incident prior to police arrival
…
On 29/8/2017, CPIU officers questioned Crystal about the matter and she stated that they had all been watching the Mayweather v McGregor on Sunday afternoon and had consumed too much alcohol. She states that her father (resp) was acting out of character and very aggressive. Subsequently she kicked him out of the house. Crystal states that he is generally really good and very good to the children. The mothers actions appear appropriate and a protective factor.[24]
[24] Exhibit A5, 57.
The applicant pleaded guilty to assaulting or obstructing a police officer and was fined $500. A domestic violence order in favour of Crystal was taken out on 6 September 2017.
In 2019 the applicant was convicted of public nuisance after reacting angrily to being refused service in a pub.
In July 2024 the applicant had a domestic violence order issued against him.
In the Tribunal hearing the applicant elected to take the privilege against self-incrimination and did not answer questions in relation to the incident that led to the taking out of that order. Evidence was filed and submissions made on the applicant’s behalf took issue with the truthfulness of the claims that were said to have led police to take out the order. In particular, the applicant’s representative, Mr Gray filed an affidavit recording the discussions he had had with the alleged victim, Rebecca. That affidavit raises the possibility that the statements made by Rebecca about the claimed violence were not honest.[25] The affidavit on some critical matters is hearsay. Despite that I have given it some weight and if it were the only material available to me, I would not make a finding that the applicant was violent towards Rebecca on the basis that her claims to police may be inaccurate. However, it is not the only material available. I also have access of the police notes concerning the events of that evening and notes of interactions with other witnesses.[26] As the notes appear to record consistent accounts from both the applicant and Rebecca in respect of most aspects of the incident, I am satisfied that they are accurate, and that the victim did not make a false claim.
[25] Exhibit A3.
[26] Exhibit A5, 9-29.
On 13 July 2024 police attended the unit complex where the applicant and Rebecca both lived. The applicant confirmed that he was for a period in a relationship with the Rebecca. It is unclear whether the relationship was persisting on the night in question but Rebecca was either a current or former intimate partner of the applicant. After initially receiving a false story from both the applicant and Rebecca, the police questioned them separately.
Rebecca then told police that she was in Mr Sturmey’s bedroom sleeping when he entered and grabbed her by the pants and dragged her along the floor then smashed her head into the floor causing a large cut to the back of her head. She then returned to her unit and called the police. Rebecca advised that ‘this is the third time something like this has occurred but due to her fear and the [applicant’s] controlling behaviour she did not seek assistance from the police.’ Rebecca stated that she was fearful of the applicant. Queensland Ambulance Service attended. Rebecca refused any help. The applicant was detained and transported to the police station.[27]
[27] Exhibit A5, 28-29.
The version given by the applicant is recorded as follows along with the police comment on his version:
[The applicant] told police that he walked into his bedroom and asked [Rebecca] to leave and stated that people next door are looking for her. The [applicant] has then grabbed [Rebecca] by her pants and dragged her out of the room where [Rebecca] has then thrown herself backwards causing her to hit her head on the floor. The resp told police that on a separate occasion he pushed [Rebecca out of his way as he had work to do and was busy. [The applicant] further stated that he has never been violent towards [Rebecca] and has never punched or strangled her. It appears the [applicant] does not recognise his actions of pushing or dragging [Rebecca] as violent.

The police reports include a report made by Rebecca’s mother on 7 August 2024 as follows.
…[Informant] is mother of [Rebecca]. [Applicant] and [Rebecca] are believed to be in a relationship and currently have a DV order with mandatory conditions. However, it is unconfirmed if the respondent Kingi Kurupo is the respondent in this matter – it is only suspected at this time due to third party reporting. Incident On the 07/08/2024, police attended INF address and spoke to her in relation to a separate matter. The INF has disclosed to police that she has received text messages from the aggrieved on 14/07/2024 and 25/07/2024 stating that the aggrieved had been bashed. The messages from the 14/07/2024 state that the aggrieved got bashed by a man next door who is described by the aggrieved as a massive muscle maori ex footballer. She also stated in the messages that she wasn’t going to bother telling the police. On 25/07/2024, the INF received a photo of [Rebecca’s] face with a bruised eye. [Rebecca] stated “that person I was with bashed me. Please mum I just need to talk to you.” Screenshots of messages uploaded to occurrence. The INF does not know who the male who the aggrieved is referring to QPRIME checks show that [Rebecca] is named as an aggrieved in a DV order mandatory conditions with Kingi KURUPO. There have been recent occurrences with KURUPO therefore it is likely they are still in a relationship. KURUPO matches description and resides next door to her so is likely it is him. Task sent to Fortitude Valley to take up with [Rebecca] and obtain more information in relation to these messages that she sent to the INF (sic).[28]
[28] Exhibit A5, 17.
Based on the fact that Rebecca is reported to be living next door to ‘Kingi Kurupo’ I am satisfied that the person referred to in this report is the applicant. I note also that the applicant’s psychologist records that ‘Kurupo’ is the applicant’s birth name.[29]
[29] See SB3 p 40 and Exhibit A4,3.
I am satisfied that on 13 July 2024 the applicant did drag Rebecca off the bed sufficiently roughly to cause injury to the back of her head. He did this without any regard for her safety and without concern that dragging her off the bed may lead to Rebecca suffering an injury. I am satisfied that this conduct made Rebecca fearful.
Applicant’s drinking
I am satisfied that there is a link between the applicant’s drinking and his most violent behaviour. However, not all of his violent behaviour has happened while he was drinking.
Giving up alcohol would be one sign that the applicant is committed to taking steps to avoid the conditions that can lead to violence in the future. I am not satisfied that the applicant is committed to giving up alcohol. It is an idea that he is interested in, particularly since he discovered his son has given up alcohol successfully. However, at present I am only satisfied that the applicant gave up alcohol for a brief period prior to being taken into immigration detention on 29 July 2025.
The applicant has been aware that his offending is linked to alcohol use for over two decades. Despite this he has never fully accepted that he has a problem with alcohol and he has taken very few serious steps to either cease alcohol use altogether or ensure that he limits his consumption to a safe level.
Psychologist’s Report
The applicant has relied upon a report prepared by Forensic Psychologist Dr Laurel Morris.
Using clinical judgment, her assessment was as follows:
Given his criminal history and current status, does Mr. Sturmey pose a risk from which the Australian community requires protection?
This was an important question to address given his criminal! history shows a pattern of offending over many years. Hence a major part of the assessment was to conduct a risk assessment which is outlined in detail above. Although the history of offending is concerning the risk assessment also focuses on the more recent past and his current circumstances. His behaviour has been primarily prosocial in the community. Over the past six years, he has made substantial changes in his lifestyle, is now of an older age where the risk of violence diminishes, he has substantially reduced his use of alcohol, he is back with his long-term de facto partner (and mother of his children), and he has gained a deal of self-worth in stepping in to assist his daughter.
lf so, what is the nature and extent of this risk, and can this be ameliorated?
Risk remains due to his poor problem solving, lack of self-confidence and poor self-esteem, and any deeply held beliefs that normalise physical violence. Psychological intervention will certainly help ameliorate this risk. He appears open to recognising his vulnerabilities and can be helped to recognise his insecurities, strengthen his self-esteem, better manage his emotions, and strengthen close relationships with better communication and assertion skills. Given his older age and recent stability, the overall risk was deemed to be low for future offending especially if he continues with treatment provided under his psychology referral.
What progress has Mr. Sturmey mode by way of rehabilitation from past offending and in reducing the likelihood of reoffending?
Over past six years has made steady progress and change. He has reduced his reliance on alcohol, is more focused on maintaining a healthy lifestyle with exercise and diet, and has reached better understanding with his long-term de factor partner leading to relationship security.
Can this be improved with treatment from within Australia cf. the prospect of removal to NZ to start anew?
He has received a referral from his general practitioner to see a psychologist and been very open in psychological sessions. He has the capacity to understand and implement simple coping strategies including how to manage conflict or provocation. He would be better able to make progress with treatment if living among the people he knows and trusts, and if able to continue in his employment where he has confidence in his ability and the ability to earn an income rather than attempting treatment in a foreign environment.
The difficulty that I have with accepting Dr Morris’s assessment is that many of the factors on which she relies as providing a reason for thinking that the applicant has a low or a lowering risk of violence are not established.
The applicant in his evidence described himself as single. After a break in the proceedings, he gave slightly different evidence indicating that he and Nancy were trying to give a relationship a go, but that was not consistent with his original answers to questioning. It is clear that they do not live together and that as recently as 2024 the applicant has had a sexual relationship with another woman. I do not accept that Nancy could be described as his ‘long term de-facto partner’.
I am also not satisfied that the applicant has made any sustained change to his drinking patterns. Even in the witness box he was unwilling to accept that he had a problem with alcohol generally. This was an attitude that seemed very little changed from when he was assessed in prison in 2005, barely a year after severely beating a man in a drunken rage.
Relationships
I am unable to draw any firm conclusions about the applicant’s relationship with Nancy. The relationship clearly ended in 1998. They did however stay in touch in order for the applicant to sustain a relationship with his children. However, by the early 2000’s he had a relationship with Karen. That relationship ended after a few years in prison.
It is unclear how close the applicant remained to his children after he was released from prison and moved away from Charleville and closer to Brisbane.
I am satisfied that he had limited time with Cherie, Nancy’s daughter who he helped raise, but who moved away to NSW for an extended period where she raised her children, Taieshia, Latreka, Tattrearna, [LC], [TC], and [SC] with limited contact with their grandfather.
The applicant however remained in contact with his son Ethan and visits him a couple of times a year in Charleville. He knows and has a relationship with his grandson [EC], Ethan’s son.
The applicant is close to his daughter Crystal. He has lived with her for a period and despite the domestic violence incident in 2017 they remain close. The applicant has been involved in the care of her five children, [OW], [DW], [JW], [EW], and [DiW] particularly since Crystal’s husband has needed dialysis.
The applicant remains in contact with Karen and his son Tristan, but neither live close to him.
Work history
The applicant has a solid work history since he left school. After leaving school he was variously employed as a back hoe operator, excavator, truck driver and labourer. He was a council worker at Charleville for seven years and has done work in the mines in WA. Since leaving prison has secured regular work through labour hire.
Community Contribution
The applicant has been a contributor to his community. He has coached an under-10s rugby league team in Charleville. He has played in senior rugby league competitions. He has been involved at times in the SES and, through his church, been involved in flood recovery work.
In recent times he has been involved in a charity called Valley Hearts. A fellow volunteer described his contribution in the following terms:
I believe the family will be devastated if Kingi is deported; and my experience of him during these recent years is that he is a hard-working, community spirited, loving family man, with the demons of past offending and alcohol abuse well under control. He is a help not a risk to others. I have communicated with him regularly and seen him often, and he has been sober and amiable every time.[30]
[30] Exhibit A3.
Health
The applicant is in good physical health. He has no specific mental health diagnoses. Dr Morris is concerned that if the applicant is returned to New Zealand that he may decompensate with resulting negative mental health outcomes.[31]
[31] Exhibit A4, 13.
I also make further findings of fact in the course of analysing the relevant considerations.
CONSIDERATION
Primary considerations
Protection of the Australian Community
When examining this consideration, I am required to keep in mind that 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. Remaining in Australia is a privilege that Australia confers on non-citizens in the expectation that they are and have been law abiding, will respect important institutions and will not cause or threaten harm to individuals or the Australian community.
I need also to give specific consideration to:
(a) The nature and seriousness of the applicant's conduct to date; and
(b) The risk to the Australian community, should the applicant commit further offences or engage in other serious conduct.
Nature and seriousness of the conduct
In considering the nature and seriousness of the conduct there are factors to which I must have regard specified in paragraphs 8.1.1(1)(a)-(h) of the Direction. I apply these factors as follows.
I must have regard to the fact that the Australian Government and the Australian community view violent crimes and acts of family violence very seriously. The inherent nature of conduct such as family violence is so serious that even strong countervailing considerations may be insufficient to justify not cancelling a visa when such behaviour is present. In this context I assess the applicant’s crimes and conduct as including crimes and behaviour that should be treated as ‘very serious’.
His worst crime, manslaughter, is very serious. It involved severely beating a friend – a beating that contributed significantly to his friend’s death.
The applicant has also engaged in acts of family violence. There can be no doubt that the applicant’s violence towards Nancy in the late 1990’s should be viewed as very serious and falls within the definition of family violence in the Direction.
The incidents involving Crystal and Rebecca require further examination before being classified as family violence. Family violence is defined in the direction to mean violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person’s family (the family member) or causes the family member to be fearful. Examples of behaviour that may constitute family violence include an assault. A member of a person’s family, for the purposes of the definition of family violence, includes a person who has, or has had, an intimate personal relationship with the relevant person.
In relation to the 2017 incident, I am satisfied that the applicant assaulted his daughter Crystal and that she is a family member. I am satisfied that the applicant assaulted Crystal by slapping her hard enough to make her fall to the floor before police arrived. I am satisfied that the incident caused Crystal to become fearful. She told police that the applicant’s behaviour was aggressive and she required him to leave the house. Notwithstanding her oral evidence to the contrary, I am satisfied that on the night in question she was fearful and for that reason the police took steps to take out an apprehended violence order. Consequently, the applicant’s behaviour that evening constituted family violence.
I am also satisfied that the applicant was having an intimate personal relationship with Rebecca in 2024 which commenced prior to the incident attended by the police. I am satisfied on the basis of the information provided by her mother to police that Rebecca was fearful of the applicant as a result of the assault. Consequently, his assault on her constituted family violence.
I have decided to classify the applicant’s violence towards his daughter Crystal and Rebecca as very serious notwithstanding that the violence involved was far less serious than the violence perpetrated on Nancy. In light of the fact the Australian Government and the Australian community view family violence as very serious ‘regardless of whether there is a conviction for an offence or a sentence imposed’ I have approached the issue in the same way. The incidents involve physical violence. In the case of Rebecca there was an observable injury and in both cases the situation was seen as serious enough by police to take out domestic violence orders against the applicant.
Consequently, there are multiple instances of violence that I am characterising as very serious.
There are also two instances of conduct when the applicant has committed crimes against police in the performance of their duties in 2015 and 2017. The applicant’s behaviour required significant use of force on the part of police and could have resulted in injury to the attending police. I am satisfied that the offending in question should be treated as serious. Police should not be exposed to the risk of injury confronted with the angry and aggressive behaviour engaged in by the applicant. I consider the conduct is serious.
The applicant has had significant custodial sentences imposed in relation to his crimes. An eight-year sentence for manslaughter and a total sentence of seven months for domestic violence offences demonstrate their seriousness. His more recent crimes have attracted lesser sentences and have not been custodial sentences.
The applicant’s offending resulted in the death of his victim in 2004 and so there could not be more serious consequences. Nancy appears to have gotten over the effects of the applicant’s violence in 1998, but only by suppressing the trauma. There is no ongoing impact on Crystal from the assault on her. She remained very supportive of her father, denying both the fact of the assault or any consequences from it.
There is no trend of increasing seriousness in the offending. However, the applicant has a history of violence towards women that spans more than twenty years. It is becoming less frequent and less severe as time has passed, but it remains a feature of the applicant’s relationships with women.
The cumulative effect has been that the applicant has assaulted a variety of victims with varying degrees of harm.
There is no evidence that the applicant has ever provided false or misleading information to the Department.
The applicant has never been given a warning as to his immigration status.
There is no evidence to suggest that the applicant ever committed an offence in another country.
The risk should the non-citizen commit further offences
In considering the need to protect the Australian community, I must 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.
In assessing the risk to the community, I have had regard to the factors identified in paragraph 8.1.2(2) of the Direction. I must have regard to the nature of the harm to individuals or the Australian community should the applicant engage in further criminal or other serious conduct and the likelihood of the non-citizen engaging in further criminal conduct, taking into account the applicant's risk of reoffending and evidence of rehabilitation achieved by the time of the decision, giving weight to time spent in the community since the most recent offence. My analysis is as follows.
Nature of the harm from further criminal conduct
The harm to others should the applicant engage in further conduct of a criminal or serious nature includes assaults on family members, particularly women but potentially men as well. The harm could also be suffered by members of the police force who could be injured while attempting to restrain the applicant. The applicant also has been convicted of drink driving charges and so the harm could include death or injury caused by the applicant driving while drunk.
Likelihood of further criminal conduct
I am satisfied that the risk of the applicant engaging in further criminal or serious conduct should be assessed moderate.
This is higher than Dr Morris assessed the risk but in my view, Dr Morris overstated the protective factors and was unaware of the full extent of the applicant’s violence.
In particular, I was not satisfied that the applicant had resumed a close and stable relationship with Nancy. Nor was I satisfied that his role with Crystal and her family was entirely protective. The applicant had shown that in the right circumstances family events could turn violent. In my assessment the applicant is not adequately aware of the risk of violence that alcohol creates for him. Nor does he seem sufficiently concerned about his longstanding pattern of violence towards intimate partners and family members and the need to make determined efforts to put in place strategies to control his anger. The applicant at present has a referral for a mental health plan. However, he does not appear to have one in place and has not arranged for meeting regularly with a psychologist to assist him to control his temper.
In these circumstances I cannot agree with Dr Morris’s assessment that the risk is low. The applicant has problems with alcohol that are untreated and a psychological vulnerability that means he resorts to violence when certain triggers emerge. If the applicant remains in Australia there is a moderate risk that someone will be hurt by him.
This consideration weighs very heavily against the applicant having his visa restored to him.
Family violence committed by the non-citizen
The applicant has committed acts of family violence on multiple occasions.
As the Direction states:
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...has been afforded procedural fairness.

In relation to family violence, the applicant’s relevant conduct consists of the 1998 convictions in relation to his conduct towards Nancy, a 2017 domestic violence incident against Crystal and a 2024 family violence incident towards Rebecca.
In considering the factors in paragraph 8.2(3) of the Direction I note:
(a) The frequency of family violence has declined significantly from the late 1990s. Two incidents in the last 8 years though is still significant;
(b) The cumulative effect of the family violence against three victims has created distress in multiple family relationships;
(c) There is little evidence that rehabilitation has been achieved. The applicant has generally not been accepting that he has issues that need to be addressed to stop violence in the future. It has been noted in the past that the applicant struggles to see the issue from anyone else’s perspective,[32] and has made very little effort to address his psychological issues or his issues with alcohol. There is no evidence that since his most recent episode of family violence he has accepted responsibility or taken any special steps to address his attitude to violence against intimate partners. I do not regard holding a referral to a psychologist as evidence of a desire to address the issue. The applicant seemed shocked when asked to read about his own conduct in the police reports and in relation to his conduct towards Nancy he accepted that the conduct was ‘not good’ but that did not suffice to satisfy me that he understood the impact of his behaviour on the abused and those who witnessed it;
(d) The applicant has not been warned about the consequences if he commits further acts of family violence.
[32] Supplementary Bundle, SB4, 152, 170, 182.
This consideration weighs very strongly in favour of cancelling the applicant’s visa.
Strength, Nature and Duration of Ties to Australia
The applicant has lived in Australia since 1985. He has not left Australia since his arrival. He has many family members living in Australia. Including:
(a) His brother and his three sons;
(b) His former de facto partner Nancy;
(c)   His former de facto partner Kylie;
(d) Nancy’s eldest daughter Cherie who he helped raise;
(e) His two children with Nancy – Ethan and Crystal;
(f)    His son with Kerry, Tristan;
(g) Cherie’s six children, Taieshia, Latreka, Tattrearna, [LC], [TC], and [SC];
(h) Crystal’s five children, [OW], [DW], [JW], [EW], and [DiW];
(i)    Ethan’s son, [EC].
The applicant also has extended family which include his three adult nephews, niece-in-law and a grandniece.
He has support from former employers, landlords and property managers who speak well of him. He clearly had social ties arising from his participation in rugby league in Charleville, where he coached juniors. Those ties seem to have been lost after his conviction for manslaughter, incarceration and move to Brisbane. He has current connections with a charity, Valley Hearts, and there is evidence of a previous connection with a local church and SES group when he was in Charleville.
The strongest ties though are family. It is clear that he is a much-loved father, grandfather and brother. His former de facto partner Nancy still loves him and hopes to rekindle a relationship with him. He is community minded and hardworking and well regarded by those who deal with him as landlord or employer. He is a helpful and beloved member of his family.
This consideration weighs heavily against a visa cancellation.
Best interests of minor children in Australia
I must determine whether revocation of the cancellation is or is not in the best interests of a minor child affected by the decision. The following minor children are affected by the decision:
Child of Ethan
(a) [EC]
Children of Crystal
(b) [OW]
(c)   [DW]
(d) [JW]
(e) [EW]
(f)    [DiW]
Children of Cherie
(g) [LC]
(h) [TC]
(i)    [SC]
Grand niece
There are 10 minor children affected by the decision if I assume (which seems reasonable) that the applicant’s grandniece is a minor.
Under the Direction, I am obliged to give each child’s interests individual consideration to the extent that they may differ. In this case the interests of some groups of minor children are sufficiently close that I can deal with them together.
In considering the best interests of minor children, specific factors must be considered if they are relevant. My consideration of the relevant factors is as follows. I begin my consideration with Crystal’s children.
Crystal’s Children
Nature and duration of relationship
Crystal’s children are the applicant’s grandchildren.
The applicant is close to Crystal. It appears that she came to live with him when she was in her teens. The applicant was living with her in 2017 when a domestic violence episode took place. Her three eldest children were in the house when the incident happened, but it is unclear whether they saw or heard the argument and violence that occurred.
Despite that incident, I am satisfied that the applicant has been a good grandfather and is close to his grandchildren. A number of witnesses described the care that he provides to the children and the material support that he provides.
The children know and love their grandfather.
Positive parental role in the future
The applicant is not the children’s parent. That role is fulfilled by their biological parents.
Impact of prior conduct and likely future conduct
In relation to the two older children there may have been an impact on them as a consequence of the 2017 domestic violence incident. There is however no evidence of its effect except that it may have upset them at the time. Given that the incident appears isolated, and the applicant has been otherwise well behaved in relation to the children’s mother, and has a close and loving relationship with her, I am not prepared to find that the applicant’s prior conduct has had a negative impact on Crystal’s children.
The effect of separation
The evidence establishes that if the applicant is removed to New Zealand, then it is likely to have an adverse impact on his grandchildren. They currently have opportunities for physical contact with their grandfather which they enjoy. He has also been, for an extended period a positive influence on his broader family. Removal to New Zealand would deprive them of someone who is now closely engaged with them and a positive influence. If the applicant were deported, I am confident that there would be some contact by electronic means (notwithstanding the applicant’s denials) but further physical affection would be unlikely.
Others who fulfil a parental role
The children’s mother fulfills the parental role. She describes herself as a single mother.
Views of the children
The children did not provide their views
Risk of exposure to family violence or other neglect
It is unlikely that the children would be exposed to family violence if the applicant remained in Australia, but that possibility cannot be ruled out.
Experience of trauma
I cannot assess whether Crystal’s two oldest grandchildren have suffered any trauma as a result of the 2017 domestic violence incident. I am satisfied that the other children have not experienced trauma as a result of their interactions with the applicant.
Given the role that the applicant now plays in the children’s lives, I am satisfied that it would be in their best interests for him to remain in Australia.
[EC]
The applicant sees [EC] when he visits his son in Charleville a couple of times a year. The following is my assessment of his best interests.
Nature and duration of relationship
[EC] is the applicant’s grandson. He will turn 10 shortly. The applicant sees him once or twice a year and communicates with him by phone occasionally.
[EC] knows and loves his grandfather.
Positive parental role in the future
The applicant is not [EC]’s parent. That role is fulfilled by his biological parents.
Impact of prior conduct and likely future conduct
It is unlikely that any of the applicant’s prior conduct had an adverse impact on [EC], nor is there any reason to believe the applicant would behave inappropriately towards [EC] or in [EC]’s presence.
The effect of separation
The evidence establishes that if the applicant is removed to New Zealand, then it is likely to have an impact on [EC]. [EC] currently sees his grandfather once or twice a year and the grandparent relationship is an important one. If the applicant were deported I am confident that there would be contact by electronic means but further physical affection would be unlikely.
Others who fulfil a parental role
The children’s parents fulfil the parental role.
Views of the children
[EC] did not provide his views.
Risk of exposure to family violence or other neglect
It is very unlikely that [EC] would be exposed to family violence if the applicant remained in Australia given how infrequently he sees the applicant in person.
Experience of trauma
I am satisfied that [EC] has not experienced trauma as a result of his interactions with the applicant.
Given the role that the applicant now plays in [EC]’s life, I am satisfied that it would be in his best interests for the applicant to remain in Australia.
Cherie’s Children
The level of contact between the applicant and his grandchildren through Cherie is unclear. The evidence indicates that Cherie moved to NSW some time ago and the applicant only had contact with her children when she moved to Brisbane in the last few years or so. Since then, he has assumed an important role as grandfather in Cherie’s youngest children’s lives.
Nature and duration of relationship
Cherie’s children are not the applicant’s grandchildren, but he was a father figure to Cherie and I am satisfied that he is regarded as a grandfather figure by them.
The applicant however had a long period of separation from Cherie, and it is only in more recent years that he has resumed contact with her and her children.
A number of witnesses described the care that he provides to the children and the material support that he provides.
The children know and love the applicant.
Positive parental role in the future
The applicant is not the children’s parent. That role is fulfilled by their mother.
Impact of prior conduct and likely future conduct
There has been no adverse impact on the children as a result of any past conduct by the applicant nor do I consider it likely that there will be adverse impact as a result of any future conduct.
The effect of separation
The evidence establishes that if the applicant is removed to New Zealand, then it is likely to have an adverse impact on Cherie’s youngest children. They currently enjoy opportunities for physical contact with someone they regard as their grandfather and which they enjoy. Removal to New Zealand would deprive them of someone who is now engaged with them and a positive influence. If the applicant were deported, I am satisfied that there would be contact by electronic means, but further physical affection would be unlikely.
Others who fulfil a parental role
The children’s mother fulfills the parental role.
Views of the children
The children did not provide their views.
Risk of exposure to family violence or other neglect
It is unlikely that the children would be exposed to family violence if the applicant remained in Australia, but that possibility cannot be ruled out.
Experience of trauma
I am satisfied that the children have not experienced trauma as a result of their interactions with the applicant.
Given the role that the applicant now plays in the children’s lives, I am satisfied that it would be in their best interests for him to remain in Australia.
Grandniece
There is insufficient evidence for me to be able to assess the best interests of the applicant’s grandniece so I have proceeded on the basis that it would not be in her best interests to have her great uncle removed from Australia.
Summary
Given the number of grandchildren the applicant has and the role he plays in their lives, this consideration weighs heavily against cancelling the applicant’s visa.
Expectations of the Australian Community
As the Direction makes clear, the Australian community expects non-citizens to obey Australian laws while in Australia. Where a non-citizen has engaged in serious conduct in breach of this expectation, the Australian community, as a norm, expects the Government not to allow such a non-citizen to remain in Australia. As a person who has committed very serious violent crimes the applicant has not met that expectation.
The Direction goes on to say that visa cancellation may be appropriate simply because the nature of the offences are such that the Australian community would expect that the person should not continue to hold a visa. The nature of the applicant's crimes do not fall into that category but are very serious nonetheless.
These expectations apply regardless of whether the non-citizen poses a measurable risk of causing harm to the Australian community.
This consideration weighs strongly in favour of visa cancellation. The applicant's breaches of the law are so serious that the expectation of the community is that he would not be allowed to stay in Australia.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Legal consequences of the decision
This consideration is not relevant.
Extent of Impediments if Removed
I am also obliged to consider the extent of any impediments that the applicant may face if removed from Australia to New Zealand, in establishing himself and maintaining basic living standards (in the context of what is generally available to other citizens of New Zealand), taking into account:
(a) The non-citizen's age and health;
(b) Whether there are substantial language or cultural barriers; and
(c) Any social, medical and/or economic support available to them in that country.
The applicant is a citizen of New Zealand. There are no substantial language or cultural barriers which the applicant will experience living there. He lived there until he was 15 and so he will be familiar with the society and how it functions. He has no living relatives there and it was clear from the evidence that he gave that he does not want to think about how he will adapt to New Zealand if he is sent back there. He will have no social support in the form of family and friends. He will have available the social safety net that New Zealand provides to its citizens. I have no specific evidence on what this consists of but New Zealand has an international reputation as democratic country that makes reasonable provision for the health and welfare of its citizens.
The applicant is physically well and, before being taken into immigration detention, continued to work as a delivery driver in Australia. Depending on the economic situation in New Zealand, he is capable of undertaking work of that kind there and he may be able to find such work.
The applicant also has no mental health conditions and has never been treated for a psychological condition. There is however evidence that he has cognitive difficulties. He clearly has difficulties with memory and struggles to understand more complex questions. These do not prevent the applicant from finding work.
There is evidence that a return to New Zealand may result in psychological decompensation that could induce depression or cause other significant psychological difficulties. This could interfere with his capacity to work and maintain basic living standards in New Zealand.
This consideration weighs slightly against cancellation.
Impact on Australian business interests
Decision-makers must consider any impact on Australian business interests if the non-citizen is not allowed to enter or remain in Australia, noting that an employment link would generally only be given weight where the decision under sections 501 or 501CA would significantly compromise the delivery of a major project, or delivery of an important service in Australia.
This consideration is neutral.
Other considerations
The applicant makes the follow submissions which are not readily classified as considerations identified in Direction 110:
(a) Australia bears some responsibility for the applicant’s early socialisation into alcohol use and offending behaviours, as he was brought here as a minor and socialised entirely in Australia.
(b) Community expectations properly understood are that fairness, rehabilitation and family unity should be respected, rather than typecasting Maori men for deportation.
(c) The Minister’s campaign targeting New Zealanders, particularly Maori men, creates concerns of systemic bias and discrimination, contrary to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination obligations.
(d) Delay in addressing the applicant’s visa status has compounded unfairness, entrenching his ties and family life in Australia. Deportation should have been followed through soon after his 2005 conviction.
(e) Deportation now would amount to further punishment and exile, causing severe hardship to his Australian citizen children, grandchildren, family, partners and community.
(f) A warning would suffice to address any residual concerns, given the applicant’s demonstrated compliance with rules when clearly explained.
(g) The applicant’s violent behaviour can be attributed to an underlying pathology or psychological defect that is better treated if the applicant remains in Australia.
In relation to each of these my assessment is as follows:
(a) I accept that the applicant was socialised in Australia given that he has lived here since he was 15 and that is an important consideration reflected in the requirement to consider the strength, nature and duration of the applicant’s ties to Australia. That consideration weighs against the cancellation of the applicant’s visa. However, generally speaking, the question of whether to cancel a visa should not be answered through the lens of which nation bears responsibility for the character development of a person who now may pose a risk to Australians. Government policy focusses on the risk a person poses, and the impact deportation will have on that person and their family and community, rather than seeing it as a means of assigning blame to the community he grew up in or matured in. In my assessment, considerations of this kind should be given no weight.
(b) I reject any suggestion that the fact that the applicant is a Maori plays any part in the decision in relation to his visa application. The applicant’s conduct is what has made him a candidate for visa cancellation. The fact that he is a Maori plays no role in this decision.
(c)   There is no evidence before me that suggests that the applicant has been targeted in breach of Australia’s obligations under international law. While the evidence is far from complete as to how the applicant came to have his visa cancelled, the available evidence indicates that it was the suspected perpetration of family violence that brought the applicant to the Department’s attention. In any event, the question that I must answer is whether a visa cancellation decision is the right decision based on the material before me and I am satisfied that it is.
(d) It is true that it would have been preferable for the impact of the manslaughter conviction on the applicant’s visa status to have been dealt with sooner. However, had he behaved differently, the delay could have worked in the applicant’s favour. If the applicant had spent the last decade-and-a-half in the community with an unblemished record that would have assisted his claims to remain in Australia. That however is not the case. He has committed acts of family violence and been convicted of other violent crimes, and it is for that reason that his visa status is in question. The delay in considering whether the visa should be cancelled is not a consideration that favours non-cancellation of the visa in my assessment. The additional family and other ties to Australia that have developed in the years since the applicant’s release from prison have been taken into account when the strength, nature and duration of his ties to Australia were considered.
(e) Deportation at this point does not have the purpose of punishment, although it will undoubtedly be painful to both the applicant and his family. Deportation is a step taken that is protective of the Australian community.
(f)    In this case, a warning is unlikely to suffice. The applicant has been punished for violent crimes involving alcohol in the past. His lengthy time in prison gave a clear indication to him that he needed to deal with his issues with alcohol and violence. In the fifteen years that followed the applicant showed that despite having been punished he did not learn the lesson he needed to learn. He continued on occasion to engage in excessive alcohol consumption and engage in violence towards family members. This is not a case where the Tribunal can be confident that a warning will suffice to eliminate the danger that the applicant poses to the Australian community. The applicant has been dealt with on numerous occasions for his anti-social behaviour and it has not been sufficient to eliminate the conduct. I do not accept the submission that a warning is an adequate substitute for a visa cancellation.
(g) In a context where the applicant has not taken advantage of treatment, it is unprofitable to consider whether the applicant’s violence involves a psychological disability that is susceptible to treatment or is a behaviour he consciously deploys or the result of an untreatable character defect. The applicant by his conduct has demonstrated that whatever the nature of the trigger is, there is an ongoing risk of violence and he has taken few steps likely to eliminate or ameliorate that risk. It may be the case that the applicant can access better treatment in Australia. To date he has not done so. This consideration does not advance the case for not cancelling the applicant’s visa.
CONCLUSION

Informed by the principles in paragraph 5.2 of the Direction, I have taken into account the considerations identified in sections 8 and 9 of the Direction which are relevant to this decision.
The following considerations weigh in favour of a decision to affirm the cancellation of the applicant’s visa:
(a) Protection of the Australian community from criminal or other serious conduct;
(b) Whether the conduct constituted family violence;
(c) The expectations of the Australian community.
The following considerations weigh in favour of setting aside the cancellation of the applicant’s visa:
(a) The strength, nature and duration of the applicant's ties to Australia;
(b) The best interests of minor children;
(c) The extent of impediments to the applicant establishing basic living standards if he is removed to New Zealand.
The legal consequences consideration is not relevant, and the impact on Australian business interests consideration is also irrelevant.
In general, the primary consideration at 8.1 should be given greater weight than other primary considerations, and primary considerations would generally be given greater weight than the other considerations. In the present case I am satisfied that that is how the considerations should be applied and that is what I have done. As a result, the considerations relating to community protection and expectations outweigh the interests of the applicant and his family that have been identified.
The incidents of family violence in the last eight years show that the applicant remains a risk to intimate partners and family. It is in my assessment inappropriate to leave such a person who has that history of violence in the community. I am satisfied that notwithstanding that this step will impact very harshly on the applicant, the members of his family and his friends, the preferable decision is to affirm the decision to cancel his visa.
Dates of hearing:   9 and 10 October 2025
Applicant’s representative:                Mr Anthony Gray
Respondent’s Solicitor:  Clayton Utz